Using GOTO won't save you from having to clean up all those little memory allocations and free() statements that you just jumped past.
Not true. So long as you initialize all your variables to NULL, and you never prematurely return from the function, having a final "goto CLEANUP" with NULL checks + deallocations at the end of the function, you can always ensure proper cleanup.
No, the Time article is perfectly clear. What is not clear is where you get your twisted ideas from. You haven't been able to support them yet.
You're deliberately being obtuse, or ignorant. I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes. You've produced nothing. If you'd like another link showing the timeline, here (https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/). But I'm done trying to talk to a brick wall.
Again, the basic timeline:
October 2014: State Department subpoenas work related emails
December 2014: Clinton turns over ~30k "work related" emails that she filtered herself (no third party) and deletes the other ~30k which she has deemed "personal"
March 2015: Investigation deepens and two more subpeonas are produced seeking additional emails on her server (however, these emails cannot be searched for, since the remaining emails are now deleted)
If you'd like to produce any facts than contradict the above points, other than just rambling, feel free. But I've yet to see a single link from you. Quite simply, she unilaterally deleted half her emails when she knew she was under investigation. Not a single person other than her or her staff made the determination of which of the emails were personal and which were work related. Since no third party made the determination, there is then no way to know if any of the 30k emails that were deleted were "work-related." Since they no longer exist, they can no longer be produced in further subpoena requests.
So basically she personally chose the ones she believed were work-related, turned them over, and then promptly deleted the rest.
Do you have a source for that grand statement?
Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details. You're clearly ignoring all of them, and I'm tired of reproducing links that say the same damn thing. You're either a Hillary shill, or just dense.
Are you telling me you leave all your email in your inbox and never delete anything? Maybe you don't get much email, but for those who use email for work that would be a huge volume of email.
No, I do not routinely delete 30,000 emails on a "regular basis". Nor do you. Nor does she. You're choosing (seemingly deliberately) to ignore scope and timing. Because the use of the term "routinely" and "30,000 emails" (which represented HALF of all her mail at the time) together is the part that flies in the face of logic. And verifying that "routine" is trivial...ask her if she's deleted 30,000 personal emails from her work account in the past 6 months. If she hasn't, she's a liar.
Duverger's Law only works because of prevailing perception that there's only two parties that matter. In a vacuum, in a brand-new country that just stood up three parties and had an election, there would be no such effect. The effect is the result of perception of a wasted vote.
It does not appear you felt the need to read the page you linked to. It wasn't merely that they were deleted after the request, they were deleted after fulfilling the request. In other words the state department had them before they were deleted. If the state department did not retain the emails from a former employee, that is a different matter than what you allege here.
The linked page is obviously not clear then, because she did not turn over the full contents of her inbox to the State Department (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0): "It was only then that Mrs. Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.
This is confirmed on a number of sites (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/25/state-dept-admits-that-hillary-clinton-failed-to-turn-over-secretive-email/): "While more than 30,000 emails were turned over in all, an equal number were deleted because they were deemed by Clintonâ(TM)s team to have been personal in nature."
So basically she personally chose the ones she believed were work-related, turned them over, and then promptly deleted the rest.
Burned them to where? Optical media somewhere?
"Burned" as in "deleted".
Being as you couldn't be bothered to read the piece you linked to earlier enough to realize that it does not support your allegation, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this misread either.
You clearly have spent zero time actually researching this, as you've gone out of your way to form a singular opinion based on one website that doesn't clearly portray what actually occurred. In simple terms: "State Department requested work emails. Hillary (not a third party) singlehandedly decided which of her emails were work-related. She handed approximately 50% of her emails to the State Department and then immediately afterwards (at some point in the several months following) deleted the other 50%. The implication here is that she didn't want an independent third party scouring through the contents of the remaining 50% of the emails, so she deleted them before anybody could dig deeper into the investigation. And shes trying to justify it under some claim of "everybody cleans up their inbox from time to time". You're deluded if you don't see the shadiness.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the emails were lost after the subpoena was issued.
