The thing about Bernie is that he could actually win the election: his polling numbers are much higher than Hillary's when you poll everyone, not just Dem voters.
If only Hillary hadn't ended up with ~25% more votes than Bernie (and trump btw). And as we all know, primary voters tend toward the more extreme ends of the party...
Guess you don't realize that casino's aren't a license to print money, but in many cases operate on a thin profit margin. And the more casino's there are, the more that margin thins out.
So your argument is that by focusing so much on casinos, trump is a bad investor? Agreed. My favorite stat is if he'd just put all his dad's money in an S&P500 index fund he'd be worth more about 2x what most of the generous outside estimates put his wealth at.
Like the relaxing of home loan standards that began under the Clinton administration, at their encouragement to help underdeveloped communities, that led in part to the banking crisis? Like the current economy that after how many years under Obama still needs massive stimulus and near zero interest rates to barely limp along?
Sooo.... its a good thing republican administrations saw the collapse coming and made such smart decisions and have great policy ideas to prevent and fix recessions? I'm not endorsing Hillary but lets not pretend the last couple republican administrations knew what they were doing.
>But have you bothered to look up how many businesses Trump owns and/or runs? The answer is over 500. That's a whole lot of successes for relatively few failures. Even conservatively, 95% of his businesses were/are successful.
Interesting statistic. I'd like to see some further analysis done on it though (yeah I'm not going to be the one to do it). "trump" is a branding enterprise. I'd say that list has a very loose definition of "runs". You really think one person can run 500 businesses effectively? That's just enough time to tell each of them "gimme lower cost and MOAR profit" once a quarter. I'm qualified for that!
My guess is for 99% of it, trump probably walked into (or phoned into...yeah just realized he loves to literally phone it in) a room where *somehotel approached him about a marketing license and he gave a quick speil about "winner" and "luxury" and "best brain". His team took the initiative to draw up a contract listing trump as an executive and added the proverbial notch onto his belt and forgot about the whole thing until he needed stump speech material. The people actually running it are doing well enough that this plan has worked pretty well although I'd be surprised if he is worth 1/4 of what he claims, which is still a lot but also tells me all I need to know about him.
Because an extremely large percentage of people were not purchasing food for their kids, they were drinking and smoking the money away.
And you know this because of the 3 people fox news found that would go on camera to say they bought lobster? Or is 1.9% an "extremely large percentage" in your book?
"The U.S. Department of Labor reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program"
By all means, find a more recent source to prove your point. I won't find it for you but I'll be happy to change my outlook if it checks out.
At the end of my treatment, I had zero cravings for the medication despite the fact that there was always a noticable euphoria when taking a tablet.
Good on you! Your method may be one that most people would benefit from without a risk of becoming dependent. But as you say, you were prescribed 4-12x what you ended up needing! What percentage of the public is brave or smart enough to figure that out on their own?
Also for my own future reference, how did you figure 60mg was excessive? I've never been prescribed painkillers and to me 60mg seems like a very tiny amount. I'd have to do a lot of independent research to know what "a lot" means...something that doesn't seem appealing if I'd just lost a finger.
The point is you are missing the point. Heroin use/addiction is on the rise in the US in large part because of Oxycontin. Perdue Pharma convinced doctors it was safe and non-addictive (wrong on both counts) and had made over $30B doing it. Thousands of unnecessary prescriptions were written causing many to become addicted. The Gov cracked down on pill factories making it hard to get thus those severely addicted turned to heroin (much easier to get). Just peruse the graphs and they will tell the tale:
Many of the stories are some variant of: car accident -> oxycontin pain medication prescription -> addiction -> heroin user. You don't start out using heroin cause your wife left. And in many cases, treating addiction actually does fix most of those other problems you mentioned. Maybe as you say drugs weren't the problem to begin with but for an addict they certainly dwarf all other problems they may have had. Please take a second look at all of your preconceptions to help the shift of public opinion away from drug wars and towards drug treatment.
society must adapt to new situations, and science only helps one interpret pre-existing data,
On the plus side, there is one whole heck of a lot of pre-existing data and truly novel situations generally arise slowly and rarely. Religious extremists popped up about the same time as religion, global warming evidence was first published almost a century ago, and even ubiquitous government surveillance has been done many times to great effect.
