Your post here is "beyond retarded". Where do you think the people who make up the US military came from? They came from the people. What makes you think they're going to take up arms against their own countrymen, and blindly follow the orders of one guy in the White House, and not splinter?
And have you forgotten how many guns American civilians have? Have you noticed that the US military has a really hard time with urban combat and civilian "insurgencies"? And have you forgotten all the civilian militias that have popped up?
You sound just as delusional about the chances of success here as Hillary's camp was before the election. "It'll be an easy win! No problem!"
Carefully vetting and curating apps in an app store would cost Apple a lot of money: they'd have to pay people to examine them all, come up with standards and ensure the apps all meet the standards, field complaints from customers and app makers alike, etc. It's much cheaper to just make it a free-for-all.
The downside is that this approach usually results in a poor reputation, which can in theory cause customers to abandon your app store. But this isn't a problem for Apple. Their loyal cultist customers will buy from them no matter what, so there's really no reason for Apple to invest any money in making them happy. They're so deluded they'll be happy no matter what Apple does or does not do, so Apple might as well keep their expenses as low as possible and maximize profits.
Do we even need evidence of vote rigging? Wouldn't it be sufficient to show the voting machines are untrustworthy and that a recount can't be done because there were no paper ballots (in particular places)? To me, that should be sufficient to invalidate results entirely.
But yeah, a complete procedural deadlock is exactly what I'm hoping for. Something that crippling to the nation would surely force a major change to the Constitution, something that's been overdue for ages.
What? This is just plain dumb. I got most of my music on CD about 10-20 years ago, and right now I'm lucky if I spend more than $30/year on any new music. Spending money on renting music, and then spending more money to stream it cellularly, and then putting up with outages and dead spots (which are common where I live) is just plain stupid. Maybe if you have shitty taste in music and listen to all the latest pop garbage, the economics work out for you.
Cats aren't that dumb; they're not going to attack each other mercilessly just because they find themselves getting thrown in a bag together.
The "cat out of the bag" adage comes from the middle ages. People used to buy live pigs from merchants, so they could take them home and keep them for a while before slaughtering them. It became customary to keep them in bags for convenience (so they couldn't get away on city streets, and didn't need to be penned up). Some unethical merchants put stray cats in the bags instead of pigs, with the idea that the customers wouldn't find out until they got the bag home and opened it. But sometimes the bag came open or the customers insisted on opening it to check, and when that happened the cat would jump out and run away. It means one-way change because a trapped feral cat waiting for its chance to escape isn't going to stick around once the bag opens, and cats can run a lot faster than humans.
Great points. And then what if the SCOTUS did take up the case, but then they were unable to make a ruling because they tied 4-4 because the Republicans refused to even hold confirmation hearings on Garland and there's only 8 justices?
This is what I'm getting at: what if we ended up having a situation which, unlikely as it is, came out that the federal government was legally unable to pick a new President? What then? This is exactly what I'm hoping for.
Well, they sleep together all the time so I doubt it'll be a problem. Two of them are littermates (sisters) so they get along just fine anyway. I realize some cats don't get along that great with others (I had a feral cat like this a while ago, but even she managed to get along fine with my one cat when put in the same cage as her, usually), but they don't get along any worse than I've seen with dogs or humans. Dogs snap at each other all the time, and some get into horrible fights, even when they live together. And humans of course are total bastards to each other. I think cats have an undeserved reputation here. No, you can't herd them like you can sheep, but that doesn't mean they'll automatically tear each other apart when forced to share quarters. There are some animals like that; I think there's a bunch of rodent-type mammals that are like this. Cats aren't (at least housecats: certain large wild cats might be).
Your goal is clearly to prevent Trump from becoming President.
No, it's not. You're obviously extremely biased and not understanding my position here. My goal is to prevent either one of them from becoming President.
Because that didn't happen, now it's your side that's refusing to accept the outcome of the election, and trying to prevent Trump from becoming President. The word for this is hypocrisy.
Like most stupid Americans, you have a sports team mindset about this, and think that anyone who isn't on your "side" must automatically be on the "other side".
