I am not overly interested.... I'm not a Hillary supporter. She is light years better than Trump, but I'm not a supporter (although it will be good to have a woman become POTUS for the first time, no matter who the woman is. That is a really big deal).
PJ, I just can't get behind the mindset of the bolded part.
Sure it'd be a milestone, much as Obama was, but...no matter who?
Solely because of their gender?
Nope. And not limiting this to the POTUS, but I'll take skills and qualifications and character anyday over skin color, sex, race, etc.
What do you mean? It's not complicated. Any woman getting to be POTUS is a major step forward for female equality. That's it. That is really separate from who the woman is. Just remove the names from the story, get Hillary out of your mind, and think about how huge it will be that a woman is the POTUS in terms of female equality. Just like it was a big deal that a black man became POTUS. The issue itself is separate from the individuals involved. I did not even hint that I think an person's gender (or ethnicity) should be the only reason someone wins or should be the only reason someone votes for a candidate. Although of COURSE women or minorities are going to factor that in, because that candidate would likely represent them better in certain ways. What, white men have been doing it since the beginning, so this isn't exactly a new concept, lol.
Right, but the issue should, to me, be kept separate from who is qualified. What you wrote seems tantamount to vote any woman in, simply by virtue of gender.
I don't give a damn that she has a vagina.
Just do what you say you'll do, and do it well.
Simple, no?
But that isn't what I said or suggested. Never even hinted at it.
The part I bolded - that was pretty clear to me unless you want to expound? Maybe I misinterpreted but it sounded like it's more important to have a woman in office because she's a woman, no matter whom vs someone worthy of it.
I am not overly interested.... I'm not a Hillary supporter. She is light years better than Trump, but I'm not a supporter (although it will be good to have a woman become POTUS for the first time, no matter who the woman is. That is a really big deal).
PJ, I just can't get behind the mindset of the bolded part.
Sure it'd be a milestone, much as Obama was, but...no matter who?
Solely because of their gender?
Nope. And not limiting this to the POTUS, but I'll take skills and qualifications and character anyday over skin color, sex, race, etc.
What do you mean? It's not complicated. Any woman getting to be POTUS is a major step forward for female equality. That's it. That is really separate from who the woman is. Just remove the names from the story, get Hillary out of your mind, and think about how huge it will be that a woman is the POTUS in terms of female equality. Just like it was a big deal that a black man became POTUS. The issue itself is separate from the individuals involved. I did not even hint that I think an person's gender (or ethnicity) should be the only reason someone wins or should be the only reason someone votes for a candidate. Although of COURSE women or minorities are going to factor that in, because that candidate would likely represent them better in certain ways. What, white men have been doing it since the beginning, so this isn't exactly a new concept, lol.
Right, but the issue should, to me, be kept separate from who is qualified. What you wrote seems tantamount to vote any woman in, simply by virtue of gender.
I don't give a damn that she has a vagina.
Just do what you say you'll do, and do it well.
Simple, no?
But that isn't what I said or suggested. Never even hinted at it.
The part I bolded - that was pretty clear to me unless you want to expound? Maybe I misinterpreted but it sounded like it's more important to have a woman in office because she's a woman, no matter whom vs someone worthy of it.
You misinterpreted it. PJSoul made it clear what she was getting at.
At the behest of Rep. Tom Feeney, in September 2000, he was asked to write a program for a touchscreen voting machine that would make it possible to change the results of an election undetectably.[10] Curtis assumed initially that this effort was aimed at detecting Democratic fraud, but later learned that it was intended to benefit the Republican Party.
^^^: are you attempting to make the Dem party look innocent?
Curtis doesn't "claim" it happens like you said in the Bernie thread, he admits it does happen and he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.
Anyone with half a brain knows the election process is rigged by a cabal made up of the RNC, DNC, mainstream media, the old white rich guys who meet in bohemian grove, and The Rothschilds
^^^: are you attempting to make the Dem party look innocent?
Curtis doesn't "claim" it happens like you said in the Bernie thread, he admits it does happen and he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.
Anyone with half a brain knows the election process is rigged by a cabal made up of the RNC, DNC, mainstream media, the old white rich guys who meet in bohemian grove, and The Rothschilds
Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".
The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.
Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.
I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".
The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.
Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".
The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.
You didn't watch it then. Because as I already pointed out and the court video points out, he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.
Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.
I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.
Well, that sentence stood out to me (obviously!)...guess I'm a bit sensitive when support - or denial - is given based on gender, but fair enough.
Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.
I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.
Well, that sentence stood out to me (obviously!)...guess I'm a bit sensitive when support - or denial - is given based on gender, but fair enough.
Can't we just agree on the dreaminess of Marc Singer?
Maybe so, maybe not. The language seemed clear to me but I get that the term is relative.
I feel like you are totally ignoring all the words except the one sentence. If you read it all together, you can see pretty clearly that I was specifically not saying what you seem to think i was saying.
