Here's something that the majority of America would support to the extent that legality is moot:
Shoot Trump and Clinton into the sun. Have a new primary and a new general election. Have an option on the ballots to shoot both candidates into the sun, just in case we end up in a similar situation. Rinse and repeat until we've got a candidate that the country doesn't hate.
They've been using what evidence they can find of 3) to claim or imply 1), although replace "false" with negative, since the most damaging information was 100% real.
No, they are criminals, as are the entirety of the Trump administration, just not on what they are being accused of in this Russia hysteria.
NEWSFLASH: Nobody in the Trump campaign had the CAPACITY to help Russia, and Russia was far more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump.
I want the Trump administration stopped, so focus on his actual crimes, instead of the off-the-cuff excuse the Clintonites went to when Wikileaks caught them with their pants down.
You left out "a deeply corrupt primary system in the opposition party that coronated the only person in the country that could lose a general election" and "hubris that stopped said candidate from stepping foot in the Rust Belt"
Those were, after all, larger factors than anything you mentioned.
Probably not from Putin either. Someone at some level in the Kremlin said "FUCK HILLARY" once, and that equates to "hack the election and put Trump in."
I doubt there's many family farms that even have a positive net value, let alone a high enough taxable estate to meet the limit.
Regarding the normal millionaires, think of it as a "pitchforks and torches" tax. The level of wealth held by the very small minority who would pay the estate tax only exists because of the social stability and protection the government provides. Without that stability and protection, they would have been deposed by pitchforks and torches long before they could reach that level of wealth. This tax helps reduce the appeal of pitchforks and torches, and is actually a generous deal.
You've given zero reason to place any degree of faith in government, and you misunderstand the nature of understanding. Yes, the amount of total data, laws, and models we have is very much incomplete, but we're "Good Enough" for us to understand things like social power dynamics and patterns of corruption.
In fact, a major component of the US government's structure is a built-in distrust for elected officials.
I'm not saying that you prevent them from filing an election form, I'm saying that you make it clear that power behind the party is not going to be on Moore's side, and that you will immediately rip him to shreds if you don't withdraw.
The reason Moore wasn't impeded wasn't because he couldn't have been impeded, it's because nobody with the power to saw a reason to stop him. And no, it's not a hard, explicit, conspiracy, it's mostly not even an intentional conspiracy, but there is definitely a system, and is has a way to check a potential candidate if they misbehave.
For example, Dem donor Stephen Cloobeck explicitly said on TV that he'd pull his funding if the Dems raised his taxes. If major GOP donors pulled similar moves regarding Moore, he'd be toast in a second, which would be the smart move for the party.
True, although you can handwave a certain amount of that because we're typically dealing with the level of power of matter-antimatter reactions (quick look suggests it's in petawatts) and bending space. There are already a number of constraints we need just to have something work on the ISS. Still not a great solution, but the more realistic thing would be that the spaceship blows up, which you can't have happen every episode.
The number of adults with a 99% chance of having never done anything morally questionable is precisely zero.
Sorry if my euphemisms were a bit too vague. I'm talking about a relatively low number of major actions (corruption, ephebophilia/pedophilia, sexual harassment) that aren't covered by laws, but could similarly tarnish a campaign. The number is still going to be quite small, but we don't need very many candidates.
Moore was a known creep before the election started. If the GOP's internal research was worth anything, they should have shitcanned him before he even filled out the paperwork. My point is that if we stop with the celebrity culture of politics, avoiding these problems is easy. If there is a more than 1% chance that someone is guilty of any major crime or morally questionable action, find someone else, because the pool of eligible candidates is in the millions.
There are a lot of allegations, and this is an area where Cheney's 1% rule is applicable. If there's a 1% chance someone is a sexual predator, you should find another candidate.
Given this strategy I think come September of next year I'm just going to claim that every single Democrat running for Congress gang raped me in kindergarten.
Fine. If we do that hard enough, the only people that can run for office will be penniless eunuchs, and they might base policies on facts.
The hypocrisy is the irrational fear of gays and trans people being sexual predators, when Moore himself is a sexual predator, and the GOP can't be fucked to nominate LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE for the position.
So to think that these purveyors of hyper-capitalism will fight for interests of consumers is not only childish, it is foolish.
Who the hell said that? Google and Amazon are acting in their own interest. On net neutrality, their interests align with ours. I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy, because the point is the same in both cases: corporations are going to serve their own interests, including when that has a detrimental effect on healthy competition. If you are trusting anyone to do anything else, you are a fool.
What the data indicates much more strongly is that 1) poverty is tied to crime and 2) people tend to murder the people who live in the same area as them, as opposed to just killing random people.
If you're going to whine about facts, you should learn how to intelligently interpret statistical data.
Nothing really, but it also does nothing that gets in the way of new ISPs. The point is that we aren't getting deregulation that will increase competition, only deregulation that will increase profits.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's something that the majority of America would support to the extent that legality is moot:
Shoot Trump and Clinton into the sun. Have a new primary and a new general election. Have an option on the ballots to shoot both candidates into the sun, just in case we end up in a similar situation. Rinse and repeat until we've got a candidate that the country doesn't hate.