I didn't realize "Alternative Vote" was a well-defined system, or in fact another name for IRV (instant runoff voting) which I am familiar with, I thought you were just using that term as a catch-all for voting systems which aren't FPTP. There's actually a lot of debate in some circles about which non-FPTP voting system is better for capturing the will of the people, with claims that IRV mathematically can come up with bad results sometimes, and that Condorcet or Borla is better for edge cases. Regardless, the other thing I was getting at was that under the "what-if" situation of a different voting system, the results would completely change based on who's running too, which is highly debatable (would Sanders have been in the running?). It's kinda pointless since there was no way to push through such a system in that timeframe, so any such arguments are purely academic, but it is interesting to speculate: if for instance we somehow could redo it and got IRV with Trump, Hillary, Sanders, Stein, Johnson, and McMullin, who'd win? (and then there's two possibilities here too: 1) it's IRV nationwide, with no regard to states, or 2) it's IRV but state-by-state and with the Electoral College preserved, but the winner in each state decided by IRV.)
As for claims that "those who voted for 3rd party X allowed Trump to win", that's mostly BS I think. For one thing, thinking that the Libertarian voters would automatically have voted for Hillary is highly flawed IMO; if they had all been forced to vote for either Hillary or Trump (and not abstain), I think it's quite likely more would have chosen Trump. Many Libertarian voters this time around were GOP voters who refused to vote for Trump, so I don't think it's valid to count them as "traitorous Democrat voters" as the Dems seem to do with 3rd-party voters in general.
Anyway, that is interesting about the swing state turnout; I missed that. However, it still doesn't support your assertion. Just looking at the map right now, Pennsylvania is very close, so if we go with your stated assumption about 3rd party voters all selecting Hillary as choice 2, that gives her PA, which is 20 EV. Then, if we do the same with Wisconsin, it's the same: that state now goes to her, with 10 EV. Then we can do the same with Arizona of all places, and that's another 11 EV. That gives Hillary 273 to Trump's 259. There's probably a few more states like that, but that's enough. An IRV system with all 3rd-party voters choosing Hillary as choice #2 (or any choice above Trump really) does give Hillary the lead. (It looks like FL would also go to Hillary in this scenario BTW: 29 EV). But as I said, I think that assumption is flawed, and that many Libertarian voters would choose Trump above Hillary, though I could be wrong.
Yes, actually it does happen. It's extremely rare, though, and is usually only one elector out of the entire EC. Go back and look through the Wikipedia articles for all the elections for the last 50 years, and you'll see that there were faithless electors a small handful of times.
But overall you're right, the idea that dozens of them are going to switch their votes in the same election is sheer lunacy. I would not, however, be surprised to see one or two faithless electors in this election, or maybe even up to 5 at a guess. This election is already historical in many ways, and the GOP has had a lot of defections since trump was nominated, with many prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary (like Colin Powell), so I honestly would be shocked if we didn't have at least 1 faithless elector. But it won't be enough to change the final results.
If that's enough to make me your hero, the following should make you worship me:-)
Unfortunately I can't give you a direct URL as my work blocks this site, but go to mazda3revolution.com, and look for the forum called "2014-2016 Mazda 3 Skyactiv Audio & Electronics". In there, there's a bunch of threads about hacking the infotainment systems on these cars. (The system in the 14-17 Mazda3 is the same as the CX-5 of the same years.) "The Infotainment Project" is a discussion with people doing actual hacks, but there's another discussion where they have them all rolled up into a bundle you can download and apply; there's lots of tweaks and hacks, from the simple one I mentioned before, to a beta version of Android Auto (use at your own risk; some of these things will brick the system or get into a "boot loop" that's hard to fix), or a custom GPS speedometer display.
A lot of this stuff is also on some other sites, such as mazda3hacks.com (I think that's the one).
Sorry I can't give some more specific URLs; this stuff is all blocked to me at the moment (but stupidly, they don't block Slashdot!).
Yeah, I thought that should have been fairly obvious both from the election results, and from my post where I hoped that contesting the election would wind up in a big stalemate and cause a Constitutional crisis, rather than a win for Hillary.
I don't want either one of them as President. I'd rather see pandemonium, forcing the government to take some kind of extreme action to resolve it, because otherwise we won't get any positive change. We really need an amended Constitution which fixes the voting system.
The data really shows that about 6M people sat out the election, compared to the number of people who voted in 2008.
If we had an alternative vote system, it's quite possible more people would have bothered to vote, just to try voting for one of the 3rd parties. Or, if Sanders was on the ticket for this hypothetical alternative vote system, it's quite certain that many more people would have voted. The actual outcome isn't so obvious since that depends on too many variable (since we're dealing with an entirely hypothetical voting system here, the rules of which are unknown, and the candidates too).
