The liberal news that puts a negative slant on everything Trump does? The one that writes stories about Trump not holding his wife's hand, even though Clinton and Kennedy actively cheated on their wives while President? That news?
Yes, I do. I don't put much stock into it, frankly. For all the "evidence" that everyone in Trump's organization is Russian, a whole lot of nothing has been done about it. Telling to say the least.
Slow down there A.C. you also forgot about a complete rejection of journalistic ethics when reporting anything Trump such as an abandonment of the Goldwater rule and narrative over facts or just making up facts ("we have no evidence for this claim but will still claim it") and using cherry picked experts to support that narrative or made up fact. Because only CNN can look at leaked classified material, trust us don't read what was leaked.
Or not even doing the basic job of journalism by actually looking for people that you make assumptions about. Looking at you Van Jones with your "white lash" didn't even bother to look into who a Trump supporter was until after the election and his claim of "white lash". Only after he made a fool of himself he found the mythical unicorn like creature, the non-racist Trump supporter. He found a family that he was wrongly stereotyping and put them on parade in a dog and pony show to congratulate himself on doing journalist work and to show off the unicorn of modern politics to other believers of his faith.
Immigration in the US has always waxed and waned based on the sentiment of voters and the strength of the economy. Yes, the US was built on immigrants but it is also built on the rule of law. There has always been different opinions on immigration and how much. Immigration policy has always changed. Yet, no matter how it changes we still are a very immigrant friendly nation despite rhetoric from the media.
Right now, with a weak economy, stories of illegal immigration taking advantage of badly written laws, executive inaction on existing laws, world examples of increased crime from certain immigration sources, makes it hard to justify continuing opening the door when such risks are running rampant. Then again, we still allow more immigrants than anyone else.
More importantly, aside from immigration in ISIS controlled areas the biggest contention isn't immigration it's illegal immigration.
No. You are doing what the GP said by "a weapon for deposing some while elevating others".
The smart man has an advantage over the dull man. This difference will create unequal outcomes. Correcting that advantage would mean giving the smart man a lobotomy, forcing the dull man to the smart mans position or excessively taxing the smart man to be equal to the dull man.
Fair implies an equal playing field but does not mean equal results. Justice means both men are equal before the law and will be subject to the same laws and interpretation of those laws.
Very true. I guess I should have qualified my statement with "has never happened before" but I figured that was what was meant with "has never been the case". More often than not, the winner of the E.C. is the winner of the popular vote.
It is possible but unlikely is a more accurate statement but as we have seen unlikely can happen. I think you can get a similar victory (win with very small popular vote) with winning majorities in lots of smaller states too.
It is up to the states to decide how their votes are distributed. Maine and Nebraska(?) split their E.C. vote between congressional districts. That could avoid something like that.
Uh. no. Justice is the application of fairness in the law. The law can be unjust and unfair but the singular idea of justice is to be "fair". Victim-less crimes are antithetical to your idea of justice. Yet, it is Just that the law be applied to those crimes.
No. No. No. NO. NO NO!!!! Studies can tell you the chances of being killed by a gun or how common it is in different parts of the world or what changes with mental health or just generally give you a picture of what particular laws have in effect. That does not tell you anything else!
It doesn't tell you what to do if people view those dangers worth it. It doesn't tell you if owning a gun should be a right or not. It doesn't tell you what it means to have a right of self defense. It doesn't tell you what happens when there is a complicit government. It doesn't tell you the history why these perceptions have been built up in a society. It doesn't tell you anything important aside from a one dimensional picture. The most important parts of the gun debate is not found in any study because it is something that cannot be quantified.
There is no experiment to be had. There is no prediction to make. There is nothing except opinions! We can inform those opinions with facts but even then that will not necessarily change attitudes because there are underlying philosophical, ethical, government responsibility, and liberty concerns. Science can't answer those questions. At best it can help you gather the facts to help inform your opinion.
Are you saying every 4 years we need to rewrite the constitution to meet your arbitrary and dangerous "the people didn't make the rules" standard??? WTF does that even mean???? the Constitution is the law of the land that decides how the POTUS is elected (via Electoral College). yet, you don't like that and are upset because you didn't make the rule? Ok, there is a way to change the constitution which requires a super majority to change. You are going to have to convince a lot of people that your ideas for governance are better than what the Founding Fathers came up with after their research and experimental US 1.0... Good luck.
Your state can make the rules for how your Electoral votes are divided or used.
