I'm of the opinion that both Hillary and Trump would make bad presidents.

That being said, I don't really believe the narrative that Trump would be the worse of the two; the "apocalyptic" one to elect. Trump is incompetent and chaotic. Hillary is greasy and corrupt.

I think the system (which is actually pretty well designed at its core; Washington has just had a lot of time with not enough scrutiny to find the loopholes to exploit) would be better at mitigating the damage of President Trump than President Hillary. She's too insidious of an evil -- covert and connected. Trump is the polar opposite of covert.

The DNC had a chance to put in another option that would have easily had as much support from core Democrats as Hillary, but also would have energized younger voters AND been a very attractive option for Republicans who don't buy in to Trump (of which there are many). But instead, they left their fingers on the scales and tipped things in favor of Hillary.

So, I'll vote for one of the 3rd party candidates (I like Stein's stance on Snowden, so probably her) or write in the option that crooked DNC and Hillary denied us. Either of those actions is de-facto more likely to result in President Trump, and I acknowledge that. But like I said, I'm OK with that -- I honestly believe Hillary would be worse, and the main thing is that me and other people like me have to send a message to both parties that they need to present us with more reasonable candidates if they expect us to have any degree of the "party loyalty" that both sides expected / enjoyed in the past. This election cycle shows that they are taking that for granted -- so screw 'em.

Hilarious. Maybe they should have tried to not giggle like naughty teenagers making a prank call if they want to be taken seriously.
First, they did make the shirt he asked for, a quality one it seemed, just with a bonus secret message.
Second, Trump supporters are the same people who advocate the refusal of service for people who offend their religious (or political) sensibilities, so what's his problem? He was probably hoping they would refuse him service so he could use the video as proof that "liberals" are totally hypocritical and refuse service to those they dislike but vilify "conservatives" for the same thing, but got something unexpected instead.

It's now pretty clear that initially they did this looking for and expecting a negative reaction they could exploit somehow, then pressed the point when they got one, thinking they 'got them' and now he can be the conservative hero of the week.

To be fair though, what response does one expect when one goes into a business in a firmly red state like Alabama or Mississippi, and an even more firmly Republican city, and then go to a world famously Republican neighborhood in that city, enter a store with a Trump sign in the window and ask them to make you a HILLARY T-shirt? I would bet $10 it involves threats of violence if not actual violence and firearms, not a quality shirt with a 'secret' message inside.

That is clearly not true. It may be one of the less toxic human made functioning, profitable herbicides, but that's not what you said by far.

Roundup is not a pesticide, it's an herbicide. Conflating it with pesticides is ridiculous and incredibly misleading. Roundup is used to control weeds and remove genetic 'contamination' of specific crops. EDIT: Many of those crops are genetically modified to act as pesticides without spraying chemicals, which is a good reason to want to limit cross contamination in either direction.

Other alternatives are no chemicals at all, or only ecologically safe (usually natural) chemicals. I don't use chemicals on my farm, I weed, I spray horticulture oil, I spread ashes, I grow twice what I can eat so some loss to insects won't matter, and I remove insects, slugs, and snails by hand. It takes more work, but the statement that the only alternative to Roundup is worse chemicals or agriculture collapse is completely and obviously false and indicates a total ignorance of the issue you speak about.

"Modern Agriculture" today means hydroponics, aeroponics, and aquaponics, none of which can benefit a whit from Roundup. You mean to say "Industrial Agriculture". The collapse of industrial agriculture might not be a bad thing, as it's incredibly destructive and produces a sub par product. More people farming on smaller farms puts more people to work, makes better product, and makes the people who work on the land feel responsible for it's upkeep, not consider it a resource to be exploited as efficiently as possible.

Mentioning Monsanto's involvement in the project is not the same as saying "neither Einstein or Openheimer or others were behind the Manhattan project, it was Monsanto all along that plotted to destroy Japanese cities with nuclear weapons". They clearly implied that Monsanto joined the project as a way to 'cozy up to' the political elite, and it worked.

Where did you hear this ridiculous hypothesis about their motive? Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear? It's clear that the motive in all cases was profit, either directly, or future profits secured by 'making friends' in government by cooperating with them or by forcing farmers into untenable contracts and positions where, in some cases, farmers that don't use Monsanto crops were sued because Monsanto said the pollen that pollinated the crops came from a neighbors Monsanto crops, so the seed belongs to Monsanto. Monsanto does not set out to cause damage and harm, they simply don't care if it happens as a side effect of their profit making methods, which they will protect with any means possible.

Just wow, a more deliberately misleading description of the video would be hard to create.

The persecution of others to the exclusion of all but the primary religion is a tact shared with many major religions, and yes, Christianity has left its scorching mark upon humanity as a terrifying blot.

