Spare me your delusions that people have the capacity and agency, because they don't.
Then democracy is a fools errand, isn't it? We might as well accept this truth and reinstate the monarchy.
The masses are ignorant, stupid, and too fucking lazy to "double check" anything.
No one is informed on everything and politics is about everything. Everyone has better uses for their time than to double check anonymous cowards spewing bullshit online. You are probably just as stupid as the rest of the people you bemoan yet you seem to love the smell of your own shit. Good for you.
TBH, this seems like PR from Facebook. How effective are their ads and platform? Look how little Russians spent and how effective they were on Brexit and the US Election! The more the 'Russians hacked the elections and referendum' via Facebook the better Facebook looks for other would-be advertisers on their platform.
How effective are ads on Facebook? According to Facebook, able to change the course of History and give you everything you could dream of!
because of a rough real estate market in New York--it's not clear that his presidency has any effect on that at all.
Yes, that was my point. Did you read my comment? The original claim was that he ran for president to "make himself even richer than before" and I disputed that claim and questioning the logic behind that claim because of the current returns and ill defined future returns. I said it was a high risk low reward endeavor.
There's no long con here, just a con.
This seems like Trump Derangement Syndrome. Can't give Trump any credit and long con requires planning and cunning to work which Trump has none because he is an idiot. Sorry but a year long campaign + 4-8 years + X years after presidency to make money from a plan like running for president is a "long" plan for one goal. That isn't even mentioning the fact that he had the same rhetoric since at least 1988 and he was considering running then (link in another post I made). Why he would decide that when he is so old is beyond me. Considering your response I think it is beyond you too. Occam's razor does not suggest such an investment for such a long time for so little return when there are simpler explanations with fewer assumptions and higher rewards for lower risk.
Trump doesn't pay his contractors and employees
Is that a con? Or a dick business person? I am thinking of pyramid schemes when I think of con. Not dicking people you hire. Unless it is equivalent to Enron.
You are expanding the definition of con to fit your preconceived notion that Trump is a con man. I am not going to defend his lies or w/e but a con to me is more than just lying or being a dick boss. Enron was a con. Pyramid scheme is a con.
He also hasn't been good about keeping his political promises.
lol, I disagree with this one. It seems to me that he is trying in good faith to keep his promises and in many cases fulfilled (Embassy to Jerusalem). For good or for ill. You sound like you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. I would get that checked out before commenting again. You missed my point and failed to deliver.
but intended it to be a publicity exercise to strengthen his brand
This seems odd to me. Considering his rhetoric hasn't changed since at least 1988. It could be true but it must also then be true that he has also thought about this for a long time. If that is true then I think that at least alludes to something upstairs beyond loose screws and empty drawers to see the right timing.
Now whether the long term financial gains associated with the presidency (e.g., millions of dollars in book deals and speaking fees) will offset what it cost him is another question. I am willing to bet "yes, he will be richer for having been president"
Again, I have a hard time understanding this. Since he announced his candidacy he has lost business associates, donors, political favors, and friends in addition to the initial investment costs as well as boycotts and protests outside his establishments and the hatred from media and Hollywood. Sure, his businesses might do better but that is a big might. That is a very high risk low reward when there are literally hundreds of better ideas to make money and brand recognition. Then, as you mention, to top it off run his campaign in such a way to risk everything else not invested in his campaign by supposedly colluding with Russians? But then again, if he didn't intend to win why would he collude with the Russians?
I could wrong and it maybe the money maker billionaires dream of but it just seems to be too risky for low rewards that won't pay off in any meaningful time with too many contradictory suppositions (strengthen his brand by becoming an enemy to media and Hollywood. not intend to win but collude with Russia). I think a simpler idea is that he is a patriotic idiot that had the means to run for president and won because Hillary was hated.
Vast reputation as a con man? Right... How many examples of a trickery can you provide to substantiate that. Trump University? I'll wait for an exhaustive list and specific examples how he deceived and tricked his way to where he is. Also, is he smart enough to deceive people or not?
You are also moving the goal post. It isn't about media attention it is about "make himself even rich than before" when the evidence is clear that he has lost money. Media attention isn't enough to get richer if that were true a safer bet would be to stay in WWE and shit like that.
Your simple idea is: An idiot pulling a long con on the entire country by running for president taking on the political dynasties of the Bush's and Clinton's with no expectation of winning to make more money in some ill defined high risk low reward way from media attention. Very simple. Much simpler than an idiot that doesn't like the direction of the country and tries to do what he thinks is best. How many layers do you use for your tin foil hat?
