Who's talking far left? There are people who actually do have far-left views, but they are nowhere near the people you are calling far left. From a global perspective, Bernie Sanders is about as centrist as it gets, so in order to be far left, you'd have to be significantly to the left of him.
Wouldn't a more effective long-term method of undermining Russia's economy be to spread renewables? Yeah, we can temporarily undermine them with a glut, but we would be ultimately creating a disincentive to actual energy independence.
So, Russia wants us to not shoot unarmed black men? Sounds better than our current government, and the past administration. Perhaps the Russians are the "useful idiots," provoking reasonable discussions to make us a little less ass backwards.
It doesn't need to continue forever. It just needs to continue long enough for battery density and power efficiency to change to an extent that this is no longer problematic. It doesn't take that many times halving and doubling to make a large number small.
It wouldn't even be necessary. Standard of living has an inverse correlation with birth rates. Most of Western civilization is at sub-replacement levels.
Noise is a good source of randomness. Either way, computers are far superior at picking "random" numbers than humans, even with the most basic of tools.
Your argument falls apart under the reality that we were able to track basically all the bad guys even BEFORE the 9/11 Patriot Act crap. So many of the major terrorist attacks had the person/people behind it on a list or something, but we conveniently did nothing until after the event.
The reality is that strict adherence to due process doesn't just protect the rights of citizens, it protects law enforcement and spies from information overload. Without those checks, we have more data than we can filter through, and are less capable of effectively keeping us safe.
The higher the standards of security, the more we need FOSS, because it's the superior security model. If you need it with zero bugs, you write it in something like Ada Spark.
Yes, our elections are a horribly insecure mess. But that's not at all new with Trump, and there's no evidence that this election was any more of a focus or success than other elections. As for why a nation wouldn't hack our election results, that's ironically because they are already too much of a mess of different vendors and products to allow for an easy wide-scale hack. Also, the states that were vital to the election were "firewall" states, not the typical "swing" states that a foreign adversary would focus on.
Yes, that is a real problem, but the only reason it's being brought up is to distract from how much the Clinton campaign shit the bed in order to lose to a candidate that didn't even want to win.
I don't disagree. My concern is that instead of fighting it, the Dems have largely embraced it. For example, in the latest election, the Clinton campaign tried to work around the already pathetic safeguards we have against direct coordination with SuperPACs.
Yeah, he won the clown car race with 16 (or was it 17) candidates by a healthy margin by differentiating himself. But polling throughout the race had him at unprecedented unfavorability ratings, with only Clinton able to even remotely complete. He polled worse than lice and Nickelback.
Also, among the groups of independents, Democrats, and Republicans, Republicans are the smallest group, and only a small subset of them voted in the primaries.
There wasn't a strong enough case to bring a criminal suit against one of the most powerful people in the country. that doesn't mean everything was a-ok. Comey said she shit the bed, that she should have her nose shoved in it, and that she should probably lose her security clearance.
You know what would have REALLY undermined the Russian plot? Picking a candidate that WASN'T under an FBI investigation.
I don't think the intention was to claim that it's justified, but that it's not unprecedented, and that if we want to stop being on the receiving end of this behavior, perhaps we should stop engaging in it ourselves. It's a lot easier to work towards a goal when you stop being a hypocrite.
More of a rum man, myself, and then whiskey. But I might need some vodka to handle the repeated failure of the Dems to learn a lesson, cut their losses on the whole "neoliberal/New Democrat/Third way" disaster of a strategy and actually give people something to vote for.
No, it isn't. The biggest difference between the two is while what Russia wants has basically nothing to do with my daily life, what Aetna, Exxon, Pfizer, and Goldman Sachs want can and likely will impact me. So, if I could only get rid of one, it would be the corporate influence, because America being a superpower does nothing for the people. However, the rules, regulations, and principles needed to effectively limit/stop one are largely the same as the ones to limit/stop the other.
A baseless assertion (especially since the Dems are generally the stronger copyright proponents, while Republicans get yelled at by artists for using songs during campaigns), but if they are already of that mindset, then the ad seems unlikely to make a big change.
Imagine that multinational corporations are just like foreign countries and then you'll catch up with the rest of the class on what to be outraged about.
Do your imaginary numbers have any chance of even comparing to the billions in free advertising that Trump got, which was actually what the Clinton campaign wanted to happen?
What is legal has virtually nothing to do with what are concerns should be. Super PACs are legal, but they should be burned to the ground. Plus, Facebook's power and influence are on arguably somewhere near on par with a nation state.
So, just like every other election, except maybe some updates on the methodology. But objectively far more important is the DOMESTIC influence on our election from corporations and oligarchs, which is more effective at altering policy in a way that harms the general public, and resulted in a candidate of so poor quality, hindering her policy choices so much, that she lost to a game show host with a complete lack of inhibition.
Better yet, you can get the opposition to run a candidate that half the country already has endless legitimate and bullshit reasons to hate, have that candidate insult half the voters for the opposition, spend the primaries bashing popular policies, and not step foot in several states that were within the margin of error.
Trump didn't win. Clinton lost. And considering she was running against the least popular candidate in US electoral history, the vast majority of the focus should be on how much Clinton and the DNC failed. They probably would have done better nominating a ham sandwich.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's talking far left? There are people who actually do have far-left views, but they are nowhere near the people you are calling far left. From a global perspective, Bernie Sanders is about as centrist as it gets, so in order to be far left, you'd have to be significantly to the left of him.