However, it is not, on this day, nor in these recent years, the acts of Christians, or Catholics that most burns a hole in our hearts and minds. Indeed, it is the acts of Radical Islamism, which is no more than a literal taking of their Koran brought to life by hate and malice.

And no, Islam is not a religion of peace, neither is Christainity-based religions for that matter. It is a matter of choice, and now, it is the choice of these Muslims, being great in number at this point in the Human Timeline, to continue the exploitation and caging of Women as sex slaves, to behead hundreds of thousands in the name of their God, and to spread their holy war to every corner of the globe until all is ruled by Islam.

That is fact, sir, as they(ISIS) have stated, as they show their brand of religion to state, as they act, and chose to carry forth action.

Sir, yes, all religions have committed to horrible deeds, but, it is always the purview of those of us that realize this to deny the growth of violence-via-religion, and now, in this day and age, that primary religion which we must stop from continuing violence is radicalized Islam.

We have always been a gun violence culture up until the post WW2 era. Think frontier, wild west, duels, and mafia shootouts. We glorify violence everyday, we even give sickos who shoot up groups of people mass media coverage. For a person who wants to go out in a blaze of infamy, we are custom tailored to give them their last 15 minutes of 'fame'.

Again, we have a nebulous definition of what it takes to get on the watch list. I could be placed on it simply by stating something to the effect that "I support ISIS", even though I don't. Restricting people who manage to end up on a government list is the same as removing their right to a firearm after committing a felony offense, only you have removed every single bit of their right to a legal defense. There is no due process to being placed on a US watchlist, you get put on and fuck you if it was a mistake. Maybe they'll take you off later, who knows?

I am not going to defend a slippery slope argument on this, I don't have to. It's already happened in the years since 2001. The Patriot Act, meant to be a well intended set of rules to help us protect ourselves, has been perverted to lessen quite a few of our rights. Not only our rights, but other countries. We have violated their security, spied on their people and leaders, and we perform acts of war on their territories with impugnity. All because we lost two buildings and 2,996 people; a heinous act, but one our government exploited to put us into 2 wars with a death toll to people who may not even be our enemies that dwarf our loss. In short, we fucking have the slippery slope process down to a SCIENCE.

I've noticed even sharkier tactics employed in the Bay Area - such as a company called Breeze where people lease the car from them and pay @ $200.00/week to Breeze to use the car as a Uber or Lyft driver.

For some reason people refuse to look at the math. I think I was that way when I was in my early twenties so I get it but it's scary; once the drivers figure out that they aren't going to be able to make ends meet they will be in a bind with Breeze who won't accept the car back unless it's absolutely in perfect condition...

I think I read that both Uber & Lyft are trying to go for the "no credit" crowd in loaning cars out to pump up their exploited workforce.

Beware. Capitalist fucks at work.

The the vegan ideology is: to not exploit any animals unnecessarily.

It doesn't matter if someone or something is not aware that it's being exploited, it still is wrong. If I steal money from you, and you never find out, does that make it OK? If you tranquilize a person and molest them so that they'll never know, does that make it OK? Of course not.

Also you can't really exploit plants, since most of them have evolved to be eaten as part of their reproductive cycle.

You are right though, there are definitely some blurred lines in some areas.

There is nothing inherently immoral about creating weapons. The problem lies in what they are used for. Just like the most basic of tools, a hammer can be used to build or to kill. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have invented the hammer. The onus is on the person using it.

In either case, that has little to do with the factory farming holocaust.

What you did there is called an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy. You're saying vegans aren't morally perfect, so they have no place to tell us about morality. It's a derailment of the actual issue just like how you've previously used an appeal to nature, and an appeal history as well.

After that most people try the appeal to futility. And failing that they'll say something completely illogical such as "bacon tho" just to "win" the conversation, because it's not possible argue with something that unreasonable.

Like I mentioned in one of the other comments, I've said all of this myself in the past, I 100% believed it in the past, but eventually coming to the logical conclusion that I was wrong. I only had to accept that all of the animal exploitation I contributed to in the past was wrong, and decide that I no longer want to be apart of it. I can't take back the stuff I did, but to continue doing so knowing fully the extent of the consequences would be the poorer choice.

You don't need to morally perfect in order to solve a very obvious problem. As with war as well, it's often it's about choosing the less bad option, after weighing in all consequences.

Please stop pretending the entire farming industry practices the worst possible practices. It's not true and you know it. Yes, those practices do happen, but there are alternatives where the animals enjoy better than natural lives under the care of their farmers. It's analogous to saying no one should have dogs because puppy mills are horrendous places that should be eradicated.
My eggs come from free range chickens with windows in their roomy coop, and they never get turned into meat when they stop laying, nor do male chicks get chipper shredded.
Egg laying hens and milk cows do not get turned into meat for human consumption.
Many dairy farms do not practice ANY of the methods you claim.

