Coincidentally they have been discussing the same thing on Fareed Zakaria's show. Must be something in the air. So I thought it might be time to think about this a little.
Some things are already operational or in the pipeline. Computers that operate machinery are already ubiquitous in manufacturing. A vacuum that needs no human to push it has rolled into our ad space offering the overworked an excuse to take a break. A car that needs no driver will allow those who cannot drive, the elderly or the disabled, a freedom of movement unheard of in times gone by. So many ways in which a device controlled by those not human can be of help.
Of help...it is those two words that stick in my mind. Yes, robots are useful, yes, they can make our lives easier. But how much do we really want them to do? How much of our lives do we want to cede to a machine? After I read that article my first thought was of the movie Wall-E. For those of you who haven't seen it, it is a cartoon depicting life in the future. Yes, I know, you are thinking..a cartoon? How serious is that? But there is one scene that gives me pause when considering artificial intelligence.
Is that really how we want our lives to be? Granted, it is perhaps an exaggeration, but there is some truth behind that depiction. Is a life of ease really the answer to happiness? Consider this article.
While they are not in the workforce for other reasons than being supplanted by a robot, their experience in being among the willfully unemployed may give us some insight into what that life could be like.
Where is the joy in accomplishing the impossible? Where is the feeling of satisfaction of a job well done? Where is the chance for miracles to occur? Where is the humanity?
Consider this trailer from a movie I just saw:
Maybe that is what life is really all about. Living to the fullest possible. Not just existing.
134 comments:
Two thirds of the way into it. Trump's not melted down entirely, at least, not yet. However, he's exhibited a marked inability to form a coherent thought. He's rambling. He's been rambling most of the night. (And, what's with the sniffles?)
Well, she didn't put him away. I'd give her a win on both points and on style, but she didn't put him away. He was intermittently angry and he never could get a thought brought together; 90 minutes and he couldn't string one single coherent thought into an answer that didn't ramble.
He needed to change the direction of his campaign and he didn't get it done. He slagged on Hillary the whole night; his base will love that (that was probably the one thing he remembered from his debate prep--slag Hillary), but it didn't get him anywhere, and he already had his loyal base.
In the beginning I kind of felt sorry for Trump. He looked a little shell shocked. But he did manage to get in a few licks. But as for actually giving substantive answers he didn't show up for that.
Hillary seemed to stay on her game. I was glad she finally responded to Trump's accusations that she's done nothing with her years of public service. She seems to have a better record than others.
I was rather amused at the last question on what about the other was something they could see as a positive.
Yeah, I wondered about the sniffles too.
He was probably snorting cocaine in his dressing room. My favourite exchange of the debate, which epitomised just how low it got:
Hillary -- "it's awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in this country".
Trump, heckling -- "because you'd be in jail".
At the end I was praying that something could happen to stop either of them getting elected.
On the artificial intelligence thing -- that article would have made more sense if they'd just left AI out of it completely. For starters, Moore's Law is officially dead. Those first few inches of Lake Michigan aren't going to be getting topped up, at least not by current technology.
There was never any big secret to how Moore's Law was maintained. Photolithography -- the process by which circuit designs are etched on semiconductors -- was halving the width of the optical mask every three years, quadrupling the number of components. It was always known that the conduction channels would eventually be too small to carry enough power for a reliable signal, a basic physical limitation. Well, we're pretty much there now.
But then there's the other problem. Who's the genius who decided that human brain power was equivalent to ten petaflops? The implication is that raw speed will inevitably produce intelligence. But if it was only about speed then the very first vacuum tube computers would have outpaced us. In fact we have very little idea how the human brain hosts intelligence, but it probably has more to do with neuronal connectedness than raw speed. Artificial neural nets have a helluva long way to go before they match the complexity of the brain, but as with the speed factor we have no basis for supposing that intelligence will simply emerge once they do.
The stories of AI's impending ascendancy appear every few years. IBM and Watson seem to be behind a lot of the recent ones. Like Google, a glorified advertising company, it is in IBM's interests to convince its prospective customers that they have smart tech that nobody else could invent. When you actually dig into their marketing material on so-called "cognitive computing" and "deep learning" you find mostly gobbledygook, and a distinct lack of information on how exactly machine models bear any resemblance to human intelligence.
But here's the thing. You don't need a great deal of intelligence to replace many of the tasks that humans are employed to do. So forget all the scare stories about AI taking over. Automation of large numbers of formerly human tasks is coming, and it doesn't need intelligence.
"German police on Monday arrested a Syrian man suspected of plotting a jihadist bomb attack, after a massive manhunt lasting almost two days.
Security had been stepped up at airports and train stations after Jaber Albakr, 22, went on the run Saturday, when police raided his apartment and found several hundred grams of "an explosive substance more dangerous than TNT"."
[...]
"German authorities have urged the public not to confuse refugees with "terrorists", but have acknowledged that more jihadists may have entered the country among the asylum seekers who arrived last year."
http://afp.omni.se/3bc70ee3-df6d-4dbc-88b8-3225cb097035
Good work by German police. Merkels dangerous irresponsibility is further demonstrated.
I've been thinking on the debate last night.
It occurs to me that Trump's performance was more geared to keeping his reactionary ‘base’ fired up on his behalf than towards expanding beyond that base. He was settling down his 40% with a performance they would appreciate on subjects they have come to champion in their echo chamber. His performance was more directed to preventing the Republican National Committee from continuing their efforts to drop him than it was towards winning an election against Hillary. (First things first I guess.)
He garnered no extra votes, but he fed the customary cuts of red-meat to his base, gave them the menu to which they've become addicted.
She didn't put him away, but then she has no credibility with the audience he was talking to. So, he effectively did her job for her; he effectively ended his campaign last night. Last night was probably his only shot at getting back above that hard-core 40% who would vote Satan himself in order to keep Hillary out of the White House.
Trump did himself in last night. He killed his last chance. Hillary didn't do it, but then she couldn't do it. His 40% will never respond to her entreaties; doesn't matter how clear-cut correct she may be; they will not respond to her. But, he managed to do it; he wrapped himself in his 40% and he'll not escape that wrapping in time to win an election in November.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…that article would have made more sense if they'd just left AI out
of it completely."
Probably a good idea to not get overly fixated on your definition of what is or is not ‘AI’.
CBS's 60 Minutes did a piece on artificial intelligence just last night, and it kinda reminded me that not everybody defined the term exactly the same way.
