I agree that I think Gore probably would have been better. But we will never know for sure. What I am saying is that it is very possible that a Gore presidency could have been worse. I won't go too far deep into it, but look up the "three mile island effect". It's basically impossible to predict accurately 8 years into the future (i.e. predicting what would have happened in a Gore presidency starting in 2000).
Now if Hillary loses, and tries to blame sanders for fracturing the party, he can say he endorsed her and she still lost an election to the least popular candidate in history.
Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors (i.e. some). And even if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have invaded the wrong country.
I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).
So some Sander supporters believe in conspiracies? So what? Some Clinton supporters believe she is not corrupt at all and that all the negative attitudes about her are only a result of right wing propaganda. That doesn't mean all Clinton supporters are this naive. Plenty of Clinton supporters realize exactly how bad she is, but think we need a powerful, vindictive, morally corrupt Washington insider to lead the fight against the republicans, employing unafraid to use whatever dirty tricks are most apt at any given time.
Also, I don't think your assessment of republicans definitely standing behind trump is accurate. We've had many establishment republicans claiming that they can not support trump. Some have backpeddled since he has won the nomination, but some have indicated they may even vote for Hillary. Hillary has actually very popular among the democratic establishment. There are no establishment democrats saying they won't vote for her. The Bernie supporters were people who didn't vote in previous elections (and apparently didn't even really vote in this one). Them sitting out, is not costing the democrats any votes, because they didn't have those votes to begin with.
Even if Bernie supporters sit this one out, it will probably be a landslide for Hillary.
I don't think he flipped anybody. I think Hillary would look like a much better option right now if Bernie never existed. Bernie did more damage to the democratic party than anyone else, it just wasn't quite enough to stop the nomination of Hillary, and now it would be time to damage the republicans if they weren't already dying in a dumpster.
These two are indeed the worst candidates ever. I don't live in a swing state so I won't be voting for either of them, but if I did live in a swing state, I would probably vote for Hillary, and it certainly wouldn't be because of her D. It's because I think the wars Hillary will start while still horrific tragedies, will probably at least contain some strategy beyond simply being an arrogant blustering asshole. Starting dumb wars, contrary to popular opinion, is not a partisan issue.
Hillary doesn't care about passing legislation. As long as she is president, she can finally make all her enemies regret the day they crossed her. In fact it's probably better if her republican congressional foes are seen as obstructing her, as it will dull criticisms of her from the left.
Well actually congress can make the rules that everyone in the USA has to follow (called laws) as long as they do not violate the constitution. You actually don't have to legally follow rules that your boss creates. You do need to legally follow the constitution and any constitutional laws that congress makes.
I realize there are various differences between rules and laws, but I don't think those distinctions are necessarily significant to this discussion, because I am pretty sure Hillary violated both. Not treating classified information appropriately is against the law. It is *also* against the rules, but you can (and people do) go to prison for this. You can't go to prison for *only* breaking rules (that are not laws).
I have gone to more than a few training sessions telling me that and signed more than a few declarations stating I understand that not treating classified information in accordance with the following rules (X Y Z), is illegal and you *may* be prosecuted with fines and prison time for violating those rules (because there is a law forbidding it).
They weren't "crimes" when Rice and Powell were in office. Furthermore, Powell (not sure about Rice) used his state email account. The reason he *had* a personal account was because at the time, state email couldn't be sent to non-state addresses. Hillary Clinton had the ability to exclusively use her state email account for everything she did, but chose to have a separate email server instead. This means that ALL her emails (even internal ones) wouldn't be accessible by FOIA requests.
Saying that Colin Powell did the same thing is completely ridiculous.
What I don't here anyone saying is "I would feel exactly the same way if it turned out that Republican was caught doing this." It is quite clear to me that there are a mountain of people on either side either supporting or opposing Hillary based on political ideology rather than principle.
I on the other hand am not a partisan. I supported impeaching Bush. I think the Benghazi hearings were a witch hunt. But the belief that Hillary did nothing wrong or that she was only doing what her predecessors did is just wrong.
There is definitely something there to prosecute on if they wanted to. They are allowed to use discretion and have recommended against prosecution (to the DoJ).
When you agree to the rules associated with security clearances, you are told all the things you *may* be punished for, and what those punishment's *may* be (e.g. fines, prison time, etc). They don't say that you *will* be punished for breaking the rules. You might be someone that the government doesn't really want to punish for whatever reason.
There is no doubt that a lot of republicans want her to be indicted for political reasons. That doesn't change the fact that what she did was a violation of the rules that *could* have been used to support an indictment if the government wanted to indict her. (i.e. as opposed to the scenario where she actually didn't do anything wrong, and the government would have no grounds to indict her even if they wanted to).
When law enforcement decides to let you go, because they consider you a fuck up rather than a bad guy, it doesn't mean that you were innocent. It just means you are lucky that they have discretion.
So it's impossible to elect lawmakers who know *more* that the ones we have?
No matter who you elect, they won't know everything about everything.
This is a good reason not to try to regulate *everything* then.
That's why (shudder, I'm saying this) they need lobbyists. INDEPENDENT lobbyists who push all sides of the agenda, not just their own.
And the lawmakers can't know *something* rather than *nothing* in regards to what the lobbyists tell them on any particular subject?
NO, I don't know how you do it either. But asking people to know everything all the time will fail.
I said "Lawmakers should know more about the things they intend to regulate", and you apparently heard "Lawmakers should know everything about everything"
I heard that they set Hillary's computer to be the DMZ on the State Department's NAT router because she didn't want to deal with figuring out port forwarding or UPnP.
Sniping happens on ebay because people do not know what they themselves are willing to pay. If people just bid what they are actually willing to pay, they can't get sniped, they con only get outbid. But because people are irrational, getting outbid makes the thing being auctioned more in demand and therefore makes them want it more.
Silent auctions also eliminate sniping, but most silent auctions are run by greedy fuckers who use them to try to get more money out of winners who bid much more than the runner up.
The real answer is a combination of ebay and normal silent auctions.
If you have N things for sale. You have an auction (preferably but not necessarily silent) where all the top N bidders win, but pay the N+1 bidders bid. So you could bid $1 million on a concert ticket (out of 10000) and basically guarantee yourself a ticket, and as long as the 10001st highest bid was only $200, then you are only going to pay $200.
If the tables were flipped, and voter IDs hurt Republican voters, we'd have the democrats saying we need voter ID to stop voter fraud, and you'd have Republicans claiming that there is no voter fraud to stop. It's all just the politics of winning elections, which includes all manner of dirty tricks from gerrymandering to voter suppression, etc, the latest of which is voter ID. Neither side is acting on principle.
Well the problem with housing affordability is that property in new york is in demand because it is desirable. All we have to do is make properties less desirable and the demand and consequently prices should come down. Like if there was a nuclear disaster or if the city became infested with deadly snakes or something, that would really help to keep housing affordable.
Not necessarily. If you have a pool of captcha answerers, you'll have an advantage. I can take a pool of 100 people and take the fastest answer and beat you 99% of the time (that's assuming that on average, you are as fast as a bunch of people that answer captchas in a pool all day long for a living).
People like certainty, and producers benefit from happy consumers. Auctions might be the most efficient market solution for rational actors, but you will inevitable have a bunch of angry people that get sniped out of their tickets at the last minute. People are not rational, and they are bad at putting money values on experiences.
I don't even think the credit card thing is necessary. You could probably even allow people to list like 5 names (or even 10 or 100) at the time of purchase (so you can have people as backups in case you can't go for some reason.
And people would need to show some form of ID that matches one of the names on the ticket to use it.
You could even allow refunds for people that need to get their money back if they can't use the ticket. All you need to do is prevent tickets from being transferable to people not named at the time of purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that I think Gore probably would have been better. But we will never know for sure. What I am saying is that it is very possible that a Gore presidency could have been worse. I won't go too far deep into it, but look up the "three mile island effect". It's basically impossible to predict accurately 8 years into the future (i.e. predicting what would have happened in a Gore presidency starting in 2000).
Now if Hillary loses, and tries to blame sanders for fracturing the party, he can say he endorsed her and she still lost an election to the least popular candidate in history.
