Two points:
First, they predicted that the Electoral College results would be almost the exact opposite of what they turned out to be. Which makes them totally wrong.
Second, that popular vote "winning margin" is almost entirely in California...if you subtract California from both candidates' total votes, trump won the popular vote.
I, also, have a couple of other comments. The popular vote is irrelevant. Both candidates knew this and planned their campaigns accordingly. The recounts are unlikely to change the outcome in any of the states where they are being pushed for. The most likely effect of the recounts is for the Electoral College votes in those states to be invalidated, leading to the election being decided by the House, which is Republican controlled (and for purposes of deciding where the Electoral College did not, Republican dominated). It is improbable that the House Republicans will fail to choose Trump. Which means that the sole purpose of the recounts is to allow Democrats to cast doubt on Trump's legitimacy as President(similar to what they tried to do to George W. Bush).
The majority of Americans have accepted that the election is over and that Donald Trump won. If that were overturned, the next President would be viewed as illegitimate in the eyes of most Americans. It would be a devastating blow for our system of government because it would reveal to many people who are currently not really paying attention that our government does not really follow the laws as written.
The point of the post you replied to is that your side has already set the standard. Except of course that most of them want it both ways. They want people who agree with them to be able to discriminate against people they disagree with and everyone to be forced to provide service with those who agree with them.
Social media merely reflects the society which we have built. Since at least the 1960s our schools have taught (to an ever increasing degree) that all cultures are equal, that we should not consider one social norm as better than another. Western society which developed the idea that every person is equal, even women and people of different races, is no better than a culture which teaches that a man should beat his wife if he doesn't like the food she cooks for him.
It is more complicated than that, but that sums it up. If no culture is better than another, if one set of ideas is equal to another set, if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, why would we expect people to have common values?
Actually, the problems you mentioned were all well on the way to being corrected before Richard Nixon created the EPA. I am agnostic as to whether the EPA was ever necessary (I have seen good arguments on both sides and am not willing to spend the time to research it myself). HOWEVER, the EPA has been guilty of serious overreach in recent years (for example, regulating CO2, but not doing so according to the statute because the economic damage of doing so would result in greater negative environmental consequences than the most optimistic estimate of positive environmental benefits).
Increasing corn subsidies to red state farmers is a progressive cause? I mean, it could well be. I'm no expert. Still, it sounds like yet another transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich.
I'm confused, you seem to be expressing skepticism about corn subsidies being a progressive cause and then you go and explain why they ARE a progressive cause (although to be perfectly honest, what makes them a progressive cause is that they move more power to bureaucrats, transferring money from the middle class to the wealthy is merely one of the indications that this is happening).
If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Mississippi why should you even bother voting for the president? Those state's votes are practically decided before any campaigning takes place.
Before this election that could have said, "If you're a Republican in Wisconsin why should you even bother voting for the president? That state's votes are practically decided before any campaigning takes place." They also said that about Michigan.
To whatever degree that fake news was successful, its success was a result of traditional news sources being unreliable. If the Washington Post, the New York Times, et al had not completely committed themselves to getting Hillary elected, no matter what lies they needed to tell to do so, people would have been able to spot the fake news. Unfortunately, "real news" no more reflected the facts than "fake news".
I suspect that your explanation is why they could not just print them out at the time. I believe they had turned them over in electronic form during discovery, but not printed. When the opposing lawyers objected that not ALL of the emails were present in the electronic form, the judge ruled all of the electronic emails inadmissible.
I am confident that something strange happened in the ruling because of the email retention system my predecessor created at about that time.
They would all *happily* move on from them, but the legal precedent (and IIRC there are also explicit laws on the books) is that faxes are legal documents while e-mailed PDFs are not.
-nB
That is no longer true...and has not been for some time. Legal precedent has been established that emailed PDFs ARE just as much legal documents as faxes. The problem is that at one time what you said was true and there are a lot of people who "know" it to be true, even though it has not been for longer than it was true.
Interesting situation related to that. A couple years before I started with my current company they were sued by a competitor. They tried to present in court the email records they had and were told the email was inadmissible because they did not have ALL of the emails from the time period in question. Yet they were allowed to submit as evidence the email which had been printed out during the time period in question.
I have NEVER understood how that made any sense. The only thing I can figure out is that either their lawyer, the judge, or both did not understand technology. I, also, never understood why they didn't just print the emails at the time it went to court and fail to mention that they had just printed them out (leaving the impression that these emails had been previously printed).
Absolutely true. It is however possible to TRY to be unbiased. Unfortunately, most news sources have stopped trying. I do not mind that a reporter reports things from a perspective that differs from mine, or even when he leaves out facts which support my interpretation because he thinks they are insignificant. I do mind when a reporter intentionally misquotes, or leaves out part of a quote, in order to portray the person in question as having said something offensive.
