giwan
Really??!!
Really you believe Rachel? It does look like an ear bud but hard to be sure.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
IMF would jam it with high frequency sounds to incapacitate her.
See - it works!!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/c...y-early-after-medical-episode/article/2601494
Last edited:
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Now we know what happened to the Marco 2000 unit.
Now we know what happened to the Marco 2000 unit.
Another thought - microwaves.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Congratulations on revealing your ignorance for the umpteenth time. Intra-species altruism is not incompatible with the Theory of Evolution. Altruism is not just a human trait - that behavioral trait has evolved thousands, and probably millions of times.
Nor does it make any sense to assume that "believers" in evolution say that weaker humans *should* be culled from the herd. Science deals in what is and is not, not in what should or should not be.
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Let's agree that Trump is coarse and vulgar. Let's not debate how much or how many of the unsavory personality traits attributed to him by his detractors have a basis in his actual history of behavior or not.
One on particular issue, perhaps the most important issue of our times, I must reluctantly concede that Trump has nailed it spot on, even if he does not articulate it in a manner I would like.
At one time, government was supposed to serve the people, but now, people are servants of the government. There is an interconnected group of elites that control the government for their own profit and convenience. Even if these elites are not "trying" to benefit at the expense of the rest of us, neither do they care very much one way or the other whether we are suffering or well enough off.
Both parties are contribute to and are guilty of this problem; elections seem to be more about which side's elite will benefit from government action; the people are just an afterthought at best.
The phenomenon of regulatory capture[SUP]1[/SUP] is now widely accepted: the only place that regulatory agencies can find the requisite expertise to staff their agencies is from people who work for the companies which they regulate. Over time, the agencies become sympathetic to the companies they are supposed to regulate and are no longer "even handedly" regulating them for the common good.
This type of "capture" has spread throughout DC: the same people move seamlessly between government agencies, lobbying firms, Congressional staff, White House staff, and big businesses that either do business with the government or are supposedly regulated by the government. They've made sure they are all well taken care of, no matter what is happening in the economy, in society, or the world at large.
People decry crony capitalism, which both parties practice equally well: one party's defense contractor subsidy is the other party's green energy subsidy, for just one example.
I can just hear Howard Beale (Peter Finch's character) from Network, speaking out for all the ordinary people: "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!"
We can all wish they chose a more appealing spokesperson to bring their message to DC: there is no denying that the message itself is gaining widespread resonance.
[SUP]1[/SUP] George Stigletz won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on this topic, among others.
Let's agree that Trump is coarse and vulgar. Let's not debate how much or how many of the unsavory personality traits attributed to him by his detractors have a basis in his actual history of behavior or not.
One on particular issue, perhaps the most important issue of our times, I must reluctantly concede that Trump has nailed it spot on, even if he does not articulate it in a manner I would like.
At one time, government was supposed to serve the people, but now, people are servants of the government. There is an interconnected group of elites that control the government for their own profit and convenience. Even if these elites are not "trying" to benefit at the expense of the rest of us, neither do they care very much one way or the other whether we are suffering or well enough off.
Both parties are contribute to and are guilty of this problem; elections seem to be more about which side's elite will benefit from government action; the people are just an afterthought at best.
The phenomenon of regulatory capture[SUP]1[/SUP] is now widely accepted: the only place that regulatory agencies can find the requisite expertise to staff their agencies is from people who work for the companies which they regulate. Over time, the agencies become sympathetic to the companies they are supposed to regulate and are no longer "even handedly" regulating them for the common good.
This type of "capture" has spread throughout DC: the same people move seamlessly between government agencies, lobbying firms, Congressional staff, White House staff, and big businesses that either do business with the government or are supposedly regulated by the government. They've made sure they are all well taken care of, no matter what is happening in the economy, in society, or the world at large.
People decry crony capitalism, which both parties practice equally well: one party's defense contractor subsidy is the other party's green energy subsidy, for just one example.
I can just hear Howard Beale (Peter Finch's character) from Network, speaking out for all the ordinary people: "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more!"
We can all wish they chose a more appealing spokesperson to bring their message to DC: there is no denying that the message itself is gaining widespread resonance.
[SUP]1[/SUP] George Stigletz won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on this topic, among others.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
That's not what I hear when I listen to Trump. That's what I heard when I listened to Bernie.
