He drifts in and out of vocal character and his facial expressions need serious work, but damn funny jokes! I thoroughly enjoyed Walken Vader breaking the fourth wall on the Han/Greedo controversy. If he analyzed each syllable and practiced some more, I bet he could be a master of the Walken side of the Force.

Franklin, as an ELECTED public servant, has consistently represented his constituents well enough to be re-elected.
Betsy Devos has never held office, never run a loan organization, never run an educational business, been hyper critical of the department she is tapped to run, and doesn't understand the issues this office entails at all, much less have a grasp of the details involved in the life changing decisions she'll be in charge of making, AND she refuses to answer questions when she knows her answers look terrible AND she has not yet finished her application (they've conveniently ignored the ethics forms nominees fill out BEFORE they get a hearing, so she shouldn't receive a hearing at all yet, like the rest of the nominees, which clearly indicates they have something to hide that would disqualify them all). In fact, it's obvious that she's only been nominated because her family bought the post with $200,000,000 in donations to Republicans and her vocal push to privatize education (but not it's funding, leaving us with something like our quasi-privatized prison system), meaning the Republicans plan to hand her the post with no real hearings and no matter how incompetent and unprepared she is....she already bought it, the hearings are just a formality.
...so no, not at all the same.

peoples true feelings and intent are always quickly revealed after only a short conversation.

i try...and sometimes fail..to not assume someones intent.i prefer to ask questions.

labels are just a simple way for our brains to compartmentalize aspects of personalities/philosophies regarding the people we are engaging.

some people utilize labels to dismiss what another person is laying down,often times in order to promote their own sense of justice or fairness.this always makes me laugh,because the majority of the time those people are totally unaware of their own hypocrisy.

like that a single white male is automatically racist and therefore can not offer an opinion,ignoring the fact that the very metric that they are using,is in itself,racist.

labels do serve a purpose,but we should not become so beholden to them that we refuse to consider a contrary opinion.that is just lazy.

i find that when we allow someone to speak their mind,their true feelings/intentions will always become evident in short amount of time.but if we restrict any interaction,be it vocal or written,then those feelings/intentions can remain hidden far longer than they should be.

bad ideas need to be exposed in order for those bad ideas to be challenged,and therefore dismissed for the bad ideas they are.

and while i may understand labels,and see a use for them,i also find them a lazy way to ignore uncomfortable truths.

which is what i gather you are saying?
if i got it wrong,let me know buddy.
stay awesome!

@asynchronice @Engels
this is opinion that just happens to be on RT.
the opinion is coming from chris hedges,a pulitzer prize winning,war correspondent for 20 years for the NYT.who has been extremely vocal in his criticism of american neoliberal policies.

he also has a show on RT called "on contact".

as always,the answer is discernment,and for that to happen there has to be a basic understanding of what propaganda actually is,and to dismiss hedges analysis simply due to the venue,is intellectually dishonest.

example:
it has been known for years that FOX news is a meme machine,a message of the day producer of misinformation and obfuscation.

does this mean that every story FOX covers is false? or manipulated?

of course not.

conversely,does this mean that every story RT posts should be taken at face value?

again,the same calculus applies.

i find that when RT deals with the russian state,and stories regarding putin,they tend to lean towards state "message of the day",but when they cover stories that are critical of american foreign policy,they tend to source and back their conclusions in a solid journalistic manner.

in regards to the washington post and their latest appeals to power and influence,is just a symptom of a much larger problem.

if you recall back in 2003.when the bush administration was pushing for an invasion of iraq,the washington posts editorial board was possibly the biggest cheerleader.they outshine even the new york times in their desire to please their masters in the white house and pentagon,and because at that time print news still had credibility and washpo was,indeed,considered a beacon of stellar journalism (remember watergate?).they almost single handedly handed the war powers to president bush to execute an illegal war,based on lies.

so in my opinion,the washington post last it's credibility over a decade ago.this is also a main,driving factor why i abandoned corporate news media.

i prefer independent news outlets.the very same outlets that washpo,and their un-sourced propornot,targeted.

lie to me once...shame on you.
lie to me twice..shame on me.

I've been watching a lot of anti-SJW stuff lately, mostly because I am a rabid supporter of freedom of speech and I don't like the authoritarian direction a lot of the most vocal (and yes, it's a minority) of SJW's seem to be calling for.

