Western Europe is full of countries which are far more progressive than ours, but somehow they manage to not elect obviously highly corrupt people like Hillary. They also have nice things like universal healthcare and free college tuition.
It's only countries with crappy cultures where corruption is a huge problem, because regular people in those countries happily defend corruption and vote for corrupt people.
I agree that Hillary will probably win, possibly even in a landslide, however I disagree about this not costing Democrats any votes.
Back in 2008, Obama was swept into office largely because of the youth vote. Obama energized young voters with his "hope and change" rhetoric, empty as it was, and got them to the polls in record numbers. It was really a stark change from the 2000 and 2004 elections where Bush was elected over a couple of rather wooden and uninspiring candidates.
This election was similar with Bernie carrying the youth vote, except this time the youth were smarter: they learned from what happened with Obama, that electing someone with great speeches doesn't work out that well when they don't actually have a background that matches their promises. So when Bernie popped up with not only rhetoric they wanted to hear (single-payer healthcare, addressing income inequality, all stuff the mainstream Dems like Hillary don't care about), but a *very* long track record of championing such issues in Congress, they latched onto him like their more naÃve predecessors did with Obama 8 years before.
But now, instead of getting the under-30 crowd to actually register to vote like Obama did in 2008, Hillary has completely turned them off, so most likely they'll just stay at home. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll all vote Green or something and we can bust apart this broken 2-party system, but I doubt it. (Not that the Greens don't have their issues, but the fundamental problem is the 2-party system, the party's platform can be changed, and it could morph into a nice moderate-left non-corporate-owned party which is exactly what we need, since the Democratic Party is now the moderate-right corporate-owned party.)
As for establishment Republicans, Jeb Bush has already said he will not vote for either Hillary or Trump. Things could get really interesting depending on how establishment Republican voters vote. I guess it's too late to get an establishment Republican on the ticket as an independent.
But yeah, I have a hard time seeing Hillary losing this one now, but I think the turnout numbers will be terrible.
Are you a retard or something? You're seriously trying to tell me that women should just find a husband and forget about supporting themselves, and if they pick the wrong husband then it's OK if they're homeless?
Ok, but people have been swimming at beaches a lot longer than they've used helicopters to watch for sharks. And either one of those things is costly anyway. Shark attacks have simply never been a big problem, ever, anywhere.
You seem to be completely unable to look at this from a woman's perspective. You seem to think it's entirely reasonable for a woman to bet her entire livelihood on the idea that her marriage will last her whole life, even though greater than 50% of marriages fail and many people don't even find a suitable partner in the first place and just stay single. But you seem to think women should just eschew college and careers and hang out hoping to get picked up by a man so she can be a stay-at-home housewife so she can save $10/hour on daycare? You're also forgetting how many people now don't bother having kids.
Again, none of this seems to be sustainable, but asking people to back to the bad old days of being stuck married to some jerk you don't like isn't going to fly.
What we need is some way, without killing people, of simply eliminating all the data on Facebook's servers and all their backups too. That would be a boon for humanity.
Why are the "globalist republican scum" his? He pledged support for Trump. Trump is not a real Republican, that's why he has the GOP in fits. Trump is as much in agreement with the mainline GOP as Bernie is with the mainline DNC.
Hillary's motivation is money and power: she'll do whatever makes her richer, with "donations" to the Clinton Foundation or "speaking fees". She's not going to make more money by vetoing the TPP, but she stands to make a lot of money by passing it.
Trump's motivation so far appears to be feeding his ego, not making money from "speaking fees". I don't see how pissing off all the people who voted for him, and reneging on all his anti-free-trade rhetoric, is going to help him pump up his ego.
So how'd we manage to evolve such a broken system where this kind of thing not only works, but is highly rewarded? In a sane business world, such companies would be run out of business by companies which retain highly-skilled employees and produce superior products.
I guess a lot of it can be attributed to inertia: it's hard for new competitors to come up and challenge established incumbents in an industry.
Maybe instead of all this VC funding for idiotic startups making "apps", we need VC funding for companies founded with the sole intention of challenging established incumbents in mature industries using better technology and better management.
Why would I want to be friends with religious nuts or misogynists? And how does that equate to "avoiding diversity"? Am I "avoiding diversity" if I refuse to associate with neo-Nazis, white supremacists, black power groups, or ISIS members?
Have you ever tried actually starting a business? The taxation, accounting, and regulatory hoops you have to jump through are arcane and take up a huge amount of time. There's a reason companies have employees dedicated to dealing with all that crap. Now try doing that while working a full-time factory job, commuting, and having a family at home. And with the rent being so high that you don't have any real savings, where are you going to get the capital to start the business?
