He won because of a quirk in politics. He won the election but it's a laughable stretch to say "America" elected him. Even the majority of people who voted voted against him. The people who didn't vote (the majority of people eligible) are traditionally left-leaning, so his gap of people who didn't want him is even larger.
He has been the President with the consistently lowest approval ratings. "America" doesn't want him and never did.
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
He's executive NOT legislative. Technically, he's not supposed to even be meddling with this, that's not how the branches were originally intended (and all recent Presidents do this, not hitting only at Trump here). He's using his veto to prevent the legislative body doing what the legislative branch is there to do. I reiterate, it's not just him, they all do it. It's technically not his job, and wasn't what the position of President was originally intended to do.
I think it's about time we "redefine" the Presidency and reset it back to what it was supposed to be, not the ever more powerful position it has become over the many decades. No one man (or woman) should have so much power in a democracy, whether it's a wacko on the right, or a wacko on the left- or even someone from the middle.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
What he suggested, that makes a lot more sense, is a "smart wall" basically a series of sensors that can detect all sorts of activity and can allow personnel to go where they are needed, when they are needed. The advantage the fences have is that they sometimes slow people enough that border patrol might be more likely to accidentally stumble upon them.
If instead of building a physical wall, that wouldn't do much, we had a series of monitoring devices (that would work), it would cost many orders of magnitude less, and be way more functional.
A physical wall is little more than a vanity project.
The consequence of the last election is there aren't enough votes in the House to get a wall
There wasn't enough votes in the house to get a wall even with the republican majority before this last election. Very few people want a wall (especially since the type Trump expressed preference for is easily cut through with common home power tools and so is essentially just throwing money away).
(..) from 70 to 35 in 200 meters so something really too short.
For the safety of the public, please take your car to the garage. Your brakes need fixing.
If his car can't slow down that fast, they do need fixing; however, with that said, generally you'll see more accidents in areas where the speed limit changes frequently and dramatically. If one person slows from 70 to 35 in a short period of time, the idiot behind him who is half asleep might not notice and run into the back of him. Yeah, that would be the idiot's fault; but it's generally best not to have accidents.
It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.
Yes, it is illegal to drive over the speed limit; but, I'm wary of any law that is violated by the majority of the population.
Ideally, a free state wouldn't have any laws or regulations that the majority of the citizenry routinely breaks- when you have the majority of people being "law breakers", it's easy for authorities to abuse their power and target people they don't agree with (because they can point to laws they've broken).
Dictatorships, and communist regimes regularly did this. If you make it impossible to not be a law breaker- you have an excuse to arrest anyone if they become inconvenient.
Police officers love "to enforce speed limit" when they see someone suspicious- it gives them an excuse to examine someone they might think is perhaps guilty of something else. I remember as a teenager getting pulled over by a police officer (for going 5 mph over the speed limit) outside a night club zone... I'm not an idiot, he didn't pull me over for speeding- he pulled me over to check if I had been drinking... he saw a kid driving near the night clubs and wanted an excuse. He didn't give me a ticket, heck, he didn't even look at my driver's license, just gave me a verbal warning when he noticed I was sober.
Now, cameras are more judicial, they don't pull you over on suspicion... but, my problems with them is that, they're not completely equal. They give tickets to people who don't know they are there, people from out of town... locals know to avoid them. They don't actually prevent people from speeding (except past the camera), they just "Tax" the out-of-towners.
Speed limits are important, and I recognize they are needed; but I don't like them, BECAUSE, it's a way to be used for arbitrary punishment of citizens... I don't like such laws... in the case of speed limits they're kinda a necessity. When automated cars are the norm, thankfully they will be less of an issue.
Speed cameras are a dishonest and regressive way to tax the population. Don't let local politicians sell you on BS that it is for traffic calming and safety.
If you hate Speed Cameras, move to South Carolina- not only are speed cameras not used, they're against the State constitution.
Everything else in the state sucks, but at least there aren't any speed cameras for you to worry about.
Nothing can be done about it anyway, at least within the bounds of the politically possible
That comment reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where the steam roller ever so slowly moves towards a man who is screaming in terror rooted in spot instead of running away, despite having plenty of time.
It's not like we haven't known about Global Warming for decades now, but we haven't shifted policy an inch. There are things we can be doing, but we're like that man waving his arms around screaming as 1mph steam roller slowly inches towards him.