The DNC rigging the primaries should bother anyone who voted or wanted to vote for a Democrat. If you believe in democracy and in the people being able to choose their leader, then the party doing sneaky things to get their preferred candidate in there over someone that more people wanted should be abhorrent (and it more people didn't want him, then the party wouldn't have needed to do sneaky things).
It's/r/The_Donald. It's the angry, contrarian young male vote. It seems to be a melting pot of RedPill, 4Chan, and a bunch of other places that demographic hangs out, online equivalent of a bag of cats.
Hey, as a cat lover and owner (er, caretaker) of 3 cats, I resent that comment. My 3 cats get along quite well and are very well-behaved, loving creatures. Even feral cats are known to live not solitarily, but in colonies where they look out for each other.
A better animal to use here would probably be a panda or a shrew or a wolverine. The latter two would also fit these peoples' nasty dispositions.
I didn't sit out, but I voted for Stein because I hated both candidates. But also, the media firmly assured me that Clinton would easily win the election, and definitely would win my state (VA), so I felt entirely safe in voting 3rd party. Turns out I was right, but not by the margin I was led to believe, and anyone who thought this way in a bunch of other states probably helped throw the election to Trump (and I'm not blaming them one bit either; Hillary was a horrible candidate so there's no way I'll criticize someone for not voting for her). There were a bunch of states where the 3rd party votes were far larger than the difference between Trump and Hillary.
It sure seemed to me that the Hillary supporters were among the nastiest of the bunch, but where they really dominated was in the condescension. The Trump and Bernie supporters called others names of course, but no one was remotely as condescending as the Hillary supporters.
As for the Bernie supporters, it seemed they saved most of their negative energy for those condescending Hillary supporters, and they had good reason for it, since they were the recipients of the condescension.
In a way, I was really glad to see Trump win, just to spite those fucking Hillary lovers. At least with the Trump supporters, I could understand why they voted the way they did, even if I didn't agree with them and thought many of them to be rather dumb. The Hillary supporters, by contrast, were a bunch of condescending assholes supporting corrupt establishment politics at its worst.
My new car has a steering wheel button to answer the phone, I don't even have to glance at it.
Mine too, and I use it a fair amount to talk on the phone while driving. It's quite handy. I do a lot of rural/highway driving so talking on the speakerphone is a nice break from the monotony.
I also think I'm one of the few people who has the self control to completely ignore text messages while I'm driving.
I happily read texts while I'm driving with my new car: it shows them on the infotainment screen, and even reads them to me so I don't actually to *read* them, just listen. I can't reply so easily though, though it is easy to select a few canned replies (like "OK") to send.
I think the phone is a great addition to my commute - IHeartRadio, or Pandora; much better than the morning talk shows that are 40% commercials.
Weird, this is one thing I *don't* use my phone for. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone ever listened to morning talk shows. I stopped listening to the radio altogether over 20 years ago, when I put a CD player in my car. Recorded music on portable storage devices is a really neat thing!! These days, I keep all my music on a USB thumb drive which plugs into the car's infotainment system, and just listen to that. I'm honestly shocked by how many people haven't discovered the concept of having their own recorded music on portable storage devices, and seem to think that the only way to listen to music is through some kind of radio (whether it's old-fashioned AM/FM or cellular data).
My Mazda3 has something a bit like this: the touchscreen on the nav system is locked out when the car is moving, so you can only use the "commander" knob, which has a more limited range of functions, and doesn't let you do things like change the address or look up new stuff.
However, the nav system is running on Linux, and the root password is "jci", so it's really easy to log in as root with a USB-to-Ethernet dongle and a laptop, and then run a script on the system they included for debugging purposes which disables the touchscreen lock-out.
Given how unpopular Trump is with half the nation, I think it'd be better to strongly challenge the vote. What I'd like to see is the Clinton camp challenge it, and a recount happen that takes ages, and ends up inconclusive with fights over various technicalities (sorta like the "hanging chads" from 2000), and especially over these stupid electronic voting machines. There should be massive lawsuits over this, with no one agreeing on a clear winner for the election. Finally, this needs to go to the Supreme Court, just like it did in 2000, except that now there's 8 people on the court instead of 9, so it needs to end in a stalemate.
The end effect of all this is that there's no clear winner for the POTUS position, and the leadership of the nation is throw into disarray.
At this point, I think it's our only hope to avoid a complete disaster.
