Yes, the debate questions... THAT was the primary story in the news that swayed voters. Not the Clinton foundation, not the e-mails, not her 'health issues'...
The DNC isn't paying attention to its constituents like it should. I don't even remember having a single conversation in the past year, including with people who only ever pull the level for Democrats, where Hillary was equated to 'perfect' and 'could do no wrong'. Pretty much everyone I know preferred Sanders, including myself, and didn't want Clinton representing the party.
Cut down on the hyperbole FFS - it's one of the major reasons why people with opposing viewpoints cannot have a rational conversation. If people aren't willing to consider the timing of the leaks as a contributing factor to how the election the way it did, well, it's hard to have a conversation with anyone who doesn't believe in a historical record of fact. She was nowhere near a great candidate, in fact second most disliked in history (second to the 2016 winner, but second nonetheless). I'm not even sure where, other than thin air, where you're pulling that thought from.
The point was that Sanders was the better candidate and could have easily won had he gotten the nomination. Sanders was the movement on the Democrat side, Trump was on the Republican. Why it's so hard for people to accept that is tough to grasp. If you want to talk about difficulty reasoning with people, try to understand the central point before shooting your mouth off.
Accidentally moderated while reading, so posting to undo. I knew nothing of this study before digging around and skimming through it. Worth a read, if you like seeing this type of study.
There will be no point over the next two years when Donald Trump is accepted as President in any normal sense.
Ah, still in "denial". I'm honestly surprised you haven't moved to "anger" yet, since that's sort of your thing. Wake me when you get to "bargaining".
I'm amazed at how much this has been said lately and modded up, considering how much people loved bashing Obama over the last several years despite his re-election. Can we just agree that hated of the leader who isn't from your party is a patriotic duty of some sort and just move on? Otherwise this pointless idiocy is going to remain cyclical. And pointless. Did I say pointless?
We should be surprised that this scene happened at the play? This happened the same time that the Trump University case settlement was reached. Predictably, because the 'news' is more interested in theater, pun intended, more time was spent covered that manufactured outrage rather than at where our outrage should be reached.
What, you thought fake news only benefited one political alignment?
This is what happens when you chase money instead of what you enjoy doing. If you really enjoy your job that can outweigh the money. If you truly value money more than the work then it doesn't matter your career, really, and that's just fine, but it turns out a lot people don't enjoy money over everything else.
I think Tea Party people would disagree with you on protesting doing nothing, but regardless your comments is 100% on. Voting is, effectively, the ONE time our voice could be heard. If you don't leverage that power at that time, if you ask me protesting is, at best, completely disingenuous.
There is nothing stopping people from going to college, but funding it to no end, or making it free for everyone just cheapens the degrees, and makes degrees a requirement for all sorts of jobs across the pay spectrum - from carwash to senior researcher
I'm not one who generally believes that there's a ton we can do at the Federal level to help with our education issues as a nation (for the most part I think parents are simply too disengaged or don't have the timea/bility to help their kids with schooling, which is a whole other conversation). That said, this type of commentary burns me up more than most.
1) There is plenty stopping people going to college. Fear of massive debt being the biggest one. Or, it should be. At some point there needs to be a massive correction with cost of college and which people wind up going. There are tons of good jobs and careers that don't require a college degree. People needs to spend more time figuring out what they want to do before going to college. I was lucky; I knew I loved programming before graduation high school so college was an easy choice for me. For others, I know that things aren't always figured out by high school graduation. And I don't know what the right answer is there either, but affordability is important.
2) Making college free for people was a thing for state colleges way back when. You know, it happened to coincide nicely when our middle class and upward mobility was stronger that it is now. This generally died by the 70's (I think). Not everyone needs a degree, but feeding this BS about cheapening a degree is harmful. Students should want to better themselves through an education if they have certain dreams. Providing a path for a cheaper education is important for those looking to get out of where they are sometimes, and government helping with that path, state or federal, is not a bad thing. It's a positive effect on society and one of the places where I see taxes as an easy net positive. It honestly p*sses me off that politicians in this country don't seem to want anything to do with providing a real future for children. Unless we're talking about the military, of course.