Sure. Gore didn't start any wars from 2000-2008 when he wasn't president, therefore he wouldn't have started any if he was... Makes sense. Also, is it fair to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he was president? And even it did, I'm sure he would have shown as much restraint in using military force as his democratic predecessors (i.e. some). And even if he didn't maybe he wouldn't have invaded the wrong country.
I think it is very possible that had we elected Gore, some different terrible shit would have happened, and there'd be people saying, "who is the lesser of 2 evils now" (having no idea what would have happened under Bush).
So some Sander supporters believe in conspiracies? So what? Some Clinton supporters believe she is not corrupt at all and that all the negative attitudes about her are only a result of right wing propaganda. That doesn't mean all Clinton supporters are this naive. Plenty of Clinton supporters realize exactly how bad she is, but think we need a powerful, vindictive, morally corrupt Washington insider to lead the fight against the republicans, employing unafraid to use whatever dirty tricks are most apt at any given time.
Also, I don't think your assessment of republicans definitely standing behind trump is accurate. We've had many establishment republicans claiming that they can not support trump. Some have backpeddled since he has won the nomination, but some have indicated they may even vote for Hillary. Hillary has actually very popular among the democratic establishment. There are no establishment democrats saying they won't vote for her. The Bernie supporters were people who didn't vote in previous elections (and apparently didn't even really vote in this one). Them sitting out, is not costing the democrats any votes, because they didn't have those votes to begin with.
Even if Bernie supporters sit this one out, it will probably be a landslide for Hillary.
I would hope so.
I don't think he flipped anybody. I think Hillary would look like a much better option right now if Bernie never existed. Bernie did more damage to the democratic party than anyone else, it just wasn't quite enough to stop the nomination of Hillary, and now it would be time to damage the republicans if they weren't already dying in a dumpster.
These two are indeed the worst candidates ever. I don't live in a swing state so I won't be voting for either of them, but if I did live in a swing state, I would probably vote for Hillary, and it certainly wouldn't be because of her D. It's because I think the wars Hillary will start while still horrific tragedies, will probably at least contain some strategy beyond simply being an arrogant blustering asshole. Starting dumb wars, contrary to popular opinion, is not a partisan issue.
Hillary doesn't care about passing legislation. As long as she is president, she can finally make all her enemies regret the day they crossed her. In fact it's probably better if her republican congressional foes are seen as obstructing her, as it will dull criticisms of her from the left.
I think all hashtags have inspired exactly the same amount of violence.
Well actually congress can make the rules that everyone in the USA has to follow (called laws) as long as they do not violate the constitution. You actually don't have to legally follow rules that your boss creates. You do need to legally follow the constitution and any constitutional laws that congress makes.
I realize there are various differences between rules and laws, but I don't think those distinctions are necessarily significant to this discussion, because I am pretty sure Hillary violated both. Not treating classified information appropriately is against the law. It is *also* against the rules, but you can (and people do) go to prison for this. You can't go to prison for *only* breaking rules (that are not laws).
I have gone to more than a few training sessions telling me that and signed more than a few declarations stating I understand that not treating classified information in accordance with the following rules (X Y Z), is illegal and you *may* be prosecuted with fines and prison time for violating those rules (because there is a law forbidding it).
They weren't "crimes" when Rice and Powell were in office. Furthermore, Powell (not sure about Rice) used his state email account. The reason he *had* a personal account was because at the time, state email couldn't be sent to non-state addresses. Hillary Clinton had the ability to exclusively use her state email account for everything she did, but chose to have a separate email server instead. This means that ALL her emails (even internal ones) wouldn't be accessible by FOIA requests.
Saying that Colin Powell did the same thing is completely ridiculous.
What I don't here anyone saying is "I would feel exactly the same way if it turned out that Republican was caught doing this." It is quite clear to me that there are a mountain of people on either side either supporting or opposing Hillary based on political ideology rather than principle.
I on the other hand am not a partisan. I supported impeaching Bush. I think the Benghazi hearings were a witch hunt. But the belief that Hillary did nothing wrong or that she was only doing what her predecessors did is just wrong.
There is definitely something there to prosecute on if they wanted to. They are allowed to use discretion and have recommended against prosecution (to the DoJ).
