I'm sure a self-proclaimed socialist would have won an election where almost every voter had been told, taught, and lectured upon, for more than a century that socialism was a dirty word... (and don't forget, yeah, she was obviously the DNC's choice, but ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist
Here's another great example of a Democrat voter who refuses to believe the obvious. Hillary was unelectable; she was the least popular candidate in history (since they started tracking that). Proof: she LOST. Trump was the 2nd most unpopular candidate in history. Bernie was filling arenas with rabid fans. And yet somehow you think Bernie wouldn't have had a chance, and that we should have stuck with Hillary? I can't say for sure that Bernie would have won (we'd need a time machine for that experiment), but given the polling numbers, Bernie would have easily won: he polled higher than either Hillary or Trump when the general population was polled instead of just looking at the party faithful.
For some odd reason, the Democrat party faithful always forget about this part: all they care about is the Democratic Party and the votes of people within that party.
The emails were a part of a ridiculous 25 year smear campaign against the Clintons
Whine whine whine. So you want to stick with a losing candidate and then push conspiracy theories when she loses, instead of backing a candidate that doesn't have 25 years of baggage and a terrible reputation?
It's no wonder the Democrats lost so badly and now we have a con-man as President and a bunch of agency heads who want to dismantle their agencies. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
Bernie may not have had that baggage, but I really don't think your racist uncle was going to vote for him.
The racist uncle wasn't going to vote for Hillary either; racists always vote GOP. People allergic to "socialism" always vote GOP too. No one would have been swayed to vote for Trump over Bernie; instead, likely millions of people would have bothered showing up to vote for him instead of sitting at home like they did. But here again, Democrat party faithful like you, just like religious zealots, absolutely refuse to believe that millions fewer voters showed up in 2016 than in Obama's election in 2008.
And this shows why the Republican party is superior: Trump wasn't a GOP insider either, and yet he was able to clinch their nomination, even though the party really didn't want him. The GOP is obviously an inherently more democratic institution than the DNC.
I'm stick of people lying about this. He was trying to hurt Clinton and still should be fired and never hired for any position of trust again, but even he recognized we can't prosecute clinton for something no one else has been prosecuted for ever.
I call bullshit on this. There's absolutely no shortage of Christian bozos spouting bullshit. It's even worse now with the results of this election; the Christian bozos are going to see a Republican win as a victory for their "cause" and push for more religion in public life. Look first for Creationism to be taught in public schools now that we have an Education Secretary who believes in that.
I'm not saying you should leave the SJWs alone, but the Christian nuttery is rising right now, not waning.
That is also the reason why you find so many illegal women in the US. You don't have to find a rich guy, you just have to find enough of them
How do I know.... I'm stuck now in paying for the last 1 of 3 children of an illegal mother right now. How do I know that it is rampant, her 3 younger sisters all illegal are doing the exact same thing.
I guess on the flip side, if this is as rampant as you claim, it points to natural-born American women being extremely deficient that so many men are willing to date, marry, and have kids with women who aren't legal immigrants.
"Several years" is a LONG time to plant a mole for something like unionization. For a government doing really serious spying, sure. But a union mole? That defies all reason. Someone would need to be getting paid pretty well by the union to be a mole for that long.
It's much more reasonable to believe that someone who's idealistic and a top worker (because what union wants a bottom-of-the-barrel employee agitating for them?) worked for several years, and was then recruited by a union (after getting annoyed by the working conditions) to try to push for unionization.
You want people to have a higher standard of living, well unions are the best bet
Where on earth did you get the idea that anyone wants people to have a higher standard of living? We just voted for massive oligarcy; obviously, the American public does *NOT* want people (including themselves) to have a higher standard of living.
At this point if we ever want to take back any power from the megacorps we need unions in all fifty states
Why would we want to take back power from the megacorps? We just voted to give them far more power and less regulation.
That won't help. Lots of American cars have been built by UAW unionworkers for many decades now, and their build quality is infamous for its shittiness.
If you want great build quality, you buy something made in Japan.
The problem isn't unions, or the lack of unions, it's the culture of the workers, and the pride they take in their work. All evidence points to Japanese workers simply being superior, as seen in the quality of their products. This can be seen when comparing Japanese-brand vehicles made in Japan to the very same model vehicle made in other nations like Mexico. Though to be fair, Mexican-made Japanese cars are still much better than American-labor-made American-brand cars, so the engineering and corporate culture and management also play a large role.
Finally, I haven't heard of Teslas having bad build quality, though I'm not claiming the opposite as I really don't know and haven't researched it. I have heard of them having to replace a lot of drive motors, but that's not an issue with build quality on the assembly line, that sounds an engineering problem, which labor has no control over.
But listening to employees and addressing their concerns is something that is completely lacking at pretty much every corporation in America. Why do you think we software people all have open-plan work areas now?
The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in over twenty years, and the inflation is meant not to simply pay a subsistence wage, but to pay a comfortable living wage upon which one could support a family. That's the minimum standard that we want to accept as Americans, because we don't want to see a race to the bottom.
Completely wrong. We *DO* want to see a race to the bottom. We just voted for it.
What if a vendor paid someone to get a job in a big organization for the purpose of influencing it to make a major purchase from the vendor?
I personally don't see how that's a problem. If we're going to allow politicians to take money and gifts from lobbyists, and we allow big corporations and other organizations to spend lots of money for the purpose of influencing the politicians who make our laws, I don't see how this is wrong.
Remember the saying about the fish rotting from the head.
You are incredibly stupid. Intel has been building fabs in Chandler AZ for literally decades now, so obviously these aren't problems. Power is dirt cheap in AZ, and water is too (that's why they have so many "water features"), though you could argue that the water situation is not sustainable. Land is cheap too. AZ hasn't had an earthquake in forever; it's very geologically stable. There's no natural disasters there ever, unless you count dust storms. And it's close to California and the port of LA.
Workers wit "better moral and work ethics"? Apparently not workers who are educated in the English language if you're an example of them. If upper-midwest workers were so great, then that region would be competing with California. Guess what? It's not; it's a backwater.
And milder weather? You're a moron. It never snows in Phoenix, so they never have problems transporting product in and out. Snowstorms are common in the midwest and upper midwest.
Exactly. Building multi-billion-dollar fabs in Arizona is not something new for Intel; it's a favorite site of theirs for whatever reasons (probably real estate costs, availability of qualified workers, cheap electric power, lack of bad weather and natural disasters, etc.). They would have built this fab there anyway.
They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)
Huh? This is just plain wrong. It was East Germany (and their puppetmasters in Russia) who built the walls separating east and west Germany. And they had good reason to: their people were trying to escape to the west. So they built walls, and had armed guards posted who would shoot anyone who tried to escape. The western side was happy to accept anyone who could make it there.
It's not just the far left that's violent. The Bundy incidents have shown that the right wing is far more violent. When the leftists get violent in the US, some neo-nazis get punched, and some windows get broken, and there's some noisy protests. When right-wingers get violent, they organize into militias with heavy weaponry and take over public places at gunpoint.
What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'.
Nothing's happened to it. You still have the legal right to say whatever the heck you want.
Other people may throw punches at you, but we still have a legal system which will (attempt to) apprehend them and charge them with assault and throw them in prison for it.
If you're expecting people on the street to rush to your defense so you can spout hate speech, good luck with that. We, as a society, employ police and prosecutors and judges and corrections officers to hold the punchers accountable, and it's their job to deal with that. That's as far as we're going to go though. Just like I'm not going to get personally involved in a husband-and-wife squabble in public, and will leave the police to take care of that, I'm not risking myself for some neo-nazi either, and will leave the police to take care of that too. If some people decide to shoot the neo-nazi, there again I'll let the police take care of that. I really don't care about the neo-nazi and am not going to risk myself for him, the way I would for a group of innocent children being threatened by someone violent when a policeman isn't around.
I don't understand the trans stuff, I don't pretend to.
I think a lot of us are in this boat. But if you don't have any serious gender-identity issues, I think this is normal. Most of us have more important things to worry about than other peoples' gender identity issues and how they affect their lives. Just like how those of us who aren't elderly don't worry a lot about issues which profoundly affect the elderly in their day-to-day lives, even simple things like mobility (needing canes or walkers, worrying about falling down, etc.).
I just can't quite understand how people get so mad about a dude asking to be referred to as female. It's no skin off my fucking nose, I'll call them whatever the fuck they like. The anger mytifies me and suggests these people don't have enough real shit to get annoyed about.
I'll tell you what you're missing here: religion. Let me guess: you're not a highly religious person, especially not an Evangelical Christian, am I right?
Christians (and Jews and Muslims in places where they're majorities) are infamous for being very interested in how other people live their lives and what they do in their bedrooms and even what they think. Your mindset embodies the "live and let live" and "mind your own business" lines of thought. Religionists can't do this; they just can't stand the thought that all the people around them aren't part of their mass hallucination and following the model for society which it prescribes.