Hell just making him a genius makes your idea simpler. You can't have it both ways. Either he is super smart taking advantage of everyone in 5D chess or he's an idiot.
How would spending millions of dollars running for president and thrust in the political lime light to be alienated by friends, donors, business associates, and politicians be in any way a winning strategy for getting richer? Have you thought this through at all?
Your other remarks aside, this is self evidently absurd on so many levels it's remarkable you and others actually believe it. Is Trump smart enough to pull the long con by risking everything and putting his reputation, image, money, etc on the line for some perceived gain in policy in a position that does not make law.
Or maybe... just maybe. He likes the country. He likes what it stands for. He tries to do what he thinks is good for the country. He is an idiot.
Use Occam's Razor. Which is simpler. Is Trump a genius pulling the long con. Or is he a patriotic idiot.
There is plenty to disagree with Obama to want to undo his agenda without spite.
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. DHMO is a major component of acid rain. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. Contributes to soil erosion. Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Well since you are obviously very well informed on the topic you can use your 200 iq to tell me why using Title 2 as the legal framework is the answer and why an ISP is not an information service provider in any legal definition that will not be successfully challenged in court.
I mean besides evil greedy republicans wanting a dumb electorate and the legal costs for an ISP to navigate Title 2 are obviously minimal to a startup/small company.
And this is where I am reminded that the ACA was designed to fail to pave the way for single payer. A very dishonest way to push a system half the country doesn't want.
Because its what the rest of the industrialized world does - for less money while providing better care.
I don't care about the rest of the industrialized world. There is always a cost. Innovation, universality, affordability, and high quality. You can't have them all. Which are you willing to pay.
I am not sure I understand. Insurance companies will fight tooth and nail... So what? What are they going to do that they wouldn't do at the national level? The state legislatures are powerless to do what their citizens want amidst the onslaught of insurance lobbying... Yet, I am to believe the congress can overcome that. The same congress that is known for sucking up to lobbyists. Half the country doesn't want single payer and you think that will be easier than a state initiative. Also, I have heard implementations where private insurance could exist with a single payer as an addon.
I don't think you have said anything different. If a state cannot do single payer then why should I think the congress can do it at the federal level? I never thought it would be easy but surely possible. Hell, if California actually had a method to fund their initiative it probably would have gotten further.
Nothing less than another nation state stands a chance.
This is pure hyperbole. Despite the fact that many state economies are larger than many nations (#6 world is California). They have the legal power to do it regardless of what any insurance company or lobby group does. You make it sound like it will be a war instead of slow boring legislative process mired in process and lobbying.
However, when (and not if) Democrats retake Senate and Congress, you can bet your panties Mr. Trump will start doing the same shit Barack did. Implementing policy via executive action.
And I will say the same thing. So far the he has undone executive overreach.
For all the problems of undoing stuff like DACA it really was on Congress to fix the problem. For DACA, as example, at least that started the conversation on policy instead of empty rhetoric, broken promises, and uncertain futures. That is a whole lot better than illegally ignoring the law and executive overreach to kick the can down the road.
If it gets to a point that we have the executive undoing everything from the last 4-8 years maybe congress will act and do its job. The ACA is still around because it was law.
I would have more faith in Sander's single payer if his state and others would implement it first. California is the closest I think to try and it was a law that had no mechanism to fund it.
If democrats can't get it to work at the state level why would it work at the national level?
compromised with the democrats on a variety of issues
How is that a bad thing? Those tax raises were part of that comprise. You give me some of what I want and you get some of what you want.... What's the problem?
and did a lot of other things that today would never fly with the far right and Tea Party types
Um. JackieBrown listed more things that would gain him popularity in those circles. The Tea party is concerned about the budget. Was the budget as big a deal then as it is now?
republicans who get crucified in the primary for trying to govern responsibly.
It depends on WHAT you comprise that will get you crucified. The democrats have gone so far to the left that moderate conservatism is seen as 'far right' as demonstrated by your comment. At some point, Yes I don't want to compromise with a communist or anarchist and I will elect people to stonewall that agenda. I would imagine that pro-life is one of those things too. No compromise will work for that issue. That doesn't mean you have the president bypass the congress to push that agenda like Obama did and then get upset when the shoe changes feet.
Obama made his bed. He was a bad president and he tried to bypass congress to get what he wanted done. I don't care if I agree with what he wanted the way he did it was bad. It was a matter of time to reverse what he did with a pen stroke.
I don't care if Congress doesn't want to work with a president. That is their prerogative and right. I do care if a president tries to go around a congress to force his agenda.
