No, you say both sides because you can’t admit your “team” has a problem that isn’t ubiquitous.
Again, I show you dozens of individuals intentionally voting multiple times, dozens of campaigns and the party itself engaging in ballot harvesting and other schemes that together equate to hundreds of thousands of stolen votes, you answer “both sides” with absolutely not a single case on the Democrats side (besides the one entrapment case I handed you)….and pretend you won’t provide examples because they’ll be dismissed not because you have none….being dismissed doesn’t stop you from posting all the other propaganda. Knowing you will dismiss the verifiable facts I present you hasn’t stopped me from posting them in contradiction to your baseless propaganda.

I admit Democrats self deal, do insider trading, and sell their votes to deep pockets….but on a scale that’s microscopic compared to the complete lack of ethics and morals on the right. The right was significantly less honest, more money hungry, more corrupt than the left BEFORE Trump….after Trump it’s comparing the Mediterranean to an Olympic sized pool. Technically both have water. Comparatively the pool is completely insignificant….but you only want to focus on what happens in the pool.

Trump and family made literally BILLIONS selling favors. Never been a bigger crook in any office in the land. Greene went from pennyless to a multi millionaire in 2 years. Same for Santos who is a total fraud in every way, a fugitive, and supported by your party…apparently made millions from his campaign. You’ll be hard pressed to find any Republican that hasn’t made millions in office by ignoring ethics completely. You won’t find ANY trying to get big money (bribery) out of politics…only the left is interested in that, the right wants MORE bribery legalized (citizens United was their case, proving Republicans fight for MORE corruption in politics while Democrats fight to end it), the right refuses to divest, and opposes any strengthening of ethics rules EVERY TIME Democrats push for more/stronger ethics rules/laws.

Of course I’ll dismiss your hyper biased, unthinking, no fact idiotic claims, especially since they NEVER have references (because everything you believe is partisan nonsense and lies). It’s not worth the time because it takes no time at all to debunk your constant consistent lies and pure fantasy. If you had any actual facts it would be worth posting them, but you just don’t. You don’t bother to post lately because the stupid lies have gotten dumber and are being debunked as fast as you guys can lie them. It’s past the point where it’s safe to simply deny anything you say as a partisan lie with no investigation at all….chances are 99.96% you are lying or repeating lies any time you type. You never have facts or even references to show where your lies came from….which is totally intentional because you know that only makes debunking them much easier.

In congress….98% of corruption, 100% of child molestation, 100% of treason, 100% of calls to rescind the constitution, voting, and democracy and become a dictatorship are on the right. You call that “both sides” and pretend it’s really mostly a problem on the left with a very few outliers from the right….ignoring the facts….as usual.

You know the old saying….
“To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” -Thomas Paine

You sir abandoned fact and reason well before the Traitor Trump rode his golden escalator of lies into your heart. I don’t argue with you except as practice, you have no actual argument to offer, only the far right party lines. I simply tell you the verifiable facts. You then argue with the facts and pat yourself on the head in congratulations. Silly boy.

BTW…have you grown up enough to discuss Ashley Babbitt yet? The treasonous traitor who violently attacked the capitol with an armed gang of thugs trying to overthrow democracy at Trump’s urging and got what they all deserved….your hero.
No, I’m sure you’re still just too embarrassed of how idiotic supporting domestic terrorists is and just hope everyone will forget you stand firmly with the treasonous terrorist traitors against democracy, law, and order.

I absolutely love this, but I think it's a double-dupe.
https://videosift.com/video/Ennio-Morricone-Dead-At-91
https://videosift.com/video/The-Good-the-Bad-and-the-Ugly-played-by-a-live-Orchestra

That didn't stop me from listening to it a couple of times though, and I'm even considering inviting myself to a friend's house around 18-20 August.

Not only is "Videotape" brilliant, it's also incredibly haunting -- right up there with "Exit Music (For a Film)". There's very few pieces of music which have actually stopped me in my tracks and forced me to listen, and "Videotape" is among those few pieces.

Radiohead will be considered "Classcial" music in 200 years.

Your video, Portugal. the Man, Weird Al - Who's Gonna Stop Me, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I had sisters that would do this to me all the time.