I think excessive spam is existential crisis for voice calling. I no longer answer any calls from unknown numbers as chances of spam are near-certain. This has been going on for couple years, to the point that I permanently silenced voice call notifications on my phone - no vibrations, no ringing. Consequently, now it is much harder for legitimate callers to get through.
I have to answer because I'm always on call, before then I used to have a blacklist app on my phone which automatically sent to voice mail any number not in my contact list.
If you really believed that, your post would have been in Esperanto.
It would have taken me twice as long to write because I don't use my Esperanto very often so it's pretty rusty. I do speak/write basic Esperanto well enough that I've read a couple books written in it and had a couple of basic conversations in it; but I'm far from an expert due to little chance to use... and I learnt it in two months on a whim as a New Year's resolution to learn a new language one year.
Constructed languages are all horrible. They all aim towards making a simple language, but there is a reason why no country has a simple language as the official one. However by reducing the complexity of a language, you gain precisely what you gain if a foreigner tries to speak basic English. Even if the vocabulary is good enough to say everything, the sentences becomes long and boring.
Esperanto is very flexible. All root words are infinitely mod-able and thus, even though there are fewer root words to learn the language is very expressive... AND the sentences are usually shorter than English. The flexibility of word order (far more flexible than English or most languages) allow for more creative expression whilst still being easy to understand.
I suspect you know nothing about constructed languages.:)
To put it short: constructed languages are the Stalinistic approach to languages.
Yes, very Stalinistic... that's probably why Stalin imprisoned anyone who spoke Esperanto. Once again, sorry, but you're completely wrong.
Nothing is simple. You need to fill out lots of long forms and stuff just to do simple stuff.
Do you use machine code to write all your apps? Even simple ones? Plenty of things are simple- and plenty of things can be improved by simplification.
Phonetics are a good guide for when you meet words that you are unfamiliar with but it really isn't enough to be fully competent. Rules are important to be taught but it really isn't enough by itself.
Not even close- it's worse than English. French standardized spelling so long ago and never updated it- nowadays many words are written completely different to how they are pronounced. Spanish is great- you know exactly how to pronounce a word. English, there are usually a few ways a given word could be pronounced based on phonetics... French is a complete minefield. The words are written as they were pronounced centuries ago which is often completely different to how they are pronounced today. Imagine reading/writing in Middle English and speaking in Modern English.
Well let's just say I'm so glad my mothertongue is almost German because learning that would have been a bitch.
Then there's French that has, I feel, no fewer exceptions than English.
The other latin languages aren't much better. Wanna talk about Scandinavian languages?
Also I don't think anyone would really consider a language mastered without being able to write and read. So basically any language using a different alphabet must be way tougher to learn right?
AFAIK Esperanto uses the same alphabet as English.
I'll grant you that I may have had a knack for English when I learnt it but that kinda feels arrogant.
French is probably worse than English because they have never updated spelling even though pronunciation of some words is nothing like what is written. English has this too- but French is much worse. You can't always phonetically read English like you can Spanish, or Esperanto; but French is worse- the spelling of words is often completely different to the pronunciation.
Learning the 2-3 thousand hanzi needed to read a newspaper is hard, but not that hard. A billion people have done it.
Thus my clarification a few posts up that Mandarin is hard to learn as an adult. With something like Esperanto you can learn it as a second language in months. Mandarin would take years to master. We're much harder to teach languages to as we get older. A complex language like Mandarin is very hard for older people- but obviously if you learn it as a kid it's not as hard.
Slashdot Mirror
America ELECTED Trump.
He won because of a quirk in politics. He won the election but it's a laughable stretch to say "America" elected him. Even the majority of people who voted voted against him. The people who didn't vote (the majority of people eligible) are traditionally left-leaning, so his gap of people who didn't want him is even larger.
He has been the President with the consistently lowest approval ratings. "America" doesn't want him and never did.
"He's" shutting down the government?
If the budget originated with Trump and the dems refused to sign because it included wall funding, would you then say Pelosi and Schumer are shutting down the government?
If not, your a partisan hack, only finding fault in the other side.
If so, you're just an idiot, basing your argument solely on who brings the budget to the table first.
He's executive NOT legislative. Technically, he's not supposed to even be meddling with this, that's not how the branches were originally intended (and all recent Presidents do this, not hitting only at Trump here). He's using his veto to prevent the legislative body doing what the legislative branch is there to do. I reiterate, it's not just him, they all do it. It's technically not his job, and wasn't what the position of President was originally intended to do.