Well, that sentence stood out to me (obviously!)...guess I'm a bit sensitive when support - or denial - is given based on gender, but fair enough.
Can't we just agree on the dreaminess of Marc Singer?
Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".
The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.
Thanks for verifying the validity of a video that a "Programmer under oath admits computers rig elections" by saying he's "claiming", "alledges".
The title is a bit of a mischaracterization, the gentleman never asserts definitively with personal knowledge that such programs were used, only that it is possible and he would make the assumption in cases where there was a serious discrepancy.
You didn't watch it then. Because as I already pointed out and the court video points out, he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.
But let's continue to argue facts...
I watched the video in entirety, he programmed for Feeney, he didn't implement it. He only has assumptions and conditional statements, they are bad enough in their own right, there's no reason to go above and beyond the truth with mischaracterizations.
I wonder if it'll be possible to tell where the emails actually came from. There was discussion today that the State Dept was hacked but not Secretary Clinton's server. Since her emails had cc names, all kinds of people were on her emails. We'll see.
I wonder if it'll be possible to tell where the emails actually came from. There was discussion today that the State Dept was hacked but not Secretary Clinton's server. Since her emails had cc names, all kinds of people were on her emails. We'll see.
The IG report said the same thing. The State Dept. was hacked. Her private server was not. Everyone screaming afoul about the private server fail to acknowledge that her private email was more secure than the government accounts. Sigh. I really wish people would read the IG report and quit making up stories because the real facts don't fit their fairy tale.
I just read the comments section on the posted breitbart article and the WikiLeak link contained within. I just don't get people who are obsessed with their hatred of public figures. They are so obsessed that they create entirely alternative storylines full of these larger-than-life characters. Killary, Hitlary, last week one C-span viewer called her "the most murderous, treasonous person walking the planet." Really?!! The most?!!
Where does that kind of deeply held belief come from? I swear, I don't even hold that much anger for the people I know personally who have deeply wronged me, former friends, family who have seriously violated my personal trust over issues that actually impact me. How is it possible to carry around so much hate and anger for someone who doesn't even matter all that much to our own daily lives?
And how can it be good for our national soul to have such destructive language being vomited all over the Internet? Why do we wonder that people blow each other's brains out when they spend their days filling their brains wirh such vitriol?
A fan favorite Avett Brothers lyric: "Your life doesn't change by the man that's elected." It really doesn't. The earth will continue to revolve and evolve, no matter what Clinton's emails say. Knowing what's in those dang emails will not change any of our lives, not one bit. Why do I feel like nobody understands this? Or even cares? Why is it so important to believe that Hillary Clinton is the most murderous, treasonous person walking the planet . . . and the emails will reveal this to be true?
I like that article a lot. Two thumbs up. I especially agree with the scandals/accusations/intent to hurt her credibility part. I've never seen a Hillary perp walk so it's all just politics to me. I've been watching it for decades and all that crying wolf got old a long time ago. I think she'll make a fine president, much better than a fear monger. Being a leader does mean uniting us, not dividing us. Thanks for posting that.
Comments
Curtis specifically alleged that:
At the behest of Rep. Tom Feeney, in September 2000, he was asked to write a program for a touchscreen voting machine that would make it possible to change the results of an election undetectably.[10] Curtis assumed initially that this effort was aimed at detecting Democratic fraud, but later learned that it was intended to benefit the Republican Party.
^^^: are you attempting to make the Dem party look innocent?
Curtis doesn't "claim" it happens like you said in the Bernie thread, he admits it does happen and he did it for Tom Feeney in 2000.
Anyone with half a brain knows the election process is rigged by a cabal made up of the RNC, DNC, mainstream media, the old white rich guys who meet in bohemian grove, and The Rothschilds
But let's continue to argue facts...
(needing laughs here this morning, so thank you)
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2016/06/14/sources-russia-intercepted-hillarys-private-emails/
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/politics/district-of-columbia-primary-results/index.html
Where does that kind of deeply held belief come from? I swear, I don't even hold that much anger for the people I know personally who have deeply wronged me, former friends, family who have seriously violated my personal trust over issues that actually impact me. How is it possible to carry around so much hate and anger for someone who doesn't even matter all that much to our own daily lives?
And how can it be good for our national soul to have such destructive language being vomited all over the Internet? Why do we wonder that people blow each other's brains out when they spend their days filling their brains wirh such vitriol?
A fan favorite Avett Brothers lyric: "Your life doesn't change by the man that's elected." It really doesn't. The earth will continue to revolve and evolve, no matter what Clinton's emails say. Knowing what's in those dang emails will not change any of our lives, not one bit. Why do I feel like nobody understands this? Or even cares? Why is it so important to believe that Hillary Clinton is the most murderous, treasonous person walking the planet . . . and the emails will reveal this to be true?
I have a lot of questions these days. No answers.
Interesting read....
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana