Then your own personal bias is blinding you.

Do you truly believe that more racists voted for Trump than came out previously to vote against the first black president?

Your also not reading what I said, seemingly because you don't like the implications. Not once did I claim racists didn't vote for Trump. Not once did I say anything about Trump making any kind of an even half-decent president. For the record, I'd have voted Hillary if I had a vote. All of that is ENTIRELY outside the point.

The reality that democrats just can't seem to accept is that they LOST the support of the public. The racists didn't suddenly emerge this election cycle. The moderates, the silent majority, just said screw it and stayed home or said screw you and ticked of Trump. A major scare factor in that is folks just like yourself who refuse to even recognise that this huge segment of the population exists and that the democrats need to reach out to them as opposed to labelling them racists and entrenching them as future republican voters that dislike being called racists because they work on an oil rig...

If refugees begin to act in a hostile manner because their plight is minimized and ignored while they are demonized and dehumanized but others that actually did the terroristic and anti American things they are suspected of are not given that treatment, that's human nature. Racist/xenophobic actions often cause anger.
Edit: keep in mind, most that are radicalized are teenagers and early 20's, so aren't the most rational or non violent by nature of their age, regardless of their culture.

It's not like that at all, imo. It's like a political/war refugee saying 'keep your international legal obligations or we'll dislike you more'. How much more do you think some need to dislike us before they act on that hatred? I would say we've created plenty of victims that are on that razors edge and only need a nudge to make their reasonable hatred become action....and giving them nothing to lose by acting, not a good idea.

I dont watch her often at all and can not say i dislike her. But this one clip is really bad IMHO and the previous one on the sift was not very good either. She picks a good topic and more or less has a good angle on it but the form is basically what RT or FOX do - the school bully approach.

The numbers up to that 9:00 mark do not support the hysterical talk. They are what they are. The questions are bad, answers irrelevant. Then we get the delusion confirmation, which is the best bit, and she sees it out more or less OK. But the first 9 minutes is either badly prepared or badly executed IMHO. The first minute is pure WTF bad.

I tried watching from just before the 9 minute mark and upvoted the video for its last 3 minutes.

Granted D.J. Kelly did far better than an infantile narcissist should have, thanks in large part to Clinton being almost as disliked as he is and the fact that the left won't just vote for their team when they put up a loser, unlike the right that will ignore any problems their side may have and exaggerate the opposition's.

So, votes don't matter if you've managed to rig the system in your favor (by gerrymandering)...and you're fine with that if it benefits your side, but up in arms and crying fraud if it's not.

I understand your difficulty in understanding my arguments, but it is your comprehension difficulty, not mine.

I'll bite. (needless to say, spoilers)

The characters certainly had motivation.

Jyn's motivation, much like Rae in FA, is simple, daddy issues. She isn't so much invested in the rebellion as she is in enacting vengeance for her father. She is stunted emotionally and is not idealistic, but I think she uses that as a vehicle to push other characters along with her. Her last moments with Cassian aren't driven by any great romance, just the solace of two people who don't know if what they did will make a difference, but they succeeded in what they set out to do. I suspect she understood before she left Yavin that she was not going to get out of it alive, which sort of fits with her fairly nihilistic view of the universe.

Cassian was entirely driven by the fight against the Empire. He was willing to do anything, and was completely ruthless at the start, but he does mellow towards the end as Jyn makes a point of saying that he was like a stormtrooper. He is a zealot, a true believer, and is willing to sacrifice everything, even his humanity, for the cause.

Orson, the imperial commander, is a mixture of patriotism and self interest. He's a fervant believer in the imperial ethos of bringing order to the galaxy, but he is also deeply interested in recognition and commensurate rise in rank. He is so motivated that he risks his life directly to try and stop the rebels (not something you typically see bad leader types do outside of superhero movies, that's what henchmen are for) at the end.