Trying to label yourself as "unclassifiable" reeks the same level of stuck-up I get from hipster music groups that don't want to admit they're Folk Rock.
Perhaps, but on the other hand, if you refuse to claim to be part of any particular group, then you free yourself from being criticized along with that group. So if people generally have some complaint about "folk rock" (I have no idea for an example here), then if some hipster group that sounds a lot like folk rock says "we're not a folk rock group! We don't claim to be part of any particular narrowly-defined genre!", then it's easy for them to claim that the standard criticisms of folk rock do not apply to them.
Of course, that can only go so far; there is a such thing as "duck typing". If the hipster group's music sounds like rock, and has the essential qualities of rock (drums, guitar, bass, vocals), then they'd be hard-pressed to legitimately claim they're completely "unclassifiable". But they can certainly claim to be part of the much broader group of "rock music" rather than the more narrowly defined "folk rock", especially if they have a valid argument as to why they feel they're an exception to the folk-rock norm and therefore don't feel that they're folk rock. For a real-life example of this, check out AC/DC. Most people think they're metal, but they don't claim to be, they claim to be "rock and roll". From the intro of their Wikipedia article: "they have also been considered a heavy metal band, although they have always dubbed their music simply "rock and roll"."
Maybe you shouldn't let HR make your hiring decisions.
That is an utterly unAmerican thing to say, and quite frankly treasonous. Letting HR make your hiring decisions is a fundamental part of how American corporations work.
Yes, exactly. That's why I quoted that part of the post! I fully realize the Dems haven't lived up to their promises (though they blame much of that on the Republicans and their "obstructionism", but when you have people like DWS in bed with the payday-loan businesses, it's hard to believe the Dems are as in favor of helping the poor as they claim), but the part I found interesting was the claim about SJWs wanting to be exploiters.
The left is about social equality for labour, and it got flooded with selfish, idiotic social justice warriors who oppose social equality for labour (they don't want to end the exploitation, they want to become the exploiters.
Could you please expand on this claim? This is rather interesting.
It's pretty simple: those people don't want to be called term X because they don't perceive themselves as being part of that group (whether it's "homosexual" or "intersex" or "transgender" or whatever), so they pick some other more obscure group they identify with (like "genderqueer", whatever that is), or make up something new I guess.
With this alt-right stuff, it's exactly the opposite. We see here people claiming to be "alt-right", but then they try to claim they're not racist or whatever other label that outsiders perceive them as.
If you're going to stand up and claim to be part of a group that has voluntary membership, then it's your own fault when you're criticized for traits that outsiders generally associate with that group. If you don't like it, and don't agree with the assessment, stop claiming to be part of that group.
It's just like the OP said: you can't go around calling yourself a "proud KKK member" and then claim that you think Jews are great. It doesn't work that way, as the KKK is still known to be anti-Jewish (among many other things), and that's one of their big issues, not just some minor one with a lot of internal disagreement. If you take offense at being lumped in with them, then stop claiming to be part of that group. Make up your own group if you have to. Similarly, don't go around calling yourself a "communist" and then claim that you're against state or collective ownership of industry and you think private ownership and free markets are the way to go.
It's doing fine. They're still on roughly 90% of all desktop/laptop computers, and there's no sign of them going anywhere anytime soon. No, this market is not a big growth market any more; that doesn't mean the company is in trouble, just like Comcast isn't in trouble just because the population isn't exploding to provide them more homeowners to sell their cable service to. MS is succeeding in getting people and companies to upgrade to Win10, and they're making even more money with its integrated spyware and advertising. Furthermore, Windows helps MS sell more services and products, especially to businesses, which isn't so obvious if you focus only on Windows revenues.
Why is Microsoft still so friggin' arrogant towards its customers (a.k.a., product) and users? Hasn't the Windows 10 fiasco taught them any humility?
What makes you say this? Have you looked at MS's financials lately? They're doing great. They're arrogant because they can be: people like you happily continue to buy their products, no matter how they treat you. So why should they change? They're doing exactly the right thing: bossing their customers and users around, and in return getting lots of money from them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure a self-proclaimed socialist would have won an election where almost every voter had been told, taught, and lectured upon, for more than a century that socialism was a dirty word... (and don't forget, yeah, she was obviously the DNC's choice, but ordinary Democrats generally preferred her. If you can't get the left of American center voters to support a so-called socialist
Here's another great example of a Democrat voter who refuses to believe the obvious. Hillary was unelectable; she was the least popular candidate in history (since they started tracking that). Proof: she LOST. Trump was the 2nd most unpopular candidate in history. Bernie was filling arenas with rabid fans. And yet somehow you think Bernie wouldn't have had a chance, and that we should have stuck with Hillary? I can't say for sure that Bernie would have won (we'd need a time machine for that experiment), but given the polling numbers, Bernie would have easily won: he polled higher than either Hillary or Trump when the general population was polled instead of just looking at the party faithful.