Wow, you're really out of touch. In case you haven't noticed, the divorce rate is higher than ever, and more and more people are simply staying single. Sorry, but we can't return to the 50s ideal of a nuclear family with 2.3 kids and a stay-at-home housewife.
Even back then, it sucked. Look at it from the woman's perspective: divorce was almost unheard of, so if she got married to a guy who turned out to be a jerk or an abuser, or they just didn't get along, she was just stuck. With no way of making any real money on her own, where would she go? Society highly discourage divorce to mitigate this problem, but that wasn't much help, it just kept people miserably together. Who really wants to live in a society where you're stuck with the bad choices of your youth until the day you (or your spouse) die(s)?
And do you really expect modern women to completely give up on going to college and having a career, especially now that women comprise 60% of the college population?
We do need some real changes, but going back to the 50s isn't it.
The workers were absolutely greedy, in thinking they deserve some kind of job and a paycheck, when those things will take away from the money rightfully earned by the executives. Those executives need more pay so they can buy bigger yachts and more supercars, which they desperately need even more now to help them cope with their company's bankruptcy.
Well that should be a lesson to them then. Don't cave in to America! They should have pushed back, especially on the IP crap. We regular American voters don't want all that corporate crap, that's why we're all screaming about it being a bad deal. It's only a good deal if you're one of a few giant American corporations; for everyone else it sucks.
AFAICT, no one is advocating introducing non-native species of bats anywhere. They're advocating measures to increase the native local bat populations, since humans have been effective in greatly reducing them through their actions.
Yes, introducing non-native species is frequently problematic and historically has been disastrous in many places. The pro-bat people just want to undo the effect that humans have had on bats in their native habitats, in the hope that it'll reduce the populations of various annoying insects. It may or may not work as hoped, but it's nothing like introducing non-native species.
Americans don't want to spend any money on developing vaccines. Remember, we all think vaccines are a big conspiracy by the Pharma companies and that they cause autism. Or we just don't believe in the government funding research, unless it's for the military.
Hmm, this reminds me of when I was a small child living in a somewhat rural area, and I found a bat on a tree in my yard and picked him up. He didn't offer any resistance at all.
I never came down with rabies, so I guess he wasn't infected... I sure didn't know anything about bats or rabies back then.
beaches have shark notification systems, etc. If you threw caution out and swam around lighting rods in shark infested waters, your chances would be different.
Huh? Shark-notification systems are completely new, they probably didn't even exist 10 years ago. 50 years ago, no one even thought about sharks. Even so, deaths (or maimings) by shark have always been extremely rare.
The simple fact is that sharks just aren't very interested in humans, and there aren't that many sharks that are big enough to confuse us with giant sea turtles and seriously hurt us anyway.
However, I do agree that someone needs to figure out how to vaccinate wild bats the way they've done for other critters. We need more bats, a LOT more bats. Flying insects are bad enough on their own, but now with Zika and other diseases being carried by them, bats would be excellent for keeping the population of these pests down. Plus, bats are cute.
I was similar: I always had my own bedroom, and frequently even had my own tent in boy scouts. I lived in a dorm, however, but even here I ended up buying out my room half the time and living by myself, which was a great situation: it's too bad I wasn't good at hooking up with girls at the time, but otherwise it was great being right there on campus, having friends right down the hall, but not having to share a room.
Sorry, it's been extremely rare that I was friends with my coworkers. The last people I want to be friends with are people who are either ultra-conservative or misogynists or both.
Honestly, if I could go back in time and tell my teenage self to pick another major, I'd tell him to go into medicine instead, so I could enjoy a career where I work with plenty of women rather than a sausagefest full of radical libertarians, and I could probably end up marrying a hot doctor. I love technology and electronics, but I really can't stand the other guys who go into this profession. Even the commenters on this forum disgust me most of the time.
but the days of the 'hp garage' is long gone. now, its stupid social bullshit, twits and disgracebook lead the pack. ie, no product at all, just hot air and advertising.
It seems that the primary industry of the USA these days has become advertising, rather than anything useful.
Yep, we have one candidate whose husband is a rapist and abuser of women, and she viciously attacks his victims.
We have another candidate who thinks a guy with a sex slave island is a terrific guy.
Great choice we have here.
When the system ends up giving us these as our two choices, you know the system needs to be completely overhauled because it can't get much more broken than this.
Slashdot Mirror
Western Europe is full of countries which are far more progressive than ours, but somehow they manage to not elect obviously highly corrupt people like Hillary. They also have nice things like universal healthcare and free college tuition.
It's only countries with crappy cultures where corruption is a huge problem, because regular people in those countries happily defend corruption and vote for corrupt people.