The droid is all programming, but his comedy relief is explained by the dialogue that slicing an imp droid can affect it's personality. He is the one of the few light hearted notes (and consequently gives us a pretty poignant note when he says goodbye and get's shut down) in what is a fairly depressing movie. His bluntly honest statements are perfectly ironic and as such really do deserve the laughs they get.

The monk and the warrior were guardians of a temple but are now displaced. While it's couched in the monks mysticism, I think honestly they were happy to stand up to the big bad guys who wrecked their temple and extract some form of revenge. I think it would please both of them to know that it was worth it in the end.

The imperial defector seems to have little motivation, but he has already taken the dangerous step of defecting and getting the ball rolling for the entire plot etc, he's obviously completely displeased about the empire and willing to risk his life to do something about it.

Saul has been driven mad by the fight. The rebel leadership all seem to fit well within their established roles in the canon, as do Tarkin and Vader. Random rebel and imp personal are placeholders and who really gives a fuck what their motivations are? X D

/shrug As far as character development goes, it's certainly not a work for the ages, but to say these characters are going to get a thing because they need to get a thing seems to be nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

Oh yeah, and in regards to AT AT's, it's a strategic imperial world and heavily garrisoned. Likely a staging point for excursions around the galaxy as well. It has major shielding, AA and fighter complements, Star Destroyers standing guard etc. Sure, fan service is a thing (although the homages in R1 are far less clunky than FA, including things like the Hammerhead, references to the cartoons etc), but as an imp commander, I would certainly release AT AT and AT ST vehicles against an attacking force of unknown size, particularly when you see a whole bunch of landing pads explode simultaneously. Are their 10 commandos or 1,000? 10,000? Yeah, go lowball and wait for them to walk out in the open right? \= |

It's not like the AT AT's were stomping all over the archive looking for a guy hiding behind valuable Imp data infrastructure, they are roaming the outer regions and are fairly proof against ground troops. Makes sense to me.

Dunno, I think the RLM reviews are generally entertaining and thoughtful, but in this case whoever writes Plinkett has let his acerbic dislike of "new" Star Wars cloud his objectiveness imo. It was an enjoyable flick and certainly one I intend to own. I don't think it's anywhere near the best sci fi (although I kinda like it on par with Empire) movie out there, but it's far better than RLM gives it credit for, imo.

Comply....this is not a solution for the citizens, it's a solution for the officers. People clearly complying have been shot, on camera, repeatedly. Remember "hands up, don't shoot"....that was a slogan because so many people were shot while their hands were up complying. It sure didn't help the caregiver that was prone with hands outstretched begging them to not shoot at the totally harmless mentally challenged man child seated and playing with a truck, but they still did shoot repeatedly, hitting the prone caregiver.

Also, just comply means just allow them to violate your rights, claiming you can recapture your violated rights with no effort by suing...WTF?!? You have a right to know why you're being arrested. You have a right to not answer them when they scream at you. You have a right to carry cash without it being stolen. You have a right to insist on your rights not being violated in the first place. You do not have to allow them to violate you in the hopes that you can prove they did it....prove it against their lies, their fellow officers lies, the prosecutors bias, the judges bias, the evidence disappearing, the harassment from them and other cops, and while fighting the bogus charges that pop up when you file your lawsuit.

The police do act as judge, jury, and executioner many times....that's why people hate cops, not because they are confused about what judges are for. It's because cops so often abuse their authority and/or lie and in the process completely destroy multiple lives (both those they charge and family/bystanders) with impunity, immunity, derision, and zero empathy, then they usually blame their victims for not 'just complying'.
I'm already really beginning to dislike this asshat.

Just let them violate you to death and then sue them, huh? When those 2-3-4 officers all lie, hide evidence, and retaliate against anyone who contradicts their lies (including other cops), that 'remedy' rarely wins in court without incontrovertible evidence proving they all lied, incontrovertible evidence that the cops didn't know about to hide or destroy...and it can't unviolate you or restore lost time, sanity, or life.
...and yes, because they overwhelmingly stand behind those proven to have violated rights and worse, they all get painted with that brush until that changes. The blue wall is responsible for those "good" cops being painted as "bad", not the citizens who's trust has been so often violated. When you stand with a thug and support and protect them, you are one.

