No, appointing a qualified person would benefit everyone, including yourself presumably. That is not corrupt. It's only when you do things to benefit yourself to the exclusion of others that you're crossing that line.
What you're describing is quid pro quo corruption. According to the supreme court, that is the only kind of corruption punishable by law and that decision has probably made it into some textbooks by now. There are other kinds of corruption mentioned in other textbooks, though they no longer have legal weight. For example: appointing an unqualified person to a position of power because that person's actions are likely to benefit you, even though those actions may not be best for the country.
Getting a little pedantic here: it doesn't really make much sense to assign the terms "right wing" or "left wing" to a government. Those terms are meant to express how a person or action or ideal relate to an existing government. Left is anti-establishment, Right is pro-establishment. Communism is put on the left because it was designed as a revolutionary concept - part and parcel of communism is the overthrow of existing structures of property and the power structures which go along with them. Likewise Fascism is on the right because it is all about supporting the state.
A communist government though, or a fascist government, is the thing that you relate to. It neither supports nor rebels against itself.
Okay, first: my comment shows nothing about what I know on education funding - my comment was not about education funding, it was about the previous two comments.
Second: the manner in which taxes are collected is a paltry excuse. "Oh noes! This money was collected by the federal government, not by the state government, that's a whole different form. We couldn't possibly write a bill allocating this money for education like we do for highways or healthcare or foodstamps or housing or school breakfasts... guess we'll have to blow it on a war instead. Our hands are tied."
This is a little bit of an aside, but the whole "liberal main stream media" thing basically started with Spiro Agnew - he calling them "nattering nabobs of negativism" and that hostile relationship has continued ever since. At the time, or maybe a little afterwards, this might have been true. The Nixon administration was corrupt as shit after all, and maybe the media really was out to get them because, again, they were corrupt as shit.
Of course, nowadays the right has the largest news network (Fox), the largest newspaper (The Wall Streel Journal), and completely dominates talk radio. The right-wing candidate, Trump, also got billions of dollars in free publicity in the last election. By this point though, it has proven to be very effective to play the victim when it comes to the media, so the line about "the main stream media" will continue until it becomes ineffective as a campaign tool.
Great. So the parent points out that we're defunding education in favor of war, and thus maybe we shouldn't be surprised at how easily our people are mislead, and your response is, "Yeah, but educated people are also more annoying. So that's fine."
That link is just an image of a joke headline. What were you actually talking about here? I tried searching for the image and the headline and came up with nothing.
If you actually read that article you'd see that they're not afraid of Trump taking away their birth control, they're afraid of Trump taking away their health insurance. Something which he has explicitly promised to do.
going to dilute and cheapen any legitimate criticism of him because people switch off
I don't think this is accurate. I had that experience with all of the accusations surrounding Hillary, wild stuff like how she stole a bunch of furniture from the state department, or how she murdered the cat of one of her former aids, and I did as you said and just stopped paying attention. That doesn't seem to be how the majority of people handled it though. It seems as though the nonstop accusations did have a very significant impact on how people perceived her, though none of those things ever even got as far as a trial, let alone a conviction.
There's an old rule that if you repeat something often enough people will start to believe it, no matter what it is. Let me remind you that the difference between a religion, which we generally venerate, and a cult, which we generally denigrate, is only age - how long and how often beliefs have been repeated is what really matters.
Are you serious? Why would that be? Blaming the president is basically all anyone does nowadays, Obama had a whole schtick about it. If you're trying to pick a political fight the president is everyone's first target.
No no, there's no condition there: "If the building isn't safe for occupancy, we'll lose a lot of money. Therefore, the building for safe for occupancy. Also earthquakes. Also dragons. Anything you want, safe."
Coral die-offs aren't about temperature (mostly), they're not about the greenhouse effect at all, they're a different consequence of having too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You can read the wiki on it here if you like, but the long and short is that a lot of marine life is very sensitive to the condition of the water, and the drop in ocean pH since the start of the industrial revolution has become an issue.
