To your question about why it's a big thing if people colluded with Russia to change our election... well, the only argument I see here is one of hypocrisy for the U.S. considering we love meddling. Even then, there are laws about this kind of thing, but I don't know how that isn't common knowledge at this point.
First, if the intelligence community knows everything then, well, the investigation would be over. Benghazi got about 9 hearings, so I think we should let at least 1 investigation play out here.
Second, this isn't about verifying the election results or whether there was propaganda. Frankly, a lot of people are sick and tired of that canard. This is about collusion. If there isn't any, I'm fine with that. If there is, well, that's kind of a big thing.
I don't think it's the Slashdot users that you need to be worried about convincing. To borrow a joke, maybe we should put that on some KFC buckets for a while.
Well, members of our intelligence community don't want that. Say what you want, but I'm willing to trust people who have been working in the surveillance community when it comes to what's good for communication and national security.
Now, I don't know a ton but I do know back channels are relatively normal for certain types of communication. What's indefensible, as a U.S. citizen, is using that strictly to avoid FBI surveillance. Maybe it's innocent, but it sure as heck looks shady. The attempted cover-up once this starting making headlines sure doesn't paint a pretty picture. But, hey, I thought all those e-mail and Benghazi people would understand that type of thinking.
Trump was not elected to represent 60% or 40% of the world's countries, he was elected to represent the US in foreign affairs, which this is. I don't care whether 40% of the world's leaders or 60% of the world's leader think an agreement is valuable to their countries, I worry about the US.
Great, so how about the rest of the world seeing this as an action that we're not willing to cooperate with the rest of the world on a global initiative. It's like any other social dynamic, in a sense. Once people see you not participating in a group, you're going to be left out of future engagements.
Now, if you think strictly through our country's general ability to innovate will allow us to forge ahead and still be a major player in renewable energies and other changing tech then, fine, people like Musk and others we don't know about now may help us get there. We must still consider for a moment that other leaders are already using coded language that they may no longer see the U.S. as leader of the world and a reliable ally (Merkel, Macron, etc.). Whatever it is, I don't see it as a beginning of a good trend for us.
We don't have replace; we definitely have repeal. And I'm pretty sure the "healthcare for everybody" part that was trumpeted constantly is not happening yet.
While that logic makes sense (I expect him to attempt to go in reverse of every decision possible of the last 8 years), he is breaking his campaign promises on health care. I'd argue that promise holds more tangible value to the American voter than the Paris climate agreement.
You want the IRS to leak taxes they're supposedly auditing (not that I buy that there's an audit)? I'm going to need to start my drinking early today it seems...
The baker is at fault for attempting to impose his beliefs on society at large.
What a load of horseshit. Freedom of association is the basic default in a free society. The one imposing is the government and couple insisting he either bakes a cake against his religious beliefs or goes out of business.
I have yet to understand this mindset. When you go into business, your personal beliefs should not be driving how you conduct business. You enter that space as a business owner. Granted, if you consistently make more bad decisions than not, you will eventually go out of business.
That being said, it's no different than the old Hobby Lobby argument. Your core business is not religion (it's cakes, or art, or... whatever) - it's something else. In this instance, the wedding cake business is not a religious establishment. That is the belief of the person owning the business. I don't see why the owner's personal beliefs should transcend, legally, to the business. People who cannot keep those thought processes separate should not be business owners.
Granted, this is easy for me to say as someone who isn't a business owner. I know I don't have the mindset for it.
So this isn't a policy statement, more of a reaction why the voters went with Trump. I wasn't sure, I suppose I should have led with that question.
As a white male I don't feel particularly vilified by anything that's been going on. Maybe that's thick skin or too much naivete, whatever the case I have trouble seeing past staying home during this voting cycle versus voting the other way. I typically only ever look at policy, and while there's a lot not to like with both major parties the basics of why I have trouble voting Republican haven't changed since Bush Jr became the standard-bearer.
So, I guess my point is that I don't see how any Trump policies won over people who were for Obama. Trump is *way* more charismatic than Clinton and the presentation of both party's agendas is why people weren't buying (D) this time around. That said, from a policy perspective in 2016 versus 2012 I didn't see any major changes from either party. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.