I think it's about time we "redefine" the Presidency and reset it back to what it was supposed to be, not the ever more powerful position it has become over the many decades. No one man (or woman) should have so much power in a democracy, whether it's a wacko on the right, or a wacko on the left- or even someone from the middle.
This brings up an interesting point.
What is the Democrats position? What is their red line? What are they actually negotiating over? What is the compromise they are willing to make?
We all know where Trump is. Yet, democrats do not have a principled position.
They've offered 1.5billion to improve fencing along the border- which is actually pretty generous considering almost no one wants the wall.
One of the American representatives presiding over a district that would have a long stretch of wall (he's a Republican by the way) - recently gave his opinion that a wall would be useless, and the fence has had minimal success.
What he suggested, that makes a lot more sense, is a "smart wall" basically a series of sensors that can detect all sorts of activity and can allow personnel to go where they are needed, when they are needed. The advantage the fences have is that they sometimes slow people enough that border patrol might be more likely to accidentally stumble upon them.
If instead of building a physical wall, that wouldn't do much, we had a series of monitoring devices (that would work), it would cost many orders of magnitude less, and be way more functional.
A physical wall is little more than a vanity project.
PS: Wasn't Mexico going to pay for this?
If that was ever funny, it stopped being so long ago.
No, it is still hilarious that he thought they would and the Mexican President immediately told him to kiss his ass.
The consequence of the last election is there aren't enough votes in the House to get a wall
There wasn't enough votes in the house to get a wall even with the republican majority before this last election. Very few people want a wall (especially since the type Trump expressed preference for is easily cut through with common home power tools and so is essentially just throwing money away).
If you told me you never break the speed limit, I wouldn't believe you. (Almost) everyone does.
(..) from 70 to 35 in 200 meters so something really too short.
For the safety of the public, please take your car to the garage. Your brakes need fixing.
If his car can't slow down that fast, they do need fixing; however, with that said, generally you'll see more accidents in areas where the speed limit changes frequently and dramatically. If one person slows from 70 to 35 in a short period of time, the idiot behind him who is half asleep might not notice and run into the back of him. Yeah, that would be the idiot's fault; but it's generally best not to have accidents.
It is illegal to drive over the speed limit. If yu break these laws you can be fined. Speed cameras are an automated method of fining people for breaking the law. If you don't want to pay the fine then don't break the law.
Yes, it is illegal to drive over the speed limit; but, I'm wary of any law that is violated by the majority of the population.
Ideally, a free state wouldn't have any laws or regulations that the majority of the citizenry routinely breaks- when you have the majority of people being "law breakers", it's easy for authorities to abuse their power and target people they don't agree with (because they can point to laws they've broken).
Dictatorships, and communist regimes regularly did this. If you make it impossible to not be a law breaker- you have an excuse to arrest anyone if they become inconvenient.
Police officers love "to enforce speed limit" when they see someone suspicious- it gives them an excuse to examine someone they might think is perhaps guilty of something else. I remember as a teenager getting pulled over by a police officer (for going 5 mph over the speed limit) outside a night club zone... I'm not an idiot, he didn't pull me over for speeding- he pulled me over to check if I had been drinking... he saw a kid driving near the night clubs and wanted an excuse. He didn't give me a ticket, heck, he didn't even look at my driver's license, just gave me a verbal warning when he noticed I was sober.
Now, cameras are more judicial, they don't pull you over on suspicion... but, my problems with them is that, they're not completely equal. They give tickets to people who don't know they are there, people from out of town... locals know to avoid them. They don't actually prevent people from speeding (except past the camera), they just "Tax" the out-of-towners.
Speed limits are important, and I recognize they are needed; but I don't like them, BECAUSE, it's a way to be used for arbitrary punishment of citizens... I don't like such laws... in the case of speed limits they're kinda a necessity. When automated cars are the norm, thankfully they will be less of an issue.
Speed cameras are a dishonest and regressive way to tax the population. Don't let local politicians sell you on BS that it is for traffic calming and safety.
If you hate Speed Cameras, move to South Carolina- not only are speed cameras not used, they're against the State constitution.
Everything else in the state sucks, but at least there aren't any speed cameras for you to worry about.
If I left my front door open with a sign that said 'come take my stuff' I expect the insurance company would fight me too.
Let's test out your theory!
What's your address?
burping cows.
How many cows do you see in the wild outside human dominion?
Really, no one cares. It's a worry for worriers.
