Yes, rich people are going to have more options available to them. News at 11. What you are missing is that the school voucher system is supposed to give poor people more options in their education choices. If a charter school is better than a public school then poor people will have that option made available that previously wasn't because A) they were already paying for public school via taxes, bonds, etc and B) they choose which schools educate their children via stipend instead of being forced to go to a crummy school.
trumps education secretary wants to eliminate public education,
This is inaccurate.
He is a supporter of school vouchers. The idea is that you as a parent get a stipend from the government for education that you can choose to use on schools how you see fit. Instead of forcing district lines that force parents to send their kids to a bad school or move, create competition among schools and give parents more choice in how their child is educated.
There are a lot of challenges with public education and a lack of competition is one of them. The whole point of a school voucher system is to create competition among schools. If the best school happens to be public, then it would be rewarded with a lot of vouchers from parents. If a private school is doing better than a public school, there is no reason to force parents to use a lack luster institution when there are clearly better options that need only be made available.
this idea that the free market can eliminate the need for social programs if given a chance only shows a vast ignorance of history
What history also shows is that competition is a good thing for most markets not a natural monopoly. Institutions suffer when there isn't competition forcing them to be better.
He used the laws to his advantage while operating a business? Wow, color me surprised.
How many company execs do that? I bet he is the only one to do that because he is such an ass hole. I bet other execs are just so philanthropic that they aren't taking record profits barely see any profits.
Do you take advantage of any/all tax deductions you can claim? If you do I think that makes you a greedy self serving hypocrite. Only true Scotsman give away their money to such a philanthropic cause like the government.
nom nom nom nom. trollololol. Feed me Seymour. Although, that plant could be a great troll mascot.
The Senate not confirming an appointment isn't destroying a fundamental part of our system of government. It is one of the checks and balances and there is no specific reason to have 9 judges and there has been varying number of judges on the court at various times. Obama nominated and the Senate gave advice "no one from you" and refused consent. Both branches have to agree to get a new judge and if one refuses consent all that means is that we have 1 less judge on the court until they can agree. It's only an issue for a 4-4 vote split which just means that the lower courts ruling stands.
I was using Romney Obama etc as examples of wolf crying that has partly led to Trump. It wasn't something I was specifically pinning on you except for wolf crying and I probably botched conveying that. Trump is a reaction, a bad one at that, to the failure of media (that cried those wolves the most) and the left (that created those wolves).
Those vigilantes are a minority and on both sides. Just like people beating up Trump supporters for voting Trump. When something actually happens that is dangerous I will be right there to fight it to defend those checks and balances but your first comment was really over the top.
Well, I disagree on that. I think it has been around for a very long time that falls into/out of fashion periodically. For example: the Spanish American war and the yellow-journalism that reported on it. Just read a bit on Wikipedia to get an idea and then tell me we are unique in having politicians and journalists more concerned about themselves than the facts. Who are also willing to lie to promote their agenda.
I think this is a pretty good conversation about this topic. Both are articulate, a liberal and conservative that are not screaming at each other and giving each other an opportunity to express thier opinion on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just thought you might like and was interesting pertaining to this subject.
Slowly got worse over years? Decades? Centuries? People/organizations using information (or disinformation) to their advantage.... that seems new? Nothing like the propaganda of old?
newspapers knew why what sold to some degree, but with nothing like the detail or vital capability of clickbait.
That doesn't sound new it just sounds like new technologies and mediums through which newspapers and other news sources must operate. Clickbait, is a new term for a poster titled; "The Dog Faced Man" or "The Bearded Lady". Just look at the circus posters from yesteryear and tell me those don't look like clickbait from a different time.
The abuse of statics was particularly bad, because it made people think that even facts were untrue.
[I am assuming you meant statistics in 'statics' and typo.]
Hasn't statistics always had this problem? There are lies, damn lies and statistics? Your telling me people abusing statistics to their advantage is somehow new and novel today then the past? Come on, just look how long the gun debate has been going on to see how statistics is bastardized to see how each side use it to their advantage.