After this, hopefully we'll get some kind of new election, and better yet a constitutional amendment to completely reform elections, mandating some type of range or approval voting process instead of First Past the Post.
As someone who doesn't care about sports, I think this is a great thing personally. I want to see the cable companies increase their "sports fees" for TV, and I really like the idea of Amazon building that into Amazon Prime.
I'm a cord-cutter, so I don't have cable TV, only cable internet. So I really like the idea of the cablecos charging all the TV-watchers for sports, even if they don't watch them. This helps keep my internet service bill low. As long as the TV-watchers are subsidizing the sports fans, there's less likelihood the internet subscribers will have to do the same.
Same goes for Amazon. I don't subscribe to Prime, so if they screw over the Prime subscribers by forcing them to subsidize the sports fans, this will likely help keep prices low for me.
That's easy to avoid: don't marry someone who watches a lot of TV.
As a now-divorced man, I simply will not date anyone who's a big TV watcher. It's an entirely different lifestyle than what I lead, so someone like that would not be compatible with me.
Luckily, it's not that hard these days to find women who don't watch TV (or much TV). One big clue: if they're thin, they probably don't watch much TV.
I can't even get away from the pseudoscience advocates on a "news for nerds" website!
BTW, it's not just the US plagued with this. China of course is famous (infamous?) for Traditional Chinese Medicine, but over in Germany, which you'd think would be immune to this idiocy, they not only use homeopathy a lot, they're specifically licensed by the state! Several other western European nations are the same.
Yeah, but the industrial diamonds are tiny, and also I thought that with natural diamonds being so expensive, the lab-made diamonds were actually cheaper and that industrial ones came from there now. In fact, I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it says "It is estimated that 98% of industrial grade diamond demand is supplied with synthetic diamonds."
Are you sure about that? Diamond mining has got to be right up there too. Digging up the ground and brutalizing Africans just so some stupid bitches can have shiny rocks on their fingers.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post here is "beyond retarded". Where do you think the people who make up the US military came from? They came from the people. What makes you think they're going to take up arms against their own countrymen, and blindly follow the orders of one guy in the White House, and not splinter?
And have you forgotten how many guns American civilians have? Have you noticed that the US military has a really hard time with urban combat and civilian "insurgencies"? And have you forgotten all the civilian militias that have popped up?
You sound just as delusional about the chances of success here as Hillary's camp was before the election. "It'll be an easy win! No problem!"
Both sides want to stuff the court with political activists.
The Hillary/establishment Democrats want to nominate political activists who will overturn past rulings on guns.
The Republicans want to nominate political activists who will overturn past rulings on social issues, namely RvW.
Then both sides complain that the other side wants to nominate "political activists" while ignoring they want to do the exact same.
It absolutely IS the smart move.
Carefully vetting and curating apps in an app store would cost Apple a lot of money: they'd have to pay people to examine them all, come up with standards and ensure the apps all meet the standards, field complaints from customers and app makers alike, etc. It's much cheaper to just make it a free-for-all.
The downside is that this approach usually results in a poor reputation, which can in theory cause customers to abandon your app store. But this isn't a problem for Apple. Their loyal cultist customers will buy from them no matter what, so there's really no reason for Apple to invest any money in making them happy. They're so deluded they'll be happy no matter what Apple does or does not do, so Apple might as well keep their expenses as low as possible and maximize profits.
Do we even need evidence of vote rigging? Wouldn't it be sufficient to show the voting machines are untrustworthy and that a recount can't be done because there were no paper ballots (in particular places)? To me, that should be sufficient to invalidate results entirely.
But yeah, a complete procedural deadlock is exactly what I'm hoping for. Something that crippling to the nation would surely force a major change to the Constitution, something that's been overdue for ages.
What? This is just plain dumb. I got most of my music on CD about 10-20 years ago, and right now I'm lucky if I spend more than $30/year on any new music. Spending money on renting music, and then spending more money to stream it cellularly, and then putting up with outages and dead spots (which are common where I live) is just plain stupid. Maybe if you have shitty taste in music and listen to all the latest pop garbage, the economics work out for you.
Cats aren't that dumb; they're not going to attack each other mercilessly just because they find themselves getting thrown in a bag together.