No quotas? OK, now this guy has moved from bad advice that benefits only the cops, not the citizen, to ridiculous self serving bold faced lies. It's been clearly, incontrovertibly, repeatedly proven and unashamedly admitted by uncountable officers and their supervisors in hundreds if not thousands of jurisdictions, most cops do have quotas.

BTW, that's EX officer Izzo....thank goodness.

I just coined a term for my dislike of remakes....
I have redux reflux.

But, only one purrdowan at a time may he train. Dislike this, the council will.

Ok, in the interest of fairness I did some further research on this issue.

He was fined a total of 42,000 dollars. This does not count his accrued court and legal fees which are estimated to be around 100,000 dollars at this time. I won't bother converting that to USD, but he is going to be out of pocket 142k as a ballpark figure.

This is the joke:

“Everyone said he sucked, but I defended him,” Ward says. “They said he was terrible, but I was like, ‘He’s dying but he’s living a dream, leave him alone.’ ” The niceties end when Ward figures out Gabriel isn’t actually dying. “He’s unkillable! I saw him at the water park, and I tried to drown him, but I couldn’t. Then I went on the Internet to figure out what was wrong with him, and you know what it was? He’s ugly, goddammit!”

That is all. He was making a joke that he thought the kid was being given a 'make a wish' type thing because he was dying, but that he was just ugly.

I listened to it and it wasn't really funny. However, it wasn't 142k worth of court costs and damages either. The kid, disability or not, is now a public figure and should not be protected from jokes at his expense. The fact that a comedian called him ugly does not mean he should get 42k in recompense because it made him feel bad. Fuck, if I got 42k every time someone called me ugly in jest, I wouldn't be posting here. I'd be on a damn Yacht in the Mediterranean.

People say hurtful things. How many people looked at this kid and made fun of him when he was trying to sing the Canadian anthem at a Hockey game? Does he deserve 42k from each of them?

One of the talks I listened to as part of this research brought up a salient point. The commission that was created to address hurtful speech has clearly ran out of 'real' hate speech to go after. To save their jobs, they need to start going after the next level of 'hate speech'. Where better to look than blue comedians?

This brings me back to my original point. If you create an organization and give it power to control what people say through punitive measures, it may work great when your group is in power. You will probably have no issue with it, as long as it goes after speech you dislike. But, no group is in power forever and organizations don't just disappear when a new group of leaders come into power. Suddenly you might really come to regret your choice to create that organization, especially when they decide it is 'YOUR' words that need to be penalized.

That said, my only dog in this fight is that I think it is idiotic to limit what people can say. They don't stop saying it, they just stop saying it around people they don't trust. This sows the seeds of dissension and the harvest is never a good one.

This whole diatribe is exactly what pushed middle spectrum voters to actually vote against Clinton. More aggressive division and partisan line drawing is the problem, not the solution.

Anybody not 100% committed to a pro-choice stance was sick and tired of the far left calling them evil for it.

Anybody that had any thoughts that your choices regarding how to have sex and who to have it with were in fact choices were tired of being called slurs like homophibic.

Anybody who didn't believe carbon taxes or cap and trade markets were the answer to climate change was sick of being charged with hating the children and 'denying' fundamental science.

Anybody watching angry calls for safe spaces re-implementing segregation as though it was a good thing was tired of it.

Like it or not, a large part of America disagreed on the extremity of the establishment's direction on these and other areas. Trump was the one candidate nobody wanted, not the media, not the Democratic party, not even the Republican party.

I believe the divisive winner takes all approach to complex and sensitive social issues drove a lot of voters to pick Trump as the none of the above option.

For the record, I didn't vote Trump. I'm Canadian and couldn't vote at all, but if I could I'd have voted Clinton. I would have voted Clinton in spite of disliking her as a clone of her husband that actively fought to prevent action on the Rwandan genocide. Which is to say, in any other election I'd have lobbied for a vote anyone but Clinton campaign. Awful that the Republicans managed to find someone worse in Trump...