3) If HR posts requirements for a job and it turns out certain degrees just aren't necessary or don't properly filter what they want, that's on them. And this nonsense about going to college means people want to become executives reeks of envy. There's such a weak correlation there and I'm pretty sure you are aware of this. Trade schools should be an option for people, and people, specifically parents and their children, need to have some grasp on reality by the time comes for college searching. Either the potential graduate has aspirations/ability beyond basic labor or they don't. Sometimes the college gamble is worth it, and until people have a better understanding of that our collective debt issues aren't going to get any better. And I sincerely hope that by the time my kids get to that stage we will have a pretty good idea of what their path forward in life should look like.
Since when do you 'need the best people' to understand that running a currently unsupported OS from 2003 is a bad thing? That isn't hard to understand or update.
I want to agree with you on this, but I'm pretty sure that in the year of the protest vote, where we pretty much have 3 parties falling squarely in that camp, he should be polling better than he is. Maybe he is the sanest choice for the party he represents, but I would not call how he is doing a success. His ignorance of the world stage has stopped him form gaining a ton of traction when there was plenty to grab. The fact that the media was giving him the interviews he got when he showed that ignorance shows that the media was begging for another candidate.
This is exactly the sort of debate we should be having on this site.
The poster makes one of the most interesting and helpful comments to close off his note, and you negatively because, what, it wasn't 100% praise. The two have opposing viewpoints, yet they're having an intelligent and peaceful conversation. This is what should be encouraged on the site, as pointed out. Intelligent conversation on these topics is hard to find sometimes and we should encourage people to do so. The comment you replied to read like the point was received, the tone was appreciated, and had some constructive criticism. If we should all be so constructive then the debates here would be much, much better.
You expect a company that took 20 years to add a second mouse button to their desktop configuration to see the possible need for a second Lightning adapter? Another 10 years at least, please.
(No, I wasn't trying to be constructive, in case there was any confusion).
I laughed throughout the whole post honestly. How anyone sees 'I want rotary dial' in a post in a thread about the latest cell phone and takes the comment seriously isn't even trying to get the message. I was picturing a strawman with a smiley face on it or something.
This mentality that 'you are voting for somebody who won't win, therefore it's a waste' is what needs to end. You don't win a prize if you vote for who wins, so why bother worrying about that?
Vote for whom you want, or vote for a party that doesn't have a voice on the national stage so the odds of us getting an actual intelligent debate go up.
I don't normally like interjecting discussions between people, but at least read what the person said. On the smaller point, the analogy was pretty damned clear if you just read the sentence before that. The larger point ties into not knowing what a straw man is. Your claim was that it was better for maintainers, while the counter was that, despite that being true, it can and has been argued that systemd is not necessarily better for users. That assertion is not predicated on contradicting an earlier statement. It was building on your original claim (users vs maintainers).
You may disagree that it isn't better for users, but it depends on what metrics you choose. A lot of people don't think so. If you disagree that users don't have it better with systemd, then defend that stance.
To tack on to your point, it was most effective and swaying political opinion. Bush's approval rating went up when the terrorist mood ri, er, threat level went up. I understand not disclosing classified intelligence on why that level might change, but there never seemed to be any correlation to anything other than "my rating's getting low, let's pump that baby up to orange!"
Easy to point out, but given the number of candidates that run, the GOP primary being especially noteworthy, I don't think when it comes down to the final pairing (many including myself wish it was more than 2) that voting for the ideal candidate isn't viable. The best litmus test in many cases in terms of who someone will vote for is does Candidate X support a high enough percentage of my ideal candidate's views where their negatives don't send a shiver down my spine.
Once in Washington, the Republican legislature would mop the floor with Trump, who thinks he's such a genius deal-maker.