It did a bunch of things from improving total fuel efficiency, to reducing emissions, to stimulating a troubled sector of the economy during a recession. It may have also done what you say, I don't know, but it certainly did not "just" anything. It did a lot.
I care, a little. Everyone who didn't foolishly pre-purchse the game (you know, like you're never supposed to do) probably has some interest in whether and when it will turn into something worth playing.
Seeing as the Fake News idea is being promoted by people who won't even come out into the open.
You seem to be conflating two different things. This blacklist is being promoted by people who won't com out into the open, the "fake news idea" is a very broad one promoted by lots of people, many of whom are out in the open.
I hope you're not trying to imply that fake news doesn't exist, anyone with eyes and a modest ability to think critically has seen blatantly false stories being passed off as gospel.
You know... it's possible to want to reform the electoral college both out of self-interest and because it would improve the system. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
If you had a negative option of the electoral college before the election (because it makes some people more equal than others) and then your candidate lost despite getting a majority of the vote, yes you might very well get up in arms about it. But if you had the same opinion and your candidate won because of the electoral college, then you're still supposed to get up in arms? Why? You may still very well dislike the electoral college, for all of the same reasons, you're just not angry about it right at this moment. This doesn't even make you a hypocrite, you just haven't been motivated to do anything about it.
If, on the other hand, you start writing in defense of the electoral college, claiming the opposite of what you had previously claimed or believed but pretending otherwise. Then, there, now you're a hypocrite and a partisan hack.
The accuracy is not being challenged because of differences from the polls, it's being challenged because of differences between voting methods (electronic vs paper voting). The reason they've focused on those three states is because they were so different from what the polls predicted: Wisconsin in particular had the third largest difference of all states between what the polls predicted and the results, and of the two states above it (Utah and Ohio) neither switched from one candidate to the other. In fact, those three states are the three states with the largest discrepancy between poles and results which resulted in a change of candidate.
But, of course, the real reason they picked Wisconsin in particular for the recount is because that's the state that the researchers pointed out had this difference between voters using different voting methods. Five Thirty Eight looked at this and found two states with such differences between voters using different methods of voting, Wisconsin and Texas, though they did go on to say that this difference could be accounted for with consideration of other factors.
You're basing your assessment of accuracy on the results as given, the supposition here is that those results might not be accurate. The point of this is to reconcile a discrepancy, you can't just wave away most of your data after you have a result which doesn't agree with it.
Those other states were expected to go for Hillary. These three were the biggest surprises of a surprise election, and if there was any tampering done then it was most likely in these states. No, any recount is not going to get Jill Stein into office but it is still in her interests to ensure an honest election. Just as it is for everyone else.
Those are the states most likely to have been rigged, if there was any rigging done. She's not going to pick Kansas or New York, there's no reason for anyone to tamper with the machines there.
There was a good article comparing the coverage of the deaths of Michal Brown and Eric Garner. Garner's death happened first, and there was broad consensus that it was wrong. The police in that instance did something bad, and had few defenders in the media or elsewhere. And thus: nobody paid attention to it because there was nothing to talk about.
Only after the death of Michal Brown did Eric Garner's death come into the larger public's attention, because Brown's death was not nearly so clear cut. People disagreed about whether or not the officers were in the right in that case, and arguing gets people's attention. Arguing makes people angry in a way that the events themselves do not.
So the lesson was: your cause may be right, but if you want to actually accomplish anything then it's more important to be controversial than it is to be completely correct.
Don't forget when Dems tried to call Trump a pedophile too [snopes.com]."
Huh. Your link says nothing at all about democrats, and only uses the word pedophile in relation to someone else. The article seems to suggest that this was just some random woman trying to hit up Trump for money.
You should try just making an accusation like that without giving any kind of reference. Fact checking is passé after all, that's something the main stream media does. Gross unsubstantiated libel is apparently the new normal.
Slashdot Mirror
No, appointing a qualified person would benefit everyone, including yourself presumably. That is not corrupt. It's only when you do things to benefit yourself to the exclusion of others that you're crossing that line.