This is new, how? There was a reason why people bought into it: because the monumental failure of MSM in these last few decades. They saw little lies continuously told. Then bigger lies. Eventually you see enough lies you disregard everything they say as a lie until someone comes into fill the void left behind. It is not irrational to disregard what a liar says. The MSM is perceived as liars and political ideologues because they have continually lied and pushed political narratives.
There was a demand for something different and there are others there to fill that void that was left by the incompetence of MSM. How is that new? This fake news 'post-fact' narrative is MSM bitching that they lost the narrative to sub-par competition of narrative pushers.
Again, how is a snake-oil salesman different today than 100 years ago? Are we some how fundamentally different that we lost our ability to critically think about the information that we are presented with? No. A snake-oil salesman is the same and we are no different today than in yesteryear.
Besides, does it really matter that Micheal Howard was pretending to tell the truth? What difference does it make to the individual that Micheal Howard was pretending to tell the truth or whether some website said Trump won the popular vote?
The onus is still on the individual to sift through the information and find truth. No matter how you dress it up, what words you use to describe it, or the immediate effect it has on society; the individual has to discern for themselves truth in a sea of information, facts, lies, and misinformation. That has always been around and will always be the case. Someone is always trying to convince you of something whether you (or I) buy bullshit is on you (or I).
How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving. This didn't become some joke of a truism because of recent examples. It has always been this way and always will be.
Snake-oil salesmen and their tactics have always been around.
The winner take all rules are from the individual states and not the Electoral College itself. For example, Maine has its electoral votes split along congressional district lines. That is why Trump has 1 vote and Clinton the other 3 (2?, can't remember exact number). If the states want to get rid of winner take all they can it isn't a function of the college itself per say.
I have come to the sad conclusion that in the USA at least we're living in a "post-fact, post-truth" world where it no longer matters if anything is truthful or accurate if enough people believe it.
It appears my reading comprehension is suspect today. This isn't the first post today I have read wrong. I read your post wrong or more specifically missed the italics that emphasized your quibble. My apologies.
I salute your semantic quibbles and resign myself to stupid leisure instead of stupid shit posting.
Wow. The most intelligent man in the ancient world was the man that admitted he knew little.
I don't know the answers because there are a lot of possible solutions that may or may not be better than what we currently have. Not making a decision so that I can listen to other options and reasons is exactly what I am talking about. Ruling strictly on the constitution and then leaving that to the public and Congress is a good thing. Note: by leaving it to Congress it leaves it to the people because elections. How many different solutions to that problem have you heard? Would you have heard them if the courts ruled in a 'living document' fashion?
I am honest enough to know when I don't have the answers to complex issues we face. I didn't lie you disingenuous fuck and that one statement does not undermine anything I said.
If the appointees do not have a "living document" philosophy on the constitution I don't care so much who they are. An example, while Citizens United sounds bad and does have some bad consequences; a strict reading of the constitution would allow for such shenanigans. Your money is yours and is up to you how you spend it, even if you have billions. I don't know the answer to that issue but the courts leaving it to Congress is a good thing because we shouldn't base our decisions on rash emotions. If we can't all agree on something as important as campaign finance; inaction is a feature.
I see a Koch brothers Congress.
Congressional elections have nothing to do with the presidency. What is your point? Koch brothers have influence in Congress no matter who won? Just like Soros? No! You don't say?
I see a Meglamanic coming to the Oval Office
As opposed to the other megalomaniac? It isn't the first or the last megalomaniac to enter the Oval Office and that is why the checks and balances and division of power of the federal government is important. What is your point? Why should I care if all that has happened is an election? Getting hung up on possibilities and conjecture is no way to live. Deal with real actions and concern yourself with real issues. Not what ifs.
What could possibly go wrong?
The same wrong that could happen if the other lizard got into office. Big fucking deal. At least, we are less likely to go to war with Russia with this lizard. Talk to me when he does something wrong instead of doing a "possibly" wrong.
