So Clinton raised over a billion bucks, lots of it from special interests - people she told in private that she has a "public position and a private position" - and she's not in anyone's pocket? She wouldn't need two different positions if she were honest.
In a test, you're told that you might be in one of two groups - the one receiving the treatment or the one receiving the dummy. The treatment may carry more or less risk, but that's the way it is, and they say that too. Anything else is pretty much useless.
But placebos may in fact be better than the treatment being tested - or the treatment being tested may make things worse, so there is no moral or ethical dilemma. As long as there's informed consent, what is your problem?
And why would anyone believe, or even care, what Hello Games says now considering how far from their hype the original release was? What next - "Go to millions of systems to collect Pokemons?"
Again, stop being a fucking moron. In the context of the USA, nobody having a majority in either house means a minority government. Again, fucking moron. Context - it means something.
Why in the world wasn't it "appropriate?" So giving everyone a treatment that you don't know works is somehow more appropriate than giving half a placebo, which will probably be just as effective (prove otherwise by doing a proper study or stfu).
Of course he's not doing anything about it. He's not even president yet. And even if he doesn't do anything about it in the next 4 years, both parties now have been put on notice that they better get their acts together.
Doesn't change the fact that nobody got a majority. And there was at least one state that I saw where the libertarian party had more than enough to make a difference.
A minority government is going to have to broker peace with one of the 3rd parties or no legislation gets past.
Nope. A president elected with 20% of the popular vote (theoretically possible, but not in any way realistic) is 100% president, and needs no bargains or peace with anyone to hold that position for at least 4 years.
Here - I bolded it for you. Stop being a fucking moron. With neither party winning a majority in either house, the only way to pass legislation is to get the cooperation of enough third party votes. And since most people vote straight ticket, you can indeed have no majority in either house. That's a minority government. This election changed a lot of things, including the perception of 3rd parties.
The problem wasn't the paper, it was the stupid idea of using a punch instead of just giving people a pencil and have them mark an X before the one they choose. Touch screens are even worse - they go out of adjustment with time. Should have kept it simple.
My birth certificate and photo IDand everything else says female. Couldn't get a copy of the old one even if I wanted to, which I certainly don't. Obviously I use the women's bathroom - I have no legal reason to enter the men's room unless I'm the cleaner. Never had a problem (then again, when I ask for directions to the bathroom, they point me towards the women's, because I don't look like that man in a dress they have in TransParent. That just reinforces stereotypes, same as idiots who confuse transsexuals with drag queens, etc.
You do know that international law allows spies out of uniform to be executed, right? It's not like the US hasn't done so.
Gary Powers was spying when he got shot down flying his U2 over the Soviet Union. That derailed the peace talks. Previously Eisenhower didn't want to use overflights:
President Eisenhower did not want to fly American U-2 pilots over the Soviet Union because he felt that if one of these pilots were to be shot down or captured that it could be seen as an act of aggression. At a time like the Cold War, any act of aggression could spark open conflict between the two countries.
Eisenhower thought the U2 overflying the Soviets to conduct espionage would be an act that could start a war. Same as today, attacking sensitive computer systems and exfiltrating data could also be seen as an act of war.
Voting for Clinton would have just meant that they would continue the same old same old... now they have to change if the want to get back into power - and you know that they want it. Power is more addictive than pretty much everything else.
This was the only way to make people see that you can't let things go on like this - in either party. Potentially worse? Hopefully way worse. Enough to cause both parties to revolt.
I never endorsed either candidate. I just think that this is the best way to get people mad enough to finally force change when they realize that neither party represents their interests.
"Creative destruction." When both parties have dumped enough on the electorate, the electorate will force change. Trump is just one more step closer to that.
You just had an election where neither one got 50% of the popular vote. Third parties sucked enough votes away to make differences in several of the contests. A minority government is going to have to broker peace with one of the 3rd parties or no legislation gets past. It's how the votes and opinions of the people who don't like either of the majority parties make their voter's votes count out of proportion to their actual vote count.
It also promotes less partisanship, since the minority in power will need to get support from the other parties. Or do you have a problem with that?
So what? Sure he is, but now the other party realizes that they can no longer dictate to the masses who they should pick. The post-mortems on the Democratic party have been really harsh. Maybe they won't take people's votes for granted next time and try to do another coronation.