(I don't generally watch 60 Minutes, but NBC was showing football last night, so I had the TV resting on the CBS channel, waiting for the debate to begin.)
I noticed this morning that the fact checkers are coming in with misstatements of fact at about a rate of Six-Trump per One-Clinton in the debate last night. (And a major Republican rag on Clinton is supposedly that she's dishonest and untrustworthy, ‘As compared to whom?’ one might ask.
Okay, I like this review. This is from the very conservative magazine, The Weekly Standard:
"There is one important sense in which Donald Trump 'won’ the debate
on Sunday night: He did not implode. He wasn't ‘good,’ or attractive, or
knowledgeable. He was coarse and whiny and unpleasant. He lied
constantly. And he became the first presidential candidate in the history
of our Republic to promise that if elected he would attempt to have his
opponent face criminal prosecution. Actually, he went a bit further than
that, telling Clinton that if he is president, ‘You'd be in jail.’ Which, by
the by, should terrify you and be disqualifying all on its own.
"But Trump didn't have a psychotic break onstage. And clearing that
bar might be enough to keep Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, and Reince
Priebus from publicly disavowing his candidacy this week.
"And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what a win looks like for Trump
these days."
[Chump]: "Probably a good idea to not get overly fixated on your definition of what is or is not ‘AI’."
Of course not. Y'all wouldn't want to risk yer hard won status as most disagreeable cuss in the USian backwoods.
Takin’ lessons from Trump I see.
In a perhaps more sensible pursuit than quip-matching with the Irish insult maven: I think Lynnette might look at this piece from WarOnTheRocks. It's got some good stuff in it.
"Merkels dangerous irresponsibility is further demonstrated."
Even with this fella captured, ‘refugees’ seem to make up but a rather small minority of Europe's Muslim terrorists. To the extent that you're trying to blame the European Islamic terrorism problem on Merkel or on her immigrant policy, you seem to be off-target. Claiming’ a bullseye shot don't make it one.
By the way, this morning Trump's ambassador to still sane portions of America, Ms. Kellyanne Conway, is walking back his threat to order Hillary jailed if he's elected. She's sayin’ he didn't really mean that in spite of the fact that it sure looked like he did. (On reflection, most of the media began to recognize that as truly Un-American stuff.)
Lee: "Even with this fella captured, ‘refugees’ seem to make up but a rather small minority of Europe's Muslim terrorists. To the extent that you're trying to blame the European Islamic terrorism problem on Merkel or on her immigrant policy, you seem to be off-target."
There have been other instances where refugees committed attacks, and there may well be others in the pipeline. But it is true second generation immigrants seems more likely to be discontent and risk becoming radicalized. So unless radical Islam is just a fad, and I see nothing pointing to that, Merkels policies may well have a long lasting impact.
I woke up from a bomb last night again. An entrance to a (closed at the time) nightclub was blown up. About a kilometer from where I live. Some pics here:
http://www.pppress.se/bilder/main.php?g2_itemId=516516
Exciting times here. Fourth bombing this year, and three of then have woken me up.
"So unless radical Islam is just a fad…"
You have time to integrate the coming second generation. If Europe insists on maintaining its Muslim ghettos into the future for the new immigrants as they have isolated the past generations of immigrants, that may not be fairly blamable against Merkel's policies.
@ Lynnette,
Finally got around to watching the "Sully" clip. I'm not sure I follow what you were trying to tell us. Where does this clip tie into the coming automation of the world?
Looming Donald
Honestly, I know it may sound weird, but I never even noticed this when I was watching. But some of those tweets about it are priceless. lol!
At the end I was praying that something could happen to stop either of them getting elected.
Yet you watched? You must be a glutton for punishment. lol!
I kinda liked this debate critic also:
"St. Louis, Missouri (CNN)Donald Trump threatened to jail Hillary
Clinton. He admitted paying no federal income taxes and threw his
running mate under the bus on foreign policy.
"The Republican nominee dismissed his sexually aggressive comments
about women as ‘locker room talk.’ He attacked Hillary Clinton over Bill
Clinton's alleged sexual misconduct. And he repeatedly made false
claims and factual errors.
"For Trump, it was a real improvement."
CNN
Where does this clip tie into the coming automation of the world?
It was amazing skill derived from experience on the part of numerous people, and luck, that brought that incident to a safe conclusion. That it was accomplished by human hands was an uplifting experience for those who were there, as well as for many who have read, listened to, or watched coverage of it. After the movie was done not a person left right away as they usually do. They all stayed and watched the after interviews with Sully and the survivors, which I, for one, hadn't known in advance were added to the end. It was just such an amazing thing that we didn't want to leave. It was almost like a miracle had occurred.
Maybe a plane controlled totally by a computer would have accomplished the same thing. But it would not have been as spiritually uplifting a moment. When you take the humanity out of life, is it really as fulfilling?
I don't know whether you watched the Wall-E scene or not, but I already see people behaving somewhat like that in their immersion in their phones to the detriment of real life experiences. It's just sad.
"Maybe a plane controlled totally by a computer would have accomplished
the same thing."
A plane totally controlled by computer would probably have tried to make it back to the airport on the grounds that there was no data to support a successful water landing. Probably crashed in the process and killed everybody aboard as well as a bunch of New Yorkers on the ground. But, I get the connection now. (And, yes, I did watch the Wall-e clip too, but that ones connection was obvious so I didn't ask ‘bout it.)
I think Lynnette might look at this piece from WarOnTheRocks. It's got some good stuff in it.
On the subject of Syria I thought the question in last night's debate on what to do in Aleppo was rather unfair. To give the candidates 2 minutes to come up with a solution to a problem that has been intractable for years was a little much.
As long as Russia is involved on the side of Assad there will be no peace. Unless, of course, the country is completely empty of people, which I sometimes wonder isn't Assad's goal.
A plane totally controlled by computer would probably have tried to make it back to the airport on the grounds that there was no data to support a successful water landing. Probably crashed in the process and killed everybody aboard as well as a bunch of New Yorkers on the ground.
Well, that was kind of my thought too. The computer would have had to have been connected to the various airport computers to be able to check if there were free runways etc. That would still take time and in the simulations even 35 seconds was too long.
"To give the candidates 2 minutes to come up with a solution…"
Theoretically, they should already have thought out a solution. Trump was notably incoherent on the subject; Hillary was sorta vague on how her proposed moves were actually gonna make a difference on the ground.
