I think it's really important to consider how to pitch things to Trump - important for any POTUS, sure, but especially him. If you can make it fit into his message, he seems especially willing to flip-flop. Maybe net neutrality could be sold to him.
They have the ability - maybe not the inclination, but the ability.
And on the topic of Obama's Executive Order usage: yes, he used fewer numerically than previous POTUSes, but the way he used it to circumvent Congress was unique. Understandable given that he wanted to do anything at all, certainly, but it still set a precedent. Even with good intentions, he upset the checks and balances between branches in a bad way.
He got better support than previous Republicans did though. Particularly in small towns formerly built around industry (i.e., the Rust Belt). Do poor rural voters use much in the way of food stamps?
Hmm. Well, that's a fair point, but most rural areas in the US are still far from that. I'd also say that it's unreasonable to expect the Trump administration to deal with price gouging, but building the infrastructure is at least still a positive step, and I doubt he's going to move the government as a whole to an online-only stance.
I think it's a bit harder to keep it free when you have a natural monopoly situation like telcos. I personally generally like the way that Europe does it; infrastructure and ISPs are different entities, and those who own the infrastructure rent it out to different ISPs. Even accounting for differences in population distribution, their prices are lower than ours. Obviously, we shouldn't just give them money, but building the infrastructure either directly or via carefully controlled subsidies gives plenty of options. It's not a free market, but it could still be good, depending on implementation.
It's still better to have it be available at some price than not available at all. If the infrastructure gets built, future administrations have more ability to reign in the abuses.
I'm sorry to hear about your experiences. Nobody should have to go through what you did, and I'm truly glad you had some people in your life to support you during (and after) that time. I note, however, that men's shelters typically get laughed at by feminist politicians (like Jess Phillips), and it's often feminist protestors and academics who try to get governments to deny funding for them. As with most groups, the most extreme and obnoxious voices are often the loudest. Feminists may support you on an individual level, but the movement sure isn't focusing on it at a policy level.
That's perfectly fine - I've never understood why people get wrapped up in what other people call themselves; as long as they're fighting for the same things you are, who cares? I don't think feminists are particularly engaged in getting men DV shelters, but I'd be happy for that to change (or to be corrected on that).
If you're talking about Roosh V (re: legal rape on private property), he's not an MRA. He's a "pickup artist" (PUA), which has some overlap with MRAs but overall are a different group. Roosh V, specifically, has said he's not an MRA and views them as weak. Similar to the asswipes over at Return of Kings, he's much more in the realm of returning to full male dominance in, well, everything.
There's a lot of confusion/apathy in the popular media about men's groups, and they usually end up lumping them all together under the MRA banner. Which is a shame, because there are some reasonable MRAs that advocate for things like male DV shelters and people caring about men's high suicide rate (there are also plenty of unreasonable MRAs, don't get me wrong - the movement as a whole needs a lot of change before I'd even consider calling myself one), and they all get painted under the same misogynist banner as people like Roosh V and the Return of Kings dipshits.
I don't think Congressional term limits will ever really happen, as both parties kind of like the current system. A federal balanced budget... unlikely, but possible, given the sheer number of GOP-controlled state legislatures. If (and it's a big if) they decide they actually want to remain consistent with the complaints they've been throwing out the last eight years.
Nuclear is so much better. It pollutes less than coal, emits almost no CO2 (thus better than oil, natural gas, and coal), requires less mining than solar or wind, and takes up much, much less space than either of those as well. The smaller the footprint we use, the better the environment (all other things being equal).
No, if they're specifically saying "half did the same or worse", then they're covering "the same" already. There can be three options: worse, the same, or better. Half are the same or worse; therefore, the other half must be better.
But half the charters perform only as well, or worse than, Detroit’s traditional public schools.
Which means half did better, no? And if half are equivalent or worse, then on average, they're better - no matter what proportion those half are of worse vs. equal, if half are better, the average is higher.
To be clear, I'm not saying the charter school situation in Michigan is ideal; they lack some regulation that would improve things considerably.
Early ones were, certainly, but that doesn't mean that all are. Plenty of other countries require ID in order to vote, and it's not a racial issue at all there. Surely we can design some sort of requirements that satisfy both sides, yes?
Nowhere do I say "only early ones were preferential".
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit. I knew it didn't look right when I typed it. Thanks!
I think it's really important to consider how to pitch things to Trump - important for any POTUS, sure, but especially him. If you can make it fit into his message, he seems especially willing to flip-flop. Maybe net neutrality could be sold to him.
They have the ability - maybe not the inclination, but the ability.
