Now, I'm not going to go through and tally up all the comments, but there are a few observations that are easy to make.
The total number of comments for the article was only 340; it looks like maybe half were descendants of that comment. I'll even round that up and call it 200.
Looking under that comment, I don't see a single +5 comment that actually calls for the GOP to die in the hurricane. There are plenty of snarky comments going for humor (various takes on "legitimate hurricanes" and the like) but I can't find a +5 calling directly for death
I also see 20 comments from you in that thread that scored at least +1
Including several that scored +4 or +5
The top three repeat posters in that thread - yourself, khallow, and Quila - are all pushing conservative views
So I really don't see the argument here for slashdot not supporting a conservative bend.
Nevermind that the article actually points out that less money is paid out in social welfare programs than at any time since before the Reagan administration
Can you please point at where it says that? I don't see any mentions of Reagan in the article...
Well, Reagan was elected president in 1980...
Interestingly, despite Obama's frequent pledges to reduce income inequality, the share of direct payments going toward "income security" has dropped from 25% in 2009 to 20% in 2014. (The average share from 1980 to 2008 was 25.4%.)
Granted, it does not explicitly state what the rate was under Reagan, but we can assume that Reaganomics did its best to minimize that payout - and hence should have brought down that average quite a bit. We know that the second Bush administration worked hard to reduce that number as well. Yet under Obama we have a smaller payout than during that period of mostly republican presidencies, and Obama is working to reduce it even further.
So unless under Carter in 1980 we had some astronomic number that threw off the average, it is reasonable to say that under Obama we are paying less towards "income security" than we did under Reagan. Even if the numbers were outstandingly high under Clinton (which they weren't either) it would be hard to offset the goals of Reaganomics.
Does noone remember the comments around the hurricane during the 2012 RNC, with a large majority of posters wishing (some claiming to be serious) that key RNC leaders would drown?
Can you provide a link to that discussion? I have a hard time believing that "a large majority of posters" did anything of the sort. I would search for it myself but of course we all know that the search function here on slashdot isn't worth shit. If "a large majority" really said that, I would bet that the majority of that "majority" were simply expressing nonspecific disgust as politicians in general.
That said, there are plenty of people who are openly calling for the POTUS to be removed by extralegal means. We never saw a movement of anywhere near this magnitude when there was a republican in the white house.
Slashdot has an incredibly liberal lean.
Don't be ridiculous. At least once a week we have a story like this one that is bait thrown out to the conservative base. I challenge you to show me a single front page story that was posted here that was actually kind to the liberal cause.
Any post involving anything conservative is gonna be a moshpit of democrats going off on how retarded and backwards conservatives are.
All three of them on slashdot, all getting down-moderated into oblivion. I can see why the conservatives have so much to be afraid of.
Don't try to pretend to be nonpartisan with that candy coated BS at the end. This story was posted here by the usual crowd of slashdot conservatives aiming to make President Obama look bad. Nevermind that the article actually points out that less money is paid out in social welfare programs than at any time since before the Reagan administration, the new conservative mantra here is that no money should ever be given by the federal government to individual citizens, regardless of whether it is for retirement, health care, or even wages for work done. If you're not independently wealthy to the degree that you can afford to be part of the federal government for no wage whatsoever, then the conservative voice here wants you thrown out of Washington immediately and asking for assistance at your local church.
Yes, I know this will be moderated down. But none of "troll", "flamebait", and "overrated" are the same as "factually inaccurate" - indeed most are just used as ways of saying "I disagree".
The US prison system is about profit first, punishment second, making an example third, more profit fourth, more punishment fifth, other things, and then maybe sometime much later down the line rehabilitation. They spend more money on laundry security than they do on conscious efforts to rehabiltate prisoners for re-entry into society.
That would really be outside-the-box thinking for Nissan (or any Japanese car maker, really). Toyota, Nissan, and Honda (as well as their Korean counterparts Hyundai and Kia) have made many shit-tons of money in this country by selling really, really, excruciatingly boring cars.
I own a Honda Integra type R (which revs to 9000rpm, 15mph to 150mph in one gear)
I can tell you a few things about the Honda / Acura Integra from my own experience:
Sure, you can rev it to 9k, but the fuel economy is so poor at that point that you might as well be driving a car with a larger engine
You can rev a Mazda RX8 to 20k, so what's the big deal?