And the Republican party is also shitting its' pants. Do you really think that they have confidence in Trump even in the short term?
Of course, butt-hurt Clinton crybabies being exposed for the shallowness of their thinking is good for the Democrats - now they know who to purge.
Seriously? You believe that people should continue voting for someone based on "the lesser of two evils?" Go look at places where the voters have learned to punish parties that take them for granted by voting for their worst enemy. It works. It incentivizes the abandoned party to make real changes because they want to get back into power, and it also encourages the winner to make an attempt to appeal beyond their base so they can keep those swing voters for more than one term. Maybe one of these days the American voter will be sophisticated enough to understand how it works.
Anonymous Cowards who pontificate without owning their own words in public deserve every bit of shit I and anyone else can throw on them. No open your mouth and eat the turd stew like a bad little troll.
Don't worry - you won't be having anonymity on the Internet within the next decade... then you'll go into hiding and leave the world a better place.:-)
What am I thinking? That both parties need a good enema. You and everyone else who casts the problem as voting for the lesser of two evils is mentally lazy, unimaginative, and predictable. And that's what both parties are counting on. Unfortunately, the majority of the population hasn't been shit on enough to try to change things in ways that really matter.
I don't see you proposing a better way than "creative destruction" of both parties from the inside.
Let's see how bad things get before the masses get the guts to say "to hell with you both" and start pushing for alternatives. Obviously it hasn't gotten bad enough yet because the majority still believe that one of the two - Democrats or Republicans - give a shit about them. Only then will elections be more than picking the lesser of two evils.
Who gives a shit if he's any better? Really, the only way to change things is for the majority of citizens to insist on change from both parties. The worse it gets, the more pressure for change. Plus, you got the government you deserved. Allowing Clinton to be the nominee was the only way that Trump could have won, and polls said this months ago.
Fucking moron. You keep making up shit expecting everyone to swallow it. No wonder you hide behind Anonymous Coward.
Is it because you were never taught to stand on your own two feet because mommy or daddy kept "showing" you how to do things but never really letting you try it on your own?
I'm obviously superior to you because I don't hide.
Slashdot Mirror
You still have to pay for buses.
So Clinton raised over a billion bucks, lots of it from special interests - people she told in private that she has a "public position and a private position" - and she's not in anyone's pocket? She wouldn't need two different positions if she were honest.
In a test, you're told that you might be in one of two groups - the one receiving the treatment or the one receiving the dummy. The treatment may carry more or less risk, but that's the way it is, and they say that too. Anything else is pretty much useless.
But placebos may in fact be better than the treatment being tested - or the treatment being tested may make things worse, so there is no moral or ethical dilemma. As long as there's informed consent, what is your problem?
And why would anyone believe, or even care, what Hello Games says now considering how far from their hype the original release was? What next - "Go to millions of systems to collect Pokemons?"
Again, stop being a fucking moron. In the context of the USA, nobody having a majority in either house means a minority government. Again, fucking moron. Context - it means something.
Why in the world wasn't it "appropriate?" So giving everyone a treatment that you don't know works is somehow more appropriate than giving half a placebo, which will probably be just as effective (prove otherwise by doing a proper study or stfu).
Anyone who cites Mercola, a quack of the same calibre of Dr Oz, needs to take their head out of the microwave ...
Of course he's not doing anything about it. He's not even president yet. And even if he doesn't do anything about it in the next 4 years, both parties now have been put on notice that they better get their acts together.
A minority government is going to have to broker peace with one of the 3rd parties or no legislation gets past. Nope. A president elected with 20% of the popular vote (theoretically possible, but not in any way realistic) is 100% president, and needs no bargains or peace with anyone to hold that position for at least 4 years.
Here - I bolded it for you. Stop being a fucking moron. With neither party winning a majority in either house, the only way to pass legislation is to get the cooperation of enough third party votes. And since most people vote straight ticket, you can indeed have no majority in either house. That's a minority government. This election changed a lot of things, including the perception of 3rd parties.
The problem wasn't the paper, it was the stupid idea of using a punch instead of just giving people a pencil and have them mark an X before the one they choose. Touch screens are even worse - they go out of adjustment with time. Should have kept it simple.