"it obviously wasn't all or enough in areas she took advantage of".
Is over-broad? Again, talking about the specific areas that she needed, PA, MI, and OH. How is what I said over-broad or contrary to your "Some did not".
Are you really arguing semantics of the same damn thing? The only difference between our statements is that I am clarifying that WHERE is a much more important factor when you say: " And Trump got less votes than Hillary, so I dare say that there were still quite a few Obama Democrats voting for Hillary."
Yes, Trump got less votes and Clinton had quite a few Obama Democrat votes. BUT not in the areas that were important in this election that gave Obama and Trump the presidency. In those areas, Obama Democrats voting for Clinton wasn't all of them or enough to win, obviously. It is also fairly safe to say that "enough voters that changed [either party vote or stay home] this last election from prior to give both Trump and Obama the presidency.". because the "blue wall" is gone and the exit polls show as much. Seriously... what are you quibbling over?
I'm glad Trump is finding out more about how to turn self-interest into enjoyment.
As an aside, I think this is one reason why capitalism works too well. Yes, yes, it isn't perfect, we don't have it fully, etc. etc. etc. But the principle of it compared to say communism:
Capitalism works because it takes advantage of the greedy and selfish in a way that they can satiate their desires that can better society. Communism requires the greedy and selfish to subjugate their desires to the state or become part of the state.
An economic system that acknowledges and utilizes human nature will invariably work better (or too well in many cases) than a system that requires humans to behave a certain way for it to work.
Sure, I agree hold him accountable but acting in violent ways when nothing except an election has happened is NOT the vigilance we should have or anything resembling the price of liberty.
Any details on this? Publically humiliating the mayors via tweets? Air strikes? Threatening to build (or not build) a Trump property?
The same way the federal government got the same age restrictions in every state for alcohol: With hold federal funds to those states and municipalities do not help.
Fun fact; Louisiana was the last state to adopt 21 as the age restriction for alcohol because the perceived loss in sales in alcohol (of people 18-21) would be more than what hey were going to get from the federal government for highways. Not sure if that is still the reason why Louisiana roads are shit.
Pretending that's a good thing, no, that I'm not inclined to do.
Well, one way to look at it: Name another country that is able to have a peaceful transition of power to a different ideology a by a technical minority of voters? China is parading the election as proof that a one party system is best but I actually think that this shows the benefits. Now, before you get all doom and gloom about Trump and the possibilities consider this: US elections and politics have ALWAYS been divisive except during times of war. The rhetoric used to condemn Trump really put media in a corner because even if he does something good; How can you give a racist any credit for doing something good? Our dirty laundry is out for everyone to see instead of a single narrative that uses force to ensure its own survival. We know our problems and we can talk about them. If we cannot temper our passion with reason and rational when discussing those problems then we shouldn't make a decision. This is built in our government and inaction is a feature. This goes both ways of course.
I do think that the EC is a good thing in that is tempers the passion of the larger public and protects the minority from a simple majority. That is one of the weaknesses of Democracy; the quick and every changing passions of the public and the damned simple majority. Your candidate may have lost but we are still one nation with the same checks and balances. If the president is too powerful that he can do all the evil things we hear about from left news media, then perhaps we should reign in the POTUS's power.
Dangerous? Wow, I will be sure to put on a helmet next time or is a seat belt good enough?
Yes, I am sure that all of those contributed but the exit polls show that there was cross over from the last elections from the areas Clinton needed votes the most. Like anything, it isn't just one thing that decides the outcome. To the OP, some Obama Democrats voted for Clinton but it obviously wasn't all or enough in the areas she took advantage of them.
Well, it depends on where you are talking about. In Pennsylvania Trump did win counties that Obama had won. Clinton did receive more votes but she had them in the wrong areas; NY, CA and not where she needed them that elected Obama; OH, MI, PA. There were definitely enough voters that changed this last election from prior to give both Trump and Obama the presidency.
I think there were crosses for both parties; #neverTrump and #neverClinton.
The links to 2 and 3 are further up in one of my posts, sorry a little lazy right now.