This doesn't makes sense. By design change at the federal level is slow and requires broad support in the country. Obviously, polls will be disconnected from federal initiative. The Senate was supposed to be a bulwark to public opinion and passion! The article and you are complaining that the federal government isn't as whimsical as popular opinion. Duh. That article is saying, "536 people were given more power and it costs a lot of time and money to influence their opinion that is beyond the reach of the average citizen."... No kidding. You know what wasn't supposed to matter to the daily lives of the average citizen? The federal government.
The local government was supposed to have a more direct impact on the daily life of the people and is supposed to be more responsive to the people. Do the study with state and local government then tell me the same conclusion. Democracy is not the end all be all of civics and governance. There are reasons for undemocratic measures in government.
Also, considering the BBC. The UK government will arrest people for making jokes. I'd hardly want their opinion on "undemocratic governance" because they're government is more whimsical to public passion that gets rallied into a witch hunt against their own citizens. #governmentpunchanazi amirite.
I get the impression that you're siding with Google management rather than with Cory Altheide on this one.
Neither, that is in FTA. I am not sure how to take the supposition: "Employee's Memo Says Executives Shut Down Pro-Diversity Discussions" when said Employee agrees that part of the discussion that resulted should not be tolerated. It seems that Google and Altheide agree with the course of action: "should not be tolerated". It seems the only difference is that he seems to want a scalpel, banning individuals, while google used a grenade, stopping the discussion.
I am still looking at the situation to make an opinion.
If you read my comment history I am not a fan of censorship in any regard and recognize that there is a point in which we force private companies to protect the rights of individuals. I err on the side of caution because if the culture rejects free speech in their capacity then the law will soon follow.
Slashdot Mirror
Spare me your delusions that people have the capacity and agency, because they don't.
Then democracy is a fools errand, isn't it? We might as well accept this truth and reinstate the monarchy.
The masses are ignorant, stupid, and too fucking lazy to "double check" anything.
No one is informed on everything and politics is about everything. Everyone has better uses for their time than to double check anonymous cowards spewing bullshit online. You are probably just as stupid as the rest of the people you bemoan yet you seem to love the smell of your own shit. Good for you.
Insightful comment my dingleberry encrusted ass.
TBH, this seems like PR from Facebook. How effective are their ads and platform? Look how little Russians spent and how effective they were on Brexit and the US Election! The more the 'Russians hacked the elections and referendum' via Facebook the better Facebook looks for other would-be advertisers on their platform.
How effective are ads on Facebook? According to Facebook, able to change the course of History and give you everything you could dream of!
link you posted shows his net worth went down
Yes, that was my point.
because of a rough real estate market in New York--it's not clear that his presidency has any effect on that at all.
Yes, that was my point. Did you read my comment? The original claim was that he ran for president to "make himself even richer than before" and I disputed that claim and questioning the logic behind that claim because of the current returns and ill defined future returns. I said it was a high risk low reward endeavor.
There's no long con here, just a con.
This seems like Trump Derangement Syndrome. Can't give Trump any credit and long con requires planning and cunning to work which Trump has none because he is an idiot. Sorry but a year long campaign + 4-8 years + X years after presidency to make money from a plan like running for president is a "long" plan for one goal. That isn't even mentioning the fact that he had the same rhetoric since at least 1988 and he was considering running then (link in another post I made). Why he would decide that when he is so old is beyond me. Considering your response I think it is beyond you too. Occam's razor does not suggest such an investment for such a long time for so little return when there are simpler explanations with fewer assumptions and higher rewards for lower risk.
Trump doesn't pay his contractors and employees
Is that a con? Or a dick business person? I am thinking of pyramid schemes when I think of con. Not dicking people you hire. Unless it is equivalent to Enron.
You are expanding the definition of con to fit your preconceived notion that Trump is a con man. I am not going to defend his lies or w/e but a con to me is more than just lying or being a dick boss. Enron was a con. Pyramid scheme is a con.
He also hasn't been good about keeping his political promises.
lol, I disagree with this one. It seems to me that he is trying in good faith to keep his promises and in many cases fulfilled (Embassy to Jerusalem). For good or for ill. You sound like you have Trump Derangement Syndrome. I would get that checked out before commenting again. You missed my point and failed to deliver.
but intended it to be a publicity exercise to strengthen his brand
This seems odd to me. Considering his rhetoric hasn't changed since at least 1988. It could be true but it must also then be true that he has also thought about this for a long time. If that is true then I think that at least alludes to something upstairs beyond loose screws and empty drawers to see the right timing.