THAT's your standard of guilt? That's like the crackhead desperately flushing the drugs down the toilet with the cops knocking at the door. All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
She knew she was under investigation, and she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good before anybody could question what she believed were the only relevant emails. What she did screamed guilt. Even her statement was sketchy as hell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html):
I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over. And then I moved on,â Clinton told Keilar on Tuesday. âoePeople delete their personal emails, their work-related emails, whatever emails they have on a regular basis. I turned over everything that I could imagine.â
Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis -- right. I would like to see some kind of historical account showing she's engaged in this behavior in the past. Or even since. I'd bet a dime to a donut she hasn't deleted shit in the past (if she did, how would she accrue tens of thousasnds of emails?)
Go ask Republican Nominee Jeb Bush how much perception and blatant support from the national committee dictates everyone's votes.
I don't follow your point. Bush was running against many other Republican candidates, all wishing for their party to align behind them. They took far too long to do so, which is why you never saw a mainstream candidate "dictated" by the powers-that-be.
A better example of my point is what happened to Cruz's polling numbers when it was just him, Trump, and Kasich. The party aligned behind Cruz, not behind Kasich (with the message being "he's the only one that can get the votes to beat Trump"). And the effect was obvious. Kasich's surge was far more muted compared to Cruz. However, it was also too late to stop the Trump train at that point.
If you want another example of perception vs reality, just look at third parties. I can't count the number of people who have literally made the statement "well I really wanted 3rd party candidate X, but I didn't want to throw my vote away." That's perception driving action at its finest right there. You have people literally choosing not to vote for the person they want because mainstream opinion has drilled it into them that it is a hopeless cause.
Sanders didn't lose because of any "internal schemes". He lost because less actual Democratic voters preferred him. That's all on him.
You seriously underestimate the power of perception in this country. The vast majority of the superdelegates (of which Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of, btw) supported Hillary from day 1 of the primaries, with the prevailing message being "Bernie stands no chance at winning the primaries because of the massive delegate gap" (much of which was only due to superdelegates). Even a subtle change in perception can send massive ripples through the system.
All I'm saying is Donald is a member of the ultra-rich, and he HAD to be ultra-rich to have been able to get where he was. Joe Pleb wouldn't have been able to get all that media coverage, and he was constantly reminding us of his self-funding campaign which he kept talking up even after his campaign was no longer self-funding. Donald's managed to pull the wool over the eyes of a lot of people who think that somehow he's one of the common men, and that theirs are the interests he'll be working for. At least his trade rhetoric is a change that the rest of the super-rich won't like. So there's that.
For the entirety of his time as a candidate, he's had next to zero support for the mainstream party or any of the rich donors that fund them (all of whom went out of their way to try to get someone else to win). And he spent far less in campaign money than anyone else running for office. How the hell can you claim he's a candidate of the super-rich? He's by definition an example of "the people's choice" overcoming "the money machine".
Kind of. It's more moving away from Clinton than it is towards Trump. Clinton's numbers have gone down, but Trump's have remained flat. Frankly, I think a good chunk of the Clinton support just shifted over to Gary Johnson (whose numbers have climbed a good deal over the same period).
Aside from the fact the Republican legislation you're referring to was from 1993, it didn't even have a majority of Republicans behind it. And there remain differences between it and ACA in its current form. But 1993...really? You're trying to use 23 year old legislation as a barometer for current day conservatism? Do you want to look up Democrat stances from the early 90s? They backed wealthy tax cuts back then, and supported defense spending: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
I am openly against the UK leaving the EU, because it appears to me that leaving has no merits whatsoever. I would like to hear any you can think of.