Just like other forms of government Democracy has flaws. The structure of the US government was predicated on the fact that democracy, while laudable, has fundamental flaws that must be guarded against.
This is ridiculous. The rules were well known in advance before the election that both parties agreed to. In the US, there is no such thing as a national vote. There is 50 different individual elections that Clinton lost a majority of by a majority. Clinton winning huge margins in a few large states isn't enough to win the presidency and that has NEVER been the case in American history. Trump was elected as per the Constitution. People voted for him in a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob.
If anyone was installed by Oligarchs in any election this last season it was Clinton with her super-delegates and using their backing to disenfranchise voters.
How is it indefensible if there are defensible positions to take? Seems to me if it was "indefensible" any sensible Congressmen would back off. Yet, that is not happening because there is current antiquate room for defense and skepticism. Am I supposed to believe the Democrats simply because they are opposed to Trump?
Censorship does not stop being censorship just because it was done by a private company. Yes, traditionally it was done by the government but that doesn't mean it should be accepted from public accommodations particularly so if it can influence elections.
They have no obligation to publish anything, from anyone.
Yes, and while a baker is under obligation to service anyone regardless of their belief. You see, we want our public accommodations to be impartial except, according to you, when it comes to political opinions. That to me seems very dangerous particularly how this last election played out on social media. You are willing to give those platforms disproportionate influence on our voting process because "private company" yet see the danger of a private company controlling other platforms (ISPs). Why?
just an attempt to justify telecom deregulation,
No, it's just an interesting argument and its fun to see people argue for government control over one but not the other when there are legal precedent for the government to force impartiality for "less critical" companies and industry. All of your arguments have been thoroughly rejected by the courts, yet somehow Twitter is above all that and can influence the elections all they want. What you are basically saying is that any company can discriminate anyone based on political opinions. That is wrong particularly so if that company can influence our election process.
I have seen two reasons why people don't accept Twitters impartiality. Either A) it is ideological and they want no government forcing any kind of social engineering or impartiality or B) because they agree with Twitters targets for political censorship.
I can absolutely choose which bakery gets my patronage
Irrelevant to the impartiality of public accommodations.
If you don't like Twitter for whatever reason (and there's plenty - I stay away entirely), you are free to use another service. Hell, start your own. Web hosting is like $5/mo and there is open source social network software out there for free.
That logic doesn't apply to bakers why would it apply to twitter? Not everyone can do that. As of now, twitter is the preferred method of communication for potus (better or worse) yet is able to censor their platform where many people are informed along with other social media platforms. That is a very dangerous combination when you are talking about something that can influence the elections. No different than if Comcast disallowed customers based on political ideology.
The servers are privately owned and the owners can do whatever they want with them
No one is asking the owners of those servers to change their beliefs but public accommodations must be impartial because it is better for the industry and community. Your logic didn't' work for a baker, that can't influence elections, yet you seem to want to think that it should apply for a company that can influence our elections.
I keep seeing people bring up the 3/5ths compromise as if trying to make a point but it is obvious they haven't read the history and only see snippets that they don't like and their blind rage make moral judgments.
You do understand that the compromise was to limit the southern slave owning states power in the House and E.C., right? Believe if or not slavery was a contentious issue, even in 1787 and there were many people that sympathized with the slaves and wanted its abolishment. Hell, the British by 1783 began an anti-slavery movement, do you think colonists didn't share the same sentiment?
They were left with a choice, give the slave owners what they wanted, which would give the slaveholder interests increased representation in the House and Electoral College. Or compromise to limit their power in the fledgling nation. The 3/5ths compromise in effect gave southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes in the college than if slaves were counted equally.
You use that as an example of "racist history" but don't understand that it was there to oppose slavery. It was put in there by people that opposed slavery and you bemoan their name because you don't understand what they were trying to do.
So what? It has the potential to be just as damaging as GP states for ISPs. How much of the campaign or how many voters were informed on social media this last election? Your telling social media can't "stop free speech by curtailing access to tiny rotting sites if the company so chooses"?
If the lines the internet traverse are important so to are the servers that those lines connect.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the sane post. Good gravy I cannot believe the crap in this thread. Posts like your gives me faith in humanity.
The liberal news that puts a negative slant on everything Trump does? The one that writes stories about Trump not holding his wife's hand, even though Clinton and Kennedy actively cheated on their wives while President? That news?
Yes, I do. I don't put much stock into it, frankly. For all the "evidence" that everyone in Trump's organization is Russian, a whole lot of nothing has been done about it. Telling to say the least.