When you agree to the rules associated with security clearances, you are told all the things you *may* be punished for, and what those punishment's *may* be (e.g. fines, prison time, etc). They don't say that you *will* be punished for breaking the rules. You might be someone that the government doesn't really want to punish for whatever reason.
There is no doubt that a lot of republicans want her to be indicted for political reasons. That doesn't change the fact that what she did was a violation of the rules that *could* have been used to support an indictment if the government wanted to indict her. (i.e. as opposed to the scenario where she actually didn't do anything wrong, and the government would have no grounds to indict her even if they wanted to).
When law enforcement decides to let you go, because they consider you a fuck up rather than a bad guy, it doesn't mean that you were innocent. It just means you are lucky that they have discretion.
It's the same as the evidence that aliens didn't yet contact us (i.e. the lack of evidence that they did).
SIGH....I hate to say this, but: Not Gonna Work.
So it's impossible to elect lawmakers who know *more* that the ones we have?
No matter who you elect, they won't know everything about everything.
This is a good reason not to try to regulate *everything* then.
That's why (shudder, I'm saying this) they need lobbyists. INDEPENDENT lobbyists who push all sides of the agenda, not just their own.
And the lawmakers can't know *something* rather than *nothing* in regards to what the lobbyists tell them on any particular subject?
NO, I don't know how you do it either. But asking people to know everything all the time will fail.
I said "Lawmakers should know more about the things they intend to regulate", and you apparently heard "Lawmakers should know everything about everything"
lawmakers need to learn more about technology before trying to regulate it.
Translation: We need to fire these idiots and elect lawmakers that know more about the things they intend to regulate
If you've been deepthroating your engines, you're doing it wrong.
I heard that they set Hillary's computer to be the DMZ on the State Department's NAT router because she didn't want to deal with figuring out port forwarding or UPnP.
Sniping happens on ebay because people do not know what they themselves are willing to pay. If people just bid what they are actually willing to pay, they can't get sniped, they con only get outbid. But because people are irrational, getting outbid makes the thing being auctioned more in demand and therefore makes them want it more.
Silent auctions also eliminate sniping, but most silent auctions are run by greedy fuckers who use them to try to get more money out of winners who bid much more than the runner up.
The real answer is a combination of ebay and normal silent auctions.
If you have N things for sale. You have an auction (preferably but not necessarily silent) where all the top N bidders win, but pay the N+1 bidders bid. So you could bid $1 million on a concert ticket (out of 10000) and basically guarantee yourself a ticket, and as long as the 10001st highest bid was only $200, then you are only going to pay $200.
That part of the way ebay worked was really good.
If the tables were flipped, and voter IDs hurt Republican voters, we'd have the democrats saying we need voter ID to stop voter fraud, and you'd have Republicans claiming that there is no voter fraud to stop. It's all just the politics of winning elections, which includes all manner of dirty tricks from gerrymandering to voter suppression, etc, the latest of which is voter ID. Neither side is acting on principle.
Well the problem with housing affordability is that property in new york is in demand because it is desirable. All we have to do is make properties less desirable and the demand and consequently prices should come down. Like if there was a nuclear disaster or if the city became infested with deadly snakes or something, that would really help to keep housing affordable.
Not necessarily. If you have a pool of captcha answerers, you'll have an advantage. I can take a pool of 100 people and take the fastest answer and beat you 99% of the time (that's assuming that on average, you are as fast as a bunch of people that answer captchas in a pool all day long for a living).
People like certainty, and producers benefit from happy consumers. Auctions might be the most efficient market solution for rational actors, but you will inevitable have a bunch of angry people that get sniped out of their tickets at the last minute. People are not rational, and they are bad at putting money values on experiences.
I don't even think the credit card thing is necessary. You could probably even allow people to list like 5 names (or even 10 or 100) at the time of purchase (so you can have people as backups in case you can't go for some reason.
And people would need to show some form of ID that matches one of the names on the ticket to use it.
You could even allow refunds for people that need to get their money back if they can't use the ticket. All you need to do is prevent tickets from being transferable to people not named at the time of purchase.
Works great for littering. I never see trash in public anymore.