Yes, the TPP will help US corporations be more profitable. That doesn't translate into more jobs for US workers.
I agree that Hillary will probably win, possibly even in a landslide, however I disagree about this not costing Democrats any votes.
Back in 2008, Obama was swept into office largely because of the youth vote. Obama energized young voters with his "hope and change" rhetoric, empty as it was, and got them to the polls in record numbers. It was really a stark change from the 2000 and 2004 elections where Bush was elected over a couple of rather wooden and uninspiring candidates.
This election was similar with Bernie carrying the youth vote, except this time the youth were smarter: they learned from what happened with Obama, that electing someone with great speeches doesn't work out that well when they don't actually have a background that matches their promises. So when Bernie popped up with not only rhetoric they wanted to hear (single-payer healthcare, addressing income inequality, all stuff the mainstream Dems like Hillary don't care about), but a *very* long track record of championing such issues in Congress, they latched onto him like their more naÃve predecessors did with Obama 8 years before.
But now, instead of getting the under-30 crowd to actually register to vote like Obama did in 2008, Hillary has completely turned them off, so most likely they'll just stay at home. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll all vote Green or something and we can bust apart this broken 2-party system, but I doubt it. (Not that the Greens don't have their issues, but the fundamental problem is the 2-party system, the party's platform can be changed, and it could morph into a nice moderate-left non-corporate-owned party which is exactly what we need, since the Democratic Party is now the moderate-right corporate-owned party.)
As for establishment Republicans, Jeb Bush has already said he will not vote for either Hillary or Trump. Things could get really interesting depending on how establishment Republican voters vote. I guess it's too late to get an establishment Republican on the ticket as an independent.
But yeah, I have a hard time seeing Hillary losing this one now, but I think the turnout numbers will be terrible.
Are you a retard or something? You're seriously trying to tell me that women should just find a husband and forget about supporting themselves, and if they pick the wrong husband then it's OK if they're homeless?
Fuck you.
Ok, but people have been swimming at beaches a lot longer than they've used helicopters to watch for sharks. And either one of those things is costly anyway. Shark attacks have simply never been a big problem, ever, anywhere.
I don't have a "wench", I'm not married.
You seem to be completely unable to look at this from a woman's perspective. You seem to think it's entirely reasonable for a woman to bet her entire livelihood on the idea that her marriage will last her whole life, even though greater than 50% of marriages fail and many people don't even find a suitable partner in the first place and just stay single. But you seem to think women should just eschew college and careers and hang out hoping to get picked up by a man so she can be a stay-at-home housewife so she can save $10/hour on daycare? You're also forgetting how many people now don't bother having kids.
Again, none of this seems to be sustainable, but asking people to back to the bad old days of being stuck married to some jerk you don't like isn't going to fly.
We already have excellent replacements, people just don't want to use them.
ZDnet says Linux Mint 18 is the best desktop, period.
Zuckerberg can be replaced by one of his stooges.
What we need is some way, without killing people, of simply eliminating all the data on Facebook's servers and all their backups too. That would be a boon for humanity.
Doing the same for Microsoft would be as well.
Why are the "globalist republican scum" his? He pledged support for Trump. Trump is not a real Republican, that's why he has the GOP in fits. Trump is as much in agreement with the mainline GOP as Bernie is with the mainline DNC.
You have to look at their motivations.
Hillary's motivation is money and power: she'll do whatever makes her richer, with "donations" to the Clinton Foundation or "speaking fees". She's not going to make more money by vetoing the TPP, but she stands to make a lot of money by passing it.
Trump's motivation so far appears to be feeding his ego, not making money from "speaking fees". I don't see how pissing off all the people who voted for him, and reneging on all his anti-free-trade rhetoric, is going to help him pump up his ego.
So how'd we manage to evolve such a broken system where this kind of thing not only works, but is highly rewarded? In a sane business world, such companies would be run out of business by companies which retain highly-skilled employees and produce superior products.
I guess a lot of it can be attributed to inertia: it's hard for new competitors to come up and challenge established incumbents in an industry.
Maybe instead of all this VC funding for idiotic startups making "apps", we need VC funding for companies founded with the sole intention of challenging established incumbents in mature industries using better technology and better management.
Why would I want to be friends with religious nuts or misogynists? And how does that equate to "avoiding diversity"? Am I "avoiding diversity" if I refuse to associate with neo-Nazis, white supremacists, black power groups, or ISIS members?
What a stupid comment.
Have you ever tried actually starting a business? The taxation, accounting, and regulatory hoops you have to jump through are arcane and take up a huge amount of time. There's a reason companies have employees dedicated to dealing with all that crap. Now try doing that while working a full-time factory job, commuting, and having a family at home. And with the rent being so high that you don't have any real savings, where are you going to get the capital to start the business?