I keep reading this comment in every political topic here, and it makes me scratch my head. I agree completely about the self-proclaimed genius deal-making trait being nonsense, but the part where Republicans line up against him I do not buy for a second. We spent so much time hearing about #NeverTrump from so many of the GOP and when it came down to it pretty much everyone fell in line to endorse him. Paul Ryan, the prominent House GOP leader, rolled over like a dog. A few strays like Cruz and Kasich refused and they're getting a ton of negative press and responses from others as 'failing the party.'
In short, I see almost no signs (minus rare occurrences like McConnell filibustering one of his own bills) that the current leadership will push back against him.
And IF Trump wins we will likely have the most obstructionist do nothing Congress ever.
Wow, that's tough to envision. An obstructionist Congress. That differs from the current version how exactly?
Not only will Democrats oppose anything silly but many Republicans will probably join in since Trump is fairly well hated among the Republican establishment. He effectively has little to no base of support in Congress. It'll just be 4 years of embarrassing speeches.
I'm not viewing this as a positive experience. I'm not sure how anyone can, and the argument is pretty tiring. If you're leaning Democrat, I'm not seeing the value of a Trump presidency. If you lean Republican, I don't know how the experience over the last 8 years makes you yearn for an obstructionist Congress led by someone by your own account you don't respect. If you lean independent, why on EARTH would you vote for Clinton or Trump? I mean, is there value in picking a winner I'm not aware of? Isn't voting whom you want into office who makes a difference you would like to see a better option?
That's the part I don't get. Putin has to know from experience that he can walk all over Hillary. You may call Trump clownish but the thing is that clowns are unpredictable, and in the world of international politics, unpredictable can mean dangerous. Wouldn't Putin want someone whose actions he could predict and whom he would easily out-maneuver?
Or, perhaps, he prefers Clinton because Putin is classic style of Russian leader who wants to take down his enemies. He sees the U.S. as an enemy, perhaps the most powerful and/or richest. And, just perhaps, maybe he thinks Trump is good at self-combustion. I have no idea if he respects Clinton, but at the very least there aren't any outward signs of her changing America's course drastically (your opinion of America's direction being whatever).
Whatever you think of Putin, dumb isn't a word I would use. My choice of words would be 'calculating.' Regardless, I agree with most of what you say here.
Of which a significant amount voted not for her, but as a vote against Trump because they don't think Sanders could mount enough of a challenge. Whether that is right or wrong, that's the reality. But who cares about nuisance?
It's like my mom always said, nuance is a real nuisance.
You make some good points on Hillary. I'm no fan of hers at all. But, because I'm curious I would like to see what results you believe we will have if Trump is elected to office. I have my own opinions, but because you laid out some for Hillary I have to assume you have a basic idea of what a Trump presidency will bring (and, perhaps, why it is a better choice)?
I'm not sure how many more people you think we need to deport, aside from the fact that we don't have a positive net immigration number.
My main problem with this type of response isn't even based on your idea of protecting the border, because it is important. The previous post was focused on how much damage we believe Trump can do to this country based on domestic policy along with how the international community would respond. Your response was a dovetail into border protection, as if that's the only real concern anyone has.
H1B visas are a real problem, and it receives a lot of attention on Slashdot for a darn good reason. Hillary's.... issues are an entire other bag of wax. Your response to Trump's major flaws are countered with 'Hillary has them too.' They should be addressed with an affirmative defense of what he stands for. You think his big immigration solution of building a wall (and ballooning the budget in the process short and long term) and hiring additional police in a country that's crawling its way to a police state to drag people out and monitor neighborhoods.
So, in the future when defending Trump don't shift the focus onto someone else's problems. His platform presents worse issues. I have to wonder if your shifting focus onto another candidate's problems is really because you hate both D and R candidates, in which case voting third party is something you and many other people should finally consider doing, in the year of the anti-establishment candidate.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the debate questions... THAT was the primary story in the news that swayed voters. Not the Clinton foundation, not the e-mails, not her 'health issues'...