Me: Stop saying everything I say!
Sister: Stop saying everything I say!
Me: STOP!
Sister: STOP!
Me: MOM!
Sister: MOM!

And then there was me...
https://ibb.co/Swk2NW1

I've played around in cities skylines with this concept. If you take one direction and elevate it, you can eliminate the stop lights altogether. Works well in game, but the never-crash physics stop me from thinking it would work in real life.

I've been struggling to find the right adjective to use to describe your story, but all I can say is thank you for telling it. It's personal accounts like this that really bring home the effects of war, and this is what happened to the victors!

I admit I don't read much non-fiction, but I hold a very special place in my heart and my life for Spike Milligan's war diaries which, along with the Maus graphic novels, taught me more about the reality of war than I ever wanted to know. Like your story they are so relatable and so full of banality and horror side-by-side that my disgust for the instigators makes it painful to try to see things from their point of view.

I try to eliminate unconscious bias where I spot it, but here I just can't. Unfortunately this disgust also stops me from wanting to learn more.

Hello again ray ... OK if I wish you another very Happy Birthday? [just try and stop me]. Relish the day

@newtboy

My last appeal from a different angle.
You said:
I have been clear that not all, or even a majority of Trump voters are blatant racists, but they all are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with blatant racists and support blatantly racist policy....

You are writing off everyone that voted Trump for pretty much any reason as either racist, or willing supporters of racists. Stop me here if I'm misrepresenting what you are being clear on.

Assuming I'm safe so far, here's my fear: You are almost enthusiastically embracing the us versus them mentality that hate thrives on. What's worse, is this mindset, which it would appear a great many democrats and media outlets share, strengthens the us versus them dynamic.

Maybe that doesn't scare you. It would seem likely even that the democrats aren't scared of it either. It seems that being 'right' on the matter is believed to be enough.

Here's why guys like me are scared though. Your guys LOST the election. I'm afraid I'm watching the democrats chase off Trump voters that just wanted jobs to feed their families at EXACTLY the time when you need them. Chasing them off is how you lose the next election all over again. If the democrats can't get the message that the Donald was considered the lesser evil by a huge part of America and change themselves to reach the people, then what will wake them up?

Nor to drink alcohol. Try stopping me though, motherfucker. See how well you deal with my chronic dairy-induced aggressivism.

You have ZERO proof she was hired quid pro quo. Absolutely zero. Do you honestly think Clinton would risk any bad optics whatsoever if she thought DWS wouldn't help her win? That was the Rodman analogy. Clinton hired her to help win the election, not to regulate elections to be fair.

And even Sanders supporters said the nomination wasn't stolen. He lost. He lost mainly because he didn't appeal enough to minority voters. You have to take a massive leap of cynicism to make that claim.

You're making it sound like Clinton hired Alan Grayson. That's my point.

Then you magically transfer DWS's guilt directly to Clinton. Did Clinton do that, or did DWS? I'm pretty sure it was DWS. I hated George W. Bush as president. That didn't make me magically transfer guilt about the Valerie Plame incident directly to him because there's no evidence he was responsible for outing her as a CIA operative.

And again, you're also talking about the leader of the Democratic Party favoring a lifelong Democrat over a dude who just decided to join for a Presidential run. When I think of a candidate who is personally corrupt, I think of Nixon. He broke a law. Clinton didn't break any laws whatsoever. NONE! She didn't even do anything. DWS didn't break any laws for that matter. She shouldn't have done what she did, but good lord, you're blowing this way out of proportion.

How exactly am I helping Trump win? Because I'm gonna vote for Clinton over Trump, Stein, and Johnson?! You're gonna have to explain to me how I should help Trump lose. Do I vote for Trump?! Do I vote for some other candidate who has absolutely zero chance of winning?

And all evidence does not argue against Clinton being the most qualified candidate out of the remaining candidates. She is BY FAR the most experienced candidate in government. You can sit there and rail about the hiring of DWS to help campaign all you want, but there is no possible way you can possibly make the claim that she isn't the most experienced out of the remaining candidates. She was the most experienced candidate among all primary candidates, too. That's an undeniable fact. All evidence at the very least doesn't say she isn't the most qualified. None of the 2016 primary candidates came remotely close to her experience in foreign policy. None of them came close to her experience in domestic policy.