Royalists sat on the right, those who supported the king. Revolutionaries sat on the left. The king is the establishment in this situation.
There was a lot of overlap between the right and conservatism of course, but not everyone who supported the king was conservative.
What you're describing is quid pro quo corruption. According to the supreme court, that is the only kind of corruption punishable by law and that decision has probably made it into some textbooks by now. There are other kinds of corruption mentioned in other textbooks, though they no longer have legal weight. For example: appointing an unqualified person to a position of power because that person's actions are likely to benefit you, even though those actions may not be best for the country.
Getting a little pedantic here: it doesn't really make much sense to assign the terms "right wing" or "left wing" to a government. Those terms are meant to express how a person or action or ideal relate to an existing government. Left is anti-establishment, Right is pro-establishment. Communism is put on the left because it was designed as a revolutionary concept - part and parcel of communism is the overthrow of existing structures of property and the power structures which go along with them. Likewise Fascism is on the right because it is all about supporting the state.
A communist government though, or a fascist government, is the thing that you relate to. It neither supports nor rebels against itself.
Okay, first: my comment shows nothing about what I know on education funding - my comment was not about education funding, it was about the previous two comments.
Second: the manner in which taxes are collected is a paltry excuse. "Oh noes! This money was collected by the federal government, not by the state government, that's a whole different form. We couldn't possibly write a bill allocating this money for education like we do for highways or healthcare or foodstamps or housing or school breakfasts... guess we'll have to blow it on a war instead. Our hands are tied."
I'd like to see that report, 97% is way too high to be believable. I don't think you could get 97% of people to self-identify as human.
This is a little bit of an aside, but the whole "liberal main stream media" thing basically started with Spiro Agnew - he calling them "nattering nabobs of negativism" and that hostile relationship has continued ever since. At the time, or maybe a little afterwards, this might have been true. The Nixon administration was corrupt as shit after all, and maybe the media really was out to get them because, again, they were corrupt as shit.
Of course, nowadays the right has the largest news network (Fox), the largest newspaper (The Wall Streel Journal), and completely dominates talk radio. The right-wing candidate, Trump, also got billions of dollars in free publicity in the last election. By this point though, it has proven to be very effective to play the victim when it comes to the media, so the line about "the main stream media" will continue until it becomes ineffective as a campaign tool.
Great. So the parent points out that we're defunding education in favor of war, and thus maybe we shouldn't be surprised at how easily our people are mislead, and your response is, "Yeah, but educated people are also more annoying. So that's fine."
It's just more specific, there are other kinds of propaganda.
That link is just an image of a joke headline. What were you actually talking about here? I tried searching for the image and the headline and came up with nothing.
If you actually read that article you'd see that they're not afraid of Trump taking away their birth control, they're afraid of Trump taking away their health insurance. Something which he has explicitly promised to do.
going to dilute and cheapen any legitimate criticism of him because people switch off
I don't think this is accurate. I had that experience with all of the accusations surrounding Hillary, wild stuff like how she stole a bunch of furniture from the state department, or how she murdered the cat of one of her former aids, and I did as you said and just stopped paying attention. That doesn't seem to be how the majority of people handled it though. It seems as though the nonstop accusations did have a very significant impact on how people perceived her, though none of those things ever even got as far as a trial, let alone a conviction.
There's an old rule that if you repeat something often enough people will start to believe it, no matter what it is. Let me remind you that the difference between a religion, which we generally venerate, and a cult, which we generally denigrate, is only age - how long and how often beliefs have been repeated is what really matters.
Are you serious? Why would that be? Blaming the president is basically all anyone does nowadays, Obama had a whole schtick about it. If you're trying to pick a political fight the president is everyone's first target.
No no, there's no condition there: "If the building isn't safe for occupancy, we'll lose a lot of money. Therefore, the building for safe for occupancy. Also earthquakes. Also dragons. Anything you want, safe."
Coral die-offs aren't about temperature (mostly), they're not about the greenhouse effect at all, they're a different consequence of having too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You can read the wiki on it here if you like, but the long and short is that a lot of marine life is very sensitive to the condition of the water, and the drop in ocean pH since the start of the industrial revolution has become an issue.