The DNC isn't paying attention to its constituents like it should. I don't even remember having a single conversation in the past year, including with people who only ever pull the level for Democrats, where Hillary was equated to 'perfect' and 'could do no wrong'. Pretty much everyone I know preferred Sanders, including myself, and didn't want Clinton representing the party.
Cut down on the hyperbole FFS - it's one of the major reasons why people with opposing viewpoints cannot have a rational conversation. If people aren't willing to consider the timing of the leaks as a contributing factor to how the election the way it did, well, it's hard to have a conversation with anyone who doesn't believe in a historical record of fact. She was nowhere near a great candidate, in fact second most disliked in history (second to the 2016 winner, but second nonetheless). I'm not even sure where, other than thin air, where you're pulling that thought from.
The point was that Sanders was the better candidate and could have easily won had he gotten the nomination. Sanders was the movement on the Democrat side, Trump was on the Republican. Why it's so hard for people to accept that is tough to grasp. If you want to talk about difficulty reasoning with people, try to understand the central point before shooting your mouth off.
Are you really the head of the Kwik-E-Mart?
Accidentally moderated while reading, so posting to undo. I knew nothing of this study before digging around and skimming through it. Worth a read, if you like seeing this type of study.
There will be no point over the next two years when Donald Trump is accepted as President in any normal sense.
Ah, still in "denial". I'm honestly surprised you haven't moved to "anger" yet, since that's sort of your thing. Wake me when you get to "bargaining".
I'm amazed at how much this has been said lately and modded up, considering how much people loved bashing Obama over the last several years despite his re-election. Can we just agree that hated of the leader who isn't from your party is a patriotic duty of some sort and just move on? Otherwise this pointless idiocy is going to remain cyclical. And pointless. Did I say pointless?
We should be surprised that this scene happened at the play? This happened the same time that the Trump University case settlement was reached. Predictably, because the 'news' is more interested in theater, pun intended, more time was spent covered that manufactured outrage rather than at where our outrage should be reached.
What, you thought fake news only benefited one political alignment?
This is what happens when you chase money instead of what you enjoy doing. If you really enjoy your job that can outweigh the money. If you truly value money more than the work then it doesn't matter your career, really, and that's just fine, but it turns out a lot people don't enjoy money over everything else.
I think Tea Party people would disagree with you on protesting doing nothing, but regardless your comments is 100% on. Voting is, effectively, the ONE time our voice could be heard. If you don't leverage that power at that time, if you ask me protesting is, at best, completely disingenuous.
Thank you for the response, in all seriousness. I think we are way more on the same page than I was expecting.
There is nothing stopping people from going to college, but funding it to no end, or making it free for everyone just cheapens the degrees, and makes degrees a requirement for all sorts of jobs across the pay spectrum - from carwash to senior researcher
I'm not one who generally believes that there's a ton we can do at the Federal level to help with our education issues as a nation (for the most part I think parents are simply too disengaged or don't have the timea/bility to help their kids with schooling, which is a whole other conversation). That said, this type of commentary burns me up more than most.
1) There is plenty stopping people going to college. Fear of massive debt being the biggest one. Or, it should be. At some point there needs to be a massive correction with cost of college and which people wind up going. There are tons of good jobs and careers that don't require a college degree. People needs to spend more time figuring out what they want to do before going to college. I was lucky; I knew I loved programming before graduation high school so college was an easy choice for me. For others, I know that things aren't always figured out by high school graduation. And I don't know what the right answer is there either, but affordability is important.
2) Making college free for people was a thing for state colleges way back when. You know, it happened to coincide nicely when our middle class and upward mobility was stronger that it is now. This generally died by the 70's (I think). Not everyone needs a degree, but feeding this BS about cheapening a degree is harmful. Students should want to better themselves through an education if they have certain dreams. Providing a path for a cheaper education is important for those looking to get out of where they are sometimes, and government helping with that path, state or federal, is not a bad thing. It's a positive effect on society and one of the places where I see taxes as an easy net positive. It honestly p*sses me off that politicians in this country don't seem to want anything to do with providing a real future for children. Unless we're talking about the military, of course.
