Search options (Page 20 of 35)

If he actually does that stuff, a lot of it could be promising. School choice, immigration laws being enforced, repealing Obamacare, term limits (!!!)...

The problem is, Republicans have been running on these promises for decades, but never deliver. They swear up and down during campaigns that they will reform this and that, and they sound like champions marching into battle. Then they get elected and turn to mush.

There is nothing stopping them this time, but I still doubt that they would have the balls to do this stuff. They will try to compromise and make deals, and we will end up right back where we started. Meanwhile, Democrats get power and go to town with it at every opportunity. This is why we're constantly taking one step forward and two steps back.

I wouldn't say that I support Trump so much as I support his beating Hillary.

I'm still not convinced that she's out. They could always find a few hundred thousand votes from different states in a box somewhere.

Thinking about it tonight, I think Trump's success has been in identifying the weakness of the Republican party. The Republicans simply aren't good at communicating. McCain and Romney failed to speak up at all, whereas Trump will say anything that comes to mind and has no filter. The others failed to use social media to fan the fire, whereas Trump will post anything and has no filter.

It isn't that he is the smartest, or the best candidate. It's that he is actually recognizing the people who would be voting for him. The Republicans usually play games, try not to offend their opponents, and expect voters to follow them no matter what. People are sick of it.

Obama succeeded for kinda the same reason. He wasn't a good candidate or qualified, but he knew how to play the press and social media. He has slogans that meant nothing, but they looked cool on posters. He has more of a filter than Trump, but in terms of how they got here, they're not entirely different.

That's really interesting. I will check it out. Thanks!

I didn't! Actually, I've been having some pretty bad back pain and haven't been able to sit and do any writing/editing/reading work. I came to open a tab and remind myself to read it, saw your other post and replied to that without mentioning that I hadn't been able to read your pages yet.

I'm working on figuring out a way to be able to do some work, but I haven't found a tolerable way to sit yet.

It would be a good show to tackle the subject, given that a large number of their crew members are criminals and murderers.

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan, a lot of the stuff you listed can't really be used to turn her into a human being. The interesting example was the email about the kid, but given her history, I would have to make sure that it wasn't part of some longer email chain about ways to improve her public image or whatever. I'm still not convinced that she really has a capacity to care about other people.

The interesting thing in this discussion is the element of manners. "Please" and "Thank you", and all of that sort of pleasant stuff is where Hillary may have something that Trump doesn't. He has no manners or filter at all, while I think that Hillary is more calculated and filtered. Evil, but with the ability to look otherwise.

Still, if she's going to be President (gag), I hope that I'm wrong and there is a shred of humanity somewhere deep down inside of her. A piece which regrets having to get a child molester off on a technicality, despite her laughing at the story years later. A piece of her that feels sick when she thinks about what her husband has done to women, and what she has done to keep those women quiet. A piece of her who gives a thought to Benghazi every once in a while, when she's all alone, and has to fight back the urge to tear up.

Hell, I hope that she is capable of holding her grandchild and feeling a basic, primal connection.

None of us win if I'm right and Hillary Clinton is incapable of feeling any of those things. So I hope that I am wrong, and I hope that once she achieves her life's mission of getting into that office, that humanity can see the light of day. If not, no good will come of this. People will suffer and die. The best we can hope for is that whatever illness she has progresses to the point where she becomes little more than a medicated puppet, surrounded by more competent people who are capable of handling things.

Then again, look at who she surrounds herself with... There may not be much hope there either.

Sigh.

But how many actual human bodies does he have in his wake? How many times has he personally put national security at risk and then proven that he simply doesn't care about it? Donald Trump is disgusting and arrogant, and a jerk (I think the word "bully" should be reserved for schoolyards). You can say a lot of bad things about him and I probably wouldn't disagree. But Hillary Clinton has never exhibited an ounce of basic humanity. No empathy or sympathy, no moral compass, basic sense of right and wrong. She quite literally appears to be a psychopath, who is now displaying signs of some sort of neurological issues.

I've heard people who know Donald Trump say good things about him. I cannot recall anyone ever having one positive thing to say about Hillary as a person. And obviously I can't base my vote on which person I like as a human being, since they both fail, but Hillary has never been anything but dangerously corrupt. Is there anything to suggest that she would care if a nuke went off in one of the middle states?