I believe it was rejection for being a member of a protected class. That has been illegal most of my lifetime (and probably all of most Slashdotters' lifetimes), although sexual orientation as a protected class is fairly new
Indeed, the federal law that sets up protected classes, the Civil Rights Act, does not define sexual orientation. In Colorado, the state law sets up sexual orientation as a protected class but does not distinguish 'religion' like the federal law for public accommodations. When the CCRD ruled that the christian couple had not been discriminated it said the reason was "derogatory language and imagery" but again it was bible quotes.
If the basis of your religion is defined by the state as 'derogatory language' or 'offensive hate speech' where are you protected from discrimination based on your religion that is not spun as 'offensive hate speech'? The real difference between #2 and #3 is that the christian baker (2) did not use language the court found satisfactory in justifying discrimination i.e. "offensive hate speech" compared to "my religious belief is".
The courts justification is that because the bible, the foundation of many religions, has offensive things. Therefore it is okay for public accommodations to discriminate against people with those beliefs. To the christian baker, homosexuality and gay marriage are offensive because of religious belief but that isn't good enough for the courts for protection because that belief is 'derogatory' and 'offensive hate speech' . Or "While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law". The law being the state law that does not protect religious discrimination for public accommodations. Where do the religious get the same protections as sexual orientation for public accommodations?
If you can just say 'your beliefs are offensive hate speech' and be able to discriminate a religious person. What does a religious person have to do to prove it was discrimination based on his religion? Would it be any different than if the christian baker had denied the gay couple because "they were liberal", how would the couple prove they were denied service because of their sexual orientation if that was the language used instead of 'my religious belief'?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, rich people are going to have more options available to them. News at 11. What you are missing is that the school voucher system is supposed to give poor people more options in their education choices. If a charter school is better than a public school then poor people will have that option made available that previously wasn't because A) they were already paying for public school via taxes, bonds, etc and B) they choose which schools educate their children via stipend instead of being forced to go to a crummy school.
trumps education secretary wants to eliminate public education,
This is inaccurate.
He is a supporter of school vouchers. The idea is that you as a parent get a stipend from the government for education that you can choose to use on schools how you see fit. Instead of forcing district lines that force parents to send their kids to a bad school or move, create competition among schools and give parents more choice in how their child is educated.
There are a lot of challenges with public education and a lack of competition is one of them. The whole point of a school voucher system is to create competition among schools. If the best school happens to be public, then it would be rewarded with a lot of vouchers from parents. If a private school is doing better than a public school, there is no reason to force parents to use a lack luster institution when there are clearly better options that need only be made available.
this idea that the free market can eliminate the need for social programs if given a chance only shows a vast ignorance of history
What history also shows is that competition is a good thing for most markets not a natural monopoly. Institutions suffer when there isn't competition forcing them to be better.
He used the laws to his advantage while operating a business? Wow, color me surprised.
How many company execs do that? I bet he is the only one to do that because he is such an ass hole. I bet other execs are just so philanthropic that they aren't taking record profits barely see any profits.
Do you take advantage of any/all tax deductions you can claim? If you do I think that makes you a greedy self serving hypocrite. Only true Scotsman give away their money to such a philanthropic cause like the government.
nom nom nom nom. trollololol. Feed me Seymour. Although, that plant could be a great troll mascot.
The Senate not confirming an appointment isn't destroying a fundamental part of our system of government. It is one of the checks and balances and there is no specific reason to have 9 judges and there has been varying number of judges on the court at various times. Obama nominated and the Senate gave advice "no one from you" and refused consent. Both branches have to agree to get a new judge and if one refuses consent all that means is that we have 1 less judge on the court until they can agree. It's only an issue for a 4-4 vote split which just means that the lower courts ruling stands.
I was using Romney Obama etc as examples of wolf crying that has partly led to Trump. It wasn't something I was specifically pinning on you except for wolf crying and I probably botched conveying that. Trump is a reaction, a bad one at that, to the failure of media (that cried those wolves the most) and the left (that created those wolves).