For some odd reason, the Democrat party faithful always forget about this part: all they care about is the Democratic Party and the votes of people within that party.
The emails were a part of a ridiculous 25 year smear campaign against the Clintons
Whine whine whine. So you want to stick with a losing candidate and then push conspiracy theories when she loses, instead of backing a candidate that doesn't have 25 years of baggage and a terrible reputation?
It's no wonder the Democrats lost so badly and now we have a con-man as President and a bunch of agency heads who want to dismantle their agencies. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
Bernie may not have had that baggage, but I really don't think your racist uncle was going to vote for him.
The racist uncle wasn't going to vote for Hillary either; racists always vote GOP. People allergic to "socialism" always vote GOP too. No one would have been swayed to vote for Trump over Bernie; instead, likely millions of people would have bothered showing up to vote for him instead of sitting at home like they did. But here again, Democrat party faithful like you, just like religious zealots, absolutely refuse to believe that millions fewer voters showed up in 2016 than in Obama's election in 2008.
And this shows why the Republican party is superior: Trump wasn't a GOP insider either, and yet he was able to clinch their nomination, even though the party really didn't want him. The GOP is obviously an inherently more democratic institution than the DNC.
I'm stick of people lying about this. He was trying to hurt Clinton and still should be fired and never hired for any position of trust again, but even he recognized we can't prosecute clinton for something no one else has been prosecuted for ever.
Why are you lying?
http://www.navytimes.com/story...
I ran out of Christian bozos spouting bullshit
I call bullshit on this. There's absolutely no shortage of Christian bozos spouting bullshit. It's even worse now with the results of this election; the Christian bozos are going to see a Republican win as a victory for their "cause" and push for more religion in public life. Look first for Creationism to be taught in public schools now that we have an Education Secretary who believes in that.
I'm not saying you should leave the SJWs alone, but the Christian nuttery is rising right now, not waning.
That is also the reason why you find so many illegal women in the US. You don't have to find a rich guy, you just have to find enough of them
How do I know.... I'm stuck now in paying for the last 1 of 3 children of an illegal mother right now. How do I know that it is rampant, her 3 younger sisters all illegal are doing the exact same thing.
I guess on the flip side, if this is as rampant as you claim, it points to natural-born American women being extremely deficient that so many men are willing to date, marry, and have kids with women who aren't legal immigrants.
"Several years" is a LONG time to plant a mole for something like unionization. For a government doing really serious spying, sure. But a union mole? That defies all reason. Someone would need to be getting paid pretty well by the union to be a mole for that long.
It's much more reasonable to believe that someone who's idealistic and a top worker (because what union wants a bottom-of-the-barrel employee agitating for them?) worked for several years, and was then recruited by a union (after getting annoyed by the working conditions) to try to push for unionization.
You want people to have a higher standard of living, well unions are the best bet
Where on earth did you get the idea that anyone wants people to have a higher standard of living? We just voted for massive oligarcy; obviously, the American public does *NOT* want people (including themselves) to have a higher standard of living.
At this point if we ever want to take back any power from the megacorps we need unions in all fifty states
Why would we want to take back power from the megacorps? We just voted to give them far more power and less regulation.
That won't help. Lots of American cars have been built by UAW unionworkers for many decades now, and their build quality is infamous for its shittiness.
If you want great build quality, you buy something made in Japan.
The problem isn't unions, or the lack of unions, it's the culture of the workers, and the pride they take in their work. All evidence points to Japanese workers simply being superior, as seen in the quality of their products. This can be seen when comparing Japanese-brand vehicles made in Japan to the very same model vehicle made in other nations like Mexico. Though to be fair, Mexican-made Japanese cars are still much better than American-labor-made American-brand cars, so the engineering and corporate culture and management also play a large role.
Finally, I haven't heard of Teslas having bad build quality, though I'm not claiming the opposite as I really don't know and haven't researched it. I have heard of them having to replace a lot of drive motors, but that's not an issue with build quality on the assembly line, that sounds an engineering problem, which labor has no control over.