And all of that is just based on her political career. Add into that her victimizing women who were already victims of her rapist husband.

I like that Chaser9 is giving us a more optimistic view of things.

Yeah, Hillary will probably win. It boggles my mind though. So much information is out there showing that she is not only incapable of doing the job, but that she is a truly, truly horrible human being. Yet, when you reference the decades of information available, people act like you're talking about UFO conspiracies. They even have a line along the lines of "Forty years of investigations have found NOTHING. She is the most vetted and cleanest candidate in history" which makes me want to puke.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but there's a difference between disagreement and delusion. Hillary Clinton is a psychopath.

Donald Trump isn't much better, but he's a little bit better. It's a low bar.

They probably don't want to invest in more computer models.

This week was pretty lame. Especially Jefferson. First, comparing the experience to black people today to the experience of black people in 1863 was just laughable. I know that a lot of people do that in real life (a lot of people compare everyone they don't like to Nazis too. All sense of scale is gone) but Jax just looked more stupid than he should be. And he looked stupid again at the end, pausing for a moment to really own the moment of liberation. Dude was oppressed for five minutes and he is telling the actual slaves to hold on a sec. There could have been some real depth and meaning to this story, but it just seemed like a hollow attempt at something vaguely deep.

I do like Nate though. He is well acted and has a fun personality. He would probably be a good match for Sara, but they seem to have forgotten that she is bi.

For your communications issue, please allow me to introduce you to your new vest friend, the intercut.
http://www.screenwriting.info/15.php

For your action scene, a lesson that I learned while writing action sequences in my books is that sometimes, less is more. Describing a fight sequence gets long, repetitive and boring. Cutting a lot of description in them saves the reader the time that it would take to get bored and skim past the action. Hit the highlights, but if you're going blow by blow, I would recommend taking the red pen to a lot of it.

I don't actually have a lot of my Supergirl pilot written (maybe ten pages, because I'm typing with my thumbs and only when bored) but the issue that I'm having is in not wanting an action sequence just for the sake of having one. I'm not sure that this series would necessarily have a monster of the week. I guess it doesn't matter, since I won't have to write a whole series.

In my head, I am now casting a very prominent role for my Supergirl redo. Young woman, close to Kara's age. Strong ties to both Kara and Alex. If Alex represents the side of Kara that is constantly pushing herself to be better and more kick-ass heroic, this other character would represent the side of her that appreciates the smaller things in life. The quiet moments. The sunsets. She's someone who wouldn't feel trapped in her hometown, living a quiet, "normal" life. She could spend her life as a librarian or a homemaker, and she would be just as happy as Alex is kicking alien ass (though Alex is being reworked in my head, so she probably isn't going to be the super soldier that she is on the show... I haven't finalized her role yet).

Why am I mentioning this here? I need to think up an actress that I can picture in my head for this role. I may never write this script fully or post it anywhere, but the show continues in my head. So, who would fit in that world with Alex and Kara?

The problem with Supergirl is that the problems add up. Once the majority of the series is on big problem, every little thing added to the problem becomes that much bigger. If Supergirl were a good show, Superman's phrasing wouldn't be as big of a problem (though I would undoubtedly still roll my eyes as yet another set of writers failing to understand the character). But the show is a mess. The plot is a mess. The characters are a mess. The visuals are a mess. And so now, I have nothing to hold onto except the complaints. Like, why does Kara suddenly feel a need to dress like the comic book version of Jimmy Olsen? Do female reporters not wear skirts or cardigans?

But it doesn't matter. There's a better version of the show in my head. I will enjoy that one.

I did watch season 1 of 12 Monkeys. It was good, but I had a hard time finding time to keep up with it. I've heard good things about The Expanse and Black Mirror. I will need to watch those.

Thanks for the suggestions!

The problem is going to be CBS. They don't do good TV.

Do they type up Supergirl scripts with their hands, or do they use sledgehammers?

I'll skip discussing their childish characters and paint by numbers political message, but I will say that the introduction of the alien bar brings us into Angel territory. That show made the same mistake, which not only destroyed the uniqueness of their main character, but sacrificed the "reality" of the story. It sounds like a fun way to bring in more aliens on paper, but in execution, it is just a bunch of extras wearing bad makeup, acting stupid.

Ireactions, you have the strangest luck with technology. I can't make fun though, because I would totally forget to take the protective plastic off.