3) If HR posts requirements for a job and it turns out certain degrees just aren't necessary or don't properly filter what they want, that's on them. And this nonsense about going to college means people want to become executives reeks of envy. There's such a weak correlation there and I'm pretty sure you are aware of this. Trade schools should be an option for people, and people, specifically parents and their children, need to have some grasp on reality by the time comes for college searching. Either the potential graduate has aspirations/ability beyond basic labor or they don't. Sometimes the college gamble is worth it, and until people have a better understanding of that our collective debt issues aren't going to get any better. And I sincerely hope that by the time my kids get to that stage we will have a pretty good idea of what their path forward in life should look like.
Excellent retort. A lot to work with here.
Since when do you 'need the best people' to understand that running a currently unsupported OS from 2003 is a bad thing? That isn't hard to understand or update.
I want to agree with you on this, but I'm pretty sure that in the year of the protest vote, where we pretty much have 3 parties falling squarely in that camp, he should be polling better than he is. Maybe he is the sanest choice for the party he represents, but I would not call how he is doing a success. His ignorance of the world stage has stopped him form gaining a ton of traction when there was plenty to grab. The fact that the media was giving him the interviews he got when he showed that ignorance shows that the media was begging for another candidate.
This is exactly the sort of debate we should be having on this site.
The poster makes one of the most interesting and helpful comments to close off his note, and you negatively because, what, it wasn't 100% praise. The two have opposing viewpoints, yet they're having an intelligent and peaceful conversation. This is what should be encouraged on the site, as pointed out. Intelligent conversation on these topics is hard to find sometimes and we should encourage people to do so. The comment you replied to read like the point was received, the tone was appreciated, and had some constructive criticism. If we should all be so constructive then the debates here would be much, much better.
You expect a company that took 20 years to add a second mouse button to their desktop configuration to see the possible need for a second Lightning adapter? Another 10 years at least, please.
(No, I wasn't trying to be constructive, in case there was any confusion).
I laughed throughout the whole post honestly. How anyone sees 'I want rotary dial' in a post in a thread about the latest cell phone and takes the comment seriously isn't even trying to get the message. I was picturing a strawman with a smiley face on it or something.
This mentality that 'you are voting for somebody who won't win, therefore it's a waste' is what needs to end. You don't win a prize if you vote for who wins, so why bother worrying about that? Vote for whom you want, or vote for a party that doesn't have a voice on the national stage so the odds of us getting an actual intelligent debate go up.
I don't normally like interjecting discussions between people, but at least read what the person said. On the smaller point, the analogy was pretty damned clear if you just read the sentence before that. The larger point ties into not knowing what a straw man is. Your claim was that it was better for maintainers, while the counter was that, despite that being true, it can and has been argued that systemd is not necessarily better for users. That assertion is not predicated on contradicting an earlier statement. It was building on your original claim (users vs maintainers).
You may disagree that it isn't better for users, but it depends on what metrics you choose. A lot of people don't think so. If you disagree that users don't have it better with systemd, then defend that stance.
To tack on to your point, it was most effective and swaying political opinion. Bush's approval rating went up when the terrorist mood ri, er, threat level went up. I understand not disclosing classified intelligence on why that level might change, but there never seemed to be any correlation to anything other than "my rating's getting low, let's pump that baby up to orange!"
Easy to point out, but given the number of candidates that run, the GOP primary being especially noteworthy, I don't think when it comes down to the final pairing (many including myself wish it was more than 2) that voting for the ideal candidate isn't viable. The best litmus test in many cases in terms of who someone will vote for is does Candidate X support a high enough percentage of my ideal candidate's views where their negatives don't send a shiver down my spine.
Sincerely,
Old Disillusioned Voter.