Is there something in particular that you see happening recently that would exploit your flaw? Also, "do/change nothing" is a perfectly rational choice that requires no experimentation while the data flows in.
Someone else did a thorough take down of all your points but I just wanted to ad an observation I made when this news hit. This also applies to NAFTA/TPP.
Pretty much every major city in the world is where it is because of...trade. For example, the biggest US cities are ports (NYC, LA). Denver is Denver, CO instead of Cheyenne, WY because the railroad picked a route through CO. Many cities have grown from resources, etc but a quick sampling of my memory says they have a much higher boom/bust rate than those that are major trade centers (prove me wrong, statistically!).
The point is if you want your city/country to grow, 3000+ years of human history say trading is a good thing for you.
As someone who works in professional lighting and sound systems for a company in Los Angeles, I cant think of a worse decision than an IMAX theatre in your home. youre literally just buying it for the brand.
Did you mean to say: "As an IMAX competitor I'd appreciate if you don't buy IMAX stuff"
You may well be right but on the other hand you can be honest about murdering a bunch of people. Extreme example sure, but the point is (relative) honesty in itself is insufficient for a rigorous evaluation of a presidential candidate.
Concern about the rural poor and the plight of military veterans led to their attempts to circumvent many of the traditional Roman principles.. including ignoring previous checks on power
You mean like how bout half of all the Caesars were murdered by their own guards? Highly effective no doubt....
People in the UK and the US are now voting based on their own personal experiences with globalization, with immigration, and with free trade. These experiences have been devastating. It's no wonder they've had enough, and are doing what they can to get some major changes going on.
And yes, that accounts for income inequality. Is there room for improvement? Sure! Is it worth years of certain turmoil to try something else (what exactly??) that in all likelihood will be worse (using human involvement and history as a reference)? Not to me...and probably not most of the developed world either. But one way or another, parts of the population are determined to find out. Yeeehaaaa!!!!
Actually, this is great information for America. We get to observe what happens when a stable western country with a large economy makes a drastic change driven mainly by xenophobia. Maybe the British economy crashes, maybe its all roses. All we have to do is watch...
Eh, maybe not the most rigorous analysis but I wouldn't go "completely invalid" either. 70% of Colorado's population lives in the greater Denver area (including Boulder and CO springs). The next biggest population center is Ft Collins, 90 min up the road at ~300k and most of the rest is small or spread out enough that there probably aren't any Uber drivers (Idaho Falls has 50K residents? Thats huge!).
Using Denver to represent the state is a fair ballpark.
Worry about Soros and the Koch brothers are doing, worry about big money manipulation from Saudi Arabia on Clinton instead. That's much more dangerous to YOU.
How are we supposed to even know what they are doing if the precedent being set is to just sue (at least for now, political prisons are next) all investigators into oblivion? I'm more worried about trumps plan to open libel laws and his habit of denying access to anyone who challenges him on pretty much anything...
The fact that they're looking for dirt on Trump, suggests that they think he might well be elected. ..
Well duh, he is the presumptive candidate of one of the two dominant US political parties. His chances of becoming president of the US for the next 4 years are currently better than every other human on the planet except one (by some variable margin).....uhhboy....
Sorry, you don't get a pass on this, I'm calling bullshit. There are not "a lot" of Christians with views on homosexuality similar to radical Islam.
You're probably right for most definitions of "a lot" but extremist christians are plenty well over-represented in this country imo. How many abortion clinics/doctors have been bombed and yes, shot up, in the past decade?
See? No one has a monopoly on awful! Also, this anecdote counts because it is comprised of 37M people. I'd bet I could come up with a few more gay death penalty countries that aren't Islamic if I had to.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about Bernie is that he could actually win the election: his polling numbers are much higher than Hillary's when you poll everyone, not just Dem voters.
If only Hillary hadn't ended up with ~25% more votes than Bernie (and trump btw). And as we all know, primary voters tend toward the more extreme ends of the party...
Guess you don't realize that casino's aren't a license to print money, but in many cases operate on a thin profit margin. And the more casino's there are, the more that margin thins out.
So your argument is that by focusing so much on casinos, trump is a bad investor? Agreed. My favorite stat is if he'd just put all his dad's money in an S&P500 index fund he'd be worth more about 2x what most of the generous outside estimates put his wealth at.