Wow, you're really out of touch. In case you haven't noticed, the divorce rate is higher than ever, and more and more people are simply staying single. Sorry, but we can't return to the 50s ideal of a nuclear family with 2.3 kids and a stay-at-home housewife.
Even back then, it sucked. Look at it from the woman's perspective: divorce was almost unheard of, so if she got married to a guy who turned out to be a jerk or an abuser, or they just didn't get along, she was just stuck. With no way of making any real money on her own, where would she go? Society highly discourage divorce to mitigate this problem, but that wasn't much help, it just kept people miserably together. Who really wants to live in a society where you're stuck with the bad choices of your youth until the day you (or your spouse) die(s)?
And do you really expect modern women to completely give up on going to college and having a career, especially now that women comprise 60% of the college population?
We do need some real changes, but going back to the 50s isn't it.
What a bunch of classist BS.
The workers were absolutely greedy, in thinking they deserve some kind of job and a paycheck, when those things will take away from the money rightfully earned by the executives. Those executives need more pay so they can buy bigger yachts and more supercars, which they desperately need even more now to help them cope with their company's bankruptcy.
People like you just want to punish success.
Well that should be a lesson to them then. Don't cave in to America! They should have pushed back, especially on the IP crap. We regular American voters don't want all that corporate crap, that's why we're all screaming about it being a bad deal. It's only a good deal if you're one of a few giant American corporations; for everyone else it sucks.
Fallacy: false equivalence.
AFAICT, no one is advocating introducing non-native species of bats anywhere. They're advocating measures to increase the native local bat populations, since humans have been effective in greatly reducing them through their actions.
Yes, introducing non-native species is frequently problematic and historically has been disastrous in many places. The pro-bat people just want to undo the effect that humans have had on bats in their native habitats, in the hope that it'll reduce the populations of various annoying insects. It may or may not work as hoped, but it's nothing like introducing non-native species.
Americans don't want to spend any money on developing vaccines. Remember, we all think vaccines are a big conspiracy by the Pharma companies and that they cause autism. Or we just don't believe in the government funding research, unless it's for the military.
Hmm, this reminds me of when I was a small child living in a somewhat rural area, and I found a bat on a tree in my yard and picked him up. He didn't offer any resistance at all.
I never came down with rabies, so I guess he wasn't infected... I sure didn't know anything about bats or rabies back then.
beaches have shark notification systems, etc. If you threw caution out and swam around lighting rods in shark infested waters, your chances would be different.
Huh? Shark-notification systems are completely new, they probably didn't even exist 10 years ago. 50 years ago, no one even thought about sharks. Even so, deaths (or maimings) by shark have always been extremely rare.
The simple fact is that sharks just aren't very interested in humans, and there aren't that many sharks that are big enough to confuse us with giant sea turtles and seriously hurt us anyway.
However, I do agree that someone needs to figure out how to vaccinate wild bats the way they've done for other critters. We need more bats, a LOT more bats. Flying insects are bad enough on their own, but now with Zika and other diseases being carried by them, bats would be excellent for keeping the population of these pests down. Plus, bats are cute.
I was similar: I always had my own bedroom, and frequently even had my own tent in boy scouts. I lived in a dorm, however, but even here I ended up buying out my room half the time and living by myself, which was a great situation: it's too bad I wasn't good at hooking up with girls at the time, but otherwise it was great being right there on campus, having friends right down the hall, but not having to share a room.
then you have the sheer smugness some of the people exhibit from san fran all the way down to san diego.
I guess that explains why Hillary won the California primaries.
Sorry, it's been extremely rare that I was friends with my coworkers. The last people I want to be friends with are people who are either ultra-conservative or misogynists or both.
Honestly, if I could go back in time and tell my teenage self to pick another major, I'd tell him to go into medicine instead, so I could enjoy a career where I work with plenty of women rather than a sausagefest full of radical libertarians, and I could probably end up marrying a hot doctor. I love technology and electronics, but I really can't stand the other guys who go into this profession. Even the commenters on this forum disgust me most of the time.
but the days of the 'hp garage' is long gone. now, its stupid social bullshit, twits and disgracebook lead the pack. ie, no product at all, just hot air and advertising.
It seems that the primary industry of the USA these days has become advertising, rather than anything useful.
Very sad.
Yep, we have one candidate whose husband is a rapist and abuser of women, and she viciously attacks his victims.
We have another candidate who thinks a guy with a sex slave island is a terrific guy.
Great choice we have here.
When the system ends up giving us these as our two choices, you know the system needs to be completely overhauled because it can't get much more broken than this.