Those vigilantes are a minority and on both sides. Just like people beating up Trump supporters for voting Trump. When something actually happens that is dangerous I will be right there to fight it to defend those checks and balances but your first comment was really over the top.
Well, I disagree on that. I think it has been around for a very long time that falls into/out of fashion periodically. For example: the Spanish American war and the yellow-journalism that reported on it. Just read a bit on Wikipedia to get an idea and then tell me we are unique in having politicians and journalists more concerned about themselves than the facts. Who are also willing to lie to promote their agenda.
lol sure thing scrub.
I think this is a pretty good conversation about this topic. Both are articulate, a liberal and conservative that are not screaming at each other and giving each other an opportunity to express thier opinion on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just thought you might like and was interesting pertaining to this subject.
TBH, it sounds exactly like these arguments https://xkcd.com/1227/
Slowly got worse over years? Decades? Centuries? People/organizations using information (or disinformation) to their advantage.... that seems new? Nothing like the propaganda of old?
newspapers knew why what sold to some degree, but with nothing like the detail or vital capability of clickbait.
That doesn't sound new it just sounds like new technologies and mediums through which newspapers and other news sources must operate. Clickbait, is a new term for a poster titled; "The Dog Faced Man" or "The Bearded Lady". Just look at the circus posters from yesteryear and tell me those don't look like clickbait from a different time.
The abuse of statics was particularly bad, because it made people think that even facts were untrue.
[I am assuming you meant statistics in 'statics' and typo.]
Hasn't statistics always had this problem? There are lies, damn lies and statistics? Your telling me people abusing statistics to their advantage is somehow new and novel today then the past? Come on, just look how long the gun debate has been going on to see how statistics is bastardized to see how each side use it to their advantage.
Calm your tits. It isn't the end of the republic. It won't be the first bad president and it won't be the last.
"disenfranchises the majority"... lol. Democracy is fundamentally flawed. It is a very VERY good thing we are not a democracy.
This is new, how? There was a reason why people bought into it: because the monumental failure of MSM in these last few decades. They saw little lies continuously told. Then bigger lies. Eventually you see enough lies you disregard everything they say as a lie until someone comes into fill the void left behind. It is not irrational to disregard what a liar says. The MSM is perceived as liars and political ideologues because they have continually lied and pushed political narratives.
There was a demand for something different and there are others there to fill that void that was left by the incompetence of MSM. How is that new? This fake news 'post-fact' narrative is MSM bitching that they lost the narrative to sub-par competition of narrative pushers.
Again, how is a snake-oil salesman different today than 100 years ago? Are we some how fundamentally different that we lost our ability to critically think about the information that we are presented with? No. A snake-oil salesman is the same and we are no different today than in yesteryear.
That is not new.
Besides, does it really matter that Micheal Howard was pretending to tell the truth? What difference does it make to the individual that Micheal Howard was pretending to tell the truth or whether some website said Trump won the popular vote?
The onus is still on the individual to sift through the information and find truth. No matter how you dress it up, what words you use to describe it, or the immediate effect it has on society; the individual has to discern for themselves truth in a sea of information, facts, lies, and misinformation. That has always been around and will always be the case. Someone is always trying to convince you of something whether you (or I) buy bullshit is on you (or I).
How do you know a politician is lying? Their lips are moving. This didn't become some joke of a truism because of recent examples. It has always been this way and always will be.
Snake-oil salesmen and their tactics have always been around.
The winner take all rules are from the individual states and not the Electoral College itself. For example, Maine has its electoral votes split along congressional district lines. That is why Trump has 1 vote and Clinton the other 3 (2?, can't remember exact number). If the states want to get rid of winner take all they can it isn't a function of the college itself per say.
I have come to the sad conclusion that in the USA at least we're living in a "post-fact, post-truth" world where it no longer matters if anything is truthful or accurate if enough people believe it.
We have always been in a 'post-fact' world.