SQ_21, The Walking Dead had a really weak, but fortunately short first season. I started to enjoy it more in season 2.

If that one doesn't appeal to you, try iZombie. That's a good one.

New book announcement! The Secret Citizen (book 3 in the Freedom/Hate series) will be released on November 7, just in time for Election Day. It's now available for preorder.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01M9ENSR7/

Bad voting booth calibration leads to Republican votes turning Democrat in Illinois:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10 … ounty.html

Yeah, I'm not going to continue on this. It's getting us nowhere. You have your opinion about O'Keefe, and that's fine. You can simply not like his methods or believe that his open political leanings invalidate his work. That's fine. But some of what you've read about him or his work does not accurately represent what actually happened or what is in the videos. So you should shy away from using those sources for your debate points.

I did skim through the link you sent, and again, I do think that if Vera handled the situation with the police, it should be noted on the video's website. The video is not fraudulent as originally released, but it should be amended with an update with relevant information. But as with any news report, you always have to do extra homework to find all of the things that you aren't being told. This is why I hate journalists. O'Keefe is no worse than anyone else, he's just not entirely better.

Not true. I don't have any loyalty to O'Keefe or anything he has done. We are discussing facts here. Breitbart released the Sherrod video. It was not O'Keefe. You are misrepresenting this situation in order to prove a point, and then accusing me of blindly following O'Keefe because he says what I want to hear. I don't know if you are simply remembering this wrong or you're looking at a website for details, but this is false.

So we are saying that O'Keefe took video of a man who was going along with the human trafficking plan, showed the video of exactly what that man was doing, and he is still a fraud because the man who was trying to convince him that he was helping with the human trafficking plan succeeded in making him believe that he was helping with the human trafficking plan? What evidence is there to suggest that O'Keefe had any knowledge of any police report or investigation prior to the video's release? For that matter, is there any record of a police report?

I looked up the NPR report on the NPR situation:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ … eral-funds

That report links to the full two-hour recording (which I can't open... Possibly because I'm on a phone). It also has a statement from the man involved, apologizing for what he said in that recording.

As far as I can tell, the Project Veritas headline on those recordings is about media bias, not collusion with terrorists.

http://projectveritas.com/npr-videos/

At different points over the years, I have enjoyed the works of many people. Political journalists, writers, directors, actors, whatever. I have always enjoyed them right up the the point where they do something to rub me the wrong way, and then I let it be known that I'm no longer a fan. Usually loudly and repeatedly. I do not follow anyone blindly. We can discuss these things as much as you'd like. Maybe you'll even change my opinion. But please don't accuse me of being a mindless follower. I am not one. Ever.

EDIT --

Just because I noticed your other post after I clicked "submit"...

The thing is, I looked at your examples from the mindset of "maybe there is something that I didn't know" and thought that I'd change my mind about Project Veritas once I looked into it. However, I looked into it and looked at the facts involved. Not my opinion or my feelings, but facts.

FACT: Shirley Sherrod was not O'Keefe or Project Veritas.

FACT: The lawsuit settled was about recording without consent. There is no claim that O'Keefe misrepresented what was on the video or edited it to make it appear that it was anything other than what it was.

FACT: The NPR recordings did in fact show bias against the Tea Party, which the man accused even apologized for. And the full recording was released. If their edited report was misleading, they appear to have given everyone the chance to decide for themselves.

I don't see how any of this makes me comparable to an anti-vaxxer who is ignoring facts and data. If there is some evidence that I don't have, I'd love to see it. Until then, I simply am not the one who seems to be basing my opinions on feelings or bias.

I think that if someone who was well known enough decided to drop the Republican or Democrat title and run with a different party, they could give that party a chance of being a player in a presidential election. The ting is, it would have to be someone who could possibly win the nomination with the repubs or dems, so it doesn't look like an act of desperation.

There are few people who could actually pull that off, but I'm hopeful that it can happen someday. Y'know, maybe we should do away with the party titles all together and let people fight to get on the ballot on their own merits, without an R or D after their name.

Okay, back to voter fraud...

It happens. We've seen it happen in elections for senators, etc. It's pretty much known that there is corruption of the system, but there isn't a lot that can be done about fraudulent votes once they're cast. I think that it's more likely that you could go after an organization that brings in fraudulent voters, and that should happen.