The "cat out of the bag" adage comes from the middle ages. People used to buy live pigs from merchants, so they could take them home and keep them for a while before slaughtering them. It became customary to keep them in bags for convenience (so they couldn't get away on city streets, and didn't need to be penned up). Some unethical merchants put stray cats in the bags instead of pigs, with the idea that the customers wouldn't find out until they got the bag home and opened it. But sometimes the bag came open or the customers insisted on opening it to check, and when that happened the cat would jump out and run away. It means one-way change because a trapped feral cat waiting for its chance to escape isn't going to stick around once the bag opens, and cats can run a lot faster than humans.
Great points. And then what if the SCOTUS did take up the case, but then they were unable to make a ruling because they tied 4-4 because the Republicans refused to even hold confirmation hearings on Garland and there's only 8 justices?
This is what I'm getting at: what if we ended up having a situation which, unlikely as it is, came out that the federal government was legally unable to pick a new President? What then? This is exactly what I'm hoping for.
Well, they sleep together all the time so I doubt it'll be a problem. Two of them are littermates (sisters) so they get along just fine anyway. I realize some cats don't get along that great with others (I had a feral cat like this a while ago, but even she managed to get along fine with my one cat when put in the same cage as her, usually), but they don't get along any worse than I've seen with dogs or humans. Dogs snap at each other all the time, and some get into horrible fights, even when they live together. And humans of course are total bastards to each other. I think cats have an undeserved reputation here. No, you can't herd them like you can sheep, but that doesn't mean they'll automatically tear each other apart when forced to share quarters. There are some animals like that; I think there's a bunch of rodent-type mammals that are like this. Cats aren't (at least housecats: certain large wild cats might be).
Your goal is clearly to prevent Trump from becoming President.
No, it's not. You're obviously extremely biased and not understanding my position here. My goal is to prevent either one of them from becoming President.
Because that didn't happen, now it's your side that's refusing to accept the outcome of the election, and trying to prevent Trump from becoming President. The word for this is hypocrisy.
Like most stupid Americans, you have a sports team mindset about this, and think that anyone who isn't on your "side" must automatically be on the "other side".
The word for this is idiocy.
I didn't realize "Alternative Vote" was a well-defined system, or in fact another name for IRV (instant runoff voting) which I am familiar with, I thought you were just using that term as a catch-all for voting systems which aren't FPTP. There's actually a lot of debate in some circles about which non-FPTP voting system is better for capturing the will of the people, with claims that IRV mathematically can come up with bad results sometimes, and that Condorcet or Borla is better for edge cases. Regardless, the other thing I was getting at was that under the "what-if" situation of a different voting system, the results would completely change based on who's running too, which is highly debatable (would Sanders have been in the running?). It's kinda pointless since there was no way to push through such a system in that timeframe, so any such arguments are purely academic, but it is interesting to speculate: if for instance we somehow could redo it and got IRV with Trump, Hillary, Sanders, Stein, Johnson, and McMullin, who'd win? (and then there's two possibilities here too: 1) it's IRV nationwide, with no regard to states, or 2) it's IRV but state-by-state and with the Electoral College preserved, but the winner in each state decided by IRV.)
As for claims that "those who voted for 3rd party X allowed Trump to win", that's mostly BS I think. For one thing, thinking that the Libertarian voters would automatically have voted for Hillary is highly flawed IMO; if they had all been forced to vote for either Hillary or Trump (and not abstain), I think it's quite likely more would have chosen Trump. Many Libertarian voters this time around were GOP voters who refused to vote for Trump, so I don't think it's valid to count them as "traitorous Democrat voters" as the Dems seem to do with 3rd-party voters in general.
Anyway, that is interesting about the swing state turnout; I missed that. However, it still doesn't support your assertion. Just looking at the map right now, Pennsylvania is very close, so if we go with your stated assumption about 3rd party voters all selecting Hillary as choice 2, that gives her PA, which is 20 EV. Then, if we do the same with Wisconsin, it's the same: that state now goes to her, with 10 EV. Then we can do the same with Arizona of all places, and that's another 11 EV. That gives Hillary 273 to Trump's 259. There's probably a few more states like that, but that's enough. An IRV system with all 3rd-party voters choosing Hillary as choice #2 (or any choice above Trump really) does give Hillary the lead. (It looks like FL would also go to Hillary in this scenario BTW: 29 EV). But as I said, I think that assumption is flawed, and that many Libertarian voters would choose Trump above Hillary, though I could be wrong.
Yes, actually it does happen. It's extremely rare, though, and is usually only one elector out of the entire EC. Go back and look through the Wikipedia articles for all the elections for the last 50 years, and you'll see that there were faithless electors a small handful of times.