And you know the really hilarious thing? Gays like Milo Yiannopoulous (who has to be the most conflicted gay guy on the planet), or trans like Blaire White? They are accepted. Milo drinks the kool aid a little (okay, he bought the company and consumes their entire output), but Blaire seems fairly centered, and they are accepted by fucking right wing college guys who you would think would be the first ones to yell "OMG get away faggot" or some such shit.

People are still bigoted and I have a sneaking suspicion they always will be in certain aspects, but sometimes tolerance comes from the most unlikely of places. Maybe it's acceptance due to ideological alignment, or perhaps the current generation has the exposure such that gay/trans etc isn't really that big a thing anymore, I don't know.

ps. I think Trump cashed in on riding the Bernie wave of discontent with the establishment, mostly tantrums just make you look like a dumb cunt. ; )

pps. I think my greatest disappointment with the post Trump tantrums is that the total electoral turnout is somewhere around 30-40% of eligible voters in the US? So it's not even a quorum picking the leader of what is still pretty much the biggest and most dangerous nation in the world. There's tonnes of blame to go around here unfortunately, and part of that goes to people who don't give a shit either way, something the DNC really has to own. I think Bernie would have seen record voter turnouts, whereas Clint-bot... /facepalm

Awesome. To me, only slightly reading between the lines, it sounds like he is suggesting exactly what I feel is the right track here.

Let Trump do whatever it is that he is going to do. If individual elements / components of his policy suggestions are good, help him with them. And if/when he suggests dangerous, counterproductive or bigoted things, call him out, dig in your heels, and do everything you can to raise awareness and stop him.

Let Trump dig his own grave trying to fulfill all of his contradictory promises to a large angry mob.

But in the meantime, don't obstruct good things simply because they came from the "wrong side". That has been the Republican modus operandi -- show the people there is a better way. Trump talked about rebuilding infrastructure in his victory speech. FDR's "New Deal" did a lot of that with the Tennessee Valley Authority and other projects. That created a LOT of jobs and helped pull the US out of the great depression. Any infrastructure / public works stuff that Trump pushes for that would actually have positive results while creating jobs? Sign off on that shit!

Trump's Wall could be a fulcrum point. Pointless and somewhat offensive in premise, but some good could come from trying to build it or even actually succeeding (which I find highly unlikely). I think the appropriate response to Trump's Wall for Democrat legislators would be to vocally point out that tax money would probably be better spent elsewhere, but otherwise playing along to a certain extent. That wall is going to be a big millstone around Trump's neck -- no need to work overly hard to help him try to wriggle out of it.

@bobknight33 --

I agree with @Sagemind that it was not technically a dupe, but pretty close. I was one of the upvotes on your other one.

I think there are 3 reasons why this submission got more votes. In order of importance:

1) This one was timely. The fact that yours was posted 2 weeks ago makes Moore's impressively accurate prediction all the more evident, but the polling, media, and "experts" were telling people it was going to be a landslide for Hillary. Right up until later on election night when it started looking like Florida could flip. Anyway, people didn't want to hear it then, but they are rightly impressed now that his "crackpot" prediction panned out so perfectly.

2) Being video helps it capture the context of what Moore was actually saying a little bit better than yours did. As audio only in yours, I was struggling to reconcile what I was hearing with Moore's political views. This makes it more clear that he is speaking from the perspective of those disenchanted voters, not his own personal opinion. Not as important as #1 up there, but I think this is a legitimate item that at least in part explains the vote disparity in the two submissions.

3) The Sift as a site/community trends more to the left than the US in general, and there's a lot of ire directed at you, personally, for being one of the few vocal people on the other side here. I think it is fantastic that you're here, keeping the conversation from being largely/completely one-sided.

...But, being that voice means that you're going to get some downvotes and have some of your worthy submissions not get as much attention as if they were sifted by anyone else. I'm sure that accounts for a non-negligible portion of the current 5:43 upvote ratio between the two sifts, which may be unfortunate but perhaps isn't surprising?

I think it's just poking fun at a small vocal group of people who are spouting this. Nothing more or less.

It's kind of interesting how some vocal sounds are entirely nation-specific... given the way that she says 'toot', there's no nationality on earth she could be other than Swedish.