An entrance to a (closed at the time) nightclub was blown up.
It must have been a small device. Sending a message, perhaps?
Trump was notably incoherent on the subject;...
Probably his stock solution to defeat ISIS. That reminds me, I thought it rather interesting that when he was asked about dealing with Russia he said he didn't agree with what Pence had said the other night. That kind of fits with the suspicion that he's a little too friendly with Putin.
Hillary was sorta vague on how her proposed moves were actually gonna make a difference on the ground.
Sounds like she'd continue on with the Special Forces on the ground and possible consider a no-fly zone.
But, yeah, you're right, they should have their answers ready. They should have studied up on each issue before the debates. So then it's just a matter of squeezing the answer into 2 minutes, which I noticed both had a problem with last night.
"I thought it rather interesting that when he was asked about dealing
with Russia he said he didn't agree with what Pence had said…."
Couple of folks have remarked on that today.
Okay, probably my final comment on the debate, at least for today…
I noticed that Anderson Cooper provoked Trump into denying that he'd ever actually done any of that crotch grabbing and non-consensual kissing and the like that he'd talked about on the tape. Score one for Anderson Cooper. I'm thinkin’ Trump's now gonna face a fairly long string of indignant women comin’ out of the woodwork to contest that denial.
[Lynnette]: "Looming Donald... Honestly, I know it may sound weird, but I never even noticed this when I was watching. But some of those tweets about it are priceless. lol!"
I noticed that immediately, as body language played a major role in last night's debate. But clearly some of the left-leaning Twitterati have nothing better to do than leap to silly conclusions. The side-on camera shot clearly shows that Trump is standing in his "home position", at the provided lectern and chair. In fact his fingers are resting on the edge of the lectern in front of his notes for part of the time. If anything, it's Hillary who has barged into his space, ostensibly to address the audience member from close quarters, but quite likely also to mark territory and demonstrate that she is not intimidated by Trump's swagger.
[Me]: "At the end I was praying that something could happen to stop either of them getting elected."
[Lynnette]: "Yet you watched? You must be a glutton for punishment. lol!"
Unfortunately your car crash of an election has significant implications for the rest of us ;-)
So far I admit I've been paying most attention to Trump, to see if he was a genuine alternative to the unpleasant status quo. But now that I've written him of as a moron, I'm listening more closely to Hillary and she scares me more than ever.
"...written him off..."
"…But now that I've written him of as a moron…"
I take it your secret science no longer makes a solid prediction of his election come November.
LOL. That was just to yank yore chain.
On the other hand, the election of a moron to the office of US preznit does now seem inevitable.
"That was just to yank yore chain."
Yeah, I got that part; that was, in fact, pretty lame, standard stuff for you though. Which is how that ended up with you just getting ridiculed ‘bout it.
(Hint for the future; trying to sell Hillary as a moron is likewise pretty lame. Lottsa things wrong with Hillary; moron ain't one of them.)
Rumor is, by the way, that Trump's now having that meltdown he avoided having during the Sunday debate. He's apparently gone sorta postal over the Republicans who're abandoning his campaign, and he's gonna try to torch them too, along with the Clintons.
I noticed that immediately, as body language played a major role in last night's debate.
I was too busy listening to what they were saying and watching facial expressions.
it's Hillary who has barged into his space, ostensibly to address the audience member from close quarters, but quite likely also to mark territory and demonstrate that she is not intimidated by Trump's swagger.
Probably so. I know some people have mentioned that she was deliberately getting in his space.
But now that I've written him of as a moron, I'm listening more closely to Hillary and she scares me more than ever.
Yeah, I get that. But what I am interested in is, why? I don't recall you ever actually saying what caused your dislike.
Rumor is, by the way, that Trump's now having that meltdown he avoided having during the Sunday debate.
Which just proves Hillary right when she questioned his fitness to be president. I don't think I would like to have his finger on the nuclear trigger. I can't imagine Russia would either, once they actually thought about it.
"I know some people have mentioned that she was deliberately
getting in his space."
Trump did stalk her on occassion, as in walk up and lurk at her back. But, he kept a distance. Somebody'd probably told him about how Bush made Gore look ridiculous for trying to "loom" over him, and how Rick Lazio tried to physically bully Hillary in a Senate debate, and that didn't work either. So, he kept a certain, apparently practiced, distance.
And, she did cut across his path real close, cut him off as it were, although he wasn't actually moving forward when she did it. It was a definite power move. (She'd been workin’ on that move too.)
Thing is, I don't know for sure who started it.
"But what I am interested in is, why? I don't recall you ever actually
saying what caused your dislike."
Maybe he'll try to go for her being a ‘moron’ again; that could turn out to be fun. Gimme somethin’ to ridicule him for goin’ forward as well as make fun of him right here and now.
(I even left a spelling error for him to find--maybe encourage ‘im a bit.)
[Chumpy]: "Hint for the future; trying to sell Hillary as a moron is likewise pretty lame. Lottsa things wrong with Hillary; moron ain't one of them."
And you'd be in a position to judge? ;-)
I take it y'all didn't notice her moronic statements about energy policy in the debate, then? Her inanities about US energy independence were completely extraordinary for someone running for high office.
"Her inanities about US energy independence were completely extraordinary
for someone running for high office."
I noticed that going by. I don't think she specified that it was U.S. energy independence that she was talking about (as opposed to American--specifically North American--specifically NAFTA). I have it on recorder; I could go check I suppose; probably don't need to. You're probably wrong.
Hmmm...... Petes did fade away awfully fast there. And I hadn't even pressed him hard yet. He might not be as much fun on this ‘moron’ front as I'd hoped. He fades away too easy. Well, we'll find out ‘bout that eventually. I reckon I'll have occasion to remind him of it again before the election's done.
Trump has opened his day with Twitter attacks on, not Hillary, not Bill, not even a Democrat, but rather attacks on Paul Ryan. Politico.com Laura Ingraham (Radio-Right-Wing female host) is also taking shots at Paul Ryan for not supporting Trump.
Trump also seems to think he won Sunday's debate. (Public polling is solidly otherwise, although both Brietbart and Drudge polling of their certified right-winger-crazies readers are strongly in support of Trump on that score.)
This has the makings of an amusing news day comin’ up.
Trump unplugged
Donald Trump tweeted Tuesday that the "shackles" had been removed from him, freeing the Republican nominee to campaign the way he chooses, following several days where his words and actions have thrown the GOP into chaos.
This has the makings of an amusing news day comin’ up.
Indeed.
Glenn Beck seems to have had enough of Trump.
"It is not acceptable to ask a moral, dignified man to cast his vote to help elect an immoral man who is absent decency or dignity," Beck wrote on Facebook in reference to Trump. "If the consequence of standing against Trump and for principles is indeed the election of Hillary Clinton, so be it. At least it is a moral, ethical choice."
Surrender and you can eat again
Here’s a U.S. intelligence official’s chilling assessment: “The Syrian regime and its Russian backers have adopted a calculated approach of exacerbating the dire humanitarian situation in Aleppo as a weapon of war. Their apparent goal is to make living conditions in the city so intolerable that the opposition has no choice but to capitulate.”
"Glenn Beck seems to have had enough of Trump."
Surprisingly, Glenn Beck has opposed Trump's candidacy from the start. He and Sean Hannity have had a public falling out over it. Hannity has launched a few twitter storms at Beck over it. Beck said long ago he was not going to vote for Trump, not even. Wasn't gonna vote for Hillary either, but NeverTrump.
@ Lynnette,
PBS's Frontline, two hours tonight on ‘Confronting ISIS’
Huh! I just noticed that in my newspaper TV listings and came on to let you know. I will try to stay awake for it.
[Chumpy]: "I don't think she specified that it was U.S. energy independence that she was talking about (as opposed to American--specifically North American--specifically NAFTA)."
I can see why you'd have difficulties identifying her as a moron. You've been playin' the same kind of stupid card yerself for so long.
[Chumpy]: "I have it on recorder; I could go check I suppose; probably don't need to. You're probably wrong."
Yeah, you do that sonny. Hillary's on record as saying that when her plans for emission controls and leasing restrictions are implemented, there'll be very little fracking left in the country. Given that fracking is almost entirely responsible for the recent US oil production boom -- which is little short of miraculous, but still is nowhere near "energy independence" -- her words are incoherent.
"You've been playin' the same kind of stupid card yerself for so
long."
That's so vague as to be empty. Hell you don't even know what that means.
You got no arguments so you make bullshit noises. Well, we'll just ignore those as the empties that they are and move along. If ya ever come to think ya actually got an argument here, you can get back to me on that when you think of somethin’. ‘Til then…
"Hillary's on record as saying that…"
On record where? This discussion is about her debate performance. To wit:
"I take it y'all didn't notice her moronic statements about energy
policy in the debate, then?"
Petes @ Tue Oct 11, 04:15:00 am, ↑↑ (emphasis added)
Do try to remember where you are, what you started, what you said, what you wrote. You're rambling now. You really don't want to emulate Trump in that too, really, trust me on that one.
And now, my midnight awakening being not actually scheduled, I'll go back to bed for a bit and get me some more zzz's. Give Petes time to come up with some real arguments. (Something he should have done instead of posting that crap he post just a little ways up above.) ‘Til later then…
@ Lynnette,
The PBS piece on Da’esh was worth the time it took. (I went to sleep during, but that was not because the show was boring.)
One thing I've been thinking about that I've not seen written up lately -- Ted Cruz. He no more than reverses and endorses Donald Trump, and alienates his own supporters in the process, than Trump suddenly flames out. If Cruz had stuck to his guns he'd have seemed like prophet next round. Now he's gonna seem like sell-out.
Kellyanne Conway has come back out in public. ABC She was hard to find for a day or so, and Katrina Pierson seemed to be (briefly) the new face of the Trump publicity crew.
[Chumpy]: "This discussion is about her debate performance."
Loath as I am to intrude on whatever crazy discussion is goin' on in y'all's own tiny brain, *I* was discussin' Hillary bein' a moron. It is a material fact that she is in practice against fracking in the US in order to placate the left wing crazies (but she's all for it in other countries, to undermine Russian energy dominance).
Her position is in contradiction to her desire for energy independence, but seein' as she's convinced herself that that's been achieved already, maybe she thinks she doesn't need the frackers.
If y'all need any further help graspin' these basics, just lemme know. Meanwhile I will leave y'all to that tortuous internal monologue that I can see still besets y'all.
"*I* was discussin' Hillary bein' a moron."
No, you were alleging Hillary is a moron, which is a dumbass position for you to be takin’ off the start. Hillary's got a lot of faults; moron ain't among ‘em.
What we were discussing was her debate performance. Except for when you were not. (Perhaps you too could use some simple guidance on simple English. Take note then that a discussion involves more than one person. These little fantasy babbles you sometimes have among your various selves don't actually count as a discussion.)
Tell ya what… Why don't you just give it up, and I'll pretend you haven't been makin’ an ass outta yourself, just let it ride, and you can spend your time at more productive pursuits like maybe answering Lynnette's question from 12:12:00 am above? How's that for a better idea than you running ‘round this circle you've gotten yourself into.
The PBS piece on Da’esh was worth the time it took. (I went to sleep during, but that was not because the show was boring.)
I saw the beginning and the end, as I too went to sleep in the middle of it. They led up to another piece they will be doing on terror in Europe as Daesh fades.
One point made by a Peshmerga commander, who was escorting the anchor, was that the American forces were necessary for progress to be made by the Iraqi military, as well as the Kurds. I would hope that we are realistic in judging what the local forces are really capable of. Last time we got that way wrong.
[Chumpy]: "Take note then that a discussion involves more than one person."
Exactly. Which is why I generally consider our little spats to be more in the nature of a free education for y'all's self. That way y'all aren't expected to contribute anything intelligent. Ya haven't disappointed yet.
As if you had a clue.
I offered you a shot at escaping the hole you dug for yourself. You should have taken it. But, fool that you are, you did not.
So, let's examine your errors regarding Ms. Clinton's position on fracking. We'll start with-- You.Were.Wrong.
First and formost, you're wrong about her having said during the debate that the U.S. has achieved energy independence. Didn't happen, that's not what she said. You're just wrong off the git-go.
(I offered to let you off the hook here, but you're too stupid to know when you should take a generous offer.)
Your move.
Correction for the record…
Your move, dumbass!
(Hint, your best move would be to bluster and bluff and run away--pull a Donald, as it were.)
Likely gonna be awhile ‘fore Petes figures out how to handle findin’ himself in the place he's put himself. I'll look in on this later. Likely gonna be awhile…
[Chumpy]: "Your move."