Once in Washington, the Republican legislature would mop the floor with Trump, who thinks he's such a genius deal-maker.
I keep reading this comment in every political topic here, and it makes me scratch my head. I agree completely about the self-proclaimed genius deal-making trait being nonsense, but the part where Republicans line up against him I do not buy for a second. We spent so much time hearing about #NeverTrump from so many of the GOP and when it came down to it pretty much everyone fell in line to endorse him. Paul Ryan, the prominent House GOP leader, rolled over like a dog. A few strays like Cruz and Kasich refused and they're getting a ton of negative press and responses from others as 'failing the party.'
In short, I see almost no signs (minus rare occurrences like McConnell filibustering one of his own bills) that the current leadership will push back against him.
And IF Trump wins we will likely have the most obstructionist do nothing Congress ever.
Wow, that's tough to envision. An obstructionist Congress. That differs from the current version how exactly?
Not only will Democrats oppose anything silly but many Republicans will probably join in since Trump is fairly well hated among the Republican establishment. He effectively has little to no base of support in Congress. It'll just be 4 years of embarrassing speeches.
I'm not viewing this as a positive experience. I'm not sure how anyone can, and the argument is pretty tiring. If you're leaning Democrat, I'm not seeing the value of a Trump presidency. If you lean Republican, I don't know how the experience over the last 8 years makes you yearn for an obstructionist Congress led by someone by your own account you don't respect. If you lean independent, why on EARTH would you vote for Clinton or Trump? I mean, is there value in picking a winner I'm not aware of? Isn't voting whom you want into office who makes a difference you would like to see a better option?
That's the part I don't get. Putin has to know from experience that he can walk all over Hillary. You may call Trump clownish but the thing is that clowns are unpredictable, and in the world of international politics, unpredictable can mean dangerous. Wouldn't Putin want someone whose actions he could predict and whom he would easily out-maneuver?
Or, perhaps, he prefers Clinton because Putin is classic style of Russian leader who wants to take down his enemies. He sees the U.S. as an enemy, perhaps the most powerful and/or richest. And, just perhaps, maybe he thinks Trump is good at self-combustion. I have no idea if he respects Clinton, but at the very least there aren't any outward signs of her changing America's course drastically (your opinion of America's direction being whatever).
Whatever you think of Putin, dumb isn't a word I would use. My choice of words would be 'calculating.' Regardless, I agree with most of what you say here.
Of which a significant amount voted not for her, but as a vote against Trump because they don't think Sanders could mount enough of a challenge. Whether that is right or wrong, that's the reality. But who cares about nuisance?
It's like my mom always said, nuance is a real nuisance.
You make some good points on Hillary. I'm no fan of hers at all. But, because I'm curious I would like to see what results you believe we will have if Trump is elected to office. I have my own opinions, but because you laid out some for Hillary I have to assume you have a basic idea of what a Trump presidency will bring (and, perhaps, why it is a better choice)?
I'm not sure how many more people you think we need to deport, aside from the fact that we don't have a positive net immigration number.
My main problem with this type of response isn't even based on your idea of protecting the border, because it is important. The previous post was focused on how much damage we believe Trump can do to this country based on domestic policy along with how the international community would respond. Your response was a dovetail into border protection, as if that's the only real concern anyone has.
H1B visas are a real problem, and it receives a lot of attention on Slashdot for a darn good reason. Hillary's.... issues are an entire other bag of wax. Your response to Trump's major flaws are countered with 'Hillary has them too.' They should be addressed with an affirmative defense of what he stands for. You think his big immigration solution of building a wall (and ballooning the budget in the process short and long term) and hiring additional police in a country that's crawling its way to a police state to drag people out and monitor neighborhoods.
So, in the future when defending Trump don't shift the focus onto someone else's problems. His platform presents worse issues. I have to wonder if your shifting focus onto another candidate's problems is really because you hate both D and R candidates, in which case voting third party is something you and many other people should finally consider doing, in the year of the anti-establishment candidate.