Too much steroids.

Basically testosterone is responsible for "man" growth, strong chins, muscles, all that shit. You take 100x the puberty dose of testosterone for a decade and you look like that. It also pushed his vocal chords too far, which is why he sounds like that.

331ERock is an amazing guitarist, but I'm not sure about this.

It's less "Daft Punk meets metal" and more Daft Punk vocals over a metal track.

If you removed the vocals, could you pick a Daft Punk melody?

Still gotta upvote for the *skillful playing though...

"Poisonous tone and attitude." POISONOUS TONE AND ATTITUDE???!!!???

So, would you like to expand on that phrase, @vil? And perhaps read crushbug's comment above?

Because here is what I hear -- not that you are saying this, but it is what I hear:

Angry women are off-putting. Women with sarcastic voices are off-putting. Women who dare to be anything but sweet and compliant are off-putting.

Men are not "policed" this way. They are allowed a wide range of attitudes in the way they present information. Of course, they CAN be "poisonous" -- but I guarantee you no man's delivery this mild would be labelled "poisonous."

There is a "thing" called "vocal fry" that some women (and gay men) have that pitches their voices high (to be simplistic in its description.) There has been reams written about it. I assumed that most of the comments here were related to vocal fry.

Your comment here is not about vocal fry. Or if it is, wow. What words to use to describe it. Ouch.

So can you use different words to explain what you mean? If I am not understanding you?

As for "word counts not mattering" -- that is categorically not true.

I have been talking about this for forty years and have thought about it deeply, in a logical manner, trying to find the vocabulary to discuss it. I think I have succeeded, and it applies to black people, especially black men, as well as women, both black and white. Here it comes.

Words have values. Words with similar values are interchangeable with gender usage. Words that don't have similar values are sexist and racist. (Even if women do it to themselves, they are indeed engaging in internalized sexism.) If you can take a sentence with the word "girl" being used, and change the gender to male, would you ever -- in that specific situation -- use the word "boy"? If you would, go for it.

And here is where the "word count" matters. Because there are more women than there are men, and yet the word count proves that in the same situation, the word girl is used a lot more. Even if you take out the gymnasts, who are indeed less than 19.

I never say "never use the word girl." Because sometimes, in the same situation, you would indeed use the word "boy."

Let me give you an example.

Old Boys Network. Very powerful men, on the same social and power level, call themselves "boys." Leads to Boys Night Out -- same social and power level.

So can you say Girls Night Out without it being an infantilzation? Absolutely.

Can black people call themselves the n-word? Sure. Same social and power levels. A white person calling a black person the n-word? Nope, nope, nope, nope. Different social and power levels.

This will only make sense to older people, since it doesn't happen as much as it used to. Calling a black man "boy." A grown man. With a job and a family and dignity. Can a white person employing a black man call him "boy"? No. No they cannot.

When is a man over the age of 20 or so called a boy? Very very rarely. Young man, sure. But rarely "boy."

Yet when it comes to women, they are called girls until they die. And they do it to themselves, to make themselves smaller and less threatening.

So. Poisonous. Tell me what you meant, please? Keeping in mind the idea that "threatening" women need to stay in their place?

Absolutely....but you asked ME what I thought, not them. ;-)
I gave my opinion, which is often not the normal or accepted opinion.
There is a single, original text for each religion, the sects offer different interpretations and translations, but use the same originals. If you read the original bible in Latin (or whatever language the testaments etc. were first written in), you can interpret for yourself the exact 'words of god', not someone else's interpretation/translation.

As I see it, those you describe were/are religious, but if they stray from the text in any way, they are not (insert a specific sect of Christianity here). It's like the difference between a pick up basketball game and a professional one, they're both technically players of basketball, but only one is a "basketball player"
I have at least met many who SAID they thought that....but none that had the nerve to try it....but if your text says that's the prescribed treatment for an 'infidel' and you ignore it, you aren't following your religion, so aren't an (insert sect of any religion here).