When I listen to Trump, I hear him making promises to expand the power of government in numerous despicable, unconstitutional ways.
That's not what I hear when I listen to Trump. That's what I heard when I listened to Bernie.
When I listen to Trump, I hear him making promises to expand the power of government in numerous despicable, unconstitutional ways.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
FreshFish simply wants his side to win, and he resorts to every device and feint to advance that. He has no other priority or morality. Ignore him, he is either a shill or a child.
Trump voices the age-old promise: "I know you are hurt. I will hurt the person you blame." It's a cynical method of turning others' panic and hopelessness into one's own power. The proper response is to call him out, be rational, be clear-headed, and work to stop him. Plato argues that it is not unjust to refrain from giving a weapon back to someone who is insane.
We are in a house with a rotten floor and a rabid dog. The first job is to put the dog down. Then we can fix the floor.
FreshFish simply wants his side to win, and he resorts to every device and feint to advance that. He has no other priority or morality. Ignore him, he is either a shill or a child.
Trump voices the age-old promise: "I know you are hurt. I will hurt the person you blame." It's a cynical method of turning others' panic and hopelessness into one's own power. The proper response is to call him out, be rational, be clear-headed, and work to stop him. Plato argues that it is not unjust to refrain from giving a weapon back to someone who is insane.
We are in a house with a rotten floor and a rabid dog. The first job is to put the dog down. Then we can fix the floor.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
We are so very lucky to have your superior wisdom available to instruct the rest of us poor misguided souls.
I don't have a "side" in this race at all. No party and no candidate represents what I stand for.
I am disgusted by Clinton's moral depravity and repelled by Trump's bombast.
With Clinton we know we'll get more of the same old, same old.
Who knows what might happen with Trump?
100% certainty of loss is worse than 95% certainty of loss. Neither is very appealing.
yet you don't care at all, eh?
We are so very lucky to have your superior wisdom available to instruct the rest of us poor misguided souls.I don't have a "side" in this race at all. No party and no candidate represents what I stand for.
I am disgusted by Clinton's moral depravity and repelled by Trump's bombast.
With Clinton we know we'll get more of the same old, same old.
Who knows what might happen with Trump?
100% certainty of loss is worse than 95% certainty of loss. Neither is very appealing.
Last edited:
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Apparently other people do agree that Trump's message resonates: no one has disagreed. they have only said they despise the messenger.
I find it hard to imagine how anyone with eyes and a brain could disagree that vested special interests have hijacked our government and are using it for their own self-enrichment at the expense of the rest of us.
what to do about it, or who to do it, is a different matter. it seems that all of the disagreement comes on this latter point, none on the former.
Apparently other people do agree that Trump's message resonates: no one has disagreed. they have only said they despise the messenger.
I find it hard to imagine how anyone with eyes and a brain could disagree that vested special interests have hijacked our government and are using it for their own self-enrichment at the expense of the rest of us.
what to do about it, or who to do it, is a different matter. it seems that all of the disagreement comes on this latter point, none on the former.
Last edited:
FadeToBlack&Gold
Microlot Marxist
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
It's telling that Fish is repelled by Trump's "bombast", rather than Trump's blatant appeal to racism, or his well-established cheating of business partners through bankruptcy, or his habit of evading taxes, or his serial philandering.
And yet, it's Hillary who is the "morally depraved" candidate in his mind.
It's telling that Fish is repelled by Trump's "bombast", rather than Trump's blatant appeal to racism, or his well-established cheating of business partners through bankruptcy, or his habit of evading taxes, or his serial philandering.
And yet, it's Hillary who is the "morally depraved" candidate in his mind.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Trump wants to change the status quo. I can agree with him on that.
His methods are friggin' scary. But change is change, so many are willing to pay whatever price it is to change the political machine, which I don't agree with.
Basically put, he's out to f* things up. But his way isn't a good way. It's just a different way. And people are willing to do that. I'm all about f*ing things up, b/c we know what we're going to get with Hill. I just don't like how Trump is going about it.
Trump wants to change the status quo. I can agree with him on that.
His methods are friggin' scary. But change is change, so many are willing to pay whatever price it is to change the political machine, which I don't agree with.