And on the topic of Obama's Executive Order usage: yes, he used fewer numerically than previous POTUSes, but the way he used it to circumvent Congress was unique. Understandable given that he wanted to do anything at all, certainly, but it still set a precedent. Even with good intentions, he upset the checks and balances between branches in a bad way.
Sure, if you're already doing that for telephone lines, that's probably not a bad idea.
He got better support than previous Republicans did though. Particularly in small towns formerly built around industry (i.e., the Rust Belt). Do poor rural voters use much in the way of food stamps?
Hmm. Well, that's a fair point, but most rural areas in the US are still far from that. I'd also say that it's unreasonable to expect the Trump administration to deal with price gouging, but building the infrastructure is at least still a positive step, and I doubt he's going to move the government as a whole to an online-only stance.
Yes, that is a bad model and we shouldn't repeat it.
I think it's a bit harder to keep it free when you have a natural monopoly situation like telcos. I personally generally like the way that Europe does it; infrastructure and ISPs are different entities, and those who own the infrastructure rent it out to different ISPs. Even accounting for differences in population distribution, their prices are lower than ours. Obviously, we shouldn't just give them money, but building the infrastructure either directly or via carefully controlled subsidies gives plenty of options. It's not a free market, but it could still be good, depending on implementation.
It's still better to have it be available at some price than not available at all. If the infrastructure gets built, future administrations have more ability to reign in the abuses.
Given how much support he got from poor rural voters? I think you're missing the mark here.
I'm sorry to hear about your experiences. Nobody should have to go through what you did, and I'm truly glad you had some people in your life to support you during (and after) that time. I note, however, that men's shelters typically get laughed at by feminist politicians (like Jess Phillips), and it's often feminist protestors and academics who try to get governments to deny funding for them. As with most groups, the most extreme and obnoxious voices are often the loudest. Feminists may support you on an individual level, but the movement sure isn't focusing on it at a policy level.
That's perfectly fine - I've never understood why people get wrapped up in what other people call themselves; as long as they're fighting for the same things you are, who cares? I don't think feminists are particularly engaged in getting men DV shelters, but I'd be happy for that to change (or to be corrected on that).
If you're talking about Roosh V (re: legal rape on private property), he's not an MRA. He's a "pickup artist" (PUA), which has some overlap with MRAs but overall are a different group. Roosh V, specifically, has said he's not an MRA and views them as weak. Similar to the asswipes over at Return of Kings, he's much more in the realm of returning to full male dominance in, well, everything.
There's a lot of confusion/apathy in the popular media about men's groups, and they usually end up lumping them all together under the MRA banner. Which is a shame, because there are some reasonable MRAs that advocate for things like male DV shelters and people caring about men's high suicide rate (there are also plenty of unreasonable MRAs, don't get me wrong - the movement as a whole needs a lot of change before I'd even consider calling myself one), and they all get painted under the same misogynist banner as people like Roosh V and the Return of Kings dipshits.
I don't think Congressional term limits will ever really happen, as both parties kind of like the current system. A federal balanced budget... unlikely, but possible, given the sheer number of GOP-controlled state legislatures. If (and it's a big if) they decide they actually want to remain consistent with the complaints they've been throwing out the last eight years.
Thanks for the laugh!
Nuclear is so much better. It pollutes less than coal, emits almost no CO2 (thus better than oil, natural gas, and coal), requires less mining than solar or wind, and takes up much, much less space than either of those as well. The smaller the footprint we use, the better the environment (all other things being equal).
I'm pretty sure that should be a +1.
Can you point to any specific MRAs making that claim? I doubt it.
HPV can also cause penile cancer. Do you want dick cancer? If no, get the HPV vaccine.
Also, your parenthetical is a really weird strawman that takes away from the rest of your comment.
So you're saying that all absolutes are absolutely false? Hmm...
So you're acknowledging that I didn't say "only EARLY voter ID engaged in prefferental [sic] treatment", yes?
No, if they're specifically saying "half did the same or worse", then they're covering "the same" already. There can be three options: worse, the same, or better. Half are the same or worse; therefore, the other half must be better.
What a thoroughly bigoted, ridiculous statement.
But half the charters perform only as well, or worse than, Detroit’s traditional public schools.
Which means half did better, no? And if half are equivalent or worse, then on average, they're better - no matter what proportion those half are of worse vs. equal, if half are better, the average is higher.
To be clear, I'm not saying the charter school situation in Michigan is ideal; they lack some regulation that would improve things considerably.
Show me where I said that. What I said was:
Early ones were, certainly, but that doesn't mean that all are. Plenty of other countries require ID in order to vote, and it's not a racial issue at all there. Surely we can design some sort of requirements that satisfy both sides, yes?
Nowhere do I say "only early ones were preferential".