But listening to employees and addressing their concerns is something that is completely lacking at pretty much every corporation in America. Why do you think we software people all have open-plan work areas now?
The minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in over twenty years, and the inflation is meant not to simply pay a subsistence wage, but to pay a comfortable living wage upon which one could support a family. That's the minimum standard that we want to accept as Americans, because we don't want to see a race to the bottom.
Completely wrong. We *DO* want to see a race to the bottom. We just voted for it.
What if a vendor paid someone to get a job in a big organization for the purpose of influencing it to make a major purchase from the vendor?
I personally don't see how that's a problem. If we're going to allow politicians to take money and gifts from lobbyists, and we allow big corporations and other organizations to spend lots of money for the purpose of influencing the politicians who make our laws, I don't see how this is wrong.
Remember the saying about the fish rotting from the head.
You are incredibly stupid. Intel has been building fabs in Chandler AZ for literally decades now, so obviously these aren't problems. Power is dirt cheap in AZ, and water is too (that's why they have so many "water features"), though you could argue that the water situation is not sustainable. Land is cheap too. AZ hasn't had an earthquake in forever; it's very geologically stable. There's no natural disasters there ever, unless you count dust storms. And it's close to California and the port of LA.
Workers wit "better moral and work ethics"? Apparently not workers who are educated in the English language if you're an example of them. If upper-midwest workers were so great, then that region would be competing with California. Guess what? It's not; it's a backwater.
And milder weather? You're a moron. It never snows in Phoenix, so they never have problems transporting product in and out. Snowstorms are common in the midwest and upper midwest.
Exactly. Building multi-billion-dollar fabs in Arizona is not something new for Intel; it's a favorite site of theirs for whatever reasons (probably real estate costs, availability of qualified workers, cheap electric power, lack of bad weather and natural disasters, etc.). They would have built this fab there anyway.
They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)
Huh? This is just plain wrong. It was East Germany (and their puppetmasters in Russia) who built the walls separating east and west Germany. And they had good reason to: their people were trying to escape to the west. So they built walls, and had armed guards posted who would shoot anyone who tried to escape. The western side was happy to accept anyone who could make it there.
why is everyone on the Left so violent?
It's not just the far left that's violent. The Bundy incidents have shown that the right wing is far more violent. When the leftists get violent in the US, some neo-nazis get punched, and some windows get broken, and there's some noisy protests. When right-wingers get violent, they organize into militias with heavy weaponry and take over public places at gunpoint.
What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'.
Nothing's happened to it. You still have the legal right to say whatever the heck you want.
Other people may throw punches at you, but we still have a legal system which will (attempt to) apprehend them and charge them with assault and throw them in prison for it.
If you're expecting people on the street to rush to your defense so you can spout hate speech, good luck with that. We, as a society, employ police and prosecutors and judges and corrections officers to hold the punchers accountable, and it's their job to deal with that. That's as far as we're going to go though. Just like I'm not going to get personally involved in a husband-and-wife squabble in public, and will leave the police to take care of that, I'm not risking myself for some neo-nazi either, and will leave the police to take care of that too. If some people decide to shoot the neo-nazi, there again I'll let the police take care of that. I really don't care about the neo-nazi and am not going to risk myself for him, the way I would for a group of innocent children being threatened by someone violent when a policeman isn't around.
I don't understand the trans stuff, I don't pretend to.
I think a lot of us are in this boat. But if you don't have any serious gender-identity issues, I think this is normal. Most of us have more important things to worry about than other peoples' gender identity issues and how they affect their lives. Just like how those of us who aren't elderly don't worry a lot about issues which profoundly affect the elderly in their day-to-day lives, even simple things like mobility (needing canes or walkers, worrying about falling down, etc.).
I just can't quite understand how people get so mad about a dude asking to be referred to as female. It's no skin off my fucking nose, I'll call them whatever the fuck they like. The anger mytifies me and suggests these people don't have enough real shit to get annoyed about.
I'll tell you what you're missing here: religion. Let me guess: you're not a highly religious person, especially not an Evangelical Christian, am I right?
Christians (and Jews and Muslims in places where they're majorities) are infamous for being very interested in how other people live their lives and what they do in their bedrooms and even what they think. Your mindset embodies the "live and let live" and "mind your own business" lines of thought. Religionists can't do this; they just can't stand the thought that all the people around them aren't part of their mass hallucination and following the model for society which it prescribes.