But overall you're right, the idea that dozens of them are going to switch their votes in the same election is sheer lunacy. I would not, however, be surprised to see one or two faithless electors in this election, or maybe even up to 5 at a guess. This election is already historical in many ways, and the GOP has had a lot of defections since trump was nominated, with many prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary (like Colin Powell), so I honestly would be shocked if we didn't have at least 1 faithless elector. But it won't be enough to change the final results.
If that's enough to make me your hero, the following should make you worship me :-)
Unfortunately I can't give you a direct URL as my work blocks this site, but go to mazda3revolution.com, and look for the forum called "2014-2016 Mazda 3 Skyactiv Audio & Electronics". In there, there's a bunch of threads about hacking the infotainment systems on these cars. (The system in the 14-17 Mazda3 is the same as the CX-5 of the same years.) "The Infotainment Project" is a discussion with people doing actual hacks, but there's another discussion where they have them all rolled up into a bundle you can download and apply; there's lots of tweaks and hacks, from the simple one I mentioned before, to a beta version of Android Auto (use at your own risk; some of these things will brick the system or get into a "boot loop" that's hard to fix), or a custom GPS speedometer display.
A lot of this stuff is also on some other sites, such as mazda3hacks.com (I think that's the one).
Sorry I can't give some more specific URLs; this stuff is all blocked to me at the moment (but stupidly, they don't block Slashdot!).
Yeah, I thought that should have been fairly obvious both from the election results, and from my post where I hoped that contesting the election would wind up in a big stalemate and cause a Constitutional crisis, rather than a win for Hillary.
I don't want either one of them as President. I'd rather see pandemonium, forcing the government to take some kind of extreme action to resolve it, because otherwise we won't get any positive change. We really need an amended Constitution which fixes the voting system.
That's bullshit.
The data really shows that about 6M people sat out the election, compared to the number of people who voted in 2008.
If we had an alternative vote system, it's quite possible more people would have bothered to vote, just to try voting for one of the 3rd parties. Or, if Sanders was on the ticket for this hypothetical alternative vote system, it's quite certain that many more people would have voted. The actual outcome isn't so obvious since that depends on too many variable (since we're dealing with an entirely hypothetical voting system here, the rules of which are unknown, and the candidates too).
The DNC rigging the primaries should bother anyone who voted or wanted to vote for a Democrat. If you believe in democracy and in the people being able to choose their leader, then the party doing sneaky things to get their preferred candidate in there over someone that more people wanted should be abhorrent (and it more people didn't want him, then the party wouldn't have needed to do sneaky things).
It's /r/The_Donald. It's the angry, contrarian young male vote. It seems to be a melting pot of RedPill, 4Chan, and a bunch of other places that demographic hangs out, online equivalent of a bag of cats.
Hey, as a cat lover and owner (er, caretaker) of 3 cats, I resent that comment. My 3 cats get along quite well and are very well-behaved, loving creatures. Even feral cats are known to live not solitarily, but in colonies where they look out for each other.
A better animal to use here would probably be a panda or a shrew or a wolverine. The latter two would also fit these peoples' nasty dispositions.
Probably a bit of both.
I didn't sit out, but I voted for Stein because I hated both candidates. But also, the media firmly assured me that Clinton would easily win the election, and definitely would win my state (VA), so I felt entirely safe in voting 3rd party. Turns out I was right, but not by the margin I was led to believe, and anyone who thought this way in a bunch of other states probably helped throw the election to Trump (and I'm not blaming them one bit either; Hillary was a horrible candidate so there's no way I'll criticize someone for not voting for her). There were a bunch of states where the 3rd party votes were far larger than the difference between Trump and Hillary.
It sure seemed to me that the Hillary supporters were among the nastiest of the bunch, but where they really dominated was in the condescension. The Trump and Bernie supporters called others names of course, but no one was remotely as condescending as the Hillary supporters.
As for the Bernie supporters, it seemed they saved most of their negative energy for those condescending Hillary supporters, and they had good reason for it, since they were the recipients of the condescension.
In a way, I was really glad to see Trump win, just to spite those fucking Hillary lovers. At least with the Trump supporters, I could understand why they voted the way they did, even if I didn't agree with them and thought many of them to be rather dumb. The Hillary supporters, by contrast, were a bunch of condescending assholes supporting corrupt establishment politics at its worst.