It appears my reading comprehension is suspect today. This isn't the first post today I have read wrong. I read your post wrong or more specifically missed the italics that emphasized your quibble. My apologies.
I salute your semantic quibbles and resign myself to stupid leisure instead of stupid shit posting.
Wow. The most intelligent man in the ancient world was the man that admitted he knew little.
I don't know the answers because there are a lot of possible solutions that may or may not be better than what we currently have. Not making a decision so that I can listen to other options and reasons is exactly what I am talking about. Ruling strictly on the constitution and then leaving that to the public and Congress is a good thing. Note: by leaving it to Congress it leaves it to the people because elections. How many different solutions to that problem have you heard? Would you have heard them if the courts ruled in a 'living document' fashion?
I am honest enough to know when I don't have the answers to complex issues we face. I didn't lie you disingenuous fuck and that one statement does not undermine anything I said.
I see a business oriented Supreme Court.
If the appointees do not have a "living document" philosophy on the constitution I don't care so much who they are. An example, while Citizens United sounds bad and does have some bad consequences; a strict reading of the constitution would allow for such shenanigans. Your money is yours and is up to you how you spend it, even if you have billions. I don't know the answer to that issue but the courts leaving it to Congress is a good thing because we shouldn't base our decisions on rash emotions. If we can't all agree on something as important as campaign finance; inaction is a feature.
I see a Koch brothers Congress.
Congressional elections have nothing to do with the presidency. What is your point? Koch brothers have influence in Congress no matter who won? Just like Soros? No! You don't say?
I see a Meglamanic coming to the Oval Office
As opposed to the other megalomaniac? It isn't the first or the last megalomaniac to enter the Oval Office and that is why the checks and balances and division of power of the federal government is important. What is your point? Why should I care if all that has happened is an election? Getting hung up on possibilities and conjecture is no way to live. Deal with real actions and concern yourself with real issues. Not what ifs.
What could possibly go wrong?
The same wrong that could happen if the other lizard got into office. Big fucking deal. At least, we are less likely to go to war with Russia with this lizard. Talk to me when he does something wrong instead of doing a "possibly" wrong.
"it obviously wasn't all or enough in areas she took advantage of".
Is over-broad? Again, talking about the specific areas that she needed, PA, MI, and OH. How is what I said over-broad or contrary to your "Some did not".
Are you really arguing semantics of the same damn thing? The only difference between our statements is that I am clarifying that WHERE is a much more important factor when you say: " And Trump got less votes than Hillary, so I dare say that there were still quite a few Obama Democrats voting for Hillary."
Yes, Trump got less votes and Clinton had quite a few Obama Democrat votes. BUT not in the areas that were important in this election that gave Obama and Trump the presidency. In those areas, Obama Democrats voting for Clinton wasn't all of them or enough to win, obviously. It is also fairly safe to say that "enough voters that changed [either party vote or stay home] this last election from prior to give both Trump and Obama the presidency.". because the "blue wall" is gone and the exit polls show as much. Seriously... what are you quibbling over?
I'm glad Trump is finding out more about how to turn self-interest into enjoyment.
As an aside, I think this is one reason why capitalism works too well. Yes, yes, it isn't perfect, we don't have it fully, etc. etc. etc. But the principle of it compared to say communism:
Capitalism works because it takes advantage of the greedy and selfish in a way that they can satiate their desires that can better society. Communism requires the greedy and selfish to subjugate their desires to the state or become part of the state.
An economic system that acknowledges and utilizes human nature will invariably work better (or too well in many cases) than a system that requires humans to behave a certain way for it to work.
Does that eternal vigilance include riots and beating up Trump voters?
Sure, I agree hold him accountable but acting in violent ways when nothing except an election has happened is NOT the vigilance we should have or anything resembling the price of liberty.
Any details on this? Publically humiliating the mayors via tweets? Air strikes? Threatening to build (or not build) a Trump property?
The same way the federal government got the same age restrictions in every state for alcohol: With hold federal funds to those states and municipalities do not help.