Wouldn't a more effective long-term method of undermining Russia's economy be to spread renewables? Yeah, we can temporarily undermine them with a glut, but we would be ultimately creating a disincentive to actual energy independence.
So, Russia wants us to not shoot unarmed black men? Sounds better than our current government, and the past administration. Perhaps the Russians are the "useful idiots," provoking reasonable discussions to make us a little less ass backwards.
It doesn't need to continue forever. It just needs to continue long enough for battery density and power efficiency to change to an extent that this is no longer problematic. It doesn't take that many times halving and doubling to make a large number small.
It wouldn't even be necessary. Standard of living has an inverse correlation with birth rates. Most of Western civilization is at sub-replacement levels.
Noise is a good source of randomness. Either way, computers are far superior at picking "random" numbers than humans, even with the most basic of tools.
Your argument falls apart under the reality that we were able to track basically all the bad guys even BEFORE the 9/11 Patriot Act crap. So many of the major terrorist attacks had the person/people behind it on a list or something, but we conveniently did nothing until after the event.
The reality is that strict adherence to due process doesn't just protect the rights of citizens, it protects law enforcement and spies from information overload. Without those checks, we have more data than we can filter through, and are less capable of effectively keeping us safe.
The higher the standards of security, the more we need FOSS, because it's the superior security model. If you need it with zero bugs, you write it in something like Ada Spark.
Actually, by referencing the 17 agencies propganda, you've just exposed yourself as being misinformed, at the very least, if not a shill.
Obviously, you've never had the good shit.
Yes, our elections are a horribly insecure mess. But that's not at all new with Trump, and there's no evidence that this election was any more of a focus or success than other elections. As for why a nation wouldn't hack our election results, that's ironically because they are already too much of a mess of different vendors and products to allow for an easy wide-scale hack. Also, the states that were vital to the election were "firewall" states, not the typical "swing" states that a foreign adversary would focus on.
Yes, that is a real problem, but the only reason it's being brought up is to distract from how much the Clinton campaign shit the bed in order to lose to a candidate that didn't even want to win.
I don't disagree. My concern is that instead of fighting it, the Dems have largely embraced it. For example, in the latest election, the Clinton campaign tried to work around the already pathetic safeguards we have against direct coordination with SuperPACs.
Yeah, he won the clown car race with 16 (or was it 17) candidates by a healthy margin by differentiating himself. But polling throughout the race had him at unprecedented unfavorability ratings, with only Clinton able to even remotely complete. He polled worse than lice and Nickelback.
Also, among the groups of independents, Democrats, and Republicans, Republicans are the smallest group, and only a small subset of them voted in the primaries.
There wasn't a strong enough case to bring a criminal suit against one of the most powerful people in the country. that doesn't mean everything was a-ok. Comey said she shit the bed, that she should have her nose shoved in it, and that she should probably lose her security clearance.
You know what would have REALLY undermined the Russian plot? Picking a candidate that WASN'T under an FBI investigation.
Bound by electoral rules? Well, certainly not the ones about SuperPAC coordination.
No, it's a blanket ASCAP/BMI license. It isn't compulsory, but literally anybody you hear on the radio has already signed up for the deal.
I don't think the intention was to claim that it's justified, but that it's not unprecedented, and that if we want to stop being on the receiving end of this behavior, perhaps we should stop engaging in it ourselves. It's a lot easier to work towards a goal when you stop being a hypocrite.
More of a rum man, myself, and then whiskey. But I might need some vodka to handle the repeated failure of the Dems to learn a lesson, cut their losses on the whole "neoliberal/New Democrat/Third way" disaster of a strategy and actually give people something to vote for.
No, it isn't. The biggest difference between the two is while what Russia wants has basically nothing to do with my daily life, what Aetna, Exxon, Pfizer, and Goldman Sachs want can and likely will impact me. So, if I could only get rid of one, it would be the corporate influence, because America being a superpower does nothing for the people. However, the rules, regulations, and principles needed to effectively limit/stop one are largely the same as the ones to limit/stop the other.
A baseless assertion (especially since the Dems are generally the stronger copyright proponents, while Republicans get yelled at by artists for using songs during campaigns), but if they are already of that mindset, then the ad seems unlikely to make a big change.
Imagine that multinational corporations are just like foreign countries and then you'll catch up with the rest of the class on what to be outraged about.
Do your imaginary numbers have any chance of even comparing to the billions in free advertising that Trump got, which was actually what the Clinton campaign wanted to happen?
What is legal has virtually nothing to do with what are concerns should be. Super PACs are legal, but they should be burned to the ground. Plus, Facebook's power and influence are on arguably somewhere near on par with a nation state.
So, just like every other election, except maybe some updates on the methodology. But objectively far more important is the DOMESTIC influence on our election from corporations and oligarchs, which is more effective at altering policy in a way that harms the general public, and resulted in a candidate of so poor quality, hindering her policy choices so much, that she lost to a game show host with a complete lack of inhibition.
Better yet, you can get the opposition to run a candidate that half the country already has endless legitimate and bullshit reasons to hate, have that candidate insult half the voters for the opposition, spend the primaries bashing popular policies, and not step foot in several states that were within the margin of error.
Trump didn't win. Clinton lost. And considering she was running against the least popular candidate in US electoral history, the vast majority of the focus should be on how much Clinton and the DNC failed. They probably would have done better nominating a ham sandwich.