They've been using what evidence they can find of 3) to claim or imply 1), although replace "false" with negative, since the most damaging information was 100% real.
No, they are criminals, as are the entirety of the Trump administration, just not on what they are being accused of in this Russia hysteria.
NEWSFLASH: Nobody in the Trump campaign had the CAPACITY to help Russia, and Russia was far more anti-Clinton than pro-Trump.
I want the Trump administration stopped, so focus on his actual crimes, instead of the off-the-cuff excuse the Clintonites went to when Wikileaks caught them with their pants down.
No, they've found "business as usual" stuff, some pocket change thrown into ads, and oil guys that have ties to an oil rich company.
Trump should be in jail or under a guillotine, but Russia is a big nothingburger.
You left out "a deeply corrupt primary system in the opposition party that coronated the only person in the country that could lose a general election" and "hubris that stopped said candidate from stepping foot in the Rust Belt"
Those were, after all, larger factors than anything you mentioned.
That's probably because so much nothing has been posted as "evidence" that crying wolf doesn't work anymore.
Probably not from Putin either. Someone at some level in the Kremlin said "FUCK HILLARY" once, and that equates to "hack the election and put Trump in."
I think the exact words were "...not because you are easy, but because I am hard."
TFS says nothing about space not being a void, just that we avoid space.
Since these are SHared storms on twITter, I say we call them SHITstorms, and save everyone a little time and effort.
It's west of the parts of America that actually matter...
Cry me a goddamn river if Net Neutrality is the fucking "government overreach" that concerns you.
No, but people claiming that the US ISP market is driven by competition are either shills or delusional.
I doubt there's many family farms that even have a positive net value, let alone a high enough taxable estate to meet the limit.
Regarding the normal millionaires, think of it as a "pitchforks and torches" tax. The level of wealth held by the very small minority who would pay the estate tax only exists because of the social stability and protection the government provides. Without that stability and protection, they would have been deposed by pitchforks and torches long before they could reach that level of wealth. This tax helps reduce the appeal of pitchforks and torches, and is actually a generous deal.
Maybe now I can get back into some accounts I lost the password for.
You've given zero reason to place any degree of faith in government, and you misunderstand the nature of understanding. Yes, the amount of total data, laws, and models we have is very much incomplete, but we're "Good Enough" for us to understand things like social power dynamics and patterns of corruption.
In fact, a major component of the US government's structure is a built-in distrust for elected officials.
I'm not saying that you prevent them from filing an election form, I'm saying that you make it clear that power behind the party is not going to be on Moore's side, and that you will immediately rip him to shreds if you don't withdraw.
The reason Moore wasn't impeded wasn't because he couldn't have been impeded, it's because nobody with the power to saw a reason to stop him. And no, it's not a hard, explicit, conspiracy, it's mostly not even an intentional conspiracy, but there is definitely a system, and is has a way to check a potential candidate if they misbehave.
For example, Dem donor Stephen Cloobeck explicitly said on TV that he'd pull his funding if the Dems raised his taxes. If major GOP donors pulled similar moves regarding Moore, he'd be toast in a second, which would be the smart move for the party.
True, although you can handwave a certain amount of that because we're typically dealing with the level of power of matter-antimatter reactions (quick look suggests it's in petawatts) and bending space. There are already a number of constraints we need just to have something work on the ISS. Still not a great solution, but the more realistic thing would be that the spaceship blows up, which you can't have happen every episode.
Sorry if my euphemisms were a bit too vague. I'm talking about a relatively low number of major actions (corruption, ephebophilia/pedophilia, sexual harassment) that aren't covered by laws, but could similarly tarnish a campaign. The number is still going to be quite small, but we don't need very many candidates.
Moore was a known creep before the election started. If the GOP's internal research was worth anything, they should have shitcanned him before he even filled out the paperwork. My point is that if we stop with the celebrity culture of politics, avoiding these problems is easy. If there is a more than 1% chance that someone is guilty of any major crime or morally questionable action, find someone else, because the pool of eligible candidates is in the millions.
Fine. If we do that hard enough, the only people that can run for office will be penniless eunuchs, and they might base policies on facts.
The hypocrisy is the irrational fear of gays and trans people being sexual predators, when Moore himself is a sexual predator, and the GOP can't be fucked to nominate LITERALLY ANYONE ELSE for the position.
Who the hell said that? Google and Amazon are acting in their own interest. On net neutrality, their interests align with ours. I'm not sure I'd call it hypocrisy, because the point is the same in both cases: corporations are going to serve their own interests, including when that has a detrimental effect on healthy competition. If you are trusting anyone to do anything else, you are a fool.
What the data indicates much more strongly is that 1) poverty is tied to crime and 2) people tend to murder the people who live in the same area as them, as opposed to just killing random people.
If you're going to whine about facts, you should learn how to intelligently interpret statistical data.
Nothing really, but it also does nothing that gets in the way of new ISPs. The point is that we aren't getting deregulation that will increase competition, only deregulation that will increase profits.