That car is pretty much physically undrivable (and equally so, unridable) for anyone much over 6' tall - I tried to sit in the driver's seat of an Integra coupe once (I'm 6'3") and even with the seat all the way back I could not physically work the pedals because my knees were firmly embedded into the dash.
The Integra -- particularly the type R - was discontinued some time ago.
my sister owns a Toyota MR2 (mid engined, RWD)
That car was discontinued some time ago and did not sell in particularly large numbers in comparison to the other Toyota cars. It also shared almost no parts with any other Toyota, and hence they (as a company) learned almost nothing from it.
Also, have you not hears of the old Nissan Skyline
Also discontinued, and never sold in North America.
or new GT-R
A technically impressive car, but made in such small numbers as to be of no real importance. It also does not share any relevant parts with any other cars of the same badge. Being as hardly anyone wants to spend $80k on a Nissan anyways, its existence is of at best marginal significance.
Not all their cars are dull... in fact, I'd say for reasonably priced cars, the Japanese manufacturers have some of the best.
You didn't name a single reasonably priced car that is in current production. Furthermore of the cars that you named that are not in production, they were outsold several hundred fold by sedans from the same vendors that could be marketed as cures for insomnia. You could just as well be trying to excuse the Dodge Neon by telling us about the performance specs of the Viper.
Try making a car that doesn't suck. The leaf is a great car for people who don't like to drive. Make a car that handles well and performs respectably and people might want to buy it.
Maybe THAT is why Nissan is talking to Tesla owners: they're planning on competing with them with comparable models.
That would really be outside-the-box thinking for Nissan (or any Japanese car maker, really). Toyota, Nissan, and Honda (as well as their Korean counterparts Hyundai and Kia) have made many shit-tons of money in this country by selling really, really, excruciatingly boring cars. Talk to any person who has ever owned a Corolla - for example - and ask them to give you adjectives that explain their car and I guarantee you exciting will not be one. I know people who have sold their working Japanese cars after many years just because they couldn't stand to drive / look at them any more.
Now, granted, the American car makers have sadly largely copied that strategy and wondered why they can't get anywhere in the market.
Try making a car that doesn't suck. The leaf is a great car for people who don't like to drive. Make a car that handles well and performs respectably and people might want to buy it.
There are two living grandsons of John Tyler.
Which proves nothing, because this sort of discussion is not about proving things.
What I want to know about the research is how much dope the old coots under consideration did. I submit that the quality of life lived may have as much impact as the quantity, but not quite get teased out as well in the research.
This type of health research is largely about probability. It is not that far distant from research that shows that cigarette smoking is generally a really bad idea from a health perspective. You can't disprove that idea solely by showing a 70+ year old heavy smoker who managed to not get lung cancer, but you can support it by showing millions of people who died of it at a much younger age than that without a family history of it.
Similarly, we know that some conditions with poor outcomes track with the age of the father (and of course others with the age of the mother). It doesn't mean that every child of older parents will have that condition, but they are more likely to have them then kids born to younger parents.
You have more faith in FB stock than I do. I think it will be back down below 40 by the end of the year.
You may actually be over estimating my faith in facebook. I anticipate eventually that stock will be worth as much as stock in Pets.com. I just don't know if it will be in 2014, 2015, or 2016.
Whats to say this isn't the mad scrawlings of a schizophrenic mad man, 500 years ago? It'd certainly fit the pattern.
While not impossible, the text that remains is 240 pages (each page roughly 6.3 x 9 inches). Being as it seems to have some coherent themes across sections, it seems rather unlikely that a disturbed person could have written it on a whim.
It has little to anything to do with regulations. It mostly comes down to the fact that aviation is a really, really, really, really, really expensive hobby that has only become more expensive in recent times. There just aren't that many people with that much disposable income.
If they are trying to make more FPS and fighting games, they shouldn't expect existing Nintendo customers to flock to their system. There are already too many of those titles on the Sony and Microsoft systems, and they have established software and user bases. Say what you will about Nintendo hardware but the list of top selling titles for the Wii and Wii U consoles looks nothing at all like the list for the playstation and xbox consoles.
but in the late 90's, if you wanted the best laptop money could buy, you'd get a VAIO.