Liberals have nobody to blame but yourselves for Trump.
No, no, no, no, no. Party A does not get to blame party B for party A's candidate. Be proud of what your own candidate stands for if you wish, but you *DO NOT* get to deflect imperfections of your own candidate/office holder onto another party. Trump is who he is, and we have what we have because we keep on nominating unlikable candidates and can't agree on basic facts about what's important.
... when they don't agree with mouth-foaming liberals.
Also, you don't get to react like this to a comment about someone talking about you 'blindly hating the left' with this comment. Stick to your points, and the people who feel compelled to use labels will rightly be ignored.
Propping up the legacy big businesses appears to be one of the current guidelines for how the country is being governed at the moment. Certainly not an encouraging sign.
I'm in the same boat as you are (well, car anyway). Our family's current plan is to get a Tesla when our current car no longer functions and needs to be replaced. We updated our garage already to handle the type of charger we're going to need because we're pretty certain we are going electric even if we don't get a Tesla. Any company that puts engineering first, even though they don't get it right every time, is something we should be in favor of. Technology always beats legislation, sooner or later.
If I felt inclined to prove interkin3tic's point by conjuring some overused talking points, I'm unsure I could have come up with anything better than what I just read. Well done, AC, well done.
I'm in complete agreement on this. I think those even in favor of an attempted health care overhaul wanted the ACA to be better than it is. We've heard rallying cries against it for at least 7 years now, posturing included with 'we have a better idea'. There's been plenty of time to come up with a better plan in preparation for this moment and it hasn't arrived yet. Instead, all we've had is a draft bill was recently floated with a giant 'TBD' in it.
Sorry, let's say a better option comes in a year or two - they don't get extra credit for being pioneers. Preparation counts. I welcome something better, preferably a single-payer option included (no, not holding my breath on that), but if something was in the wings it would have been announced by now. They don't know yet, which is why they're being booed out of their own town halls meetings.
So, your argument is that without investment bankers, esp. Goldman Sachs, the US would not be a first-world country? Interesting, as the historical record paints a different picture.
'Begging the question' is an idiom ( help me if I'm using that word incorrectly) that has meaning and origin outside of a dictionary. Conversely, the literally/figuratively discussion is simply a dictionary lookup. In a living language, and especially when it comes to vernacular, meanings of phrases absolutely should change. Dictionary definitions matter, however, and should not. Like the "could care less" or "exception that proves the rule" idioms - most people use it the wrong way to convey a sentiment, and usually people understand what they're saying. Those 'misinterpretations' of the phrase, however, rely on using incorrect meanings of words to convey thought. Those are the only times I get into a twist over it.
So, 'begging the question' - whatever, it's a construct that goes beyond the basic meanings of its words. I don't use it because there are less clunky alternatives. If people use basic words incorrectly, however, it's still a battle worth fighting. To me it's likely willfully not thinking critically if for no other reason not to confuse/annoy people.
1) Does Trump *CARE* about America, or is he simply trying to push an agenda (his brand) and look tough?
2) Since when should companies *CARE* about anything other than profits?
Also considering there are many instances of water pollution all over the country (Flint being the obvious most prominent version), I fail to see how the EPA is doing too much, when they don't have the power to clean up just the water issues.
It's newsworthy that the President, commander in chief of the world's most powerful military, is so petty and thin skinned.
I agree with you in principle on everything you said, but feel compelled to highlight this particular statement. This characteristic of being thin-skinned has been in the public eye for years, especially when primary season began. The small hands joke dates back to this problem as well from a decades-old column in a magazine. This pattern of behavior will continue throughout his presidency, and it should be alarming to people that he's basing real decisions on this (see: voter fraud investigation).
I think we all get it. Trump used someone else's list so he can shift the blame if people don't like it. I guess I should be surprised that he and his lot are unable to initiate critical thinking skills and come up with their own list and defend it.
Slashdot Mirror
Tired and cranky last night - missed that.
To your question about why it's a big thing if people colluded with Russia to change our election... well, the only argument I see here is one of hypocrisy for the U.S. considering we love meddling. Even then, there are laws about this kind of thing, but I don't know how that isn't common knowledge at this point.