My new car has a steering wheel button to answer the phone, I don't even have to glance at it.
Mine too, and I use it a fair amount to talk on the phone while driving. It's quite handy. I do a lot of rural/highway driving so talking on the speakerphone is a nice break from the monotony.
I also think I'm one of the few people who has the self control to completely ignore text messages while I'm driving.
I happily read texts while I'm driving with my new car: it shows them on the infotainment screen, and even reads them to me so I don't actually to *read* them, just listen. I can't reply so easily though, though it is easy to select a few canned replies (like "OK") to send.
I think the phone is a great addition to my commute - IHeartRadio, or Pandora; much better than the morning talk shows that are 40% commercials.
Weird, this is one thing I *don't* use my phone for. In fact, I'm not sure why anyone ever listened to morning talk shows. I stopped listening to the radio altogether over 20 years ago, when I put a CD player in my car. Recorded music on portable storage devices is a really neat thing!! These days, I keep all my music on a USB thumb drive which plugs into the car's infotainment system, and just listen to that. I'm honestly shocked by how many people haven't discovered the concept of having their own recorded music on portable storage devices, and seem to think that the only way to listen to music is through some kind of radio (whether it's old-fashioned AM/FM or cellular data).
My Mazda3 has something a bit like this: the touchscreen on the nav system is locked out when the car is moving, so you can only use the "commander" knob, which has a more limited range of functions, and doesn't let you do things like change the address or look up new stuff.
However, the nav system is running on Linux, and the root password is "jci", so it's really easy to log in as root with a USB-to-Ethernet dongle and a laptop, and then run a script on the system they included for debugging purposes which disables the touchscreen lock-out.
Given how unpopular Trump is with half the nation, I think it'd be better to strongly challenge the vote. What I'd like to see is the Clinton camp challenge it, and a recount happen that takes ages, and ends up inconclusive with fights over various technicalities (sorta like the "hanging chads" from 2000), and especially over these stupid electronic voting machines. There should be massive lawsuits over this, with no one agreeing on a clear winner for the election. Finally, this needs to go to the Supreme Court, just like it did in 2000, except that now there's 8 people on the court instead of 9, so it needs to end in a stalemate.
The end effect of all this is that there's no clear winner for the POTUS position, and the leadership of the nation is throw into disarray.
At this point, I think it's our only hope to avoid a complete disaster.
After this, hopefully we'll get some kind of new election, and better yet a constitutional amendment to completely reform elections, mandating some type of range or approval voting process instead of First Past the Post.
As someone who doesn't care about sports, I think this is a great thing personally. I want to see the cable companies increase their "sports fees" for TV, and I really like the idea of Amazon building that into Amazon Prime.
I'm a cord-cutter, so I don't have cable TV, only cable internet. So I really like the idea of the cablecos charging all the TV-watchers for sports, even if they don't watch them. This helps keep my internet service bill low. As long as the TV-watchers are subsidizing the sports fans, there's less likelihood the internet subscribers will have to do the same.
Same goes for Amazon. I don't subscribe to Prime, so if they screw over the Prime subscribers by forcing them to subsidize the sports fans, this will likely help keep prices low for me.
That's easy to avoid: don't marry someone who watches a lot of TV.
As a now-divorced man, I simply will not date anyone who's a big TV watcher. It's an entirely different lifestyle than what I lead, so someone like that would not be compatible with me.
Luckily, it's not that hard these days to find women who don't watch TV (or much TV). One big clue: if they're thin, they probably don't watch much TV.
You need to go argue with this "beastofburden" guy that I had an argument with a while ago about chiropractic:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I can't even get away from the pseudoscience advocates on a "news for nerds" website!
BTW, it's not just the US plagued with this. China of course is famous (infamous?) for Traditional Chinese Medicine, but over in Germany, which you'd think would be immune to this idiocy, they not only use homeopathy a lot, they're specifically licensed by the state! Several other western European nations are the same.
Yeah, but the industrial diamonds are tiny, and also I thought that with natural diamonds being so expensive, the lab-made diamonds were actually cheaper and that industrial ones came from there now. In fact, I just looked it up on Wikipedia and it says "It is estimated that 98% of industrial grade diamond demand is supplied with synthetic diamonds."
Are you sure about that? Diamond mining has got to be right up there too. Digging up the ground and brutalizing Africans just so some stupid bitches can have shiny rocks on their fingers.