There are many. The most obvious of which is that Britain gains the ability to actually police its borders by having sovereign control over immigration. Not having your economy tied to the PIIGS of Europe is a plus as well. Generally, being in the EU is a win for any struggling country because those weak countries are lifted up by the stronger ones. The successful ones, on the other hand, gain marginal benefits (collective bargaining) while accepting the massive risks of keeping the struggling actors afloat while having little to no control over the economic policies of those countries. Germany had to fight tooth and nail with Greece to get them to agree to any reasonable terms during that whole country's collapse.
Honestly, I believe the only reason people can't see any benefit to UK sovereignty is because they'd gotten far too used to "business as usual" being in the EU.
The graphs over the last few days speak for themselves. The stock market is in disarray, the currencies are bouncing around like a yo-yo. The GBP has seen the biggest fall ever. Billions have been wiped out of the UK financial system. Companies are in serious discussions about what to do going forward, and that all before anyone has even triggered Article 50.
Practically all of that is meaningless. No money has been "wiped out". It's all on paper. And it's all based on fear, uncertainty, and speculation. I can't believe you'd even try to use the stock market as some kind of barometer of tangible value. I can think of no system more gamed than that. The stock market hates radical change and uncertainty...this was a flight from unknown risk, not an indication of value.
What matters is real incomes, revenues, trade deficits, etc. And the impact of the Brexit on those things won't be found out overnight.
and that all before anyone has even triggered Article 50.
You prove my point with this statement. Nothing has fundamentally changed with the country yet, but you somehow believe "billions of pounds have been wiped out". What we saw on Monday and Friday was no different than the dotcom bubble, or oil tumbling below $30/barrel, or Tulip Mania. It's a bunch of clueless people speculatively guessing on the impact of the Brexit on the country/world.
The US isn't in the EU. It's economy is doing just fine. China isn't in the EU. It's economy is doing just fine. You'd almost think individual countries not in "the club" still have valuable services to offer or something...
UK has something like the 6th largest economy in the world, by GDP. They'll be just fine. Do you have any idea how many countries run perfectly functional economies without a coalition of teammates? Why do you believe the UK incapable of the same?
You are wrong. People can entitle themselves to as many votes as they want. If a sufficient number of people want to do it again, it is their right, just like resubmitting a bill for passage.
Using the same argument, I'd like to call for a revote on Obamacare. Simple majority wins.
My pet theory of why Perl has lost favor to Python is that it's really a unix language. You can run it on a windows box but only with a lot of effort to install and to maintain it.
That hasn't been true since the advent of Strawberry Perl.
After college, he had a some white-collar office job (I forget). Anyhow, he did quite well, but then some crap happened at the company, and he was laid off. By that point he was married, had 2 kids, had a mortgage, etc. He tried desperately to find a job, but the economy wasn't doing great at that point, and after about 6 months, it was time to "suck it up" and just take what he could get.
For about 10 years he worked at the company I was doing the summer at, mostly as a handler who delivered stuff to the assembly line (which was paid more). He didn't make good money
Emphasis mine.
Here's the problem with stories like this. You painted the picture of an intelligent, skilled, college-educated employee who could staff a well paying white collar job. Yet for some reason (choice? incompetence?), he stayed in a job barely paying more than minimum wage for TEN YEARS. I don't know of any economic downturn lasting that long. I have no idea what would cause a skilled person to be on minimum wage for 10 years, if not complacency and willingness to do so. Typically when I hear these stories, it's people doing low paying work that they enjoy (like teachers), where they're choosing career joy over monetary benefit. Sometimes it's a family struggling because the wife decided she wanted to prioritize kids over career and is a stay at-home wife with a husband with a low paying job. Regardless of the reason, there's almost always a choice involved. And while it's definitely a step above the "breeder" dialogue, it's still very hard to justify subsidizing people for poor choices they're knowingly making. That said, I do support the concept of a limited "safety net". But this carte blanche $15 minimum wage nonsense is just that: nonsense. As is the concept that everyone deserves to breed and simply have society pick up the bill.