Like the relaxing of home loan standards that began under the Clinton administration, at their encouragement to help underdeveloped communities, that led in part to the banking crisis? Like the current economy that after how many years under Obama still needs massive stimulus and near zero interest rates to barely limp along?
Sooo.... its a good thing republican administrations saw the collapse coming and made such smart decisions and have great policy ideas to prevent and fix recessions? I'm not endorsing Hillary but lets not pretend the last couple republican administrations knew what they were doing.
>But have you bothered to look up how many businesses Trump owns and/or runs? The answer is over 500. That's a whole lot of successes for relatively few failures. Even conservatively, 95% of his businesses were/are successful.
Interesting statistic. I'd like to see some further analysis done on it though (yeah I'm not going to be the one to do it). "trump" is a branding enterprise. I'd say that list has a very loose definition of "runs". You really think one person can run 500 businesses effectively? That's just enough time to tell each of them "gimme lower cost and MOAR profit" once a quarter. I'm qualified for that!
My guess is for 99% of it, trump probably walked into (or phoned into...yeah just realized he loves to literally phone it in) a room where *somehotel approached him about a marketing license and he gave a quick speil about "winner" and "luxury" and "best brain". His team took the initiative to draw up a contract listing trump as an executive and added the proverbial notch onto his belt and forgot about the whole thing until he needed stump speech material. The people actually running it are doing well enough that this plan has worked pretty well although I'd be surprised if he is worth 1/4 of what he claims, which is still a lot but also tells me all I need to know about him.
John Chen is a bit like gun prohibitionists.
You mean he's a red herring?
hand it over for any trumped-up warrant, without a backdoor in his soon-to-be-extinct Blackberry's.
I see what you did there...
Multiple sources, like the US government, report that > 1/3 households are on means tested assistance (e.g. welfare).
That doesn't mean the total dollar amount has increased...or even stayed the same.
Because an extremely large percentage of people were not purchasing food for their kids, they were drinking and smoking the money away.
And you know this because of the 3 people fox news found that would go on camera to say they bought lobster? Or is 1.9% an "extremely large percentage" in your book?
"The U.S. Department of Labor reported that 1.9% total UI payments for 2001 was attributable to fraud or abuse within the UI program"
By all means, find a more recent source to prove your point. I won't find it for you but I'll be happy to change my outlook if it checks out.
At the end of my treatment, I had zero cravings for the medication despite the fact that there was always a noticable euphoria when taking a tablet.
Good on you! Your method may be one that most people would benefit from without a risk of becoming dependent. But as you say, you were prescribed 4-12x what you ended up needing! What percentage of the public is brave or smart enough to figure that out on their own?
Also for my own future reference, how did you figure 60mg was excessive? I've never been prescribed painkillers and to me 60mg seems like a very tiny amount. I'd have to do a lot of independent research to know what "a lot" means...something that doesn't seem appealing if I'd just lost a finger.
The point is you are missing the point. Heroin use/addiction is on the rise in the US in large part because of Oxycontin. Perdue Pharma convinced doctors it was safe and non-addictive (wrong on both counts) and had made over $30B doing it. Thousands of unnecessary prescriptions were written causing many to become addicted. The Gov cracked down on pill factories making it hard to get thus those severely addicted turned to heroin (much easier to get). Just peruse the graphs and they will tell the tale:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/abou...
Many of the stories are some variant of: car accident -> oxycontin pain medication prescription -> addiction -> heroin user. You don't start out using heroin cause your wife left. And in many cases, treating addiction actually does fix most of those other problems you mentioned. Maybe as you say drugs weren't the problem to begin with but for an addict they certainly dwarf all other problems they may have had. Please take a second look at all of your preconceptions to help the shift of public opinion away from drug wars and towards drug treatment.
Thanks for the tip. While we're at it, what are your thoughts on String Theory?
society must adapt to new situations, and science only helps one interpret pre-existing data,
On the plus side, there is one whole heck of a lot of pre-existing data and truly novel situations generally arise slowly and rarely. Religious extremists popped up about the same time as religion, global warming evidence was first published almost a century ago, and even ubiquitous government surveillance has been done many times to great effect.