I disagree that it's a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, (EDIT: It's a "very few true Scotsman" argument) it's a strict reading of the rules of religions and allowing no personal interpretation or modification, as they all REQUIRE. Just because very few people (but not zero) actually practice religion as their texts prescribe doesn't change the rules for religion, it just makes them non devout...and I say, to me, that makes them not part of their chosen religion, but fans of it, since they don't actually practice it.
I do agree, that opinion is based on a far more strict interpretation of religious rules than most people's, but I can't understand how you can ignore a single letter of the "word of god" if you believe, so I can only believe that most people don't actually fully believe, so aren't devout, so (IMO) aren't "Christians" (or "Muslims", or "Jewish", etc).

EDIT: I certainly hope my environment as a child was the exception, I would hate to think that everyone went through that as a kid. It was a daily struggle living as a vocal atheist in Texas in the 70's.

But you have zero proof. You're stating that you have enough proof, but yet you really don't have any proof. You have circumstantial evidence.

I have zero doubts that DWS once in that position helped because she and Clinton are friends and political allies. But that's not quid pro quo. If Clinton hires her to help in her campaign, it isn't quid pro quo if Clinton hired her because of DWS's skills in the area. You have zero proof that's why DWS was hired. You have zero proof DWS did "whatever Clinton asked her to do". You have zero proof Clinton asked her to do anything that broke the rules in the first place. None.

You are inferring every single accusation you made against Clinton. There's absolutely no evidence of any of them at all.

Clinton has zero insights about what the public thinks? You're kidding, right? The woman who was the front runner for the Democratic nomination, who has been in the public spotlight at the national stage for almost 25 years doesn't have any insight about what the public thinks?

Come on, man.

Also, DWS's job wasn't solely to ensure the nominating process was fair. She had a ton of responsibilities, and many of them she did well. That was my point. All you're seeing is the part where she screwed up because it hurt your preferred candidate. Her job was also to protect the Democratic party, and help Democrats win elections, too.

Perhaps a few might say DWS wasn't the reason Sanders lost? A few? You mean like.... ohhhhh, I dunno... Bernie Sanders? How about Bernie Sanders' staff members? But what the hell do they know, AMIRITE?

Dude, Sanders got crushed with minorities. You know where that can allow you to win the nomination? The GOP. Unfortunately for Sanders, he was running for the nomination where minorities are a significant part of the voting bloc. Absolutely CRUSHED. Clinton won 76% of the African-American vote. Before the primaries really began, Clinton was polling at 73% among Hispanics. You honestly think that was because of DWS? Let me put that to rest for you. Hillary Clinton did well among Hispanics against Barack Obama. Was that DWS's doing, too?

That's the thing. I have clear cut FACTS about why Sanders lost. I have the words from Bernie Sanders and his campaign staff. You have speculation about whatever small impact DWS's had on primary votes.

Valarie Plame? No, Bush never named her. It ended up being Karl Rove.

How did I shove Hillary Clinton down your throat? Explain that one to me. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. In VA, I chose to vote in the GOP primary to do whatever I could to stop Trump, which was vote for Marco Rubio, as he was polling second in VA. I didn't do a damn thing to stop Sanders or help Clinton win the nomination.

Why didn't I vote for Sanders? Because of his lack of foreign policy experience, and he wasn't putting forth enough practical policies that I think would work. I like the guy fine. I'd vote for him as a Senator if he was in Virginia. I like having voices like his in Congress. But Commander In Chief is a big part of the job, and I want someone with foreign policy experience. He doesn't have that.

I also value flexibility in a candidate. The world isn't black and white. I like Sanders' values. It would be nice if everyone could go to college if they had the motivation. I very much think the rich are not taxed nearly enough. But I also think ideologies and ideals help to create ideas for solutions, but the solutions need to be practical, and I don't find his practical unfortunately. Sometimes they're not politically practical. Sometimes they just fall apart on the mechanics of them.

Gary Johnson has more experience? Uhhhhh, no. He was governor of New Mexico for 8 years. That compares well to Sarah Palin. Do you think Palin is more experienced than Clinton, too? Johnson has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary Clinton was an active first lady who proposed Health Care Reform, got children's health care reform passed. She was a US Senator for the short time of 8 years, which is way less than Johnson's 8 years as governor of New Mexico (wait, what?!), was on the foreign relations committee during that time. Then she was Secretary of State.

Sanders is the only one who I'd put in the ballpark, but he's had legislative branch experience only, and he doesn't have much foreign policy experience at all. Interestingly enough, you said he was the most experienced candidate, overlooking his complete lack of executive experience, which you favored when it came to Gary Johnson. Huh?