Basically put, he's out to f* things up. But his way isn't a good way. It's just a different way. And people are willing to do that. I'm all about f*ing things up, b/c we know what we're going to get with Hill. I just don't like how Trump is going about it.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
The same old political machine we've seen from both parties for generations. Some false promises, sprinkled with some waffling (depending on which way the wind blows, and which type of money comes in from whatever industries), etc.
I've said before, as a political machine, she's outstanding. Can work the system, can somehow maneuver around any scandal, all that jazz. It's a difficult road, and she's done it. However.....many people (like me) are sick of that sh*. If someone can come along and somehow change it, yes! Unfortunately, this time around, it happens to be Trump.
And btw, you can remove your lips from Hill's arse anytime now.
The same old political machine we've seen from both parties for generations. Some false promises, sprinkled with some waffling (depending on which way the wind blows, and which type of money comes in from whatever industries), etc.
I've said before, as a political machine, she's outstanding. Can work the system, can somehow maneuver around any scandal, all that jazz. It's a difficult road, and she's done it. However.....many people (like me) are sick of that sh*. If someone can come along and somehow change it, yes! Unfortunately, this time around, it happens to be Trump.
And btw, you can remove your lips from Hill's arse anytime now.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
One last thought, I'll be missing from here for a couple days:
The "us" vs "them" is tiring. It should be "we." WE all want improvements to this country. We have differing ideas on how to go about it. So let's talk and find a middle ground, rather than an "either/or" scenario. Let's compromise. If someone has a differing opinion, find the reasons why. It may offend someone, sure, but listen to them. Everyone may still walk away and disagree with the other's opinion, but they may come to an understanding of why they feel that way.
To relate it to hockey, it's the obnoxious fan vs the hated but respectable fan. Right now, the majority of both parties are obnoxious. Let's get the hated but respectable fans in there, and change the mood. Discuss, debate, even have a heated argument, then go share a beer afterwards. *shrug*
One last thought, I'll be missing from here for a couple days:
The "us" vs "them" is tiring. It should be "we." WE all want improvements to this country. We have differing ideas on how to go about it. So let's talk and find a middle ground, rather than an "either/or" scenario. Let's compromise. If someone has a differing opinion, find the reasons why. It may offend someone, sure, but listen to them. Everyone may still walk away and disagree with the other's opinion, but they may come to an understanding of why they feel that way.
To relate it to hockey, it's the obnoxious fan vs the hated but respectable fan. Right now, the majority of both parties are obnoxious. Let's get the hated but respectable fans in there, and change the mood. Discuss, debate, even have a heated argument, then go share a beer afterwards. *shrug*
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Of course I agree with your middle paragraph. Duh. I also agree with your last paragraph - lots of serious, intelligent people disagree on what to do about it. However, your first paragraph jumps to the conclusion that trying to "do something about it" is Trump's message. It's not. Trump's message is hate, usurping power, and bullying people weaker than himself or his country. He in no way, shape, or form cares a whit about whether special interests have too much influence in DC. I literally have no recollection of him ever saying anything about that. I do, however, remember his pandering to the NRA, etc.
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
With the first debate coming up on Monday, what does each candidate need to do to "win" that debate?
It seems to me that, for Ms Clinton, she needs to put forward a positive reason to vote for her, and not merely against Trump. it seems like most of her campaign so far has been variations on, "Trump is too scary to give access to the nuclear codes." or "his campaign is too 'dark'." [aside: is she running for President, or is she acting as Gary Johnson's campaign manager: it's not enough to drive people away from Trump; you also need to get them to vote for you too.]
For Trump, it seems that he needs to display a cool head, and a command of facts, figures, and nuances of issues. He's done pretty well lately reading from a teleprompter; how well will he manage when he has to think on his feet?
It's been suggested that Clinton should try to "bait" Trump into losing his cool. I'm not sure that's a good strategy for her: suppose she tries it, and it doesn't work...does she then become frustrated and lose her cool??
Even if that is not the case, her early campaign has been "it's time for a woman to be President" or "now it's her turn, finally." there's been plenty of rhetoric from people saying "she's the most qualified person ever to run for President ever" that then provides no descriptions of any qualifications whatsoever other than that she was Secretary of State. Given the state of the world these days, that may or may not be a good qualification, she needs to expand on that with some detail.