Trying to label yourself as "unclassifiable" reeks the same level of stuck-up I get from hipster music groups that don't want to admit they're Folk Rock.
Perhaps, but on the other hand, if you refuse to claim to be part of any particular group, then you free yourself from being criticized along with that group. So if people generally have some complaint about "folk rock" (I have no idea for an example here), then if some hipster group that sounds a lot like folk rock says "we're not a folk rock group! We don't claim to be part of any particular narrowly-defined genre!", then it's easy for them to claim that the standard criticisms of folk rock do not apply to them.
Of course, that can only go so far; there is a such thing as "duck typing". If the hipster group's music sounds like rock, and has the essential qualities of rock (drums, guitar, bass, vocals), then they'd be hard-pressed to legitimately claim they're completely "unclassifiable". But they can certainly claim to be part of the much broader group of "rock music" rather than the more narrowly defined "folk rock", especially if they have a valid argument as to why they feel they're an exception to the folk-rock norm and therefore don't feel that they're folk rock. For a real-life example of this, check out AC/DC. Most people think they're metal, but they don't claim to be, they claim to be "rock and roll". From the intro of their Wikipedia article: "they have also been considered a heavy metal band, although they have always dubbed their music simply "rock and roll"."
Maybe you shouldn't let HR make your hiring decisions.
That is an utterly unAmerican thing to say, and quite frankly treasonous. Letting HR make your hiring decisions is a fundamental part of how American corporations work.
Yes, exactly. That's why I quoted that part of the post! I fully realize the Dems haven't lived up to their promises (though they blame much of that on the Republicans and their "obstructionism", but when you have people like DWS in bed with the payday-loan businesses, it's hard to believe the Dems are as in favor of helping the poor as they claim), but the part I found interesting was the claim about SJWs wanting to be exploiters.
Are you nuts? I see lots of stuff that's changed since then... for the worse.
Every day I wish I could go back to the 90s. It was a better time.
The left is about social equality for labour, and it got flooded with selfish, idiotic social justice warriors who oppose social equality for labour (they don't want to end the exploitation, they want to become the exploiters.
Could you please expand on this claim? This is rather interesting.
It's pretty simple: those people don't want to be called term X because they don't perceive themselves as being part of that group (whether it's "homosexual" or "intersex" or "transgender" or whatever), so they pick some other more obscure group they identify with (like "genderqueer", whatever that is), or make up something new I guess.
With this alt-right stuff, it's exactly the opposite. We see here people claiming to be "alt-right", but then they try to claim they're not racist or whatever other label that outsiders perceive them as.
If you're going to stand up and claim to be part of a group that has voluntary membership, then it's your own fault when you're criticized for traits that outsiders generally associate with that group. If you don't like it, and don't agree with the assessment, stop claiming to be part of that group.
It's just like the OP said: you can't go around calling yourself a "proud KKK member" and then claim that you think Jews are great. It doesn't work that way, as the KKK is still known to be anti-Jewish (among many other things), and that's one of their big issues, not just some minor one with a lot of internal disagreement. If you take offense at being lumped in with them, then stop claiming to be part of that group. Make up your own group if you have to. Similarly, don't go around calling yourself a "communist" and then claim that you're against state or collective ownership of industry and you think private ownership and free markets are the way to go.
The OP was exaggerating, but he's probably referring to the Trump supporters who were literally making Hitler salutes at an alt-right convention:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...
I don't know that any of these actual neo-Nazis are in any government positions, but many of Trump's people do have ties to people in these groups.
So yes, the comparisons between Trump and his administration and supporters and Naziism are quite well justified.
It's doing fine. They're still on roughly 90% of all desktop/laptop computers, and there's no sign of them going anywhere anytime soon. No, this market is not a big growth market any more; that doesn't mean the company is in trouble, just like Comcast isn't in trouble just because the population isn't exploding to provide them more homeowners to sell their cable service to. MS is succeeding in getting people and companies to upgrade to Win10, and they're making even more money with its integrated spyware and advertising. Furthermore, Windows helps MS sell more services and products, especially to businesses, which isn't so obvious if you focus only on Windows revenues.
Why is Microsoft still so friggin' arrogant towards its customers (a.k.a., product) and users? Hasn't the Windows 10 fiasco taught them any humility?
What makes you say this? Have you looked at MS's financials lately? They're doing great. They're arrogant because they can be: people like you happily continue to buy their products, no matter how they treat you. So why should they change? They're doing exactly the right thing: bossing their customers and users around, and in return getting lots of money from them.