This isn't to say experience is everything. But you're making a very flimsy argument about her being personally corrupt, and then claiming the ridiculous assertion that all evidence says she's not the most qualified candidate, even though she's clearly the most experienced.

And yes, we don't know how good or bad a President she would be. You also can't know if a specific Honda Accord will be more reliable than a specific Chevy Corvette either. That doesn't stop me from buying the Honda Accord without batting an eye if I want the most reliable car.

Only in this case, it's more like a Honda Accord vs. a lit on fire dumpster on wheels.

Who is this "we" of whom you speak?

Because I have proudly called myself a feminist since at least 1976, if not before.

I started calling myself a Humanist also maybe in 1990? Somewhere around there? I am not giving up the term Feminist though. No matter who tries to co-opt it or suppress my use of it.

Or even "oppress" my use of it, if I might go that far. Why do I have to fight you to use a simple word to describe myself?

The scolding continues, by the way. Telling me that I am wrong to use a term I have proudly used for over 40 years. Because you and some of your friends don't like it and don't want to use it, for your own valid reasons.

Please stop telling Feminists that the word was never "descriptive of their goals" when in fact it is very descriptive.

Equality for women. Period.

I'm not telling you to stop labeling yourself only a Humanist. I was clear that I understood your point when I said that Humanist is an umbrella word that covers Feminist.

Is this going to be one of these long back-and-forths, where you try to talk me out of something? I really don't want to go there. It's exhausting.

Maybe the real question you might consider asking yourself is -- why is it so important to you that I hew to your definitions? Is it just an intellectual exercise, the fun of the argument? Well, it isn't fun to me. It feels lecturing and minimizing of my personal experience and knowledge and life lessons I have learned.

I know you don't intend that. However, I am telling you straight out, clearly, that is how it feels to me and I don't like it. I've been on the receiving end for FORTY FUCKING YEARS why it is inappropriate for some reason or other to call myself a feminist. The reasons change, but the goal always seems to be same: To stop me and others from overtly saying that we care about women and their place in society.

It's not going to happen. After 40 years, it just isn't going to happen.

I'm a feminist. I care about women and their place in society.

Ok I'll try to divide up my wall text a bit better this time

I totally acknowledge that people in the past, and even in present day, some people have to live a certain way in order to survive, but for the vast majority of people that doesn't apply.


Taste:
Like most of the senses in the human body, the sense of taste is in a constant state re-calibration. It's highly subjective and easily influenced over mere seconds but also long periods of time. They say it takes 3 weeks to acclimatize from things you crave, from salt to heroin. That's why most healthy eating books tell you go to cold tofurkey (see what I did there ) for 3 weeks. It's all about the brain chemistry. After 3 straight weeks you aren't craving it. (The habit might still be there but, the chemically driven cravings are gone).
Try it yourself by eating an apple before and after some soft drink. First the apple will taste sweet, and after it will taste sour. Or try decreasing salt over a 3 week period, it'll taste bland at first, but if you go back after 3 weeks it'll be way too salty.



Food science:
One of the major things stopping me from not being vegan, was the health concerns, so I read a number of books about plant-based eating.
There is a new book "How Not To Die" by Dr. Michael Greger. If you want scientific proof of a plant based diet this the one stop shop. 500 pages explaining tens of thousands of studies, some going for decades and involving hundreds of thousands of people. I was blown away at the simple fact that so many studies get done. Most of them are interventional studies also, meaning they are able to show cause and effect (unlike observational or corrolational studies, as he explains in the book). 150 pages of this book alone are lists of references to studies. It's pure unbiased science. (It's not a vegan book either in case you are worried about him being biased).

At the risk of spoiling the book - whole foods like apples and broccoli doesn't give you cancer, in fact they go a long way to preventing it, some bean based foods are as effective as chemotherapy, and without the side effects. I thought it sounded it ridiculous, but the science is valid.
Of course you can visit his website he explains all new research almost daily at nutritionfacts.org in 1 or 2 minute videos.
He also has a checklist phone app called Dr.Greger's Daily Dozen.