You accuse people of hyperbole, and yet you give the worst demonstration I've heard in a million years.
I disagree. I've heard plenty of rhetoric from the CAGW movement to that effect. Ever heard of the "tipping point" theory? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_%28climatology%29) Some global warming supporters claim we're there already, or ifnot, will be within a matter of years. And they often claim the "end results" of said tipping point are anywhere from mass extinctions of oceanic species to catastrophic weather events to whole cities under water within decades. The "extinction of the human race" was certainly a hyperbolic comment, but not by much. The general commentary from the global warming supporters isn't "you'll have to move all the cities back several miles due to coastal flooding". It's "people will die! species will go extinct! dogs and cats living together!" dialogue.
About the only other group that is mistreated at the hands of police in the same way as Black Lives is Transsexual Lives, and I don't think the people that are arguing for "All Lives Matter" are doing it for them.
Umm, try Latinos? Or any poor person with a criminal record? The fact you don't get this is why the All Lives Matter protestors exist in the first place. BLM is trying to turn it into strictly a racial thing when in general it's more of institutionalized poverty/repeat offender thing. There's one common characteristic the vast amount of these police abuse cases have and it's typically "poor" or "criminal". Freddie Gray was a drug dealer with a wrap sheet a mile long, for example.
At any rate, the long and short of it is that people are trying to make it all about race when there's bigger problems in play. The end result will likely be sensitivity programs added to police training when dealing with black suspects while poor people of any other color will continue to see abuse.
Do you have some kind of citation for that claim?
The last I heard, our battery technology was woefully behind our capabilities to generate energy and the quantity we'd need to store. Molten salt was the closest potential method with hydrogen cell just not there yet. This isn't a problem you can just solve by hooking up a few additional car batteries to. They lack not only the energy density requirements, but also wear out over time.
We don't have the battery tech yet to handle our total nightly energy demand in solar energy. I doubt we even have the storage capacity to handle long periods of cloudy days. You need a base load.
These people are "illegal" immigrants because of administrative policy and nothing more
That is not true. They're illegal because they skipped the entire immigration process. They cut the line. There's tons of immigrants that would love to come to this country legally, and they wait their turn while going through the process. Which is the only way it can be, unless you advocate having no immigration process whatsoever.
The last figures I read gave something on the order of $30k to deport one person. Setting aside your hypothetical, that brings the price to remove all the illegal immigrants currently in the US as about $300 billion dollars
I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but I guarantee cheaper possibilities are possible. Instead of devoting resources to finding these people and carting them out of the country, you devote resources to removing their reasons for being here and they'll leave of their own accord. Prevent them from getting jobs, or from utilizing government programs. This could be potentially achieved with a national ID system and harsher sentences for businesses using illegal immigrants as labor. And I'm just spitballing. The idea there's exactly one way to tackle the problem and that it is prohibitively expensive is an unreasonably restrictive view. And I feel you maintain that view only because you find the idea of forcing 11 million people to leave unpalatable, so you don't try hard to find affordable ways to make it happen.
Secondly, another potential legislative solution would be a path to legalization. But again, this must originate in Congress, not with the President's fiat dictatorial power.
Frankly I don't think you even believe in conflating legal and moral issues; it's just convenient for you to do so at the moment.
Then you don't know me. I'm a firm believer in the civics process. Every time we use shortcuts in civics ("ends justify the means"), it will work for us one day just to bite us in the ass the next. If you'd like examples, just look at the use of the Commerce clause as a catchall to do anything, the gradual erosion of state power due to "living document" views of the Constitution, Republicans and Rule40(b), "the nuclear option" with Senate judicial confirmations, or poor legal precedent like say the entire Lochner era. All of those things are effectively working "around" the law to achieve some particular desired goal. And we only remember the times when it worked out in our favor. BTW, if you want something more recent, take the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling for example. I believe in the cause, but hate the decision, and the precedent it sets. It's something that again should have been done via the legislative process, rather than via "judicial magic".
What bothers me are the people calling for views they don't like to be silenced. That's the standard MRA/anti-feminist position. Permanently offended, and those saying offensive things should be silenced because it creates negative consequences for some people.
How odd. That is the standard "Third/Fourth" wave feminist/SJW position as well. Its almost like Horseshoe theory is a real thing.
I was thinking the exact same thing. Pot, meet kettle. The entire concept of microaggressions and triggers is built until silencing people to prevent undesired negative consequences for others.
Food is perfectly fine. Food and drink are pretty universally attractive, neither targeting nor demeaning any particular group.
That is 100% untrue. What of vegetarians? Vegans? Kosher diets? There's tons of food groups some people approve of an others don't. With the same logic in this article, if a 1% minority in the group opposed meat on ideological grounds, you shouldn't be serving meat to the 99%.
and a law that criminalizes eleven million persons is unjust on its face.
With this logic, if an army of 11 million soldiers invaded our country (illegally), we should not tell them to leave? Since the presence of 11 million illegal people in a country somehow changes the ethics/morality of an existing law? What if there were only 100,000 illegal immigrants in this country? Would the law still be unjust? I question your stipulation that the law changes based on how many people are adhering to it. I still get speeding tickets, despite the fact near everyone in this country breaks the speed limit.
I am also arguing that there is no alternative, which you conveniently ignored.
Of course there's alternatives. It's called the legislative branch of government. Just because the current executive branch would rather exert its unilateral will rather than find middle ground with the legislative doesn't mean the process doesn't exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. So long as you initialize all your variables to NULL, and you never prematurely return from the function, having a final "goto CLEANUP" with NULL checks + deallocations at the end of the function, you can always ensure proper cleanup.
You're deliberately being obtuse, or ignorant. I've produced 3 links and at least 2 quotes. You've produced nothing. If you'd like another link showing the timeline, here (https://sharylattkisson.com/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/). But I'm done trying to talk to a brick wall. Again, the basic timeline:
October 2014: State Department subpoenas work related emails
December 2014: Clinton turns over ~30k "work related" emails that she filtered herself (no third party) and deletes the other ~30k which she has deemed "personal"
March 2015: Investigation deepens and two more subpeonas are produced seeking additional emails on her server (however, these emails cannot be searched for, since the remaining emails are now deleted)
If you'd like to produce any facts than contradict the above points, other than just rambling, feel free. But I've yet to see a single link from you. Quite simply, she unilaterally deleted half her emails when she knew she was under investigation. Not a single person other than her or her staff made the determination of which of the emails were personal and which were work related. Since no third party made the determination, there is then no way to know if any of the 30k emails that were deleted were "work-related." Since they no longer exist, they can no longer be produced in further subpoena requests.
Yes, at this point I've produced 3 links, all of which say the same timeline/details. You're clearly ignoring all of them, and I'm tired of reproducing links that say the same damn thing. You're either a Hillary shill, or just dense.
No, I do not routinely delete 30,000 emails on a "regular basis". Nor do you. Nor does she. You're choosing (seemingly deliberately) to ignore scope and timing. Because the use of the term "routinely" and "30,000 emails" (which represented HALF of all her mail at the time) together is the part that flies in the face of logic. And verifying that "routine" is trivial...ask her if she's deleted 30,000 personal emails from her work account in the past 6 months. If she hasn't, she's a liar.
Duverger's Law only works because of prevailing perception that there's only two parties that matter. In a vacuum, in a brand-new country that just stood up three parties and had an election, there would be no such effect. The effect is the result of perception of a wasted vote.
The linked page is obviously not clear then, because she did not turn over the full contents of her inbox to the State Department (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0): "It was only then that Mrs. Clinton instructed her aides to cull through roughly 60,000 emails that had passed through the server and turn over those involving official business. Those amounted to roughly half of the total.
