Trump won because two thirds of the country already hated Clinton, which is the only way he could win against anyone in a general election. A ham sandwich could have annihilated Trump. Many of his own votes hated him, but they hated Clinton more. Meanwhile, Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, and he does especially well with working class white men, the demographic that Trump banked the most on.
Please, Sanders had net favorability, spoke about the issues people actually care about, and BOTH Clinton and Trump were trying to ape the rhetoric he's been using for 30 years. You also pointed out that whether or not Sanders is a socialist is irrelevant, because they are going to paint the Dem candidate as one anyway. An admitted socialist is nowhere near as scary as "secret socialist."
FFS, I live near one of the biggest hives of Trump fans, and there were countless people around here that wanted to vote for Sanders, but voted for Trump to keep Hillary out.
They all have what would be widely considered a "universal" health care system. They wouldn't be considered truly single payer, and there are probably some other exception that wouldn't be even be classified as universal systems, but the underlying point is that the US health care system differs from most of the rest of the world, and those differences fuck the American people in the ass. That's why we pay about double what other countries with comparable economies pay.
The appropriate framing of Obamacare was it was the Republican plan to stall against the inevitability of single payer. Single payer is the adult, responsible choice the rest of the world makes.
The question isn't whether or not they can reproduce those factors, but rather, whether or not they can reproduce those factors "well enough," possibly weighed somewhat against how much cost savings could allow for additional training. I would think they are more similar at shorter range, and as long as they have most of the effective range covered, that would allow for most practical tactics outside of snipers.
Unless you belong to the 75% of the population that is lactose intolerant, or if you have a milk/dairy allergy. Milk is pretty nutritionally complete, as it is used as the primary food source for newborn mammal offspring. However, processing milk as adults, and processing the milk of another species is a fairly novel evolutionary adaptation picked up by groups of nomadic herders. There are still some kinks, and there's definitely reasonable limitations on too much milk, even for the minority that doesn't have any issues with moderate amounts.
No, the whole point of patents is to be a subsidy via monopoly for inventors. If you could reliably keep a valuable secret while in operation for 20 years or more, you'd have to be an idiot to get a patent. However, if anybody can figure it out after you've sold one, than a patent could be useful.
I'm not saying that there aren't downsides to the US going down in flames, but assuming that a power vacuum is always worse than the status quo is unwise. Iraq was a relatively stable dictatorship that didn't pose a major threat. The US is not content on just screwing over its own people, or even just its neighbors, but instead is causing global chaos on multiple fronts.
Plus, we're not a balanced power, and global power would be closer to equilibrium if the US fell down significantly. The US today is the horrific result of the power vacuum created by the fall of the USSR. And yeah, we'd ideally want to get off the petrodollar and other such things before a collapse.
Let me once again clarify, I would very much rather the US NOT go down in flames. And all that it really takes is for reasonable adults to be in charge. But both parties have been fighting tooth and nail against that for decades, which may mean that there is no longer a reason for the world to maintain hope that we'll get our shit together.
You agree with me on a number of points. I want to stop selling arms to horrible people. "Moderate rebels" are basically always horrible people. I agree with cutting off the Saudis.
The major points of disagreement seem to be on Israel and the US. The US topped an international Reuters poll as the biggest threat to world peace by a wide margin, and basically everybody but the US hates Israel. As far as the 'real world' goes, it would seem that you are deluded by virtue of being in the American bubble, and falling victim to old propaganda.
Look, basically everyone in the Middle East is shitty. However, we are an enabler for the shittiness of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. We could easily tell them, "we aren't going to give you billions of dollars in aid and weapons unless you follow the UNDHR and follow international law." But we don't. We suck both of them off every single time, and anybody who complains is [current stock insult here].
Given the importance of our infrastructure, this big of a security breach should be a concerning incident. However, the standards are set so low that this is probably a common occurrence, and thus isn't really anything new.
It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our power grid.
Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long.
As it stands right now, the best thing that could happen for world peace is for the US to go down in flames. I would rather that not happen, but if we listen to people like you instead of behaving like adults, the rational choice for the world at large is to get rid of us.
Here's the pickle. There are multiple leaks and multiple hacks, and the ones from Guccifer2.0 have the strongest Russian ties, but are arguably the least damning. And to call it "strong" is a joke. Nothing cited as evidence is something that wouldn't be pretty standard false flag operations. Russians likely hacked the DNC, but I don't believe for a second they are the only ones that did, and I trust Wikileaks more than any source that has pointed the finger at Russia.
