Random Politics & Religion #08

You can't just declare something a fact because you like it. It is a complete distraction away from the fixed election as detailed in the emails that were never supposed to see the light of day. Vic is being a good little foot soldier running with the lie.

I believe facts are overrated, and the fact that I believe that is true.

Jk, that's a false statement.

what if putin IS supporting trump, but ONLY to make trump look bad cause he's illuminati with hillary?!

Comey casually dismantled every single one of the Republicans talking points in that hearing, but you'll dismiss his authority because it's not what you want to hear. Thankfully the universe doesn't operate on what you feel is true.

There is no proof of the russian hackers claim.
Regardless though, it was some criminals.
And regardless of that too, it doesn't change the content. So I'm not sure why we even waste time discussing who did it, that's just a matter for the fbi.

While this way of thinking is the most moral, the issue is that its not possible. Creating a Utopia is only something you would see in a post scarcity society, which we're more than a century of hard work from ever having. In other words, a world without borders, hunger, thirst, or homelessness is not currently attainable. Due to that, the "rules of nature" are in effect, which demand there will always be haves and have nots.

Its not a question of whats right, but what is possible. You wouldn't be able to tear down all the nations, globalize the world, and have it equal right now. There's no such thing as a free lunch: someone, somewhere, someway, would have to pay for it until a better system is in effect.

Until we have the technology and resources to warrant such an action, any sort of approach that direction is completely meaniningless and brings wasted effort. For now, people should retain their nations, their identity, and instead continue to prepare for the day that post scarcity can be made reality.

Pleebo, you're the king of hearing what you want. When a cop lets you go with a warning for going 85 in a 65, it doesn't mean you didn't break the law. No matter how much you feel it to be.

Blue lives matter, but black-and-white lives are suspect because down with the federal government, amirite?

Badass? Vicious was a douchenozzle.

Doesn't happen. >:(

Does if you're cute!

Sometimes some men's instinct to be nice to women runs counter to objectivity.

This doesn't help me.

Speed limits are arbitrary and worthless. >:(

Of course they are arbitrary, but sure aren't worthless.
It worries me a lot when I see idiots going 100 km/h in the middle of town.

Yeah. And Italian city streets are wee-tiny-bad from what I've seen. Very. narrow. (Please note: my experience is limited to Top Gear visits to your country.)

I'm okay with them in city limits and on two-lane rural/side roads.

But on four-lane highways and the like they're really, really irritating.

You could be a lawyer.

"Posted speed limits are suggestions unless the sign indicates maximum"

They are for the most part yeah.

Actually, for another semester in school I could add "pre-law" to my undergrad and then embark into the glorious debt incurred by law school!

...pass, though.

I just remember the one episode where one of the guys is driving what I believe is even an Italian sports car down something that's labeled as a "street" and he's got barely a few inches on each side of the car between buildings.

And some of those streets are two-way too.. <_<

Not only does it not happen it's not even an accurate analogy...

Screaming Benghazi 30 times a day didn't work so we are on to this now all the time... Sigh...

FBI if you are reading this please ignore it !

Actually, some of the Republican talking points are that she is incompetent and untrustworthy. Not only did Comey not dismantle those, he did an excellent job of actually building them up.

I don't know why people are ignoring the law, especially Comey.

Clinton did break the law and intent has nothing to do with it.

Specifically, §3544 (a)(1)(A)(i), (a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(1)(B)(ii), and (a)(1)(C)


Not only is that a blatant disregard for the law, but also shows sever ineptitude when it comes to directing and handling secure information.

She was in charge of government information for crying out loud. How can anyone defend her for her "extreme carelessness"?

Oh, and I would like to see people say she did not break the law, when it clearly is shown above that she did.

Thanks to the internet, we have become more divided as a species than ever before.

No we haven't.

Stop going to shitty gossip sites and reading comment sections where the worst dregs of society see fit to post their bile.

Can't we all just accept that both main party candidates are law-disregarding scum who are both incompetent and untrustworthy and we're basically just voting for party ideals far more than candidates at this point?

I don't see the point in debating endlessly about the quality of these people. If their "beliefs" were reversed and they were the opposite party's candidates, we'd simply be taking opposing points from our current because of our own enlightened self-interest. And lest we blow smoke up our own *** (because I'm not flexible enough for that), let us look at BOTH of their histories: they've both switched party affiliation and beliefs. It's not really that outlandish that history could have played out with them in opposite positions.

If you truly feel either/both are terrible, vote for Stein or Johnson. Vote a write-in if they're all unacceptable to you. That vote will be logged and will not be "wasted." You're not likely to win, but if we see record numbers of votes NOT for the main party candidates, they're going to have to consider what's going wrong for them. Especially if it continues over years and decades and they see their bases slipping away.

But I like it here!