I take it this is where you hope to drag us all down the rabbit hole to discuss the meaning of "we" as used by Hillary.
LOL. Don't call us, we'll call you... when yer next installment of free education is due. Ciao for now.
(Little hint for y'all if ya really are hell bent on paradin' yer stupidity: Google "Hillary said we were energy independent" and see if CNBC et al. want to argue the meanin' of "we" with y'all ;-)
"…and see if CNBC et al. want to argue the meanin' of ‘we’ with
y'all ;-)"
My argument here is here with you, not with CNBC. Your efforts to redirect the argument will not avail you here. My argument is with you, not with CNBC.
As you have already pulled for special quotation the word 'we’. I suppose we will agree that you have already conceded that she did not specify that the ‘U.S.’ had achieved energy independence, instead using the pronoun ‘we’, and now you want to argue whether ‘we’ means the U.S, in spite of the fact that she didn't actually specify the U.S. (See Lee C. @ Tue Oct 11, 04:27:00 am, supra. ↑↑) You want to argue that she didn't actually say what you claimed, but that she meant what you claimed.
Okay, I'll argue meaning with you then, be happy to go there. The full quote was:
"We are now, for the first time ever, energy independant; we are not
dependent upon the Middle East; but, the Middle East still controls a lot
of the prices. So, the price of oil has been way down."
YouTube (start about 2 min. 55 sec.)
Even if Hillary meant the United States as the referent of the pronoun ‘we’, even if that's true, it's also true that she explained what she meant by ‘energy independant’. She mean that ‘we’ were ‘independant’ of the Middle East. We do not depend upon their oil anymore. What little we buy from the Saudi or other Middle Eastern powers could easily be made up here in North America. We do not depend on them anymore.
So, you have effectively conceded on the wording--we don't need to argue that one anymore. I won that argument. You now want to shift to arguing instead on the meaning. Well, that doesn't work out for ya either. (Ball two.) She's right; we are not dependent on the Middle East anymore. If we're gonna argue meaning, then she's right and you're wrong. She's not being a moron here; you are.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I take it this is where you hope to drag us all down the rabbit hole
to discuss the meaning of ‘we’ as used by Hillary."
Why would I want to do that? My point was that she did not specify the U.S. (Lee C. @ Tue Oct 11, 04:27:00 am, supra. ↑↑) I believe you have conceded that point and now you want to argue the meaning of ‘we’, and you want to blame me for you wantin’ to have that argument. But, I don't need to go there; don't particularly want to go there, just as easy skip it as not.
I'll just call that one now.
Ball three. You're missin’ the strike zone with every pitch.
And now, on to other matters.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I mentioned this before under the notion ‘score one for Anderson Cooper’ (Lee C. @ Mon Oct 10, 02:49:00 pm, ↑↑) Multiple women are coming forward to accuse Donald Trump of gettin’ physical with them over the years. Politico.com This is gonna put ‘im away.
Score a big one for Anderson Cooper--he just got him an orange scalp.
I'll leave the spelling error for you get joyful over, and I'll just go get some coffee (obviously, kid needs more coffee this morning.)
And, just to make the coming week more grim for The Donald, the Clinton campaign has decided that now is the time to insinuate what they can reasonably insinuate about Trump's connections to Wikileaks and to Vladimir Putin. Politico.com This is hardball politics done right; hit ‘em when they're down; keep ‘em down.
Post Script:
Three straight balls and not a strike pitched yet. Your move dumbass.
Surprisingly effective endorsement of Hillary Clinton by the Washington Post.
Includes what I'd call a ‘must see’ NeverTump link for those NeverTrump people still trying to talk family or friends out of voting for Trump. (I am not among those people. I'm just lettin’ my folks go Trumpkins if they want, without my imput.)
Here's an attempt at election science that claims Trump has already lost:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-election-is-over/article/2004848
Yeah, it's been over since Sunday. That was Trump's last chance to turn it around, and he did himself in instead; shot down his last chance.
By the way, Nate Silver at 538 has it at 87% to 13% for Hillary as of now. I was gonna wait ‘til it hit 90% Hillary before I mentioned, it, but, since the subject's come up…
I figure it'll probably hit 90% for Hillary by end of the coming weekend, if it takes that long.
Still, 10% is 10%. That's one in ten. Hitting the correct number on a roulette wheel is one in thirtyseven - yet that probably happens to someone every second of every day somewhere in Las Vegas. Until it's 0% there's a race. And that will only happen after all votes are cast and tallied.
I think it was Pascal that who said that any bet that stood a 10% chance or less should be considered a lost cause unless the only thing you were betting was some spare money.
You, of course, are betting even less than that…
It turns out that the Republican National Committee has so far spent a grand total of $0.00 on advertising for Donald Trump this campaign, and expects to spend almost as much during the remaining 26 days. Politico.com
Obviously, you wouldn't bet more than spare money on a 10% bet unless you're a complete idiot or a gambling addict.
The only monetary "bet" I make (apart from the stockmarket which is also a bet) is about $20 a week on a standing lottery ticket. I do so knowing that realistically I would have to live about 50 lifetimes for the odds to eventually favour me. But I also know that one combination of numbers is drawn each week and mine are as possible as anyone elses. And since them $20 are spare money, and if I DID hit the Jackpot it would mean I'd be forever financially independent - why not?
But in a political race having a 10% chance is no reason to give up. It's a situation to try to come up with something, anything, to increase your chance even if only a little bit and then hope for the best.
"But in a political race having a 10% chance is no reason to give up."
Depends on whether or not one values ones dignity, or expects to be able run again. (I'm thinking especially of Nixon conceding to Kennedy in 1960 on that last one.)
Trump does not value dignity. It has no monetary value he can compute. And this is gonna be his only shot at being the President, so… Yea, he's gonna go scorched-earth on her. Gonna do some serious damage to the Republican Party in the process. (That doesn't figure into his calculations either; he does not care about that.)
On top of which, lotta people think Trump's got his eyes on starting a media empire to the right of FoxNews after this is all over. Pick up the right-wing-crazies whom Fox has stoked all these years but won't go full-Monty for.