Again, I don't care about the election results or changing them. I said that quite clearly.
First, if the intelligence community knows everything then, well, the investigation would be over. Benghazi got about 9 hearings, so I think we should let at least 1 investigation play out here.
Second, this isn't about verifying the election results or whether there was propaganda. Frankly, a lot of people are sick and tired of that canard. This is about collusion. If there isn't any, I'm fine with that. If there is, well, that's kind of a big thing.
What is wrong with letting us see what our candidates are doing?
So, you won't mind if we keep digging to really find out what happened with this whole Trump team and Russia thing, right?
I don't think it's the Slashdot users that you need to be worried about convincing. To borrow a joke, maybe we should put that on some KFC buckets for a while.
Well, members of our intelligence community don't want that. Say what you want, but I'm willing to trust people who have been working in the surveillance community when it comes to what's good for communication and national security.
Now, I don't know a ton but I do know back channels are relatively normal for certain types of communication. What's indefensible, as a U.S. citizen, is using that strictly to avoid FBI surveillance. Maybe it's innocent, but it sure as heck looks shady. The attempted cover-up once this starting making headlines sure doesn't paint a pretty picture. But, hey, I thought all those e-mail and Benghazi people would understand that type of thinking.
Trump was not elected to represent 60% or 40% of the world's countries, he was elected to represent the US in foreign affairs, which this is. I don't care whether 40% of the world's leaders or 60% of the world's leader think an agreement is valuable to their countries, I worry about the US.
Great, so how about the rest of the world seeing this as an action that we're not willing to cooperate with the rest of the world on a global initiative. It's like any other social dynamic, in a sense. Once people see you not participating in a group, you're going to be left out of future engagements.
Now, if you think strictly through our country's general ability to innovate will allow us to forge ahead and still be a major player in renewable energies and other changing tech then, fine, people like Musk and others we don't know about now may help us get there. We must still consider for a moment that other leaders are already using coded language that they may no longer see the U.S. as leader of the world and a reliable ally (Merkel, Macron, etc.). Whatever it is, I don't see it as a beginning of a good trend for us.
We don't have replace; we definitely have repeal. And I'm pretty sure the "healthcare for everybody" part that was trumpeted constantly is not happening yet.
While that logic makes sense (I expect him to attempt to go in reverse of every decision possible of the last 8 years), he is breaking his campaign promises on health care. I'd argue that promise holds more tangible value to the American voter than the Paris climate agreement.
You want the IRS to leak taxes they're supposedly auditing (not that I buy that there's an audit)? I'm going to need to start my drinking early today it seems...
The baker is at fault for attempting to impose his beliefs on society at large.
What a load of horseshit. Freedom of association is the basic default in a free society. The one imposing is the government and couple insisting he either bakes a cake against his religious beliefs or goes out of business.
I have yet to understand this mindset. When you go into business, your personal beliefs should not be driving how you conduct business. You enter that space as a business owner. Granted, if you consistently make more bad decisions than not, you will eventually go out of business.
That being said, it's no different than the old Hobby Lobby argument. Your core business is not religion (it's cakes, or art, or... whatever) - it's something else. In this instance, the wedding cake business is not a religious establishment. That is the belief of the person owning the business. I don't see why the owner's personal beliefs should transcend, legally, to the business. People who cannot keep those thought processes separate should not be business owners.
Granted, this is easy for me to say as someone who isn't a business owner. I know I don't have the mindset for it.
So this isn't a policy statement, more of a reaction why the voters went with Trump. I wasn't sure, I suppose I should have led with that question.
As a white male I don't feel particularly vilified by anything that's been going on. Maybe that's thick skin or too much naivete, whatever the case I have trouble seeing past staying home during this voting cycle versus voting the other way. I typically only ever look at policy, and while there's a lot not to like with both major parties the basics of why I have trouble voting Republican haven't changed since Bush Jr became the standard-bearer.
So, I guess my point is that I don't see how any Trump policies won over people who were for Obama. Trump is *way* more charismatic than Clinton and the presentation of both party's agendas is why people weren't buying (D) this time around. That said, from a policy perspective in 2016 versus 2012 I didn't see any major changes from either party. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right places.