Slow down there A.C. you also forgot about a complete rejection of journalistic ethics when reporting anything Trump such as an abandonment of the Goldwater rule and narrative over facts or just making up facts ("we have no evidence for this claim but will still claim it") and using cherry picked experts to support that narrative or made up fact. Because only CNN can look at leaked classified material, trust us don't read what was leaked.
Or not even doing the basic job of journalism by actually looking for people that you make assumptions about. Looking at you Van Jones with your "white lash" didn't even bother to look into who a Trump supporter was until after the election and his claim of "white lash". Only after he made a fool of himself he found the mythical unicorn like creature, the non-racist Trump supporter. He found a family that he was wrongly stereotyping and put them on parade in a dog and pony show to congratulate himself on doing journalist work and to show off the unicorn of modern politics to other believers of his faith.
Immigration in the US has always waxed and waned based on the sentiment of voters and the strength of the economy. Yes, the US was built on immigrants but it is also built on the rule of law. There has always been different opinions on immigration and how much. Immigration policy has always changed. Yet, no matter how it changes we still are a very immigrant friendly nation despite rhetoric from the media.
Right now, with a weak economy, stories of illegal immigration taking advantage of badly written laws, executive inaction on existing laws, world examples of increased crime from certain immigration sources, makes it hard to justify continuing opening the door when such risks are running rampant. Then again, we still allow more immigrants than anyone else.
More importantly, aside from immigration in ISIS controlled areas the biggest contention isn't immigration it's illegal immigration.
Hopefully, the turtles like you or else you are in for a bumpy ride.
I would comprehend what you are saying if I wasn't nauseous, with a ringing in my ears and tunnel vision. I need to sit down, I am a little dizzy.
Wait.. what were we talking about again?
*Takes deep breath*
Bring it on.
No. You are doing what the GP said by "a weapon for deposing some while elevating others".
The smart man has an advantage over the dull man. This difference will create unequal outcomes. Correcting that advantage would mean giving the smart man a lobotomy, forcing the dull man to the smart mans position or excessively taxing the smart man to be equal to the dull man.
Fair implies an equal playing field but does not mean equal results. Justice means both men are equal before the law and will be subject to the same laws and interpretation of those laws.
Agreed.
God help us.
Very true. I guess I should have qualified my statement with "has never happened before" but I figured that was what was meant with "has never been the case". More often than not, the winner of the E.C. is the winner of the popular vote.
It is possible but unlikely is a more accurate statement but as we have seen unlikely can happen. I think you can get a similar victory (win with very small popular vote) with winning majorities in lots of smaller states too.
It is up to the states to decide how their votes are distributed. Maine and Nebraska(?) split their E.C. vote between congressional districts. That could avoid something like that.
Uh. no. Justice is the application of fairness in the law. The law can be unjust and unfair but the singular idea of justice is to be "fair". Victim-less crimes are antithetical to your idea of justice. Yet, it is Just that the law be applied to those crimes.
mass shootings are scientific issues.
No. No. No. NO. NO NO!!!! Studies can tell you the chances of being killed by a gun or how common it is in different parts of the world or what changes with mental health or just generally give you a picture of what particular laws have in effect. That does not tell you anything else!
It doesn't tell you what to do if people view those dangers worth it. It doesn't tell you if owning a gun should be a right or not. It doesn't tell you what it means to have a right of self defense. It doesn't tell you what happens when there is a complicit government. It doesn't tell you the history why these perceptions have been built up in a society. It doesn't tell you anything important aside from a one dimensional picture. The most important parts of the gun debate is not found in any study because it is something that cannot be quantified.
There is no experiment to be had. There is no prediction to make. There is nothing except opinions! We can inform those opinions with facts but even then that will not necessarily change attitudes because there are underlying philosophical, ethical, government responsibility, and liberty concerns. Science can't answer those questions. At best it can help you gather the facts to help inform your opinion.
Are you saying every 4 years we need to rewrite the constitution to meet your arbitrary and dangerous "the people didn't make the rules" standard??? WTF does that even mean???? the Constitution is the law of the land that decides how the POTUS is elected (via Electoral College). yet, you don't like that and are upset because you didn't make the rule? Ok, there is a way to change the constitution which requires a super majority to change. You are going to have to convince a lot of people that your ideas for governance are better than what the Founding Fathers came up with after their research and experimental US 1.0... Good luck.
Your state can make the rules for how your Electoral votes are divided or used.