On a completely unrelated topic. The King of Thailand died today after a 70 year reign. This will be have a MASSIVE impact on that country. I have gone there 10+ times myself and have friends living and working there. And I know quite a bit, not that I'm an expert, but quite a bit about Thailand
To many this might seem unreal but a great portion of the Thai people, quite possibly a solid majority, loved their king even above immediate family members. I have spoken to thais who rank their king above their own parents, and in Bhuddist culture parents are most revered. Almost every home in Thailand, and EVERY (and using caps I mean every, not most or a majority but every) business, from restaurants to hotels to inner city offices have portraits of the king on their walls.
Him having ruled for 70 years means the vast majority of Thais have no memory of a time when this king was not ruling Thailand.
It's a very polarized country, where politiacal factions have fought it out on the streets every now and then and the military, the supreme force, has had/thought it best to just take over and a Junta has ruled, as it does right now. Throughout all that time ONE institution personified in one person has been able to force negotiations and acted as a hinder to outright violence, the king.
Now anything can happen. The very most unifying factor is gone. The heir apparent is pretty much disliked (and that might be putting it mildly). I foresee a prolonged mourning period first of all, after that anything is a possibility.
Lee: "Depends on whether or not one values ones dignity, or expects to be able run again. (I'm thinking especially of Nixon conceding to Kennedy in 1960 on that last one.)
Trump does not value dignity. It has no monetary value he can compute. And this is gonna be his only shot at being the President, so… Yea, he's gonna go scorched-earth on her. Gonna do some serious damage to the Republican Party in the process. (That doesn't figure into his calculations either; he does not care about that.)"
I agree completely.
Lee: "On top of which, lotta people think Trump's got his eyes on starting a media empire to the right of FoxNews after this is all over. Pick up the right-wing-crazies whom Fox has stoked all these years but won't go full-Monty for."
Wasn't it Michael Moore who voiced that first? I seem to remember him saying so several months ago.
Obviously a guy like Trump, should he lose the election, will still try to monetize his running for it. So yeah, it sounds quite feasible he'd do just that.
Sounds like Joe Biden's gonna havta get his traveling shoes out of the closet.
"Wasn't it Michael Moore who voiced that first?"
I don't know; I ignore Michael Moore whenever possible.
I'd be surprised but not shocked if he were the first to have had that notion.
So, as I well knew, Chumpy did wanna debate the meaning of "we". And he was so desparate for a "win" (which is Chumpy terminology for arguin' black is white until everyone gets too bored to care) that he wouldn't click on the fact checkin' links that I provided. I suppose ya can lead a donkey to water but ya can't make him think ;-)
"So, as I well knew, Chumpy did wanna debate the meaning of ‘we’."
So, your response is to have a full on fantasy attack? Not exactly what I was expecting; I was expecting you to have more self-respect than to go full-on fantasy in public. (You have definitely been takin’ too many lessons from Trump here.)
I think we'll call that a balk; a wind-up without a pitch. Balk counts as a ball. That makes for a base on balls; you lose.
"I was expecting you to have more self-respect than to go full-on
fantasy in public."
I don't know why I was expecting that, but I was; oh, well….
In what is undoubtedly more bad news for Trump, Carter Page has raised his head again. The Trump foreign-policy advisor has published a Russia-friendly Op-Ed in Russia's Sputnik online magazine.
The Trump meltdown continues. NYMagazine and Mother Jones According to Trump, Hillary Clinton is conspiring with international bankers to sell the United States of America to them, and the Evil MainStreamMedia is concealing this fact. As one publication put it, he's gone ‘full Breitbart’.
Surprisingly effective endorsement of Hillary Clinton by the Washington Post.
It was. As I mentioned earlier, I have come to realize that my vote for Hillary Clinton will actually be a vote made because I believe the candidate is the best choice, not the lesser of two evils. The Post editorial has made me even more comfortable with that.
Of the many good comments made in the article I have to say that I found this most amusing.
The Clinton Foundation actually is a charitable foundation, not a vehicle for purchasing portraits of herself.
lol!
Yea, he's gonna go scorched-earth on her. Gonna do some serious damage to the Republican Party in the process. (That doesn't figure into his calculations either; he does not care about that.)
Nor does he calculate what his behavior may do to his children's opinion of him. While they have been dutifully supportive of him, one has to wonder how they really feel about some of these things becoming so out there for all of the public, and their friends and co-workers, to see. I do feel rather sorry for Ivanka in particular.
"I do feel rather sorry for Ivanka in particular."
Perhaps you should look a little deeper into the levels of control she and hubby Jared Kushner have exerted over Donald's campaign to date. She's been knee deep in it all; she's not a bystander to all this.
The The Fiscal Times suggests that Minnesota's version of ObamaCare is in serious trouble. (No, not the Financial Times--this one's different; I'm not actually familiar with this one, but thought you might be interested; although, I do not vouch for their credibility nor impartiality.)
Trump Goes to War, Molly Ball writes up Trump's Florida rally from last night for The Atlantic. Gives a fairly clear picture of how it's gonna go for Trump, and for the rest of us, these last three and a half weeks.
The The Fiscal Times suggests that Minnesota's version of ObamaCare is in serious trouble.
The article focuses on MNSure as being in trouble, but in reality it is the entire individual health insurance market, which includes those with individual policies not bought through the exchange. What we are seeing since the ACA was passed is those people who have in the past not been able to get health coverage because of a pre-existing condition now being accepted with no denial, which was part of the reason for the ACA. But that was how insurance companies used to limit their losses, now they can't do that. What was supposed to make up for this was the requirement of everyone to have some kind of insurance, bringing in the healthier to offset the expense of those who actually had to use their insurance coverage. This has not happened to the extent needed. People are choosing to take the penalty because that is cheaper than buying insurance. I work with two people who are doing just that.
In Minnesota the insurance companies cannot combine revenue derived from the group policy market with that of the individual market. If they could it might help alleviate this problem, since it would create a greater pool of insured.
Unfortunately I am one of those stuck in this situation as I have been buying in the individual market, but not through the exchange, for the past few years. For a while it was cheaper than a group policy would have been for the company I work for. My employer is now looking at that again to see if a small group policy would be the better route since this last round of premium increases.
We started to see this last year with double digit increases in premiums. My monthly premium in 2016 is $461.00 per month. In 2017 it is set to go up to $664.00. Plus, and this was not mentioned in the Fiscal Times article, the Minnesota legislature is allowing the insurance companies who are still selling in the individual market to limit the number of policies they will write. So that means you have to sign up early or you may be stuck with something you won't like very much, such as a policy that doesn't cover your clinic or your hospital. My policy for 2017 would cover my clinic, but not the nearest hospital.