As someone who sold computers in the late 90s, I strongly disagree. The VAIO laptops were no better, and in some occasions were actually worse. The Thinkpad was the laptop for the person who wanted the best they could buy (and by some arguments they it still is).
I never understood the appeal of the Sony laptops. It seemed like they were trying to hit the Apple price point but with reliability that made the Apple laptops look like the greatest feat of engineering since the wheel. Add to that all the bloatware that Sony installed as standard and I really can't find an advantage.
which candidate on the ballot will harm you the least
Do you ever vote for the person who you think will do the country the most good, or is that coincidence?
That is not a black-and-white issue. When talking about who would do "the country" the most good, how do you decide what qualifies for "the country" or "the most good"? I see "the country" as a reflection of the people who live in this country; and to me "the most good" for "the country" is equivalent to "who would have the best (or least bad) outcomes for the greatest number of people". I have, so far, seen that as being the same candidate who does the least harm to me. There could be a time in the future where those two are at conflict but so far I have seen those characteristics shared by the same candidate each time.
Not all Western countries are there yet, but most are following US into that political hell hole as US is still widely seen as the leader of democratic movement around the world and as such, an example to be followed.
I hope that most other democracies are not following the US example. At the very least, pretty well none of them are following the political trajectory where the party that used to be liberal is more conservative than the most conservative parties in most other countries and the party that is traditionally conservative has become an open worshiper of the mighty dollar with no regard for the bulk of humanity whatsoever. The fact that "capitalism" has taken over as the central dogma of both parties in this country is terrifying.
Our current president is the most conservative president our country has ever had
Okay, I'm about as liberal as it gets, and I have to say this is a ridiculous statement. He's not even more conservative than his predecessor, to say nothing of serious conservatives like the unholy trinity of Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan.
Really? He signed off on the largest handout to corporate America in the history of our country in 2010 - and even allowed his name to be associated freely with it. He has signed off on more tax breaks than Reagan ever could have dreamed of. He has witnessed the continued erosion of collective bargaining and loss of power for organized labor. He has watched as more and more government functions that were pillars of the nation's social contract succumb to the vaporous dreams of privatization - with terrible consequences. He has seen the bailout and reward of a laundry list of billionaires, many of whom went to great lengths to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top while shafting anyone they could in the process.
Not only is Obama demonstrably more conservative than GWB, GHWB, and Reagan, he quite nearly makes them look like Mother Theresa.
The two main parties don't lose power when you do that
They don't need to lose power; just votes.
Really? What lesson do they learn when they lose votes but retain power?
If enough people change their votes, they'll want to get them back.
Why would they do that? if they still have power then what difference does it make to them? An argument could be made that when fewer people vote in a way that has an impact on the outcome of the election, all that has happened is the election has become that much less expensive for the parties - and their masters - to run.
But again, even if all of the above weren't true, voting for evil is in itself intolerable, unacceptable, and evil.
That is a rather immature (and pitifully black-and-white) description then you describe someone else as
evil
There is a lot to politics. Someone else is not automatically evil just because you disagree with something they do. That kind of mentality has brought us to - and some times beyond - the brink of war on more than one occasion.
I hear a lot of third-party voters talk about "sending a message" or "teaching the parties about XYZ". The problem is that a third-party vote doesn't do that. The two main parties don't lose power when you do that, one of them still comes out on top. I will agree that it is more useful than not voting at all, but it doesn't do much to change the power structure.
The parties only need to get more people to vote for them than for the other guy. The rest does not impact the outcome of the election and hence does not impact what the parties do.
You have choices, and some of them are third parties. You (and people like you) just choose to make your own prophecies become a reality
We have had presidents from only two parties for more than 150 years. One thing they have done an exquisite job of over those years is preventing anyone from any other party from being able to make a credible run at the white house.
However, even more significant is the fact that both parties have tacked hard to the right over the past several decades. Our current president comes from what is allegedly the "liberal" party yet he is further to the right than any president before him. Meanwhile the republicans are out in outer effin' space with their hard-right ideology. While this should make an opportunity for someone from the center or (gasp!) the left to rise to power, it really just leaves the lower economic classes with a choice of how badly they want to be screwed.
