mav1234

HUDDLER
  • Content count

    17,955
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,102 Awesome

About mav1234

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 12/20/1984
  1. An Inexcusable, Willful Disregard for the Rules

    How about you actually look at their methodology and decide for yourself if it constitutes an unbias and equivalent rating system between candidates? Therein lies the problem with this methodology. By only checking "newsworthy and significant ones", it provides a useful fact checking service to general readers interested in knowing if a given statement is "true" or "false (although I take issue with many of their ratings in-between, as they are ubersubjective). When you then take this and branch out to the idea of comparing candidates between one another directly based on ratings, this is a MASSIVE mistake. Donald Trump is undoubtedly speaking far more falsehoods than Clinton. He always has and he always will, because he is a lying douchenozzle. To say that she is a "truthful candidate" depends on ones evaluation of "truthful." Sure, perhaps in statements like 'When it comes to fighting terrorism, "Another thing we know that does not work, based on lots of empirical evidence, is torture."', she gets a True and she moves on up because of it, but what about statements on trade? (Flip-Flop) What about evaluating the Reagen legacy on AIDS? (Not significant enough to warrant evaluation) What about on whether she got clearance from the appropriate people in the Statement Department to hide her personal correspondence err I mean to use a personal email server? (Not reviewed yet... will it be? Who knows) I've never heard anyone say they don't like her because she doesn't knit, nor because "all she cares about in politics." While I am sure there are people that don't like her because she isn't pretty or feminine (wait, really?), I've never heard that, and I am surrounded by people that dislike her. The people that dislike her dislike the political establishment - which she is. This seems to be something a lot of Hillary's supporters are struggling with. Just because we voted Democrat in the past doesn't mean we like the fuging party, or its establishment. My problems with Hillary are her own making. I don't trust what she says because I don't think she has a governing ideology outside of getting votes. It concerns me that she went to such great efforts to hide her correspondence. I don't believe her for a second on most of her recent position swaps, especially on trade, where she just keeps flip flopping on it over and over (ofc she isn't unique there). I wonder how in touch she is with what most Americans go through, given her classification of being broke when leaving the White House. I feel she says anything for political gain sometimes, which while typical of a politician, isn't what I want (see her statement on her grandparents all being immigrants). She basically railed against a single payer health system because it would "destroy Obamacare" and claimed such systems would allow Republican governors to take away medicaid. Ugh. Anyway, the point is this: Is she getting it harder than other politicians? Probably... But she is a Clinton, and to act like she hasn't benefited from that fact throughout her political life is crazysauce, as well. And despite all that... is she a better option than Trump? Yep...
  2. An Inexcusable, Willful Disregard for the Rules

    poo like this makes me angry.. you can't compare like this... it is flawed... they dont' review every statement or even an equal proportion from all candidates yes trump lies more than hillary, but come on. edit: my opinion of hillary is irrelevant so it is removed... but it is a dangerous thing to compare their ratings like this.
  3. John Miller

    Clinton is another Clinton... which is more or less how Obama was. I don't like Hillary and I don't plan on voting for her, but Trump is an unknown and that concerns me more than the fact Hillary seems to hold whatever opinion is polling highest in the group she is trying to win votes from.
  4. so if you don't look like a traditional gendered stereotype you should start carrying around your birth certificate. come on libs this is common sense, think of the damage she could have done to the other patrons of that rest room without us knowing for sure she had a vagina
  5. "Keep Our State Straight"

    what the actual fug please tell me there is some kind of context missing from this statement
  6. Current projection: Hillary to win NY

    I don't really know if Hillary and Trump do have the same views on Government, because I have no fuging clue what Trump actually believes, haha. Fair point though - Hillary and mainstream Republicans have generally similar views on corporations.
  7. Current projection: Hillary to win NY

    stop complaining and vote republican! wooo yeah! ...also being able to have date nights is not a uniquely american experience.
  8. Economic Freedom Zones

    Prevent exploitation by large corporations (how?) and this sounds like a good idea. But... how? Maybe prevent a business from receiving the tax break incentives if their employees in the region do not meet some proportion of their total workforce. This is definitely micro-Keynesian and could have some real benefits at revitalizing areas.
  9. Current projection: Hillary to win NY

    Sometimes you are so obtuse. You're telling someone "just to leave and find a country to fit his standard" if they don't like the US. One, this is as much his country as yours, and he has a right to try to affect change if he wishes. Two, if he is going to "just leave" the US, he is obviously going to pick a country that fits his ideology, which would lead him likely to some European countries, Canada, Australia; all of which are incredibly difficult to emigrate to. As you say, he should "find a country to fit his standard." Why not just participate in a process to make America that country?
  10. Harriet Tubman

    there are several definitions of a genocide, many of which apply quite strongly to what the US Gov't did to Native Americans, but it may be that the Trail of Tears specifically is "ethnic cleansing". The ICC's Rome Statue defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." Most other definitions require that the actor have political or legal authority in such a way that the action taken is "systematic", that is, through the power of the social or political structures in place. The intent aspect is where it gets difficult to delineate if what the US Gov't did would always be genocide. At times, there was definite intent, but at others, it may have simply been complete disregard for the well-being of other humans. See this and more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_definitions I don't think we should burn Jackson in effigy, though, and I think it is important to understand the context of the day so we can learn from it and never allow it to happen again, as you say.
  11. Current projection: Hillary to win NY

    You can't "always move", actually. It can be quite difficult to emigrate from the United States if you are not wealthy.
  12. Who built Stonehenge?

    The cuts aren't even that precise. They aren't perfect 90 degree angles and most have seveal degrees of variance... They even show it briefly in the show. On top of that, the show is just wrong on a number of areas and downright deceitful and misleading. It fails to mention that virtually every stone at Pumapunku had marks from being dragged, including many with grooves where ropes were. There's a really good response with some literature and archaeologists quotes in response to that show that's worth checking out, but I'm on my phone so it'd be tough to find. The biggest thing that irritated me was the apparent assumption that ancient cultures were full of dimwits, rather than the archetypes with complex metal tools that they were. I watched that episode and it pissed me off that they claimed that a "primitive people" couldn't possibly figure out how to chisel boxy shaped corners that approximated right angles. Blech. Or when they freak out about people without written language being able to plan... come on, these people communicated verbally and with pictures and symbols. Sorry,don't take my response personally... I just felt insulted by that episode haha. This isn't to say I don't think there could be aliens, I just don't see evidence in ancient stone structures..
  13. Who built Stonehenge?

    Eh... I always looked at it more thst these were logical constructs if one had a desire to build monuments that would tower over an area, given the limitations on building materials of the time.
  14. Josh's response to the AP

    Doubt he had any idea this was coming. I don't think he was a legit hold out worry, he just thought it'd give him leverage to get a contract here, which is what he wanted. He isn't coming back.
  15. Panthers rescind Norman's franchise tag...

    The team is unquestionably worse without him. Letting him walk at this point does nothing but save the team money. Disappointed is a mild understatement.