No, this is not a pretty picture at all.
I still believe that everyone should be entitled to health care coverage, especially those who need it the most. The ACA needs some work, yes. But scrapping it entirely isn't the answer.
Oh, I forgot to mention that my policy is an HSA high-deductible policy with a $6,000.00 deductible.
Trump Goes to War, Molly Ball writes up Trump's Florida rally from last night for The Atlantic.
Those people are seriously scary.
"The ACA needs some work, yes."
ObamaCare, the ACA, has needed work from the day it was passed. They passed a draft--one that was meant to get some more work done on it yet. We knew that when they passed it. I don't suppose I need to remind you of the circumstances of that.
But, with the Republicans' maintaining a solid resistance, the needed work, the necessary reform and revision, is impossible. The Republicans want it to fail--fixing it is against their corporate interests.
Obama could never overcome that resistance. Perhaps Hillary is enough of an ‘inside’ politician that she can pull that off--more likely she'll also need a Democratic majority in the face of 100% resistance by the Republicans. We shall have to see ‘bout that after the elections.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Those people are seriously scary."
On the bright side, they are also losing.
They were losing even before Trump's audio tapes became public. (It was the fact that Trump was already losing that helped many Republican office-holders discover they now had an excuse to cut Trump loose.)
Trump came along and highjacked the constituency of right-wing-crazies that FoxNews and Radio-Right-Wing has been cultivating for themselves for almost 30 years now. Turns out that constituency can be hijacked real easy. So, now the folks who've been cultivating them all these years gotta rethink their plan. (Givin’ their voters up to Trump was not the plan; they have discovered a flaw there--i.e. Trump and Trump's yet to be. In addition, their garden wasn't growing--they weren't birthing enough angry old white folks fast enough to keep up with the demand--also a flaw.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
For all those folks who think Obama was wrong about Russia getting itself caught in a ‘quagmire’ in Syria… Putin has just signed legislation authorizing a Russian military expedition to Syria indefinitely, for as long as it takes. TimesOfIndia There will, no doubt, be a whole bunch of neo-con types who're gonna be horribly upset that it's not us who's stuck in that mess, but I'm not among them.
In what appears to be a new item for them, Google now keeps a link to The Donald's newest twitter-storms. Trump twitter
He's had himself a presence on Twitter already this morning. It seems the Evil MainStreamMedia is conspiring with Hillary Clinton to suggest that he's actually done the things he's been caught on tape claiming to have done. And The Donald's been tellin’ his people all ‘bout that Evil Sinister Scheme already this morning.
(Twitter links for the lesser Trumps are also listed further down the page.)
NYT editorial board is writing that they've not sorted out who's gonna govern Mosul and Nineveh Provence yet. And they're on the verge of going in anyway. This is not good news.
We shall have to see ‘bout that after the elections.
Possibly. The individual market here in Minnesota isn't large, about 250,000 people. But there has been a lot of anger towards our legislature in letting this happen. It remains to be seen if we can get people elected who will actually work toward a solution or will just let things implode even further. As you said the Republicans haven't shown they are willing to work with those across the aisle.
Gotta run, I'll have to finish later...
"Rwanda — Nearly 200 nations have reached a deal, announced
Saturday morning after all-night negotiations, to limit the use of
[hydrofluorocarbons,] greenhouse gases far more powerful than carbon
dioxide in a major effort to fight climate change."
Politico.com
That link doesn't work, Lee.
If this is the most recent agreement I have read where it really doesn't go far enough. We already have created a situation with emissions that will alter the climate.
Have you been following the situation off the coast of Yemen?
The destroyer USS Mason fired defensive countermeasures in response to what may have been incoming missiles, a defense official said . The ship had been attacked two times before in the past week, which triggered retaliatory strikes against radars used by Houthi rebels in those attacks. The Pentagon is investigating the incident.
One has to wonder if this is part of the harassment that Iran has been indulging in with our Navy in the recent past. If so, it is rather a dangerous game to play.
*******
I have to admit to somewhat agreeing with you about the Russian involvement in Syria. I much rather see their boots on the ground sinking into the quagmire than ours. But I do still feel sorry for the innocent civilians caught in that crossfire. They have little recourse.
(I kind of naturally followed the Yemen incident back to Syria because of the Iranian connection.)
Btw, Co2-Earth reads 401.01 PPM in Sept. 2016.
Not a good figure to be at.
"That link doesn't work, Lee."
Well, we'll retry and see if we can't get a link that does work.
"We already have created a situation with emissions that will alter the
climate."
It seems so; the beginning of the changes are already upon us. If our measure of the worth of a deal is whether or not it'll avoid global warming, then nothing's gonna be good ‘nuff. That problem is upon us already. It's now a matter of, ‘How bad is it gonna get?’
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Have you been following the situation off the coast of Yemen?"
I have. I suspect that the Iranians are being aggressive and overeager for trouble in Yemen for the same reason Russia is being aggressive across the board just now. They both of them think that we're both distracted by our elections, and that Obama isn't gonna wanna get into a fuss with them in the last few months of his administration; doesn't wanna lock a Clinton administration into his responses; doesn't wanna limit her options. They're probably correct on both counts.
Russia's trying to create facts on the ground that benefit Russia, Iran is more likely trying to create propaganda points to sell to their own population going forward.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"Not a good figure to be at."
I say again, the problem of global warming is on us already.
What crossed my mind when I read that article is that were Trump to be elected, we'd have no more such agreements.
Trump's gone a-twittering again. In addition to some general, categorical denials that he's ever grabbed the pussy, he's also attacking the Saturday Night Live crew for their latest Presidential debate skit (8½ minutes; funny, but not as funny as the first one, although that's not his complaint). This is not particularly smart. He's got bigger problems than a comedy show. He doesn't need to be paying attention to them; he's got bigger problems.
That link worked, Lee. While I am glad they are trying, I wish they had tried 30 or 40 years ago.
If our measure of the worth of a deal is whether or not it'll avoid global warming, then nothing's gonna be good ‘nuff. That problem is upon us already. It's now a matter of, ‘How bad is it gonna get?’
Yes. Perhaps we will do better at adjusting to the changes than I fear. But if part of that adjustment involves the acceptance of massive migrations of people to other areas of the planet that are more habitable, I am thinking my fear may be born out.
What crossed my mind when I read that article is that were Trump to be elected, we'd have no more such agreements.