Liberals have nobody to blame but yourselves for Trump.
No, no, no, no, no. Party A does not get to blame party B for party A's candidate. Be proud of what your own candidate stands for if you wish, but you *DO NOT* get to deflect imperfections of your own candidate/office holder onto another party. Trump is who he is, and we have what we have because we keep on nominating unlikable candidates and can't agree on basic facts about what's important.
... when they don't agree with mouth-foaming liberals.
Also, you don't get to react like this to a comment about someone talking about you 'blindly hating the left' with this comment. Stick to your points, and the people who feel compelled to use labels will rightly be ignored.
Sounds like a nice passive-aggressive bumper sticker. I'm in!
People tend to stick to talking points when new arguments based on facts can't be made. Remember, all along it's been about 'how you feel', not facts.
Propping up the legacy big businesses appears to be one of the current guidelines for how the country is being governed at the moment. Certainly not an encouraging sign.
I'm in the same boat as you are (well, car anyway). Our family's current plan is to get a Tesla when our current car no longer functions and needs to be replaced. We updated our garage already to handle the type of charger we're going to need because we're pretty certain we are going electric even if we don't get a Tesla. Any company that puts engineering first, even though they don't get it right every time, is something we should be in favor of. Technology always beats legislation, sooner or later.
By adding.
#mathjokes
(I'll see myself out)
If I felt inclined to prove interkin3tic's point by conjuring some overused talking points, I'm unsure I could have come up with anything better than what I just read. Well done, AC, well done.
I'm in complete agreement on this. I think those even in favor of an attempted health care overhaul wanted the ACA to be better than it is. We've heard rallying cries against it for at least 7 years now, posturing included with 'we have a better idea'. There's been plenty of time to come up with a better plan in preparation for this moment and it hasn't arrived yet. Instead, all we've had is a draft bill was recently floated with a giant 'TBD' in it.
Sorry, let's say a better option comes in a year or two - they don't get extra credit for being pioneers. Preparation counts. I welcome something better, preferably a single-payer option included (no, not holding my breath on that), but if something was in the wings it would have been announced by now. They don't know yet, which is why they're being booed out of their own town halls meetings.
So, your argument is that without investment bankers, esp. Goldman Sachs, the US would not be a first-world country? Interesting, as the historical record paints a different picture.
'Begging the question' is an idiom ( help me if I'm using that word incorrectly) that has meaning and origin outside of a dictionary. Conversely, the literally/figuratively discussion is simply a dictionary lookup. In a living language, and especially when it comes to vernacular, meanings of phrases absolutely should change. Dictionary definitions matter, however, and should not. Like the "could care less" or "exception that proves the rule" idioms - most people use it the wrong way to convey a sentiment, and usually people understand what they're saying. Those 'misinterpretations' of the phrase, however, rely on using incorrect meanings of words to convey thought. Those are the only times I get into a twist over it.
So, 'begging the question' - whatever, it's a construct that goes beyond the basic meanings of its words. I don't use it because there are less clunky alternatives. If people use basic words incorrectly, however, it's still a battle worth fighting. To me it's likely willfully not thinking critically if for no other reason not to confuse/annoy people.
Hilarious argument.
1) Does Trump *CARE* about America, or is he simply trying to push an agenda (his brand) and look tough?
2) Since when should companies *CARE* about anything other than profits?
Also considering there are many instances of water pollution all over the country (Flint being the obvious most prominent version), I fail to see how the EPA is doing too much, when they don't have the power to clean up just the water issues.
It's newsworthy that the President, commander in chief of the world's most powerful military, is so petty and thin skinned.
I agree with you in principle on everything you said, but feel compelled to highlight this particular statement. This characteristic of being thin-skinned has been in the public eye for years, especially when primary season began. The small hands joke dates back to this problem as well from a decades-old column in a magazine. This pattern of behavior will continue throughout his presidency, and it should be alarming to people that he's basing real decisions on this (see: voter fraud investigation).
I think we all get it. Trump used someone else's list so he can shift the blame if people don't like it. I guess I should be surprised that he and his lot are unable to initiate critical thinking skills and come up with their own list and defend it.