Hedges on Truthdig:

I finished my book with a deep dislike for megachurch pastors who, like Trump, manipulate despair to achieve power and wealth. I see the Christian right as a serious threat to an open society. But I do not hate those who desperately cling to this emotional life raft, even as they spew racist venom. Their conclusion that minorities, undocumented workers or Muslims are responsible for their impoverishment is part of the retreat into fantasy. The only way we will blunt this racism and hatred and allow them to free themselves from the grip of magical thinking is by providing jobs that offer adequate incomes and economic stability and by restoring their communities and the primacy of the common good. Any other approach will fail. We will not argue or scold them out of their beliefs. These people are emotionally incapable of coping with the world as it is. If we demonize them we demonize ourselves.

It's a beautiful place that's given us some amazing science, culture, and social advances.

All those things happened because we're the beautiful, figurative melting pot. Unfortunately, Trump is in the process of turning the US into a pot of homogenized white shit.

Sports is a perfect microcosm. We're good at so many sports because we choose people from the countries that excel at that particular sport. Kenyans for running. Eastern European or Canadian hockey players. Dominican baseball players.

I really dislike making sweeping generalizations, but I think the simple folks that voted for Trump never have and never will contribute anything culturally, scientifically, or socially.

Unless that culture is backwards and hate-filled.

One of the great intellectual catastrophes of the modern world, and probably the harbinger of the ultimate doom of our civilisation, is the collapse in the distinction between 'compare to' and 'equate with'. We can reasonably compare almost anything to almost anything else, and how unfortunate that we can expect immediately to be confronted by some aggrieved outrage-peddler who imagines they have a right to find the comparison insulting.

It is a literal fact that any group of two or more people, or living things, or indeed most objects of any kind, will possess some internal differences. As a matter of certain truth, not subject to doubt, muslims share with rats and serial killers the trait that they evince diversity of behaviour and belief. This demonstrates the total banality of the 'but they're all different' argument. It's not for their differences that these groups are disliked.

That's probably enough of a lesson for one day, and certainly @oritteropo ought to know better. I don't want to take the trouble to argue deranged claims like 'there are muslims who don't believe in god', or tiresome diversions on how christians and other jews can be just as bad, or to debate the relative merits of various religiously mandated dress codes; but you are right about one thing @SDGundamX: I would much prefer that islamic violence and oppression were a harmless and overblown bogey, but ethics is not a children's game - these are real people, with real victims, and too many of both.

I don't care about the timing, political motivation, etc. etc. of this discovery of new emails. I think only 2 things matter:

1) Are they real / legitimate. But with all of the previous leaks, I never saw the Clinton camp trying to suggest that anything was fabricated. Taking stuff out of context to make it appear worse than what it arguably is doesn't count count as "fabricated". As much as I dislike Clinton, I have to give her credit for dealing with the out of context stuff so far in the proper way -- fill in the context so that people can make up their own minds (like some of the Wall Street speech excerpts, "public and private position", etc.).

2) Do they show anything actually criminal, even it is relatively minor. Capone went down for tax evasion, because that was the only thing they could successfully and concretely pin on him. And yet justice was served by going forward with that.

IF (and it remains a big if) these new emails end up meeting both of those criteria, I have absolutely zero sympathy for the whining that already has and will continue to erupt from the Democrat party.

Being a candidate in a presidential election paints a giant target on you and guarantees that your past is going to be under the microscope. If you've got skeletons in your closet, there is a very high chance for them to be discovered. Trump has had a well-deserved taste of that already -- maybe it is Clinton's turn now.

I only listened to that last 3 minutes because of ^, and because i generaly can't stomach Bill.

I have a hard time buying into the idea that people can't tell them apart. You don't have to do much/any study to see that they are incredibly different. Just because you don't like either of them doesn't in any way say that you think they are equal. I hate them both for completely different reasons. And although i dislike them both I would rather one of them be president over the other. My vote however will not reflect who that is.