To the same extent, intelligence agencies also have plenty of incentives to sow disinformation, so if they claim something, there is a good chance the truth is nearly the total opposite. Likewise, agencies also have incentives to infiltrate sites like slashdot and spread such disinformation, including the claim that we shouldn't be skeptical of government claims despite a lack of hard evidence because secrecy is needed. I don't care about the particulars, but basically what your statement amounts to is that intelligence agencies will not provide information that can be trusted, to which I completely agree. I just happen to subscribe the bizarre notion that we should seriously doubt information that isn't trustworthy.
It does discount some of the early things we were told, like that this could ONLY have come from the top levels of the Kremlin. The lack of sophistication means that is an outright lie, and we should be suspect of any claims from the same and similar sources.
I'd basically say that it COULD be the Russian government, but the degree of overselling the evidence comes of as suggesting that they probably didn't. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Spies are morons by default, but the less sophisticated the attack, the less likely it is to have come from a nation-state. Not because nation states don't engage in those things, but because there is so much more low level hacking from other sources that they become a rounding error. Something like Stuxnet definitely came from a nation state, but the kind of phishing attack Podesta fell victim to could be basically anyone.
You think all the Cozy Bear Douchey Bear APT talk that's been going on for almost a year is made up?
Somebody hacked/phished a number of targets. It MIGHT have been the same party, or it could just be a bunch of script kiddies using the same or similar tools, which are most likely widely available.
You think it's okay for an insider to hack someone else's email?
Definitely. Sunshine is a great disinfectant. I want insiders from the DNC, RNC, NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, major corporations, media conglomerates, etc. to expose internal wrongdoing. I would also like something similar to be done in many other countries, including Russia.
Do you think CrowdStrike is not only fabricating evidence of malicious programs, but also fabricating evidence of their fabricated evidence's origin? Do you believe that CrowdStrike is a partisan organization with future-telling powers who knew that Trump would display willful ignorance of anything they reported on and use it as part of their anti-Trump agenda?
I believe Crowdstrike will say basically whatever they are being paid to say.
Oh please, Billionaires and multinational corporations should be viewed as the same level of threat to our democracy as foreign actors. In fact, they are a great deal more effective.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump won because two thirds of the country already hated Clinton, which is the only way he could win against anyone in a general election. A ham sandwich could have annihilated Trump. Many of his own votes hated him, but they hated Clinton more. Meanwhile, Sanders is the most popular politician in the country, and he does especially well with working class white men, the demographic that Trump banked the most on.
Please, Sanders had net favorability, spoke about the issues people actually care about, and BOTH Clinton and Trump were trying to ape the rhetoric he's been using for 30 years. You also pointed out that whether or not Sanders is a socialist is irrelevant, because they are going to paint the Dem candidate as one anyway. An admitted socialist is nowhere near as scary as "secret socialist."
FFS, I live near one of the biggest hives of Trump fans, and there were countless people around here that wanted to vote for Sanders, but voted for Trump to keep Hillary out.
They all have what would be widely considered a "universal" health care system. They wouldn't be considered truly single payer, and there are probably some other exception that wouldn't be even be classified as universal systems, but the underlying point is that the US health care system differs from most of the rest of the world, and those differences fuck the American people in the ass. That's why we pay about double what other countries with comparable economies pay.
The appropriate framing of Obamacare was it was the Republican plan to stall against the inevitability of single payer. Single payer is the adult, responsible choice the rest of the world makes.
If they are getting rid of CEOs, I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
Dubya got re-elected because of the remnants of 9/11 sympathy, and he was able to pull from the extra strength the incumbency has during wartime.
The question isn't whether or not they can reproduce those factors, but rather, whether or not they can reproduce those factors "well enough," possibly weighed somewhat against how much cost savings could allow for additional training. I would think they are more similar at shorter range, and as long as they have most of the effective range covered, that would allow for most practical tactics outside of snipers.
Maybe we can have a war on climate change with these rounds, at least if we can find a way for contractors to make money.
Unless you belong to the 75% of the population that is lactose intolerant, or if you have a milk/dairy allergy. Milk is pretty nutritionally complete, as it is used as the primary food source for newborn mammal offspring. However, processing milk as adults, and processing the milk of another species is a fairly novel evolutionary adaptation picked up by groups of nomadic herders. There are still some kinks, and there's definitely reasonable limitations on too much milk, even for the minority that doesn't have any issues with moderate amounts.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
No, the whole point of patents is to be a subsidy via monopoly for inventors. If you could reliably keep a valuable secret while in operation for 20 years or more, you'd have to be an idiot to get a patent. However, if anybody can figure it out after you've sold one, than a patent could be useful.
I'm not saying that there aren't downsides to the US going down in flames, but assuming that a power vacuum is always worse than the status quo is unwise. Iraq was a relatively stable dictatorship that didn't pose a major threat. The US is not content on just screwing over its own people, or even just its neighbors, but instead is causing global chaos on multiple fronts.