OK, a lot of people are missing what is going on here because they do not know the law. The FCC did this in response to a letter from members of both the House and the Senate. There is a law, passed when Bill Clinton was President (which Clinton signed) which states that if an Administrative Agency creates a new regulation Congress has so many months to pass a bill overturning that regulation (basically, the new Congress will be able to undo any regulation created since the beginning of 2016). If that bill gets into law (either signed by the President or Congress overturns his veto), that Agency cannot create another regulation in that area. I am unsure of the exact wording of that portion, so I do not know how closely something like that would tie the Agency's hands.
Because of that law, if the FCC were to create a new regulation without the buy-in of the Trump Administration, it would likely be overturned by Congress. Which would limit their ability to create a new regulation with the Trump Administration's approval.
One other point worth mentioning. The FCC's primary job is NOT creating new regulations. Its primary job is ENFORCING existing regulations. So, this is not a statement by the FCC that they are not going to do any work for the next few months.
I buy insurance against things outside of my control. The things covered by applecare (and other similar extended warranties) that are not covered by one or another of those insurance policies are either exceedingly rare, or, are the result of poor quality on the part of the manufacturer.
BTW, I used to work in retail at several levels. We were encouraged to sell extended warranties because the company considered extended warranties to be almost 100% profit.
OK, just ran it through expedia. Somewhere between $1,000 and $2,200 for airfare and hotel in Paris for a week. I don't have a good way to price meals in Paris, but it looks like you could do a decent trip for under $3,000. I would want a $5,000 budget if I was going to take my wife to Paris.
Given the silly prices they charge I highly recommend an applecare purchase.
So, basically what you are saying is that you think Apple makes a good product, but recommend that people who buy one bet that you are wrong, Buying an extended warranty, such as applecare, is betting that the product you just bought is a bad choice. Personally, if I think it is worth my money to buy something like applecare, I buy something else instead.
No, no, you don't understand. That's not hate speech because BLM activists support the same political agenda as Twitter. Hate speech is opposing their agenda.
OK, apparently there is a reading comprehension fail on this. What the Chinese government said is that they will respond by not allowing Apple and American car companies to sell their products in China, NOT that they would stop selling stuff to Apple and American car companies.
The article FOCUSES on November, but the key quote relevant to the post you replied to is: "People don't think about November being a season for severe weather so they tend to let their guard down, especially when storms have been virtually nonexistent," In other words, there have been vanishingly few tornadoes ALL season.
Slashdot Mirror
Two points:
First, they predicted that the Electoral College results would be almost the exact opposite of what they turned out to be. Which makes them totally wrong.
Second, that popular vote "winning margin" is almost entirely in California...if you subtract California from both candidates' total votes, trump won the popular vote.
I, also, have a couple of other comments. The popular vote is irrelevant. Both candidates knew this and planned their campaigns accordingly. The recounts are unlikely to change the outcome in any of the states where they are being pushed for. The most likely effect of the recounts is for the Electoral College votes in those states to be invalidated, leading to the election being decided by the House, which is Republican controlled (and for purposes of deciding where the Electoral College did not, Republican dominated). It is improbable that the House Republicans will fail to choose Trump. Which means that the sole purpose of the recounts is to allow Democrats to cast doubt on Trump's legitimacy as President(similar to what they tried to do to George W. Bush).
The majority of Americans have accepted that the election is over and that Donald Trump won. If that were overturned, the next President would be viewed as illegitimate in the eyes of most Americans. It would be a devastating blow for our system of government because it would reveal to many people who are currently not really paying attention that our government does not really follow the laws as written.
The point of the post you replied to is that your side has already set the standard. Except of course that most of them want it both ways. They want people who agree with them to be able to discriminate against people they disagree with and everyone to be forced to provide service with those who agree with them.
Social media merely reflects the society which we have built. Since at least the 1960s our schools have taught (to an ever increasing degree) that all cultures are equal, that we should not consider one social norm as better than another. Western society which developed the idea that every person is equal, even women and people of different races, is no better than a culture which teaches that a man should beat his wife if he doesn't like the food she cooks for him.
It is more complicated than that, but that sums it up. If no culture is better than another, if one set of ideas is equal to another set, if there is no absolute standard of right and wrong, why would we expect people to have common values?
That is an interesting theory, because the last time we had an economic meltdown, Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress.
Actually, the problems you mentioned were all well on the way to being corrected before Richard Nixon created the EPA. I am agnostic as to whether the EPA was ever necessary (I have seen good arguments on both sides and am not willing to spend the time to research it myself). HOWEVER, the EPA has been guilty of serious overreach in recent years (for example, regulating CO2, but not doing so according to the statute because the economic damage of doing so would result in greater negative environmental consequences than the most optimistic estimate of positive environmental benefits).
Then explain Brazil and Argentina.
Increasing corn subsidies to red state farmers is a progressive cause? I mean, it could well be. I'm no expert. Still, it sounds like yet another transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich.
I'm confused, you seem to be expressing skepticism about corn subsidies being a progressive cause and then you go and explain why they ARE a progressive cause (although to be perfectly honest, what makes them a progressive cause is that they move more power to bureaucrats, transferring money from the middle class to the wealthy is merely one of the indications that this is happening).
If you're a Republican in California or a Democrat in Mississippi why should you even bother voting for the president? Those state's votes are practically decided before any campaigning takes place.