If you call all farmers murderers and torturers, and all their customers accomplices, you have called all non vegans murderers and torturers.

Go to the butcher.
Inuit eat meat because it's all they have. Same with many Maasi, who survive on milk and blood from their cattle with no other resource to exploit. Pretty damn good and logical reason IMO, not starving.
I'm waiting on that video.

"If you care about animals and feel compelled to defend them, chances are you’ve come across knee-jerk accusations claiming you are “pushing your agenda,” forcing your ideas down their throat,” or “spreading propaganda.” So, why don’t other social justice advocates face the same accusations? It is very telling that human rights activists who campaign against violent and exploitative practices, such as sweatshop labor or sex trafficking, are rarely, if ever, criticized for pushing their beliefs on others. On the contrary, these activists are often lauded for their passion and commitment to justice and for exposing injustices."

http://freefromharm.org/common-justifications-for-eating-animals/animal-advocates/

"To close your eyes will not ease another's pain." - Chinese Proverb

it is not "my" way or "our" way that is at issue but rather the fundamental questions of morals, ethics, violence and non-violence. when one has a choice in the matter, is not doing less harm always better than doing more harm? just as i do not consider myself superior for choosing not to harm or kill other humans or puppies and kittens, but instead look at it as the minimum standard of decency of not treating others the way i would not wish to be treated.

anyone who supports the killing of non-human animals is only looking at things from the human perspective-i.e. that of the oppressor. just as in the case of any form of violence and exploitation, the foundation of all of the false justifications against veganism are based on ignoring any consideration of the victims point of view. this is all too easy when one is not a victim of oppression themselves.

it is truly a very sad thing when mercy, compassion and empathy are considered as extreme while supporting torture, cruelty and death in the name of pleasure and profit is considered as normal and a matter of personal choice.

“For hundreds of thousands of years the stew in the pot has brewed hatred and resentment that is difficult to stop. If you wish to know why there are disasters of armies and weapons in the world, listen to the piteous cries from the slaughter house at midnight.”- Ancient Chinese verse

I've got some bad news for you dude, you've been eating vegan food all of your life. All of that stuff on your plate that isn't beef, poultry, fish or dairy is vegan. DUH DUH DUUUUUUUH!

Tofu is also highly dependent on what flavors it's absorbing, it doesn't have any flavor itself. I rarely eat myself, mostly using it as a substitute for mayo (+bit of mustard and tabasco makes a pretty convincing substitute)

I know what you mean though some of the older vegan processed food is awful and card board like.

Give these a go one day https://gardein.com/recipes/seven-grain-tenders-with-chipotle-mayo/
(it's not like real chicken patties have much chicken in them anyway...)


EDIT: BTW there is a perfectly good way to eat animals and be vegan. Road kill.... or if you're in the field at the right time to see an old buffalo collapse.... or if a shark has bitten a fish in 1/2 and you take the other 1/2. Technically all vegan since no animals were exploited by humans. There is always breast milk too assuming you've asked for the mothers consent. (don't do it mad max style).

i am vegan BECAUSE i do not consider myself superior to others,regardless of their species. when looked at logically and without the inherent blinders of our culture, the one's who truly consider themselves superior are the one's who believe that feeling beings have to suffer and die for their taste preferences. your statements completely disregard the viewpoint of the victims who have no choice in their own suffering and death. since it is indisputable that the cows, pigs, chickens and fishes whom people consume feel pain and want to live, there is no moral justification for exploiting and killing them in the name of a momentary taste sensation.

the only consistent ethical position is to reject all forms of violence and exploitation rather than limiting one's concern for a select few species. if you would not wish to experience something yourself, it is never humane or justifiable to force another to experience it. veganism is not about perfection but is about doing the least harm possible. the truth is that when any animal product is consumed, sentient non-human animals suffer and die as a result of it. it is only by being disconnected from the reality of it that one continues to support such heinous violence.

Might get reversed, probably won't. She knows this is her last chance to become President, so she is going to cheat as much as she needs to. Sadly, most of this is semi-'legal' due to arbitrary voting rules and the nature of our system.

As far as how it is going to end? She will run vs Trump, and if she wins it will be due to cheating the process. I will take a moment to point out the last president we had to lose the popular vote but win by exploiting the process was...George W Bush.

The other possibility is she loses and we have President Trump...

Basically we are fucked either way.

“Both vegans and non-vegans live in state of disconnect. Non-vegans disconnect from that fact that billions of nonhuman animals are enslaved, tortured, confined and violently murdered for their pleasure, preferences and entertainment. Vegans live in a state of disconnect so that our hearts don’t shatter into a million pieces moment by moment due to the fact that billions of non-humans are being exploited and the people we love continue to participate. Vegans have to disconnect just to be able to get through the day.” -The Thinking Vegan