This is confirmed on a number of sites (http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/25/state-dept-admits-that-hillary-clinton-failed-to-turn-over-secretive-email/): "While more than 30,000 emails were turned over in all, an equal number were deleted because they were deemed by Clintonâ(TM)s team to have been personal in nature."
So basically she personally chose the ones she believed were work-related, turned them over, and then promptly deleted the rest.
"Burned" as in "deleted".
You clearly have spent zero time actually researching this, as you've gone out of your way to form a singular opinion based on one website that doesn't clearly portray what actually occurred. In simple terms: "State Department requested work emails. Hillary (not a third party) singlehandedly decided which of her emails were work-related. She handed approximately 50% of her emails to the State Department and then immediately afterwards (at some point in the several months following) deleted the other 50%. The implication here is that she didn't want an independent third party scouring through the contents of the remaining 50% of the emails, so she deleted them before anybody could dig deeper into the investigation. And shes trying to justify it under some claim of "everybody cleans up their inbox from time to time". You're deluded if you don't see the shadiness.
THAT's your standard of guilt? That's like the crackhead desperately flushing the drugs down the toilet with the cops knocking at the door. All reports I've heard said the deletions occurred after the State Department requested the emails: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
She knew she was under investigation, and she burned the emails as soon as she possibly good before anybody could question what she believed were the only relevant emails. What she did screamed guilt. Even her statement was sketchy as hell (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html):
I turned over everything I was obligated to turn over. And then I moved on,â Clinton told Keilar on Tuesday. âoePeople delete their personal emails, their work-related emails, whatever emails they have on a regular basis. I turned over everything that I could imagine.â
Yeah, people mass scour/delete 30,000 emails on a regular basis -- right. I would like to see some kind of historical account showing she's engaged in this behavior in the past. Or even since. I'd bet a dime to a donut she hasn't deleted shit in the past (if she did, how would she accrue tens of thousasnds of emails?)
I don't follow your point. Bush was running against many other Republican candidates, all wishing for their party to align behind them. They took far too long to do so, which is why you never saw a mainstream candidate "dictated" by the powers-that-be.
A better example of my point is what happened to Cruz's polling numbers when it was just him, Trump, and Kasich. The party aligned behind Cruz, not behind Kasich (with the message being "he's the only one that can get the votes to beat Trump"). And the effect was obvious. Kasich's surge was far more muted compared to Cruz. However, it was also too late to stop the Trump train at that point.
If you want another example of perception vs reality, just look at third parties. I can't count the number of people who have literally made the statement "well I really wanted 3rd party candidate X, but I didn't want to throw my vote away." That's perception driving action at its finest right there. You have people literally choosing not to vote for the person they want because mainstream opinion has drilled it into them that it is a hopeless cause.
You seriously underestimate the power of perception in this country. The vast majority of the superdelegates (of which Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of, btw) supported Hillary from day 1 of the primaries, with the prevailing message being "Bernie stands no chance at winning the primaries because of the massive delegate gap" (much of which was only due to superdelegates). Even a subtle change in perception can send massive ripples through the system.
For the entirety of his time as a candidate, he's had next to zero support for the mainstream party or any of the rich donors that fund them (all of whom went out of their way to try to get someone else to win). And he spent far less in campaign money than anyone else running for office. How the hell can you claim he's a candidate of the super-rich? He's by definition an example of "the people's choice" overcoming "the money machine".
Kind of. It's more moving away from Clinton than it is towards Trump. Clinton's numbers have gone down, but Trump's have remained flat. Frankly, I think a good chunk of the Clinton support just shifted over to Gary Johnson (whose numbers have climbed a good deal over the same period).
Umm, no: http://www.politifact.com/pund...
Aside from the fact the Republican legislation you're referring to was from 1993 , it didn't even have a majority of Republicans behind it. And there remain differences between it and ACA in its current form. But 1993...really? You're trying to use 23 year old legislation as a barometer for current day conservatism? Do you want to look up Democrat stances from the early 90s? They backed wealthy tax cuts back then, and supported defense spending: http://www.theatlantic.com/mag...