Plus, we're not a balanced power, and global power would be closer to equilibrium if the US fell down significantly. The US today is the horrific result of the power vacuum created by the fall of the USSR. And yeah, we'd ideally want to get off the petrodollar and other such things before a collapse.
Let me once again clarify, I would very much rather the US NOT go down in flames. And all that it really takes is for reasonable adults to be in charge. But both parties have been fighting tooth and nail against that for decades, which may mean that there is no longer a reason for the world to maintain hope that we'll get our shit together.
You agree with me on a number of points. I want to stop selling arms to horrible people. "Moderate rebels" are basically always horrible people. I agree with cutting off the Saudis.
The major points of disagreement seem to be on Israel and the US. The US topped an international Reuters poll as the biggest threat to world peace by a wide margin, and basically everybody but the US hates Israel. As far as the 'real world' goes, it would seem that you are deluded by virtue of being in the American bubble, and falling victim to old propaganda.
Look, basically everyone in the Middle East is shitty. However, we are an enabler for the shittiness of both Israel and Saudi Arabia. We could easily tell them, "we aren't going to give you billions of dollars in aid and weapons unless you follow the UNDHR and follow international law." But we don't. We suck both of them off every single time, and anybody who complains is [current stock insult here].
Anonymous Coward parrots ridiculous government propaganda. Film at 11.
Given the importance of our infrastructure, this big of a security breach should be a concerning incident. However, the standards are set so low that this is probably a common occurrence, and thus isn't really anything new.
It should be deeply concerning, but that's effectively the result of the complete lack of care regarding OpSec and vital infrastructure. We've had reasons to be deeply concerned about that for years, if not decades, but now seems like an awfully convenient time to trot out a fact that would likely have applied at just about any point in time if we did an audit of our power grid.
Our posture is fucking horrific. We support Israel even when they blatantly violate international law. We've long sided with Saudi Arabia, the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism. We overthrew Iraq, creating ISIS. We're largely responsible for arming a good chunk of the terrorists in the world. Yeah, Russia does shitty things, but our problems are big enough that our first concern should be fixing our own problems. Not understand that, along with the unbelievable hubris of the Clintonites, is why the Democrats got their asses kicked in this election, and why they've been getting their asses kicked for so long.
As it stands right now, the best thing that could happen for world peace is for the US to go down in flames. I would rather that not happen, but if we listen to people like you instead of behaving like adults, the rational choice for the world at large is to get rid of us.
Here's the pickle. There are multiple leaks and multiple hacks, and the ones from Guccifer2.0 have the strongest Russian ties, but are arguably the least damning. And to call it "strong" is a joke. Nothing cited as evidence is something that wouldn't be pretty standard false flag operations. Russians likely hacked the DNC, but I don't believe for a second they are the only ones that did, and I trust Wikileaks more than any source that has pointed the finger at Russia.
To the same extent, intelligence agencies also have plenty of incentives to sow disinformation, so if they claim something, there is a good chance the truth is nearly the total opposite. Likewise, agencies also have incentives to infiltrate sites like slashdot and spread such disinformation, including the claim that we shouldn't be skeptical of government claims despite a lack of hard evidence because secrecy is needed. I don't care about the particulars, but basically what your statement amounts to is that intelligence agencies will not provide information that can be trusted, to which I completely agree. I just happen to subscribe the bizarre notion that we should seriously doubt information that isn't trustworthy.
It does discount some of the early things we were told, like that this could ONLY have come from the top levels of the Kremlin. The lack of sophistication means that is an outright lie, and we should be suspect of any claims from the same and similar sources.
I'd basically say that it COULD be the Russian government, but the degree of overselling the evidence comes of as suggesting that they probably didn't. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Spies are morons by default, but the less sophisticated the attack, the less likely it is to have come from a nation-state. Not because nation states don't engage in those things, but because there is so much more low level hacking from other sources that they become a rounding error. Something like Stuxnet definitely came from a nation state, but the kind of phishing attack Podesta fell victim to could be basically anyone.
Somebody hacked/phished a number of targets. It MIGHT have been the same party, or it could just be a bunch of script kiddies using the same or similar tools, which are most likely widely available.
Definitely. Sunshine is a great disinfectant. I want insiders from the DNC, RNC, NSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, major corporations, media conglomerates, etc. to expose internal wrongdoing. I would also like something similar to be done in many other countries, including Russia.
I believe Crowdstrike will say basically whatever they are being paid to say.
Oh please, Billionaires and multinational corporations should be viewed as the same level of threat to our democracy as foreign actors. In fact, they are a great deal more effective.
If you drunk so much that it's resulted in 17 diseases, then you have a serious drinking problem.