Now whether the long term financial gains associated with the presidency (e.g., millions of dollars in book deals and speaking fees) will offset what it cost him is another question. I am willing to bet "yes, he will be richer for having been president"
Again, I have a hard time understanding this. Since he announced his candidacy he has lost business associates, donors, political favors, and friends in addition to the initial investment costs as well as boycotts and protests outside his establishments and the hatred from media and Hollywood. Sure, his businesses might do better but that is a big might. That is a very high risk low reward when there are literally hundreds of better ideas to make money and brand recognition. Then, as you mention, to top it off run his campaign in such a way to risk everything else not invested in his campaign by supposedly colluding with Russians? But then again, if he didn't intend to win why would he collude with the Russians?
I could wrong and it maybe the money maker billionaires dream of but it just seems to be too risky for low rewards that won't pay off in any meaningful time with too many contradictory suppositions (strengthen his brand by becoming an enemy to media and Hollywood. not intend to win but collude with Russia). I think a simpler idea is that he is a patriotic idiot that had the means to run for president and won because Hillary was hated.
Vast reputation as a con man? Right... How many examples of a trickery can you provide to substantiate that. Trump University? I'll wait for an exhaustive list and specific examples how he deceived and tricked his way to where he is. Also, is he smart enough to deceive people or not?
You are also moving the goal post. It isn't about media attention it is about "make himself even rich than before" when the evidence is clear that he has lost money. Media attention isn't enough to get richer if that were true a safer bet would be to stay in WWE and shit like that.
Your simple idea is: An idiot pulling a long con on the entire country by running for president taking on the political dynasties of the Bush's and Clinton's with no expectation of winning to make more money in some ill defined high risk low reward way from media attention. Very simple. Much simpler than an idiot that doesn't like the direction of the country and tries to do what he thinks is best. How many layers do you use for your tin foil hat?
Hell just making him a genius makes your idea simpler. You can't have it both ways. Either he is super smart taking advantage of everyone in 5D chess or he's an idiot.
make himself even richer than before.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/1...
How would spending millions of dollars running for president and thrust in the political lime light to be alienated by friends, donors, business associates, and politicians be in any way a winning strategy for getting richer? Have you thought this through at all?
Your other remarks aside, this is self evidently absurd on so many levels it's remarkable you and others actually believe it. Is Trump smart enough to pull the long con by risking everything and putting his reputation, image, money, etc on the line for some perceived gain in policy in a position that does not make law.
Or maybe... just maybe. He likes the country. He likes what it stands for. He tries to do what he thinks is good for the country. He is an idiot.
Use Occam's Razor. Which is simpler. Is Trump a genius pulling the long con. Or is he a patriotic idiot.
There is plenty to disagree with Obama to want to undo his agenda without spite.
Really nasty stuff.
http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Some choice dangers of the stuff.
Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
Contributes to soil erosion.
Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
Beware! We should act now to ban the stuff.
Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve(tm) (it's a real thing!)
It even made the rounds on /. some time back!
Someone tried to steal it!
Don't worry. It was found.
I prefer fried chicken and waffles you insensitive clod! Still need maple syrup.
Yea, well I haven't seen no plants grow out of no toilets before!
Reminds me of the Himalayan pink rock salt labeled as 'non-gmo'. It was even the 'verified non-gmo project' label too!
Truly, informative labels for the informed consumer.
I do like chemicals. All kinds of chemicals. I ingest them all the time. What do you have against chemicals?
Pro-tip, stay away from dihydrogen monoxide. It's a real killer! Nasty stuff.
Don't worry, they sell preserves without preservatives. I saw the light myself with some Blackberry Preserve labeled "without preservatives".
Truly remarked times we live in.
Well since you are obviously very well informed on the topic you can use your 200 iq to tell me why using Title 2 as the legal framework is the answer and why an ISP is not an information service provider in any legal definition that will not be successfully challenged in court.
I mean besides evil greedy republicans wanting a dumb electorate and the legal costs for an ISP to navigate Title 2 are obviously minimal to a startup/small company.
The fact that states have chosen to make the selection through a popular vote does not change that fact.
Although, it seems the lofty goals of the 17th amendment have failed to materialize.
The Senate, supposed to be a bulwark of public passion, is in effect the same as the House with longer terms.
And this is where I am reminded that the ACA was designed to fail to pave the way for single payer. A very dishonest way to push a system half the country doesn't want.
Because its what the rest of the industrialized world does - for less money while providing better care.
I don't care about the rest of the industrialized world. There is always a cost. Innovation, universality, affordability, and high quality. You can't have them all. Which are you willing to pay.
I am not sure I understand. Insurance companies will fight tooth and nail... So what? What are they going to do that they wouldn't do at the national level? The state legislatures are powerless to do what their citizens want amidst the onslaught of insurance lobbying... Yet, I am to believe the congress can overcome that. The same congress that is known for sucking up to lobbyists. Half the country doesn't want single payer and you think that will be easier than a state initiative. Also, I have heard implementations where private insurance could exist with a single payer as an addon.