My birth certificate and photo IDand everything else says female. Couldn't get a copy of the old one even if I wanted to, which I certainly don't. Obviously I use the women's bathroom - I have no legal reason to enter the men's room unless I'm the cleaner. Never had a problem (then again, when I ask for directions to the bathroom, they point me towards the women's, because I don't look like that man in a dress they have in TransParent. That just reinforces stereotypes, same as idiots who confuse transsexuals with drag queens, etc.
You do know that international law allows spies out of uniform to be executed, right? It's not like the US hasn't done so.
Gary Powers was spying when he got shot down flying his U2 over the Soviet Union. That derailed the peace talks. Previously Eisenhower didn't want to use overflights:
President Eisenhower did not want to fly American U-2 pilots over the Soviet Union because he felt that if one of these pilots were to be shot down or captured that it could be seen as an act of aggression. At a time like the Cold War, any act of aggression could spark open conflict between the two countries.
Eisenhower thought the U2 overflying the Soviets to conduct espionage would be an act that could start a war. Same as today, attacking sensitive computer systems and exfiltrating data could also be seen as an act of war.
Voting for Clinton would have just meant that they would continue the same old same old ... now they have to change if the want to get back into power - and you know that they want it. Power is more addictive than pretty much everything else.
This was the only way to make people see that you can't let things go on like this - in either party. Potentially worse? Hopefully way worse. Enough to cause both parties to revolt.
I never endorsed either candidate. I just think that this is the best way to get people mad enough to finally force change when they realize that neither party represents their interests.
"Creative destruction." When both parties have dumped enough on the electorate, the electorate will force change. Trump is just one more step closer to that.
You just had an election where neither one got 50% of the popular vote. Third parties sucked enough votes away to make differences in several of the contests. A minority government is going to have to broker peace with one of the 3rd parties or no legislation gets past. It's how the votes and opinions of the people who don't like either of the majority parties make their voter's votes count out of proportion to their actual vote count.
It also promotes less partisanship, since the minority in power will need to get support from the other parties. Or do you have a problem with that?
So what? Sure he is, but now the other party realizes that they can no longer dictate to the masses who they should pick. The post-mortems on the Democratic party have been really harsh. Maybe they won't take people's votes for granted next time and try to do another coronation.
And the Republican party is also shitting its' pants. Do you really think that they have confidence in Trump even in the short term?
Of course, butt-hurt Clinton crybabies being exposed for the shallowness of their thinking is good for the Democrats - now they know who to purge.
Seriously? You believe that people should continue voting for someone based on "the lesser of two evils?" Go look at places where the voters have learned to punish parties that take them for granted by voting for their worst enemy. It works. It incentivizes the abandoned party to make real changes because they want to get back into power, and it also encourages the winner to make an attempt to appeal beyond their base so they can keep those swing voters for more than one term. Maybe one of these days the American voter will be sophisticated enough to understand how it works.
Anonymous Cowards who pontificate without owning their own words in public deserve every bit of shit I and anyone else can throw on them. No open your mouth and eat the turd stew like a bad little troll.
Don't worry - you won't be having anonymity on the Internet within the next decade ... then you'll go into hiding and leave the world a better place. :-)
What am I thinking? That both parties need a good enema. You and everyone else who casts the problem as voting for the lesser of two evils is mentally lazy, unimaginative, and predictable. And that's what both parties are counting on. Unfortunately, the majority of the population hasn't been shit on enough to try to change things in ways that really matter.
I don't see you proposing a better way than "creative destruction" of both parties from the inside.
Let's see how bad things get before the masses get the guts to say "to hell with you both" and start pushing for alternatives. Obviously it hasn't gotten bad enough yet because the majority still believe that one of the two - Democrats or Republicans - give a shit about them. Only then will elections be more than picking the lesser of two evils.
Who gives a shit if he's any better? Really, the only way to change things is for the majority of citizens to insist on change from both parties. The worse it gets, the more pressure for change. Plus, you got the government you deserved. Allowing Clinton to be the nominee was the only way that Trump could have won, and polls said this months ago.
You do not know what a kleptocracy is, but you have elected to learn.
Not me. I didn't vote for anyone in the Trump vs Clinton vs Libertarian vs Green contest. My hands are clean.
Fucking moron. You keep making up shit expecting everyone to swallow it. No wonder you hide behind Anonymous Coward.
Is it because you were never taught to stand on your own two feet because mommy or daddy kept "showing" you how to do things but never really letting you try it on your own?
I'm obviously superior to you because I don't hide.