Trump can attack her record as Secretary of State: how did that "reset" with Russia work out, for the Crimea and for Ukraine? How exactly was it that some youtube video inspired a spontaneous demonstration in Libya? she needs to be prepared either to respond (not what I would recommend however) or how to talk past it in a way that seems responsive while it is actually changing the subject.
With the first debate coming up on Monday, what does each candidate need to do to "win" that debate?
It seems to me that, for Ms Clinton, she needs to put forward a positive reason to vote for her, and not merely against Trump. it seems like most of her campaign so far has been variations on, "Trump is too scary to give access to the nuclear codes." or "his campaign is too 'dark'." [aside: is she running for President, or is she acting as Gary Johnson's campaign manager: it's not enough to drive people away from Trump; you also need to get them to vote for you too.]
For Trump, it seems that he needs to display a cool head, and a command of facts, figures, and nuances of issues. He's done pretty well lately reading from a teleprompter; how well will he manage when he has to think on his feet?
It's been suggested that Clinton should try to "bait" Trump into losing his cool. I'm not sure that's a good strategy for her: suppose she tries it, and it doesn't work...does she then become frustrated and lose her cool??
Even if that is not the case, her early campaign has been "it's time for a woman to be President" or "now it's her turn, finally." there's been plenty of rhetoric from people saying "she's the most qualified person ever to run for President ever" that then provides no descriptions of any qualifications whatsoever other than that she was Secretary of State. Given the state of the world these days, that may or may not be a good qualification, she needs to expand on that with some detail.
Trump can attack her record as Secretary of State: how did that "reset" with Russia work out, for the Crimea and for Ukraine? How exactly was it that some youtube video inspired a spontaneous demonstration in Libya? she needs to be prepared either to respond (not what I would recommend however) or how to talk past it in a way that seems responsive while it is actually changing the subject.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
You had me until the second to last paragraph. Everything before that was eerily agreeable. The second to last paragraph is gibberish. The last paragraph has a few good points and is tinseled with "BENGHAZI!!!!!!!" gibberish.
Though, if trump screams BENGHAAAAAZZZZZIIIIIII and Clinton doesn't have a good answer, that would be her biggest gaffe.
You had me until the second to last paragraph. Everything before that was eerily agreeable. The second to last paragraph is gibberish. The last paragraph has a few good points and is tinseled with "BENGHAZI!!!!!!!" gibberish.
Though, if trump screams BENGHAAAAAZZZZZIIIIIII and Clinton doesn't have a good answer, that would be her biggest gaffe.
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Re: An Experiment: A Literal Political Thread
Trump needs to just keep on doing what he's doing, it's working. Keep turning the subject back to how wonderful he is and how terrible everybody else is. When he's talking about the others he has a free pass because who doesn't like to complain about the government or talk about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket? He has an easy path -- just keep up the same act that he's been doing for 40 years. I don't see how he can fail, frankly. He only has to be himself.
Hillary -- this path is hard. She can't bury him with facts -- Gore buried Dubya with facts and we saw what good that did him. She can't bait him -- he's perpetually baited, and people like it. Her best bet is to do to him what Christie did to Rubio. It can be done because Trump is every bit as scripted as Rubio, his "script" just happens to be free form. But it always comes back to the simple message: they are either stupid or cheating you. I'm the best and I don't need to cheat you, I'm rich. Hillary needs a way to do this to Trump. Take his script from him and reframe it as the lying, evading scam it is.
How do you beat a flim flam man? Take his words away.
Trump needs to just keep on doing what he's doing, it's working. Keep turning the subject back to how wonderful he is and how terrible everybody else is. When he's talking about the others he has a free pass because who doesn't like to complain about the government or talk about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket? He has an easy path -- just keep up the same act that he's been doing for 40 years. I don't see how he can fail, frankly. He only has to be himself.
Hillary -- this path is hard. She can't bury him with facts -- Gore buried Dubya with facts and we saw what good that did him. She can't bait him -- he's perpetually baited, and people like it. Her best bet is to do to him what Christie did to Rubio. It can be done because Trump is every bit as scripted as Rubio, his "script" just happens to be free form. But it always comes back to the simple message: they are either stupid or cheating you. I'm the best and I don't need to cheat you, I'm rich. Hillary needs a way to do this to Trump. Take his script from him and reframe it as the lying, evading scam it is.
How do you beat a flim flam man? Take his words away.
Last edited: