Modded insightful? What are you calling a oil or coal subsidy? Generally when people talk about subsidies for fossil fuels, they are really pulling bullshit out of their asses. Are there tax breaks and funds that indirectly go to oil and coal companies? Yes. Are those direct fossil fuel subsidies? Not really. They are tax benefits for capital construction that apply to all industries. Depreciation benefits that apply to all mining and resource industries. When they tout the really big numbers for oil subsidies they usually throw in infrastructure spending that benefits cars regardless of fuel source (but happens to be primarily oil based). Maybe some home heating subsidies which usually means gas, electricity from coal, or heating oil. Maybe they include military and civilian fuel purchases by the government that happen to be based on fossil fuels.
Those aren't really subsidies for fossil fuels as much as they are the reality that to provide energy, you have to generally use fossil fuels for a lot of it at this point. So those huge "coal and oil subsidies" are really just energy subsidies.
I'm tired of hearing about the "popular vote" as well, but for different reasons. People don't vote for the candidate they want... They vote strategically. And the strategy is based on the electoral college vote. If the rules were based on popular vote, people would vote differently and you cannot say what the results would have been. The fact that she "won the popular vote" in an electoral contest is about as useful as a dragster beating a go kart in quarter mile times. Sure it's technically true but that wasn't a metric of victory as they were racing on a go kart course and the dragster did poorly... If they went to a drag strip, the results would be different and maybe the go kart wouldn't have even been in the final matchup.
You can't change the rules of the election without holding another round of voting where people are aware of the rules.
Are there a lot of hate crimes? It's hard to distinguish between all the fake news, the biased "real" news, and shit that is shared on social media without any citation or evidence... If there are a lot of hate crimes, is it more than usual? Can it be attributed to Trump for the vitriol he spouted during the campaign? Is Hillary free from guilt despite inciting hate on the other side of the political aisle? I cannot blame Trump for what others do in response to his election. Nor can I blame those who voted for him.
The one that pisses me off the most is the bullshit about Trump being supported by the KKK. Umm, so? Support isn't a mutual exchange. I assume in EVERY election the KKK supports one of the major party candidates. Doesn't mean that one candidate is a white supremacist every election...
Obamacare was a fucking disaster. Not that there aren't good elements in it, but the premise is horribly flawed. They wanted to set up a competitive marketplace with rules that guaranteed the market would fall apart. You can't have a competitive marketplace when the most expensive people to insure were guaranteed coverage and the least expensive people were forced to participate. No surprise then that the best coverage options have disappeared and all rates have had huge increases to cover the requirements.
There were really no incentives to reduce costs, reduce ridiculous medical billing, or keep your doctor or your plan if you liked them.
Because Pence is so much better? That being said, I wouldn't be surprised with all of the violent hate out there if someone took a few shots at Trump before the inauguration... The Secret Service definitely has their work cut out for them.
I think that was much the fault of Democrats and the liberal media too. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win so people who wanted change and NOT Hillary voted for Trump and Republicans to congress to thwart Hillary if she won. If people weren't worried about Hillary having power, they might have voted out more incumbents.
Yep, I see the outcome of this election not as a huge outpouring of support for Trump as much as a giant fucking sign for Hillary and the Clintons to get out of politics. Hillary, the American people don't want you as President. Democrats chose Obama over you, and the voting base chose Trump over you. Go home to Arkansas and retire.
I'm all for a woman President and I will vote for one when there is a candidate for President that isn't part of a corrupt dynasty in politics.
Yes, regardless of anything we do to work around the traffic jam, it is still there. But it's a fucking traffic jam. Traffic jams generally don't kill everyone who gets stuck in them... They just are irritating, greatly slow progress, and waste resources. I believe a warmer climate is going to happen, but I believe it's not going to be catastrophic for all life on the planet as people insinuate to try to get their tax and spend projects funded.
If you want to use the tank tread analogy, tanks can pretty easily traverse terrain with no roads, just not as fast as on pavement. Your analogy is still falling apart faster than your pavement in the analogy.
No, getting off the road is analogous to moving to areas of the planet that will be habitable under a warmer climate that are not now. Or are you implying that the entirety of the surface of the planet will be uninhabitable by humans? The flying car comment was the relocating to another planet analogy... And yes, both are far fetched.
Science is predicting a traffic jam on the highway, but it's over the horizon, so we can't see how bad it really is yet. We are in our car accelerating at the moment and we are debating whether to let off the gas or hit the brakes. Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it. There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip. We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Voting for candidates that support changing the way we vote to eliminate the mathematical problems. I don't see any Republican or Democrat advocating for eliminating FPTP, gerrymandering, the electoral college, winner take all districts, or advocating for more term limits. We need to throw every established politician out and destroy the power of the two party system in order to fix the systemic problems with how we elect representatives.
AGAIN, I don't support Trump. For all your knowledge of statistics, you must have flunked reading...
I understand statistics better than you think I do. I understand polling is done with the bias of the pollster. And the results are highly influenced by the selection of the respondents and the ordering and phrasing of the questions. Do you really think a third party will poll well if they first ask "In a two way race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who would you vote for?" Then they go on to give MAYBE an option for "undecided," "independent," or "other."
I want to see a poll based on a real sampling of the population across the country where the questions in the poll are worded and ordered exactly the same as the ballot. Anything else is just fabricated numbers to sell a story.
Ground penetrating radar isn't some sort of magic. Will it find utilities? Yes. Will it find rocks, sticks, lumber, bricks, trash, ancient bones, and absolutely nothing? Also yes and it all looks the same.
Who does the polling and who reports the polling results? The media is telling you this. You have no way of knowing what the actual vote will be. The polling itself is set up to favor the two party system and is a self-fulfilling prophecy because people like you believe the results. If the polling is so darn good, why do we even both voting? Just poll a couple hundred people (it's ok if you leave out a demographic group or two) and ask them which candidates they would vote for (don't even bother to include all the candidates on the ballot). Should be good enough.
This election will hopefully show just how many sheep and free people we have in this country. Free people do not vote for two authoritarian options just because polling data claims that there are only two options. Sheep just vote for letters.
As far as the media, journalism is a dead art... When interviewers ask questions of 3rd parties like "if you had to vote for the two major parties, who would you choose" you know they have no intent of being unbiased and actually doing an interview. It's just an entertainment show at that point.
And that's where we aren't on the same page. Apparently you can't read the part where I don't think Trump is better than Hillary. I think both of them should be sent on a one way mission to Mars instead of being candidates for President. The choice is not between two horrible candidates. The choice is whether to support one of two horrible candidates because the media tells you those are the only "viable" candidates or "throw away your vote" by voting against the two party system which has gone off the cliff and left any semblance of public service behind.
No, I don't get to decide who gets to go to prison. A jury does. Except Hillary will never see a jury or even a judge. Trump's email "neglect" is in no way similar to Hillary's. Neglect and criminal negligence are not the same thing. In this case Trump is throwing a styrofoam ball in a glass house. Yes a styrofoam and rocks are both roughly round and throwable, but the risks of throwing them in a glass house are not comparable. I'm unaware of any Secretary of State sending and receiving classified emails on a private server either. We are not on the same page. Other members of the cabinet have had private email servers, which I think is a bad thing, but not necessarily criminal. But they weren't so stupid as to send and receive ALL of their correspondence through it.
Clinton's actions are un-defendable and her response to the scandal has been even worse. By you defending her actions, you're showing yourself to be no less of a brainless partisan than the idiots voting for Trump to stop Hillary.
Nice try but you lose. I am a Johnson supporter and I think Trump is an asshole pig. But for all the legitimate reasons Trump gives you to attack him, emails are the shoddiest thing ever. If what Trump did is neglect (I think you mean negligence?), than Hillary should be in prison. You don't get to have it both ways... Well unless you are the FBI and you can decide that no reasonable prosecutor would take a case against Hillary and any reasonable prosecutor would take any case against Trump.
Also, as far as multi-billion dollar businesses with shitty information security, I agree it is a common problem. But I am unaware of any CEOs that have been held criminally liable for KNOWN hacks that have exposed tons of personal information including from healthcare companies, banks, etc, not just a real estate mogul.
No, he is not guilty of similar things. He could be storing his emails in plaintext on a public server readable by every single individual on the planet. It's not Hillary's lack of server security that is the problem. It's the existence and use of a private server for public business that is the problem. Trump's emails are his personal and business emails. They are not subject to national security classification rules. They are not subject to FOIA retention requirements. They are subject to whatever the hell Trump wants which may or may not include security to the extent that Trump demands.
No, your point is still bad. Southern and old school is a nice euphemism for benevolent sexism. Every woman is one or more of those things, but that's not what gives them human value. The fact that women are related to a man somehow is not why they shouldn't be abused, it's because they are people.
I admit, Gary isn't the best at live interviews, but his policy on Aleppo is solid even if his immediate response was facepalm worthy. No one is actually arguing about his foreign policy, just his ability to deal with pop quizzes. For those concerned about Gary Johnson because of an Aleppo question, I would encourage you to consider that the POTUS never has to answer questions without a cabinet of experts to advise them.
Your local laws may make that an option that doesn't get counted:
Currently, 43 States allow Write In Ballots for President of the United States. Most States require a candidate to register, however; Vermont, Wyoming, Oregon, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Iowa, Delaware, and Alabama do not require registration.
If your write in is for a candidate that isn't registered, it gets thrown in the trash. Sorry Mickey Mouse, you're not winning this year.
Slashdot Mirror
Modded insightful? What are you calling a oil or coal subsidy? Generally when people talk about subsidies for fossil fuels, they are really pulling bullshit out of their asses. Are there tax breaks and funds that indirectly go to oil and coal companies? Yes. Are those direct fossil fuel subsidies? Not really. They are tax benefits for capital construction that apply to all industries. Depreciation benefits that apply to all mining and resource industries. When they tout the really big numbers for oil subsidies they usually throw in infrastructure spending that benefits cars regardless of fuel source (but happens to be primarily oil based). Maybe some home heating subsidies which usually means gas, electricity from coal, or heating oil. Maybe they include military and civilian fuel purchases by the government that happen to be based on fossil fuels.
Those aren't really subsidies for fossil fuels as much as they are the reality that to provide energy, you have to generally use fossil fuels for a lot of it at this point. So those huge "coal and oil subsidies" are really just energy subsidies.
I'm tired of hearing about the "popular vote" as well, but for different reasons. People don't vote for the candidate they want... They vote strategically. And the strategy is based on the electoral college vote. If the rules were based on popular vote, people would vote differently and you cannot say what the results would have been. The fact that she "won the popular vote" in an electoral contest is about as useful as a dragster beating a go kart in quarter mile times. Sure it's technically true but that wasn't a metric of victory as they were racing on a go kart course and the dragster did poorly... If they went to a drag strip, the results would be different and maybe the go kart wouldn't have even been in the final matchup.
You can't change the rules of the election without holding another round of voting where people are aware of the rules.
Well aside from that whole 35 year old requirement for President...
Are there a lot of hate crimes? It's hard to distinguish between all the fake news, the biased "real" news, and shit that is shared on social media without any citation or evidence... If there are a lot of hate crimes, is it more than usual? Can it be attributed to Trump for the vitriol he spouted during the campaign? Is Hillary free from guilt despite inciting hate on the other side of the political aisle? I cannot blame Trump for what others do in response to his election. Nor can I blame those who voted for him.
The one that pisses me off the most is the bullshit about Trump being supported by the KKK. Umm, so? Support isn't a mutual exchange. I assume in EVERY election the KKK supports one of the major party candidates. Doesn't mean that one candidate is a white supremacist every election...
Obamacare was a fucking disaster. Not that there aren't good elements in it, but the premise is horribly flawed. They wanted to set up a competitive marketplace with rules that guaranteed the market would fall apart. You can't have a competitive marketplace when the most expensive people to insure were guaranteed coverage and the least expensive people were forced to participate. No surprise then that the best coverage options have disappeared and all rates have had huge increases to cover the requirements.
There were really no incentives to reduce costs, reduce ridiculous medical billing, or keep your doctor or your plan if you liked them.
Because Pence is so much better? That being said, I wouldn't be surprised with all of the violent hate out there if someone took a few shots at Trump before the inauguration... The Secret Service definitely has their work cut out for them.
In this superbowl more points were off turnovers than actual forward progress. Record number of safeties too...
I think that was much the fault of Democrats and the liberal media too. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win so people who wanted change and NOT Hillary voted for Trump and Republicans to congress to thwart Hillary if she won. If people weren't worried about Hillary having power, they might have voted out more incumbents.
Yep, I see the outcome of this election not as a huge outpouring of support for Trump as much as a giant fucking sign for Hillary and the Clintons to get out of politics. Hillary, the American people don't want you as President. Democrats chose Obama over you, and the voting base chose Trump over you. Go home to Arkansas and retire.
I'm all for a woman President and I will vote for one when there is a candidate for President that isn't part of a corrupt dynasty in politics.
Yes, regardless of anything we do to work around the traffic jam, it is still there. But it's a fucking traffic jam. Traffic jams generally don't kill everyone who gets stuck in them... They just are irritating, greatly slow progress, and waste resources. I believe a warmer climate is going to happen, but I believe it's not going to be catastrophic for all life on the planet as people insinuate to try to get their tax and spend projects funded.
If you want to use the tank tread analogy, tanks can pretty easily traverse terrain with no roads, just not as fast as on pavement. Your analogy is still falling apart faster than your pavement in the analogy.
No, getting off the road is analogous to moving to areas of the planet that will be habitable under a warmer climate that are not now. Or are you implying that the entirety of the surface of the planet will be uninhabitable by humans? The flying car comment was the relocating to another planet analogy... And yes, both are far fetched.
To run your car analogy off the cliff...
Science is predicting a traffic jam on the highway, but it's over the horizon, so we can't see how bad it really is yet. We are in our car accelerating at the moment and we are debating whether to let off the gas or hit the brakes. Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it. There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip. We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Voting for candidates that support changing the way we vote to eliminate the mathematical problems. I don't see any Republican or Democrat advocating for eliminating FPTP, gerrymandering, the electoral college, winner take all districts, or advocating for more term limits. We need to throw every established politician out and destroy the power of the two party system in order to fix the systemic problems with how we elect representatives.
AGAIN, I don't support Trump. For all your knowledge of statistics, you must have flunked reading...
I understand statistics better than you think I do. I understand polling is done with the bias of the pollster. And the results are highly influenced by the selection of the respondents and the ordering and phrasing of the questions. Do you really think a third party will poll well if they first ask "In a two way race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who would you vote for?" Then they go on to give MAYBE an option for "undecided," "independent," or "other."
I want to see a poll based on a real sampling of the population across the country where the questions in the poll are worded and ordered exactly the same as the ballot. Anything else is just fabricated numbers to sell a story.
Ground penetrating radar isn't some sort of magic. Will it find utilities? Yes. Will it find rocks, sticks, lumber, bricks, trash, ancient bones, and absolutely nothing? Also yes and it all looks the same.
Who does the polling and who reports the polling results? The media is telling you this. You have no way of knowing what the actual vote will be. The polling itself is set up to favor the two party system and is a self-fulfilling prophecy because people like you believe the results. If the polling is so darn good, why do we even both voting? Just poll a couple hundred people (it's ok if you leave out a demographic group or two) and ask them which candidates they would vote for (don't even bother to include all the candidates on the ballot). Should be good enough.