Before this election that could have said, "If you're a Republican in Wisconsin why should you even bother voting for the president? That state's votes are practically decided before any campaigning takes place." They also said that about Michigan.
To whatever degree that fake news was successful, its success was a result of traditional news sources being unreliable. If the Washington Post, the New York Times, et al had not completely committed themselves to getting Hillary elected, no matter what lies they needed to tell to do so, people would have been able to spot the fake news. Unfortunately, "real news" no more reflected the facts than "fake news".
And no, the company was known as D-link, way before the D stood for Democrat, in mainstream media.
Considering that D-Link was founded in 1986, I suspect that this is not true.
I suspect that your explanation is why they could not just print them out at the time. I believe they had turned them over in electronic form during discovery, but not printed. When the opposing lawyers objected that not ALL of the emails were present in the electronic form, the judge ruled all of the electronic emails inadmissible. I am confident that something strange happened in the ruling because of the email retention system my predecessor created at about that time.
They would all *happily* move on from them, but the legal precedent (and IIRC there are also explicit laws on the books) is that faxes are legal documents while e-mailed PDFs are not. -nB
That is no longer true...and has not been for some time. Legal precedent has been established that emailed PDFs ARE just as much legal documents as faxes. The problem is that at one time what you said was true and there are a lot of people who "know" it to be true, even though it has not been for longer than it was true.
Interesting situation related to that. A couple years before I started with my current company they were sued by a competitor. They tried to present in court the email records they had and were told the email was inadmissible because they did not have ALL of the emails from the time period in question. Yet they were allowed to submit as evidence the email which had been printed out during the time period in question.
I have NEVER understood how that made any sense. The only thing I can figure out is that either their lawyer, the judge, or both did not understand technology. I, also, never understood why they didn't just print the emails at the time it went to court and fail to mention that they had just printed them out (leaving the impression that these emails had been previously printed).
Absolutely true. It is however possible to TRY to be unbiased. Unfortunately, most news sources have stopped trying. I do not mind that a reporter reports things from a perspective that differs from mine, or even when he leaves out facts which support my interpretation because he thinks they are insignificant. I do mind when a reporter intentionally misquotes, or leaves out part of a quote, in order to portray the person in question as having said something offensive.
OK, a lot of people are missing what is going on here because they do not know the law. The FCC did this in response to a letter from members of both the House and the Senate. There is a law, passed when Bill Clinton was President (which Clinton signed) which states that if an Administrative Agency creates a new regulation Congress has so many months to pass a bill overturning that regulation (basically, the new Congress will be able to undo any regulation created since the beginning of 2016). If that bill gets into law (either signed by the President or Congress overturns his veto), that Agency cannot create another regulation in that area. I am unsure of the exact wording of that portion, so I do not know how closely something like that would tie the Agency's hands.
Because of that law, if the FCC were to create a new regulation without the buy-in of the Trump Administration, it would likely be overturned by Congress. Which would limit their ability to create a new regulation with the Trump Administration's approval.
One other point worth mentioning. The FCC's primary job is NOT creating new regulations. Its primary job is ENFORCING existing regulations. So, this is not a statement by the FCC that they are not going to do any work for the next few months.
If I am buying a $2500 computer, I should not need applecare. If I do, I bought the wrong $2500 computer.
Actually, the left wing equivalent of the "Alt-Right" is the "Ctrl-Left".
I buy insurance against things outside of my control. The things covered by applecare (and other similar extended warranties) that are not covered by one or another of those insurance policies are either exceedingly rare, or, are the result of poor quality on the part of the manufacturer.
BTW, I used to work in retail at several levels. We were encouraged to sell extended warranties because the company considered extended warranties to be almost 100% profit.
OK, just ran it through expedia. Somewhere between $1,000 and $2,200 for airfare and hotel in Paris for a week. I don't have a good way to price meals in Paris, but it looks like you could do a decent trip for under $3,000. I would want a $5,000 budget if I was going to take my wife to Paris.
Given the silly prices they charge I highly recommend an applecare purchase.
So, basically what you are saying is that you think Apple makes a good product, but recommend that people who buy one bet that you are wrong, Buying an extended warranty, such as applecare, is betting that the product you just bought is a bad choice. Personally, if I think it is worth my money to buy something like applecare, I buy something else instead.
Yes, actually they do. Although that was not who I was talking about.
No, no, you don't understand. That's not hate speech because BLM activists support the same political agenda as Twitter. Hate speech is opposing their agenda.
OK, apparently there is a reading comprehension fail on this. What the Chinese government said is that they will respond by not allowing Apple and American car companies to sell their products in China, NOT that they would stop selling stuff to Apple and American car companies.
The article FOCUSES on November, but the key quote relevant to the post you replied to is: "People don't think about November being a season for severe weather so they tend to let their guard down, especially when storms have been virtually nonexistent," In other words, there have been vanishingly few tornadoes ALL season.
Which is why Hillary lost Wisconsin, and probably a couple of other states which everyone was sure were hers without question.