No, we would not.
Russia's trying to create facts on the ground that benefit Russia, Iran is more likely trying to create propaganda points to sell to their own population going forward.
I don't know why, but I had this passing thought that this might backfire on both of them.
Have a look at your hero:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0agBtEEYTaY
You wanna vote for a psychopath who hate "ordinary americans" and just shill for whatever power who pays her enough - that's on you.
...he's also attacking the Saturday Night Live crew for their latest Presidential debate skit (8½ minutes;...
And he used to like them. Sounds like sour grapes to me. Btw, I agree, I liked the first one better.
"But if part of that adjustment involves the acceptance of massive
migrations of people to other areas of the planet that are more
habitable, I am thinking my fear may be born out."
I'm guessing that your massive migrating hordes will not be stayed by the fact that these ‘more habitable’ areas may already be inhabited?
Where did you get the ‘hate “ordinary Americans”’ part? You just make that up yourself? (I'm also fairly dubious of the self-serving claim that Hillary tried to ‘ban’ that video; it seems fairly crude to me, and I think they just made that up to help with the pretense that folks should take it seriously.)
"I agree, I liked the first one better."
They'll get another shot at it next Saturday; we have another debate scheduled before then.
I'm guessing that your massive migrating hordes will not be stayed by the fact that these ‘more habitable’ areas may already be inhabited?
Hmmm...hasn't seemed to give anyone pause so far.
Iraq has announced the start of the offensive against Da’esh-held Mosul this morning, early morning Iraqi time. ABCNews It is far from certain that the Iraqi government has an effective strategy figured out to hold and to govern Mosul and Nineveh Province.
Trump's all a-twitter again. This time he's trying to convince people there's "large scale voter fraud" going on. And he's ragging on Republican national leaders who've contradicted him. He's not gonna go down quiet like; he's makin’ that pretty clear. His minders, folks like Kellyanne Conway and the like, have given up on keepin’ a muzzle on him and are just collecting their last three weeks pay (assuming, of course, they get paid at the end).
I'm having trouble getting my head around this one; remember these people used to be Republicans just a few months ago.
"At a moment of unmatched post-Cold War hostility between the
U.S. and Russia, nearly half of Donald Trump’s supporters describe
Russia as an ally or a friendly nation, according to a new POLITICO/
Morning Consult poll."
Politico.com
This 41% would be his solid ‘base’, his floor. They're ready to declare the election invalid on nothing more than his claim that it's comin’.
"The American electorate has turned deeply skeptical about the
integrity of the nation's election apparatus, with 41 percent of voters
saying November's election could be "stolen" from Donald Trump due
to widespread voter fraud."
Politico.com
It is somewhat dispiriting that these sheeple constitute such a large percentage of the American voting population. But, on the brighter side, they don't constitute a voting majority; we got ‘em outnumbered already, and they're dyin’ out to boot. The FoxNews/Radio-Right-Wing business model is killing itself off.
@ Lynnette,
Barack Obama is going to pursue redistricting when he leaves office (a noble goal). Daily Beast Let's hope he doesn't just try to replace Republican slanted districting with Democratic slanted districting. Let's hope he goes for something more noble.
According to the New York Times the people of Mosul, including the Sunni majority on the southwest bank of the river, have finally had sufficient time to fully enjoy all the benefits of governance by the Caliph and are now ready to be shed of it. Perhaps that'll make governing the place a little easier in the future.
I checked into an Iraqi blogger from Mosul, who was still blogging in 2014 when Daesh invaded, and she just posted in July 2016 after a two year absence. She didn't say much, just giving a life sign. I will try to remember to check back periodically to see if she has anything to say about those two years.
The other Iraqi blogger from Mosul I followed during the Iraq war went private after we left. So I don't know if she got out before Daesh arrived or not. I know she was trying to go to Germany.
I listened a bit last night to an Iraqi anchor reporting from Baghdad about the coming fight for Mosul. She was all about the Iraqi military retaking the city, with no mention of US involvement, except to imply that our intelligence was wrong on the number of Daesh fighters in other cities that were retaken. While I understand patriotism and wanting to believe that one's own military is perfectly capable, there is something to be said for realism. I got the feeling that there are still people who find it difficult to acknowledge that Iraq would not have been able to fight Daesh alone, and win. If they do not, and we withdraw again, then they may find themselves in the same situation again, especially if they are slow at reconciliation. And until that reconciliation takes place they will be at risk for back sliding.
His minders, folks like Kellyanne Conway and the like, have given up on keepin’ a muzzle on him and are just collecting their last three weeks pay (assuming, of course, they get paid at the end).
That last is a good point. Trump has been known for stiffing people who worked for him.
"At a moment of unmatched post-Cold War hostility between the
U.S. and Russia, nearly half of Donald Trump’s supporters describe
Russia as an ally or a friendly nation, according to a new POLITICO/
Morning Consult poll."
That's truly scary. It just shows that Americans can be snookered just as easily as people in Crimea.
I wanted to put up a new post last night, but it got too late after I figured out what I wanted to do. Oh well, I'll try to get to it tonight.
Lee: "It is somewhat dispiriting that these sheeple constitute such a large percentage of the American voting population. But, on the brighter side, they don't constitute a voting majority; we got ‘em outnumbered already, and they're dyin’ out to boot."
I had a discussion with a friend today who watched both debates and had this to say: "I really wanted to root for Trump, but seeing how utterly incompetent he is I just can't. Never mind the p*ssy grabbing video or other outrageous statements, the man has no knowledge and no answers to anything, just bluster."
I feel kinda the same way as he does. I really, really despice Hillay but Trump is nowhere near enough qualifies for the job of POTUS. I hoped against hope that he would reveal himself to be more qualified but sadly he's gone the other way instead.
At this stage I am ready to admit that Hillary is the better candidate. The ONLY reason I might celebrate a Trump victory now is based on the people it would piss off the most. And shadenfreude is not a good enough reason when it comes down to something as serious as the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.
I am, like my friend, disillusioned about the fact that these two bad options are the ones at hand and that we have to root for a lesser bad but still bad option.
I think a lot of those sticking with Trump do so primarilly to stick their middle finger up at an establishment they see as corrupt and serving the 0.1%. They KNOW Trump is not that great, but they have just had enough and Hillary being the ultimate Washington insider is not an option for them. So with Trump they are stuck.
Post a Comment