Just like other forms of government Democracy has flaws. The structure of the US government was predicated on the fact that democracy, while laudable, has fundamental flaws that must be guarded against.
This is ridiculous. The rules were well known in advance before the election that both parties agreed to. In the US, there is no such thing as a national vote. There is 50 different individual elections that Clinton lost a majority of by a majority. Clinton winning huge margins in a few large states isn't enough to win the presidency and that has NEVER been the case in American history. Trump was elected as per the Constitution. People voted for him in a majority of states. We are a union of states not a mob.
If anyone was installed by Oligarchs in any election this last season it was Clinton with her super-delegates and using their backing to disenfranchise voters.
How is it indefensible if there are defensible positions to take? Seems to me if it was "indefensible" any sensible Congressmen would back off. Yet, that is not happening because there is current antiquate room for defense and skepticism. Am I supposed to believe the Democrats simply because they are opposed to Trump?
Censorship does not stop being censorship just because it was done by a private company. Yes, traditionally it was done by the government but that doesn't mean it should be accepted from public accommodations particularly so if it can influence elections.
They have no obligation to publish anything, from anyone.
Yes, and while a baker is under obligation to service anyone regardless of their belief. You see, we want our public accommodations to be impartial except, according to you, when it comes to political opinions. That to me seems very dangerous particularly how this last election played out on social media. You are willing to give those platforms disproportionate influence on our voting process because "private company" yet see the danger of a private company controlling other platforms (ISPs). Why?
just an attempt to justify telecom deregulation,
No, it's just an interesting argument and its fun to see people argue for government control over one but not the other when there are legal precedent for the government to force impartiality for "less critical" companies and industry. All of your arguments have been thoroughly rejected by the courts, yet somehow Twitter is above all that and can influence the elections all they want. What you are basically saying is that any company can discriminate anyone based on political opinions. That is wrong particularly so if that company can influence our election process.
I have seen two reasons why people don't accept Twitters impartiality. Either A) it is ideological and they want no government forcing any kind of social engineering or impartiality or B) because they agree with Twitters targets for political censorship.
I can absolutely choose which bakery gets my patronage
Irrelevant to the impartiality of public accommodations.
Touch down tears. Upset set tears. Who cares. Big hug for poperatzo. You look like you could use one.
*hug*
You sound upset. Would you like a hug?
If you don't like Twitter for whatever reason (and there's plenty - I stay away entirely), you are free to use another service. Hell, start your own. Web hosting is like $5/mo and there is open source social network software out there for free.
That logic doesn't apply to bakers why would it apply to twitter? Not everyone can do that. As of now, twitter is the preferred method of communication for potus (better or worse) yet is able to censor their platform where many people are informed along with other social media platforms. That is a very dangerous combination when you are talking about something that can influence the elections. No different than if Comcast disallowed customers based on political ideology.
The servers are privately owned and the owners can do whatever they want with them
No one is asking the owners of those servers to change their beliefs but public accommodations must be impartial because it is better for the industry and community. Your logic didn't' work for a baker, that can't influence elections, yet you seem to want to think that it should apply for a company that can influence our elections.
Clinton wasn't elected. feelsgoodman. Working as intended. 10/10 would vote again.
I keep seeing people bring up the 3/5ths compromise as if trying to make a point but it is obvious they haven't read the history and only see snippets that they don't like and their blind rage make moral judgments.
You do understand that the compromise was to limit the southern slave owning states power in the House and E.C., right? Believe if or not slavery was a contentious issue, even in 1787 and there were many people that sympathized with the slaves and wanted its abolishment. Hell, the British by 1783 began an anti-slavery movement, do you think colonists didn't share the same sentiment?
They were left with a choice, give the slave owners what they wanted, which would give the slaveholder interests increased representation in the House and Electoral College. Or compromise to limit their power in the fledgling nation. The 3/5ths compromise in effect gave southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes in the college than if slaves were counted equally.
You use that as an example of "racist history" but don't understand that it was there to oppose slavery. It was put in there by people that opposed slavery and you bemoan their name because you don't understand what they were trying to do.
So what? It has the potential to be just as damaging as GP states for ISPs. How much of the campaign or how many voters were informed on social media this last election? Your telling social media can't "stop free speech by curtailing access to tiny rotting sites if the company so chooses"?
If the lines the internet traverse are important so to are the servers that those lines connect.
So, what is the proper action the republicans are supposed to take? Do what the virtuous democrats are doing? I don't get it.
I wonder what the cross section of users that shut down the Canadian immigration site after the election.