There are many. The most obvious of which is that Britain gains the ability to actually police its borders by having sovereign control over immigration. Not having your economy tied to the PIIGS of Europe is a plus as well. Generally, being in the EU is a win for any struggling country because those weak countries are lifted up by the stronger ones. The successful ones, on the other hand, gain marginal benefits (collective bargaining) while accepting the massive risks of keeping the struggling actors afloat while having little to no control over the economic policies of those countries. Germany had to fight tooth and nail with Greece to get them to agree to any reasonable terms during that whole country's collapse.
Honestly, I believe the only reason people can't see any benefit to UK sovereignty is because they'd gotten far too used to "business as usual" being in the EU.
Practically all of that is meaningless. No money has been "wiped out". It's all on paper. And it's all based on fear, uncertainty, and speculation. I can't believe you'd even try to use the stock market as some kind of barometer of tangible value. I can think of no system more gamed than that. The stock market hates radical change and uncertainty...this was a flight from unknown risk, not an indication of value.
What matters is real incomes, revenues, trade deficits, etc. And the impact of the Brexit on those things won't be found out overnight.
You prove my point with this statement. Nothing has fundamentally changed with the country yet, but you somehow believe "billions of pounds have been wiped out". What we saw on Monday and Friday was no different than the dotcom bubble, or oil tumbling below $30/barrel, or Tulip Mania. It's a bunch of clueless people speculatively guessing on the impact of the Brexit on the country/world.
I challenge your supposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The US isn't in the EU. It's economy is doing just fine. China isn't in the EU. It's economy is doing just fine. You'd almost think individual countries not in "the club" still have valuable services to offer or something... UK has something like the 6th largest economy in the world, by GDP. They'll be just fine. Do you have any idea how many countries run perfectly functional economies without a coalition of teammates? Why do you believe the UK incapable of the same?
Using the same argument, I'd like to call for a revote on Obamacare. Simple majority wins.
That hasn't been true since the advent of Strawberry Perl.
Yes. Just as Democrats thought Obama would be all transparent and non-corporate. It was stupid of them too. Welcome to politics.
The Republican voters are in for a rude awakening when they see Trump's policy proposals. He's already pitched a minimum wage.
Emphasis mine.
Here's the problem with stories like this. You painted the picture of an intelligent, skilled, college-educated employee who could staff a well paying white collar job. Yet for some reason (choice? incompetence?), he stayed in a job barely paying more than minimum wage for TEN YEARS . I don't know of any economic downturn lasting that long. I have no idea what would cause a skilled person to be on minimum wage for 10 years, if not complacency and willingness to do so. Typically when I hear these stories, it's people doing low paying work that they enjoy (like teachers), where they're choosing career joy over monetary benefit. Sometimes it's a family struggling because the wife decided she wanted to prioritize kids over career and is a stay at-home wife with a husband with a low paying job. Regardless of the reason, there's almost always a choice involved. And while it's definitely a step above the "breeder" dialogue, it's still very hard to justify subsidizing people for poor choices they're knowingly making. That said, I do support the concept of a limited "safety net". But this carte blanche $15 minimum wage nonsense is just that: nonsense. As is the concept that everyone deserves to breed and simply have society pick up the bill.
I disagree. I've heard plenty of rhetoric from the CAGW movement to that effect. Ever heard of the "tipping point" theory? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_point_%28climatology%29) Some global warming supporters claim we're there already, or ifnot, will be within a matter of years. And they often claim the "end results" of said tipping point are anywhere from mass extinctions of oceanic species to catastrophic weather events to whole cities under water within decades. The "extinction of the human race" was certainly a hyperbolic comment, but not by much. The general commentary from the global warming supporters isn't "you'll have to move all the cities back several miles due to coastal flooding". It's "people will die! species will go extinct! dogs and cats living together!" dialogue.