I don't think you have said anything different. If a state cannot do single payer then why should I think the congress can do it at the federal level? I never thought it would be easy but surely possible. Hell, if California actually had a method to fund their initiative it probably would have gotten further.
Nothing less than another nation state stands a chance.
This is pure hyperbole. Despite the fact that many state economies are larger than many nations (#6 world is California). They have the legal power to do it regardless of what any insurance company or lobby group does. You make it sound like it will be a war instead of slow boring legislative process mired in process and lobbying.
However, when (and not if) Democrats retake Senate and Congress, you can bet your panties Mr. Trump will start doing the same shit Barack did. Implementing policy via executive action.
And I will say the same thing. So far the he has undone executive overreach.
For all the problems of undoing stuff like DACA it really was on Congress to fix the problem. For DACA, as example, at least that started the conversation on policy instead of empty rhetoric, broken promises, and uncertain futures. That is a whole lot better than illegally ignoring the law and executive overreach to kick the can down the road.
If it gets to a point that we have the executive undoing everything from the last 4-8 years maybe congress will act and do its job. The ACA is still around because it was law.
I would have more faith in Sander's single payer if his state and others would implement it first. California is the closest I think to try and it was a law that had no mechanism to fund it.
If democrats can't get it to work at the state level why would it work at the national level?
the last one before they shut the project down)
Do you know why they shut it down?
raised taxes eleven times
The overall tax rate was cut.
compromised with the democrats on a variety of issues
How is that a bad thing? Those tax raises were part of that comprise. You give me some of what I want and you get some of what you want.... What's the problem?
and did a lot of other things that today would never fly with the far right and Tea Party types
Um. JackieBrown listed more things that would gain him popularity in those circles. The Tea party is concerned about the budget. Was the budget as big a deal then as it is now?
republicans who get crucified in the primary for trying to govern responsibly.
It depends on WHAT you comprise that will get you crucified. The democrats have gone so far to the left that moderate conservatism is seen as 'far right' as demonstrated by your comment. At some point, Yes I don't want to compromise with a communist or anarchist and I will elect people to stonewall that agenda. I would imagine that pro-life is one of those things too. No compromise will work for that issue. That doesn't mean you have the president bypass the congress to push that agenda like Obama did and then get upset when the shoe changes feet.
Obama made his bed. He was a bad president and he tried to bypass congress to get what he wanted done. I don't care if I agree with what he wanted the way he did it was bad. It was a matter of time to reverse what he did with a pen stroke.
I don't care if Congress doesn't want to work with a president. That is their prerogative and right. I do care if a president tries to go around a congress to force his agenda.
But give Facebook and Google what they want?
Why should I trust those that actively censor? Why are monopolies the answer and Title 2 the correct legal framework for the idea of NN?
This doesn't makes sense. By design change at the federal level is slow and requires broad support in the country. Obviously, polls will be disconnected from federal initiative. The Senate was supposed to be a bulwark to public opinion and passion! The article and you are complaining that the federal government isn't as whimsical as popular opinion. Duh. That article is saying, "536 people were given more power and it costs a lot of time and money to influence their opinion that is beyond the reach of the average citizen." ... No kidding. You know what wasn't supposed to matter to the daily lives of the average citizen? The federal government.
The local government was supposed to have a more direct impact on the daily life of the people and is supposed to be more responsive to the people. Do the study with state and local government then tell me the same conclusion. Democracy is not the end all be all of civics and governance. There are reasons for undemocratic measures in government.
Also, considering the BBC. The UK government will arrest people for making jokes. I'd hardly want their opinion on "undemocratic governance" because they're government is more whimsical to public passion that gets rallied into a witch hunt against their own citizens. #governmentpunchanazi amirite.
I get the impression that you're siding with Google management rather than with Cory Altheide on this one.
Neither, that is in FTA. I am not sure how to take the supposition: "Employee's Memo Says Executives Shut Down Pro-Diversity Discussions" when said Employee agrees that part of the discussion that resulted should not be tolerated. It seems that Google and Altheide agree with the course of action: "should not be tolerated". It seems the only difference is that he seems to want a scalpel, banning individuals, while google used a grenade, stopping the discussion.
I am still looking at the situation to make an opinion.
If you read my comment history I am not a fan of censorship in any regard and recognize that there is a point in which we force private companies to protect the rights of individuals. I err on the side of caution because if the culture rejects free speech in their capacity then the law will soon follow.