Fun fact; Louisiana was the last state to adopt 21 as the age restriction for alcohol because the perceived loss in sales in alcohol (of people 18-21) would be more than what hey were going to get from the federal government for highways. Not sure if that is still the reason why Louisiana roads are shit.
Pretending that's a good thing, no, that I'm not inclined to do.
Well, one way to look at it: Name another country that is able to have a peaceful transition of power to a different ideology a by a technical minority of voters? China is parading the election as proof that a one party system is best but I actually think that this shows the benefits. Now, before you get all doom and gloom about Trump and the possibilities consider this: US elections and politics have ALWAYS been divisive except during times of war. The rhetoric used to condemn Trump really put media in a corner because even if he does something good; How can you give a racist any credit for doing something good? Our dirty laundry is out for everyone to see instead of a single narrative that uses force to ensure its own survival. We know our problems and we can talk about them. If we cannot temper our passion with reason and rational when discussing those problems then we shouldn't make a decision. This is built in our government and inaction is a feature. This goes both ways of course.
I do think that the EC is a good thing in that is tempers the passion of the larger public and protects the minority from a simple majority. That is one of the weaknesses of Democracy; the quick and every changing passions of the public and the damned simple majority. Your candidate may have lost but we are still one nation with the same checks and balances. If the president is too powerful that he can do all the evil things we hear about from left news media, then perhaps we should reign in the POTUS's power.
As opposed to other room-temperature IQ fucktards being loud? Oh no! stop the presses! Big Red and Triggly-Puff have competition of fucktarditry.
I think we need a UN special meeting to discuss online first world problems because it is super serious.
Dangerous? Wow, I will be sure to put on a helmet next time or is a seat belt good enough?
Yes, I am sure that all of those contributed but the exit polls show that there was cross over from the last elections from the areas Clinton needed votes the most. Like anything, it isn't just one thing that decides the outcome. To the OP, some Obama Democrats voted for Clinton but it obviously wasn't all or enough in the areas she took advantage of them.
Well, it depends on where you are talking about. In Pennsylvania Trump did win counties that Obama had won. Clinton did receive more votes but she had them in the wrong areas; NY, CA and not where she needed them that elected Obama; OH, MI, PA. There were definitely enough voters that changed this last election from prior to give both Trump and Obama the presidency.
I think there were crosses for both parties; #neverTrump and #neverClinton.
The links to 2 and 3 are further up in one of my posts, sorry a little lazy right now.
I believe it was rejection for being a member of a protected class. That has been illegal most of my lifetime (and probably all of most Slashdotters' lifetimes), although sexual orientation as a protected class is fairly new
Indeed, the federal law that sets up protected classes, the Civil Rights Act, does not define sexual orientation. In Colorado, the state law sets up sexual orientation as a protected class but does not distinguish 'religion' like the federal law for public accommodations. When the CCRD ruled that the christian couple had not been discriminated it said the reason was "derogatory language and imagery" but again it was bible quotes.
If the basis of your religion is defined by the state as 'derogatory language' or 'offensive hate speech' where are you protected from discrimination based on your religion that is not spun as 'offensive hate speech'? The real difference between #2 and #3 is that the christian baker (2) did not use language the court found satisfactory in justifying discrimination i.e. "offensive hate speech" compared to "my religious belief is".
The courts justification is that because the bible, the foundation of many religions, has offensive things. Therefore it is okay for public accommodations to discriminate against people with those beliefs. To the christian baker, homosexuality and gay marriage are offensive because of religious belief but that isn't good enough for the courts for protection because that belief is 'derogatory' and 'offensive hate speech' . Or "While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law". The law being the state law that does not protect religious discrimination for public accommodations. Where do the religious get the same protections as sexual orientation for public accommodations?
If you can just say 'your beliefs are offensive hate speech' and be able to discriminate a religious person. What does a religious person have to do to prove it was discrimination based on his religion? Would it be any different than if the christian baker had denied the gay couple because "they were liberal", how would the couple prove they were denied service because of their sexual orientation if that was the language used instead of 'my religious belief'?