Umm, try Latinos? Or any poor person with a criminal record? The fact you don't get this is why the All Lives Matter protestors exist in the first place. BLM is trying to turn it into strictly a racial thing when in general it's more of institutionalized poverty/repeat offender thing. There's one common characteristic the vast amount of these police abuse cases have and it's typically "poor" or "criminal". Freddie Gray was a drug dealer with a wrap sheet a mile long, for example.
At any rate, the long and short of it is that people are trying to make it all about race when there's bigger problems in play. The end result will likely be sensitivity programs added to police training when dealing with black suspects while poor people of any other color will continue to see abuse.
Do you have some kind of citation for that claim? The last I heard, our battery technology was woefully behind our capabilities to generate energy and the quantity we'd need to store. Molten salt was the closest potential method with hydrogen cell just not there yet. This isn't a problem you can just solve by hooking up a few additional car batteries to. They lack not only the energy density requirements, but also wear out over time.
We don't have the battery tech yet to handle our total nightly energy demand in solar energy. I doubt we even have the storage capacity to handle long periods of cloudy days. You need a base load.
That is not true. They're illegal because they skipped the entire immigration process. They cut the line. There's tons of immigrants that would love to come to this country legally, and they wait their turn while going through the process. Which is the only way it can be, unless you advocate having no immigration process whatsoever.
I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but I guarantee cheaper possibilities are possible. Instead of devoting resources to finding these people and carting them out of the country, you devote resources to removing their reasons for being here and they'll leave of their own accord. Prevent them from getting jobs, or from utilizing government programs. This could be potentially achieved with a national ID system and harsher sentences for businesses using illegal immigrants as labor. And I'm just spitballing. The idea there's exactly one way to tackle the problem and that it is prohibitively expensive is an unreasonably restrictive view. And I feel you maintain that view only because you find the idea of forcing 11 million people to leave unpalatable, so you don't try hard to find affordable ways to make it happen.
Secondly, another potential legislative solution would be a path to legalization. But again, this must originate in Congress, not with the President's fiat dictatorial power.
Then you don't know me. I'm a firm believer in the civics process. Every time we use shortcuts in civics ("ends justify the means"), it will work for us one day just to bite us in the ass the next. If you'd like examples, just look at the use of the Commerce clause as a catchall to do anything, the gradual erosion of state power due to "living document" views of the Constitution, Republicans and Rule40(b), "the nuclear option" with Senate judicial confirmations, or poor legal precedent like say the entire Lochner era. All of those things are effectively working "around" the law to achieve some particular desired goal. And we only remember the times when it worked out in our favor. BTW, if you want something more recent, take the Supreme Court gay marriage ruling for example. I believe in the cause, but hate the decision, and the precedent it sets. It's something that again should have been done via the legislative process, rather than via "judicial magic".
I was thinking the exact same thing. Pot, meet kettle. The entire concept of microaggressions and triggers is built until silencing people to prevent undesired negative consequences for others.
That is 100% untrue. What of vegetarians? Vegans? Kosher diets? There's tons of food groups some people approve of an others don't. With the same logic in this article, if a 1% minority in the group opposed meat on ideological grounds, you shouldn't be serving meat to the 99%.
With this logic, if an army of 11 million soldiers invaded our country (illegally), we should not tell them to leave? Since the presence of 11 million illegal people in a country somehow changes the ethics/morality of an existing law? What if there were only 100,000 illegal immigrants in this country? Would the law still be unjust? I question your stipulation that the law changes based on how many people are adhering to it. I still get speeding tickets, despite the fact near everyone in this country breaks the speed limit.
Of course there's alternatives. It's called the legislative branch of government. Just because the current executive branch would rather exert its unilateral will rather than find middle ground with the legislative doesn't mean the process doesn't exist.