For me, the choice is pretty easy. The republicans want me to lose my job and then work at something else for pennies a day while they get rich. The democrats at best will allow me to continue in my chosen line of work, with no real hope for a meaningful chance at career advancement. A vote for a third party is a vote taken away from the democrats, which only improves my chance of ending up unemployed.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like what the democratic party has become. I just prefer it over the punishment the republicans have in mind for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I'm not going to go through and tally up all the comments, but there are a few observations that are easy to make.
So I really don't see the argument here for slashdot not supporting a conservative bend.
Nevermind that the article actually points out that less money is paid out in social welfare programs than at any time since before the Reagan administration
Can you please point at where it says that? I don't see any mentions of Reagan in the article...
Well, Reagan was elected president in 1980...
Interestingly, despite Obama's frequent pledges to reduce income inequality, the share of direct payments going toward "income security" has dropped from 25% in 2009 to 20% in 2014. (The average share from 1980 to 2008 was 25.4%.)
Granted, it does not explicitly state what the rate was under Reagan, but we can assume that Reaganomics did its best to minimize that payout - and hence should have brought down that average quite a bit. We know that the second Bush administration worked hard to reduce that number as well. Yet under Obama we have a smaller payout than during that period of mostly republican presidencies, and Obama is working to reduce it even further.
So unless under Carter in 1980 we had some astronomic number that threw off the average, it is reasonable to say that under Obama we are paying less towards "income security" than we did under Reagan. Even if the numbers were outstandingly high under Clinton (which they weren't either) it would be hard to offset the goals of Reaganomics.
Does noone remember the comments around the hurricane during the 2012 RNC, with a large majority of posters wishing (some claiming to be serious) that key RNC leaders would drown?
Can you provide a link to that discussion? I have a hard time believing that "a large majority of posters" did anything of the sort. I would search for it myself but of course we all know that the search function here on slashdot isn't worth shit. If "a large majority" really said that, I would bet that the majority of that "majority" were simply expressing nonspecific disgust as politicians in general.
That said, there are plenty of people who are openly calling for the POTUS to be removed by extralegal means. We never saw a movement of anywhere near this magnitude when there was a republican in the white house.
Slashdot has an incredibly liberal lean.
Don't be ridiculous. At least once a week we have a story like this one that is bait thrown out to the conservative base. I challenge you to show me a single front page story that was posted here that was actually kind to the liberal cause.
Any post involving anything conservative is gonna be a moshpit of democrats going off on how retarded and backwards conservatives are.
All three of them on slashdot, all getting down-moderated into oblivion. I can see why the conservatives have so much to be afraid of.
Don't try to pretend to be nonpartisan with that candy coated BS at the end. This story was posted here by the usual crowd of slashdot conservatives aiming to make President Obama look bad. Nevermind that the article actually points out that less money is paid out in social welfare programs than at any time since before the Reagan administration, the new conservative mantra here is that no money should ever be given by the federal government to individual citizens, regardless of whether it is for retirement, health care, or even wages for work done. If you're not independently wealthy to the degree that you can afford to be part of the federal government for no wage whatsoever, then the conservative voice here wants you thrown out of Washington immediately and asking for assistance at your local church.
Yes, I know this will be moderated down. But none of "troll", "flamebait", and "overrated" are the same as "factually inaccurate" - indeed most are just used as ways of saying "I disagree".
Couldn't he have, you know, drank the water that was building up?
At the time, he was assuming it to be water. What if it was a toxic liquid? He had no way to confirm the identity of the liquid while outside the ISS.
The US prison system is about profit first, punishment second, making an example third, more profit fourth, more punishment fifth, other things, and then maybe sometime much later down the line rehabilitation. They spend more money on laundry security than they do on conscious efforts to rehabiltate prisoners for re-entry into society.
That would really be outside-the-box thinking for Nissan (or any Japanese car maker, really). Toyota, Nissan, and Honda (as well as their Korean counterparts Hyundai and Kia) have made many shit-tons of money in this country by selling really, really, excruciatingly boring cars.
I own a Honda Integra type R (which revs to 9000rpm, 15mph to 150mph in one gear)
I can tell you a few things about the Honda / Acura Integra from my own experience:
my sister owns a Toyota MR2 (mid engined, RWD)
That car was discontinued some time ago and did not sell in particularly large numbers in comparison to the other Toyota cars. It also shared almost no parts with any other Toyota, and hence they (as a company) learned almost nothing from it.