Clinton can't win? You know, I wouldn't even say Trump *can't* win. Once normalized from the convention bounce, she'll be the favorite to win. Sure, she could still lose, but I wouldn't bet against her.

Clinton supporters have blinders on only. Seriously? Dude, EVERY candidate has supporters with blinders on. Every single candidate. Most voters are ignorant, regardless of candidate. Don't give me that holier than thou stuff. You've got blinders on for why Sanders lost.

There are candidates who are threats if elected. There are incompetent candidates. There are competent candidates. There are great candidates. Sorry, but there aren't great candidates every election. I've voted in enough presidential elections to know you should be grateful to have at least one competent candidate who has a shot of winning. Sometimes there aren't any. Sometimes there are a few.

In your mind, I'm a Hillary supporter with blinders on. I'm not beholden to any party. I'm not beholden to any candidate. It's just not in my nature. This is the first presidential candidate from a major party in my lifetime that I felt was truly an existential threat to the US and the world in Trump. I'm a level headed person. Hillary Clinton has an astounding lack of charisma for a politician who won a major party's nomination. I don't find her particularly inspiring. I think it's a legitimate criticism to say she sometimes bends to the political winds too much. She sometimes doesn't handle things like the email thing like she should, as she flees to secrecy from a paranoia from the press and the other party, which is often a mistake, but you have to understand at some level why. She's a part of a major political party, which has a lot of "this is how the sausage is made" in every party out there, and she operates within that system.

If she were a meal, she'd be an unseasoned microwaved chicken breast, with broccoli, with too much salt on it to pander to people some to get them to want to eat it. And you wouldn't want to see how the chicken was killed. But you need to eat. Sure, there's too much salt. Sure, it's not drawing you to the table, but it's nutritious mostly, and you need to eat. It's a meal made of real food.

Let's go along with you thinking Sanders is SOOOOOOOOOOO much better. He was a perfectly prepared steak dinner, but it's lean steak, and lots of organic veggies, perfectly seasoned, and low salt. It's a masterpiece meal that the restaurant no longer offers, and you gotta eat.

Donald Trump is a plate of deep fried oreos. While a surprising number of people find that tasty, it also turns out the cream filling was contaminated with salmonella.

Gary Johnson looks like a better meal than the chicken, but you're told immediately if you order it, you're gonna get contaminated deep fried oreos or the chicken, and you have absolutely no say which it will be.

You can bitch and complain all you want about Clinton. But Sanders is out.

As Bill Maher would say, eat the chicken.

I'm not voting for Clinton solely because I hate Trump. She's a competent candidate. At least we have one to choose from who can actually win.

And I'm sorry, but I don't understand your comparison of Trump to Clinton. One of them has far more governmental experience. One of them isn't unhinged. One of them is clearly not racist or sexist. You would at least agree with that, right? Clinton, for all her warts, is not racist, sexist, bigoted, and actually knows how government works. To equate them is insane to me. I'm sorry.

And this is coming from someone who voted for Nader in 2000. I totally get voting for a third party candidate in some situations. This isn't the time.

Edit: You know who else is considering voting for Clinton? Penn Jillette, one of the most vocal Clinton haters out there, and outspoken libertarian. Even he is saying if the election is close enough, he'll have to vote for her.

"“My friend Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To about the Clintons,” Jillette says. “I have written and spoken and joked with friends the meanest, cruelest, most hateful things that could ever been said by me, have been said about the Clintons. I loathe them. I disagree with Hillary Clinton on just about everything there is to disagree with a person about. If it comes down to Trump and Hillary, I will put a Hillary Clinton sticker on my fucking car.”

But he says he hopes the race will turn out well enough that he feels safe casting his vote for Gary Johnson, who is running on the libertarian ticket, and who he believes is the best choice."
http://www.newsweek.com/penn-jillette-terrified-president-trump-431837

I have friends in Scotland. They think it is highly unlikely either Ireland or Scotland will leave the U.K. over this. Apparently there are some vocal groups calling for a vote but public opinion in general seems apathetic to the idea, especially as the Scots apparently enjoy a great deal of financial support from being in the U.K. and losing that support would cost more than any benefits gained from independence.