Is there something in particular that you see happening recently that would exploit your flaw? Also, "do/change nothing" is a perfectly rational choice that requires no experimentation while the data flows in.
"representing" what you want is not the same as getting what you want.
Someone else did a thorough take down of all your points but I just wanted to ad an observation I made when this news hit. This also applies to NAFTA/TPP.
Pretty much every major city in the world is where it is because of...trade. For example, the biggest US cities are ports (NYC, LA). Denver is Denver, CO instead of Cheyenne, WY because the railroad picked a route through CO. Many cities have grown from resources, etc but a quick sampling of my memory says they have a much higher boom/bust rate than those that are major trade centers (prove me wrong, statistically!).
The point is if you want your city/country to grow, 3000+ years of human history say trading is a good thing for you.
As someone who works in professional lighting and sound systems for a company in Los Angeles, I cant think of a worse decision than an IMAX theatre in your home. youre literally just buying it for the brand.
Did you mean to say: "As an IMAX competitor I'd appreciate if you don't buy IMAX stuff"
You may well be right but on the other hand you can be honest about murdering a bunch of people. Extreme example sure, but the point is (relative) honesty in itself is insufficient for a rigorous evaluation of a presidential candidate.
Concern about the rural poor and the plight of military veterans led to their attempts to circumvent many of the traditional Roman principles.. including ignoring previous checks on power
You mean like how bout half of all the Caesars were murdered by their own guards? Highly effective no doubt....
I don't have a point, just wanted to add that.
People in the UK and the US are now voting based on their own personal experiences with globalization, with immigration, and with free trade. These experiences have been devastating. It's no wonder they've had enough, and are doing what they can to get some major changes going on.
Gradually/Marginally getting better != devastating
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...
http://hdr.undp.org/en/countri...
And yes, that accounts for income inequality. Is there room for improvement? Sure! Is it worth years of certain turmoil to try something else (what exactly??) that in all likelihood will be worse (using human involvement and history as a reference)? Not to me...and probably not most of the developed world either. But one way or another, parts of the population are determined to find out. Yeeehaaaa!!!!
Actually, this is great information for America. We get to observe what happens when a stable western country with a large economy makes a drastic change driven mainly by xenophobia. Maybe the British economy crashes, maybe its all roses. All we have to do is watch...
(many probably won't watch)
They are angry about immigration depressing wages, and they are angry about globalism wiping out jobs altogether.
And sadly because they are "too tired of listening to experts", they'll never know there is very little truth to that.
Eh, maybe not the most rigorous analysis but I wouldn't go "completely invalid" either. 70% of Colorado's population lives in the greater Denver area (including Boulder and CO springs). The next biggest population center is Ft Collins, 90 min up the road at ~300k and most of the rest is small or spread out enough that there probably aren't any Uber drivers (Idaho Falls has 50K residents? Thats huge!).
Using Denver to represent the state is a fair ballpark.
Worry about Soros and the Koch brothers are doing, worry about big money manipulation from Saudi Arabia on Clinton instead. That's much more dangerous to YOU.
How are we supposed to even know what they are doing if the precedent being set is to just sue (at least for now, political prisons are next) all investigators into oblivion? I'm more worried about trumps plan to open libel laws and his habit of denying access to anyone who challenges him on pretty much anything...
The fact that they're looking for dirt on Trump, suggests that they think he might well be elected. . .
Well duh, he is the presumptive candidate of one of the two dominant US political parties. His chances of becoming president of the US for the next 4 years are currently better than every other human on the planet except one (by some variable margin). ....uhhboy....
Sorry, you don't get a pass on this, I'm calling bullshit. There are not "a lot" of Christians with views on homosexuality similar to radical Islam.
You're probably right for most definitions of "a lot" but extremist christians are plenty well over-represented in this country imo. How many abortion clinics/doctors have been bombed and yes, shot up, in the past decade?
Yeah, Islamic countries are the only ones with governments that want to kill gay people...oh and Uganda
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Originally written with the death penalty! Whats Uganda's primary religion? 85% Christian!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
See? No one has a monopoly on awful! Also, this anecdote counts because it is comprised of 37M people. I'd bet I could come up with a few more gay death penalty countries that aren't Islamic if I had to.