Also, have you not hears of the old Nissan Skyline
Also discontinued, and never sold in North America.
or new GT-R
A technically impressive car, but made in such small numbers as to be of no real importance. It also does not share any relevant parts with any other cars of the same badge. Being as hardly anyone wants to spend $80k on a Nissan anyways, its existence is of at best marginal significance.
Not all their cars are dull... in fact, I'd say for reasonably priced cars, the Japanese manufacturers have some of the best.
You didn't name a single reasonably priced car that is in current production. Furthermore of the cars that you named that are not in production, they were outsold several hundred fold by sedans from the same vendors that could be marketed as cures for insomnia. You could just as well be trying to excuse the Dodge Neon by telling us about the performance specs of the Viper.
Try making a car that doesn't suck. The leaf is a great car for people who don't like to drive. Make a car that handles well and performs respectably and people might want to buy it.
Maybe THAT is why Nissan is talking to Tesla owners: they're planning on competing with them with comparable models.
That would really be outside-the-box thinking for Nissan (or any Japanese car maker, really). Toyota, Nissan, and Honda (as well as their Korean counterparts Hyundai and Kia) have made many shit-tons of money in this country by selling really, really, excruciatingly boring cars. Talk to any person who has ever owned a Corolla - for example - and ask them to give you adjectives that explain their car and I guarantee you exciting will not be one. I know people who have sold their working Japanese cars after many years just because they couldn't stand to drive / look at them any more.
Now, granted, the American car makers have sadly largely copied that strategy and wondered why they can't get anywhere in the market.
Try making a car that doesn't suck. The leaf is a great car for people who don't like to drive. Make a car that handles well and performs respectably and people might want to buy it.
There are two living grandsons of John Tyler. Which proves nothing, because this sort of discussion is not about proving things. What I want to know about the research is how much dope the old coots under consideration did. I submit that the quality of life lived may have as much impact as the quantity, but not quite get teased out as well in the research.
This type of health research is largely about probability. It is not that far distant from research that shows that cigarette smoking is generally a really bad idea from a health perspective. You can't disprove that idea solely by showing a 70+ year old heavy smoker who managed to not get lung cancer, but you can support it by showing millions of people who died of it at a much younger age than that without a family history of it.
Similarly, we know that some conditions with poor outcomes track with the age of the father (and of course others with the age of the mother). It doesn't mean that every child of older parents will have that condition, but they are more likely to have them then kids born to younger parents.
You have more faith in FB stock than I do. I think it will be back down below 40 by the end of the year.
You may actually be over estimating my faith in facebook. I anticipate eventually that stock will be worth as much as stock in Pets.com. I just don't know if it will be in 2014, 2015, or 2016.
I don't expect that $16.5B worth of facebook stock will be worth much in another couple years.
Whats to say this isn't the mad scrawlings of a schizophrenic mad man, 500 years ago? It'd certainly fit the pattern.
While not impossible, the text that remains is 240 pages (each page roughly 6.3 x 9 inches). Being as it seems to have some coherent themes across sections, it seems rather unlikely that a disturbed person could have written it on a whim.
A bill to require mobile service providers and mobile device manufacturers to give consumers the ability to remotely delete data from mobile devices and render such devices inoperable. I'm not sure where this shorter title that is traversing the internet is coming from, it was never a submitted title for the bill.
Being in the top 200 out of 100 million really isn't bad.
It has little to anything to do with regulations. It mostly comes down to the fact that aviation is a really, really, really, really, really expensive hobby that has only become more expensive in recent times. There just aren't that many people with that much disposable income.
If they are trying to make more FPS and fighting games, they shouldn't expect existing Nintendo customers to flock to their system. There are already too many of those titles on the Sony and Microsoft systems, and they have established software and user bases. Say what you will about Nintendo hardware but the list of top selling titles for the Wii and Wii U consoles looks nothing at all like the list for the playstation and xbox consoles.
but in the late 90's, if you wanted the best laptop money could buy, you'd get a VAIO.
As someone who sold computers in the late 90s, I strongly disagree. The VAIO laptops were no better, and in some occasions were actually worse. The Thinkpad was the laptop for the person who wanted the best they could buy (and by some arguments they it still is).