It did a bunch of things from improving total fuel efficiency, to reducing emissions, to stimulating a troubled sector of the economy during a recession. It may have also done what you say, I don't know, but it certainly did not "just" anything. It did a lot.
I care, a little. Everyone who didn't foolishly pre-purchse the game (you know, like you're never supposed to do) probably has some interest in whether and when it will turn into something worth playing.
Seeing as the Fake News idea is being promoted by people who won't even come out into the open.
You seem to be conflating two different things. This blacklist is being promoted by people who won't com out into the open, the "fake news idea" is a very broad one promoted by lots of people, many of whom are out in the open.
I hope you're not trying to imply that fake news doesn't exist, anyone with eyes and a modest ability to think critically has seen blatantly false stories being passed off as gospel.
You know... it's possible to want to reform the electoral college both out of self-interest and because it would improve the system. Those things are not mutually exclusive.
If you had a negative option of the electoral college before the election (because it makes some people more equal than others) and then your candidate lost despite getting a majority of the vote, yes you might very well get up in arms about it. But if you had the same opinion and your candidate won because of the electoral college, then you're still supposed to get up in arms? Why? You may still very well dislike the electoral college, for all of the same reasons, you're just not angry about it right at this moment. This doesn't even make you a hypocrite, you just haven't been motivated to do anything about it.
If, on the other hand, you start writing in defense of the electoral college, claiming the opposite of what you had previously claimed or believed but pretending otherwise. Then, there, now you're a hypocrite and a partisan hack.
The accuracy is not being challenged because of differences from the polls, it's being challenged because of differences between voting methods (electronic vs paper voting). The reason they've focused on those three states is because they were so different from what the polls predicted: Wisconsin in particular had the third largest difference of all states between what the polls predicted and the results, and of the two states above it (Utah and Ohio) neither switched from one candidate to the other. In fact, those three states are the three states with the largest discrepancy between poles and results which resulted in a change of candidate.
But, of course, the real reason they picked Wisconsin in particular for the recount is because that's the state that the researchers pointed out had this difference between voters using different voting methods. Five Thirty Eight looked at this and found two states with such differences between voters using different methods of voting, Wisconsin and Texas, though they did go on to say that this difference could be accounted for with consideration of other factors.
You're basing your assessment of accuracy on the results as given, the supposition here is that those results might not be accurate. The point of this is to reconcile a discrepancy, you can't just wave away most of your data after you have a result which doesn't agree with it.
Those other states were expected to go for Hillary. These three were the biggest surprises of a surprise election, and if there was any tampering done then it was most likely in these states. No, any recount is not going to get Jill Stein into office but it is still in her interests to ensure an honest election. Just as it is for everyone else.
Those are the states most likely to have been rigged, if there was any rigging done. She's not going to pick Kansas or New York, there's no reason for anyone to tamper with the machines there.
There was a good article comparing the coverage of the deaths of Michal Brown and Eric Garner. Garner's death happened first, and there was broad consensus that it was wrong. The police in that instance did something bad, and had few defenders in the media or elsewhere. And thus: nobody paid attention to it because there was nothing to talk about.
Only after the death of Michal Brown did Eric Garner's death come into the larger public's attention, because Brown's death was not nearly so clear cut. People disagreed about whether or not the officers were in the right in that case, and arguing gets people's attention. Arguing makes people angry in a way that the events themselves do not.
So the lesson was: your cause may be right, but if you want to actually accomplish anything then it's more important to be controversial than it is to be completely correct.
Don't forget when Dems tried to call Trump a pedophile too [snopes.com]."
Huh. Your link says nothing at all about democrats, and only uses the word pedophile in relation to someone else. The article seems to suggest that this was just some random woman trying to hit up Trump for money.
You should try just making an accusation like that without giving any kind of reference. Fact checking is passé after all, that's something the main stream media does. Gross unsubstantiated libel is apparently the new normal.