There are other authors too, most of these ones have recipes too, such as Dr. John McDougall, Dr. Neal Barnard, Dr. Cadwell Esselstyn, Dr. Dean Ornish, Dr Joel Furhman.
Health-wise it's the best thing you can do for yourself. And if like me you thought eating healthy meant salads, you'd be as wrong as I was I haven't had a salad for years. My blood results and vitamin levels are exactly what the books said they would be.

Try it for 3 weeks, but make sure you do it the right way as explained in the books, and you'll be shouting from roof tops about what a change it's made to your life. The other thing is, you get to eat more, and the more you eat it's healthier. What a weird concept in a world where we are constantly being told to calorie count (it doesn't work btw).

Environmental:
I've read a lot about ethics, reason and evidence based thinking, as well as nutrition and health (as a result of my own skepticism). So I could and I enjoy talking about these all day long. On the environmental side of things, I'm not as aware, but there some documentaries such as Earthlings and Cowspiracy which paint a pretty clear picture.
Anyone can do the maths even at a rough level - there are 56 billion animals bred and slaughtered each year. Feeding 56 billion animals (many of which are bigger than people) takes a lot more food than a mere 7 billion. Therefore it must take more crops and land to feed them, not to mention the land the animals occupy themselves, as well as the land they destroy by dump their waste products (feces are toxic in those concentrations, where as plant waste, is just compost)
The other thing is that many of these crops are grown in countries where people are starving, using up the fertile land to feed our livestock instead of the people. How f'd up is that?
It's reasons like that why countries like the Netherlands are asking their people to not eat meat more than 3 meals a week.

Productivity and economics:
Countries like Finland have government assistance to switch farmers from dairy to berry. Because they got sick of being sick:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-from-dairies-to-berries/

The world won't go vegan overnight, and realistically it will never be 100% vegan (people still smoke after all). There will be more than enough time to transition. And surely you aren't suggesting that we should eat meat and dairy to keep someone employed? I don't want anyone to lose their job, but to do something pointlessly cruel just to keep a person working seems wrong.

Animal industries are also heavily subsidized in many countries, so if they were to stop being subsidized that's money freed up for other projects, such as the ones in Finland.

The last bit:
If you eat a plant based diet, just like the cow you'll never have constipation, thanks to all of the fibre
When it comes to enzymes, humans are lactose intolerant because after the age of 2 the enzyme lactase stops being made by the body (unless you keep drinking it). Humans also don't have another enzyme called uricase (true omnivores, and carnivores do), which is the enzyme used to break down the protein called uric acid. As you might know gout is caused by too much uric acid, forming crystals in your joints.
However humans have a multitude of enzymes for digesting carbohydrate rich foods (plants). And no carbs don't make fat despite what the fitness industry would have you believe (as the books above explain).
Appealing to history as well, when they found fossilized human feces, it contained so much fibre it was obvious that humans ate primarily a plant based diet. (Animal foods don't contain fibre).

The reasons why you wouldn't want a whale to eat krill for you is:
1. Food is a packaged deal - there is nothing harmful in something like a potato. But feed a lot of potatoes to a pig, and eat the pig, you're getting some of the nutrients of a potato, but also heaps of stuff you're body doesn't need from the pig, like cholesterol, saturated fat, sulfur and methionine containing amino acids etc And no fibre. (low fibre means constipation and higher rates of colon cancer).
2. Your body's health is also dependent on the bacteria living inside you. (fun fact, most the weight of your poop is bacteria!) The bacteria inside you needs certain types of food to live. If you eat meat, you're starving your micro-organisms, and the less good bacteria you have, the less they produce certain chemicals and nutrients , and you get a knock on effect. The fewer the good bacteria also makes room for bad bacteria which make chemicals you don't want.
Coincidentally, if you eat 3 potatoes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, you have all the protein you need - it worked for Matt Damon on Mars right?

And I'll do it again, nobody can stop me!

Upvote for first-person ass-kicking to Queen's "Don't Stop Me Now".