Final Countdown - Page 3

If only one percent of those originated from Hillary and verifies her lying ways, are those to be excused as an "honest mistake"? That would be the heart of bias if then the results are not mentioned as deceit when their existence is proof that should be actionable by law.

Sam Harris on Clinton and Trump. I often disagree with Sam Harris, but on this, it's pretty much exactly as I see both sides. Anyway, great video and right on point, IMHO.

 

Careful, it might mean taking a stand on the existence of universal truths.

(Can't watch the YouTube without JAVA, and am suffering a bout of redirects when it is enabled.) However, Google does work, still. I would have thought he was absolutely, your cuppa tea.

beetree said, "Weirdly enough, I am not competing about anything, so losing is darn near impossible. Typical response from you though, that even facts from a left leaning, biased source* must be challenged. Why? Might it just be the messenger?"

The problem is that the "fascist formula" is not a scientific formula. It was opinion. Now, there may have been facts to support the opinion but it is still an opinion. So if you actually put more thought into your post you would see that I was not challenging any facts. In fact, I didn't even challenge the score he came up with for Trump and, had you read the article you posted, YOU posted, you would see that his conclusion was similar to mine. This is how the professor ended his piece, and you conveniently left out:

"He is semi-fascist: more fascist than any successful American politician yet, and the most dangerous threat to pluralist democracy in this country in more than a century, but — thank our stars — an amateurish imitation of the real thing."

Yes, Hillary haters are for the most part irrational. They call her a criminal. She hasn't been charged, let alone convicted of a crime. And it isn't for a lack of trying as she has had more committees, led by republicans, trying to find something on her than there were committees investigating 9/11. So either people like Trey Gowdy are lying about what she has done or they are just terrible at their jobs since they can't find anything to charge her with but someone at a Trump rally wearing a shirt that reads, "Vote for Trump not the C*nt," while accompanied by his wife and kids knows the truth and can make that determination about her guilt. Yeah, someone did indeed wear that shirt with his wife and kids. I'm supposed to throw myself in with that lot?

They call her a murderer. Really? She actually planned to have Americans killed? Who believes that? Again, if there were evidence of that she would have been charged and it's not like they haven't tried to do that.

So yeah, it's completely irrational because it's based on things that they have "heard."

Add to that they support Trump based on false hope. They really believe he will build a wall, round up Mexicans, and ban Muslims. He will make China send jobs back. Force Apple, for example, to make their products in America (when Apple could buy and sell Trump). He is going to kill the families of terrorists. He will give police the power to stop and frisk people. He will change the libel laws so the press will be restricted. None of this will happen as he won't have that power as president. Yet they believe it. That is being irrational.

Not a scientific formula? That is absurd. You want a quadratic equation? The expertise of a Georgetown history professor isn't up to your purview. The utter ridiculousness of your demand. Do find and show what it is you require for satisfaction.

Not arguing that what HC did or did not say or do in her OWN proportion of those e-mails exonerates her, or not, from any thing that may be eventually charged against her. Pointing out that your totalling up of the hours it would take to write them all - as ONE person - is deliberately irrelevant and misleading.

I think it puts the scope into perspective, quite well. Very relatable in respect to time and task, something we all share. Certainly one can imagine their own uses of reading and writing emails in that amount of time, too. Nothing deceptive at all--- an illustration of clarity. What do you worry about?

Travels, that vid gives a VERY "fair perspective" !!!

Bee, you CANNOT be serious ...

 

Your contribution of that sum total of ONE person's efforts was entirely irrelevant - and therefore mischievious.

Of course I am as serious as the next irrational person. What the heck did you write? I wonder why you even wrote it, maybe you feel superior or smarter?

I wanted to know how long it would take to write 650,000 emails. It didn't matter who wrote them, because in the end it was the Dem Team who created that volume. Now everyone can understand in real terms what creating that sum entails. Anyone can take this empirical information and now build on it, should they have their own curiosity to quench.

The math shows it would take one person a whole 365 day year, working 8 hours a day, writing 3.71 emails per minute, with no bathroom breaks to write 650,000 emails.

That is the number attributed to Huma and found on Anthony's laptop.
The logic says some are from Hillary. The dates actually cover more than one year..

Maybe you like these numbers better? It would take one person writing 1.30 emails per minute over the next four years, 5 days a week and working an 8 hour day to write 650,000 emails. No bathroom breaks, all things being equal.