Nothing can be done about it anyway, at least within the bounds of the politically possible
That comment reminds me of the scene in Austin Powers where the steam roller ever so slowly moves towards a man who is screaming in terror rooted in spot instead of running away, despite having plenty of time.
It's not like we haven't known about Global Warming for decades now, but we haven't shifted policy an inch. There are things we can be doing, but we're like that man waving his arms around screaming as 1mph steam roller slowly inches towards him.
Deniers faster to deny the evidence without looking at it, studies show. Refer to flat earth and soundstages for Moon landings.
I think excessive spam is existential crisis for voice calling. I no longer answer any calls from unknown numbers as chances of spam are near-certain. This has been going on for couple years, to the point that I permanently silenced voice call notifications on my phone - no vibrations, no ringing. Consequently, now it is much harder for legitimate callers to get through.
I have to answer because I'm always on call, before then I used to have a blacklist app on my phone which automatically sent to voice mail any number not in my contact list.
In hindsight, I should have given my kids shorter names.
So you never lived in the US? Here we only get two choices and they both steal money.
I voted for my kids as protest write-in candidates for most positions in the last election because I wasn't happy with my choices.
And when it is the government stealing the money? Who protects you then?
In all the countries I've lived it was the ballot slip.
If you really believed that, your post would have been in Esperanto.
It would have taken me twice as long to write because I don't use my Esperanto very often so it's pretty rusty. I do speak/write basic Esperanto well enough that I've read a couple books written in it and had a couple of basic conversations in it; but I'm far from an expert due to little chance to use... and I learnt it in two months on a whim as a New Year's resolution to learn a new language one year.
Constructed languages are all horrible. They all aim towards making a simple language, but there is a reason why no country has a simple language as the official one. However by reducing the complexity of a language, you gain precisely what you gain if a foreigner tries to speak basic English. Even if the vocabulary is good enough to say everything, the sentences becomes long and boring.
Esperanto is very flexible. All root words are infinitely mod-able and thus, even though there are fewer root words to learn the language is very expressive... AND the sentences are usually shorter than English. The flexibility of word order (far more flexible than English or most languages) allow for more creative expression whilst still being easy to understand.
I suspect you know nothing about constructed languages. :)
To put it short: constructed languages are the Stalinistic approach to languages.
Yes, very Stalinistic... that's probably why Stalin imprisoned anyone who spoke Esperanto. Once again, sorry, but you're completely wrong.
Nothing is simple. You need to fill out lots of long forms and stuff just to do simple stuff.
Do you use machine code to write all your apps? Even simple ones? Plenty of things are simple- and plenty of things can be improved by simplification.
As if in English you can infer pronunciation from spelling. In Spanish or German or Russian - you can. In English - you can't. You have to memorize
For many words yes, you're right. English is hard; but at least in English the spelling does give some sort of hint, even if it's frequently wrong.
Phonetics are a good guide for when you meet words that you are unfamiliar with but it really isn't enough to be fully competent. Rules are important to be taught but it really isn't enough by itself.
I thought French does, too?
Not even close- it's worse than English. French standardized spelling so long ago and never updated it- nowadays many words are written completely different to how they are pronounced. Spanish is great- you know exactly how to pronounce a word. English, there are usually a few ways a given word could be pronounced based on phonetics... French is a complete minefield. The words are written as they were pronounced centuries ago which is often completely different to how they are pronounced today. Imagine reading/writing in Middle English and speaking in Modern English.
Well let's just say I'm so glad my mothertongue is almost German because learning that would have been a bitch.
Then there's French that has, I feel, no fewer exceptions than English.
The other latin languages aren't much better. Wanna talk about Scandinavian languages?
Also I don't think anyone would really consider a language mastered without being able to write and read. So basically any language using a different alphabet must be way tougher to learn right?
AFAIK Esperanto uses the same alphabet as English.
I'll grant you that I may have had a knack for English when I learnt it but that kinda feels arrogant.
French is probably worse than English because they have never updated spelling even though pronunciation of some words is nothing like what is written. English has this too- but French is much worse. You can't always phonetically read English like you can Spanish, or Esperanto; but French is worse- the spelling of words is often completely different to the pronunciation.
Learning the 2-3 thousand hanzi needed to read a newspaper is hard, but not that hard. A billion people have done it.
Thus my clarification a few posts up that Mandarin is hard to learn as an adult. With something like Esperanto you can learn it as a second language in months. Mandarin would take years to master. We're much harder to teach languages to as we get older. A complex language like Mandarin is very hard for older people- but obviously if you learn it as a kid it's not as hard.