I never understood the appeal of the Sony laptops. It seemed like they were trying to hit the Apple price point but with reliability that made the Apple laptops look like the greatest feat of engineering since the wheel. Add to that all the bloatware that Sony installed as standard and I really can't find an advantage.
which candidate on the ballot will harm you the least
Do you ever vote for the person who you think will do the country the most good, or is that coincidence?
That is not a black-and-white issue. When talking about who would do "the country" the most good, how do you decide what qualifies for "the country" or "the most good"? I see "the country" as a reflection of the people who live in this country; and to me "the most good" for "the country" is equivalent to "who would have the best (or least bad) outcomes for the greatest number of people". I have, so far, seen that as being the same candidate who does the least harm to me. There could be a time in the future where those two are at conflict but so far I have seen those characteristics shared by the same candidate each time.
Not all Western countries are there yet, but most are following US into that political hell hole as US is still widely seen as the leader of democratic movement around the world and as such, an example to be followed.
I hope that most other democracies are not following the US example. At the very least, pretty well none of them are following the political trajectory where the party that used to be liberal is more conservative than the most conservative parties in most other countries and the party that is traditionally conservative has become an open worshiper of the mighty dollar with no regard for the bulk of humanity whatsoever. The fact that "capitalism" has taken over as the central dogma of both parties in this country is terrifying.
Our current president is the most conservative president our country has ever had
Okay, I'm about as liberal as it gets, and I have to say this is a ridiculous statement. He's not even more conservative than his predecessor, to say nothing of serious conservatives like the unholy trinity of Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan.
Really? He signed off on the largest handout to corporate America in the history of our country in 2010 - and even allowed his name to be associated freely with it. He has signed off on more tax breaks than Reagan ever could have dreamed of. He has witnessed the continued erosion of collective bargaining and loss of power for organized labor. He has watched as more and more government functions that were pillars of the nation's social contract succumb to the vaporous dreams of privatization - with terrible consequences. He has seen the bailout and reward of a laundry list of billionaires, many of whom went to great lengths to lie, cheat, and steal their way to the top while shafting anyone they could in the process.
Not only is Obama demonstrably more conservative than GWB, GHWB, and Reagan, he quite nearly makes them look like Mother Theresa.
The two main parties don't lose power when you do that
They don't need to lose power; just votes.
Really? What lesson do they learn when they lose votes but retain power?
If enough people change their votes, they'll want to get them back.
Why would they do that? if they still have power then what difference does it make to them? An argument could be made that when fewer people vote in a way that has an impact on the outcome of the election, all that has happened is the election has become that much less expensive for the parties - and their masters - to run.
But again, even if all of the above weren't true, voting for evil is in itself intolerable, unacceptable, and evil.
That is a rather immature (and pitifully black-and-white) description then you describe someone else as
evil
There is a lot to politics. Someone else is not automatically evil just because you disagree with something they do. That kind of mentality has brought us to - and some times beyond - the brink of war on more than one occasion.
the main parties may 'learn' a thing or two
I hear a lot of third-party voters talk about "sending a message" or "teaching the parties about XYZ". The problem is that a third-party vote doesn't do that. The two main parties don't lose power when you do that, one of them still comes out on top. I will agree that it is more useful than not voting at all, but it doesn't do much to change the power structure.
The parties only need to get more people to vote for them than for the other guy. The rest does not impact the outcome of the election and hence does not impact what the parties do.
In the US, there is no choice.
You have choices, and some of them are third parties. You (and people like you) just choose to make your own prophecies become a reality
We have had presidents from only two parties for more than 150 years. One thing they have done an exquisite job of over those years is preventing anyone from any other party from being able to make a credible run at the white house.
However, even more significant is the fact that both parties have tacked hard to the right over the past several decades. Our current president comes from what is allegedly the "liberal" party yet he is further to the right than any president before him. Meanwhile the republicans are out in outer effin' space with their hard-right ideology. While this should make an opportunity for someone from the center or (gasp!) the left to rise to power, it really just leaves the lower economic classes with a choice of how badly they want to be screwed.
For me, the choice is pretty easy. The republicans want me to lose my job and then work at something else for pennies a day while they get rich. The democrats at best will allow me to continue in my chosen line of work, with no real hope for a meaningful chance at career advancement. A vote for a third party is a vote taken away from the democrats, which only improves my chance of ending up unemployed.
Don't get me wrong. I don't like what the democratic party has become. I just prefer it over the punishment the republicans have in mind for me.