[Citation Needed] Plenty of people have satellite TV in Alaska where the dishes are practically pointed at the ground...
This election will hopefully show just how many sheep and free people we have in this country. Free people do not vote for two authoritarian options just because polling data claims that there are only two options. Sheep just vote for letters.
As far as the media, journalism is a dead art... When interviewers ask questions of 3rd parties like "if you had to vote for the two major parties, who would you choose" you know they have no intent of being unbiased and actually doing an interview. It's just an entertainment show at that point.
And that's where we aren't on the same page. Apparently you can't read the part where I don't think Trump is better than Hillary. I think both of them should be sent on a one way mission to Mars instead of being candidates for President. The choice is not between two horrible candidates. The choice is whether to support one of two horrible candidates because the media tells you those are the only "viable" candidates or "throw away your vote" by voting against the two party system which has gone off the cliff and left any semblance of public service behind.
No, I don't get to decide who gets to go to prison. A jury does. Except Hillary will never see a jury or even a judge. Trump's email "neglect" is in no way similar to Hillary's. Neglect and criminal negligence are not the same thing. In this case Trump is throwing a styrofoam ball in a glass house. Yes a styrofoam and rocks are both roughly round and throwable, but the risks of throwing them in a glass house are not comparable. I'm unaware of any Secretary of State sending and receiving classified emails on a private server either. We are not on the same page. Other members of the cabinet have had private email servers, which I think is a bad thing, but not necessarily criminal. But they weren't so stupid as to send and receive ALL of their correspondence through it.
Clinton's actions are un-defendable and her response to the scandal has been even worse. By you defending her actions, you're showing yourself to be no less of a brainless partisan than the idiots voting for Trump to stop Hillary.
Nice try but you lose. I am a Johnson supporter and I think Trump is an asshole pig. But for all the legitimate reasons Trump gives you to attack him, emails are the shoddiest thing ever. If what Trump did is neglect (I think you mean negligence?), than Hillary should be in prison. You don't get to have it both ways... Well unless you are the FBI and you can decide that no reasonable prosecutor would take a case against Hillary and any reasonable prosecutor would take any case against Trump.
Also, as far as multi-billion dollar businesses with shitty information security, I agree it is a common problem. But I am unaware of any CEOs that have been held criminally liable for KNOWN hacks that have exposed tons of personal information including from healthcare companies, banks, etc, not just a real estate mogul.
No, he is not guilty of similar things. He could be storing his emails in plaintext on a public server readable by every single individual on the planet. It's not Hillary's lack of server security that is the problem. It's the existence and use of a private server for public business that is the problem. Trump's emails are his personal and business emails. They are not subject to national security classification rules. They are not subject to FOIA retention requirements. They are subject to whatever the hell Trump wants which may or may not include security to the extent that Trump demands.
No, your point is still bad. Southern and old school is a nice euphemism for benevolent sexism. Every woman is one or more of those things, but that's not what gives them human value. The fact that women are related to a man somehow is not why they shouldn't be abused, it's because they are people.
I admit, Gary isn't the best at live interviews, but his policy on Aleppo is solid even if his immediate response was facepalm worthy. No one is actually arguing about his foreign policy, just his ability to deal with pop quizzes. For those concerned about Gary Johnson because of an Aleppo question, I would encourage you to consider that the POTUS never has to answer questions without a cabinet of experts to advise them.
See reference here: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Your local laws may make that an option that doesn't get counted:
Currently, 43 States allow Write In Ballots for President of the United States. Most States require a candidate to register, however; Vermont, Wyoming, Oregon, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Iowa, Delaware, and Alabama do not require registration.
If your write in is for a candidate that isn't registered, it gets thrown in the trash. Sorry Mickey Mouse, you're not winning this year.