All it would take to do major damage to an election is to add a few thousand votes to areas that are very close. Imagine having six hundred extra votes in Florida during the 2000 election. We'd have an entirely different history right now. And even if the attempts to influence the election with fraudulent votes doesn't work, those people who commit that crime or organize that crime should be held accountable. That is not a small crime.

I've yet to see evidence that O'Keefe fakes his videos. Clearly, you can say that he is biased in which stories he pursues, but if the implication is that he is editing these videos to be something that they aren't, or to make people say things that they aren't, there is no evidence to support that. And again I have to say that it's incredibly unusual for people to complain about video reports being edited, since every news report that we see on TV is highly edited.  I've seen major news outlets editing around comments that politicians have made, or framing a shot to make a tiny protest look like a huge mob, and that's still seen as "respectable" journalism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the media lying to us. If there is evidence of O'Keefe fabricating stories, I want to see it. Until that happens, I don't see how his investigations can be written off. If these recent videos are lies, why are people being fired or stepping down from their positions?

You can find countless websites that say that O'Keefe is a con man or whatever (all with articles highlighting Hillary's crimes, I'm sure), but where is the evidence? What are they basing it on? Just the fact that his reports are edited in the same fashion as pretty much every single news reports on television or on the internet? Is there some sort of proof that his reporting is more fraudulent than any of the "legitimate" news sources? Or are they just bashing the man who is going after liberal organizations and causes? Do they hold more liberal outlets to similar standards? Did they demand to get the full recording of the Trump video/audio? Do they hold debate moderators accountable when they provide answers for the candidates who can't seem to find answers for themselves?

I'm all for asking questions. I want as much information as possible. But unless those websites are just as interested in exposing the dishonesty of the mainstream media, I don't see how they can hold a special grudge against Project Veritas, which is at least up-front with their political leanings.

The problem is, we have people on video talking about rigging the election. It isn't a conspiracy theory, it is actually happening. What do we do with that information?

We also have those same people talking about hiring hundreds of people, some mentally ill, to spark violence at Trump rallies. What happens with that information? Investigations? I doubt it.

On my computer, I use Final Draft. They don't appear to have an Android app though, so I'm trying one called DubScript on my phone. It is actually pretty easy to use. It does most of the formatting itself.

Of course, I don't know quite how to get some things done, so I may have to polish in Final Draft later.

So, I downloaded a screenplay writing app for my phone. Since I sometimes find myself going an hour or two at a time, unable to get real work done and running out of things to look up online, I figured that I would do some fun hobby writing that I don't have to think too much about.

I've been playing with the Supergirl character. Typing with thumbs is slow, so I haven't written much, but I have almost the whole teaser for my version of a pilot. The Krypton stuff. It's fun to write, because my brain is like interactive TV. I can see the show playing in my head and manipulate it. It's a fun way to shut out all of the other character voices that normally scream for attention.

I don't think I will post it on my website though.

Agreed about Assange being a danger.

But Trump isn't wrong. We have election officials admitting as much on video. We have Clinton campaign workers discussing how they are fine with discarding republican voter registrations, or not providing republicans with mail-in ballot options. It's no secret. In past elections, we've had well over 100% of the voters in some towns, all voting for one party.

The election is rigged. The system is corrupted. The question is, how rigged is it?

I recently replaced my S4's battery for the first time in the three years that I've had it. I took a good look at the old one and saw that it was beginning to bulge. That can't be good.

New battery lasts longer, depending on how much I am using my phone on any given day. This makes me extra upset that it would be difficult to replace the battery in the new phones. It simply isn't realistic to expect me to shell out $600+ every three years for a new phone. It was different when AT&T would give me a great deal with contract renewal. Those days are gone. Sigh.

Maybe I can find an S7 on eBay for super cheap

I agree that cyber security should be a priority. When it comes to Hillary, this is a horrible topic. She either has to admit that she used her own server because she was trying to avoid investigators (which we know from the 2008 video anyway), or she has to admit that she has no idea how this internet thingy works and what email-mabobs are. For a President in the 21st century to have no grasp of such things is a pretty big deal.

Frankly, all candidates should have to at least prove eligibility when running. We complain about tax records and medical records, but eligibility is basic.

And again, it had far more to do with his parents and his upbringing than his skin color. There was absolutely no reason for him not to put that question to rest within a day, much less years.