The EC hasn't actually voted yet, they do that on Dec. 19. If they follow the result of the votes in their state, Trump will win. Some of them are legally required to (although it's a misdemeanor, and the repercussions are relatively low), while others aren't.
Interestingly, they vote for POTUS and Vice-POTUS separately. Trump/Kaine could technically be the people in the White House.
Oh, and also, I should clarify - I don't think the author of that piece is right about climate change. He does bring up a few valid points about it - namely, the historical unreliability of climate ecologists and the models maybe not being as good as we think - but I also think he dismisses it too much. The stuff about social sciences is, I think, compelling.
From a centrist perspective, both sides are pretty bad about demagoguery. I don't think the Republicans have a monopoly on that. But we may just have to agree to disagree.
The Left also has problems with intellectual integrity. (Note, I don't agree with the section on climate change, and also note that I'm not a conservative.)
Most conservatives don't believe a majority of those things, let alone all of them. You could just as easily make a liberal strawman to show the opposite point.
The Left is pretty bad about pre-conceived postulates as well, especially the social sciences. This article is quite interesting; I don't agree with his assessment of climate change, but the rest is pretty solid.
He was talking about illegal immigrants. Saying that they're primarily criminals is bigoted and factually wrong, but it's not racism, especially when he's gone on to praise legal immigrants numerous times. I think he'll be a bad president for a lot of reasons, but I do blame the media for primarily, and to the exclusion of everything else wrong with him, focusing on this sort of "racism".
I agree, because laws require force to, well, enforce them. The fact that America as a country has been bad about following its own laws in the past does not mean it shouldn't try to do better in the future. And in the case of children born in America (granting them the right to stay) whose parents came illegally, the family doesn't have to be separated; the child could go back with the parents. Also, please do read that link.
The US does overspend, but its military spending as a proportion of GDP is actually not that far off from other developed countries. It could stand to cut down, but the US also has a huge economy in general. Moreover, military spending is closer to 16%, not 25%. No other major world power can project force the way the US can. The American navy is, practically speaking, the only real blue water navy in the world. Because American interests are everywhere, other world powers know that any conflict between them will involve America. Their economies are either too small (Russia) or they don't have an interested in a big military (Germany).
I'd say the statement isn't so much "continually pointing out racism is bad for you" as much as it is "continually pointing out perceived racism, over-generalizing and exaggerating it, and focusing on that to the exclusion of other, more legitimate criticisms is bad for you". Trump has said bigoted things about Muslims, no doubt, but he hasn't said anything against Hispanics. What he said was about illegal immigrants from Mexico; still a bigoted and untrue statement, but not racist. And he has praised legal immigrants numerous times. The attack should have been against what he actually said, not at an exaggerated or false version of it.
The point is, they probably won't be able to pass it before Trump takes office. And the GOP will try to repeal Obamacare, but replace it with something else. That's always been Trump's goal. Obamacare does have flaws, significant ones in some cases, so a replacement may not be a bad thing.
If negotiations are likely to take longer than the period until inauguration, it does sort of make sense to delay them. No point in starting them if you expect your priorities to change halfway through. Obama asked for some of the same things (to a lesser degree) when he took over.
I don't think it does, at least for these items; they wouldn't be able to get through negotiations to even start implementing them before the inauguration. If negotiations aren't finished, Trump can just drop it quietly instead of actively doing anything.
America's idea of center is largely in line with worldwide ideas, just not EU ideas. But the EU seems to think it's the part of the world that counts, for some reason.
Slashdot Mirror
The EC hasn't actually voted yet, they do that on Dec. 19. If they follow the result of the votes in their state, Trump will win. Some of them are legally required to (although it's a misdemeanor, and the repercussions are relatively low), while others aren't.
Interestingly, they vote for POTUS and Vice-POTUS separately. Trump/Kaine could technically be the people in the White House.
you can walk a gay lesbian
Are there other kinds of lesbians I don't know about?
Make America Quack Again!
Oh, and also, I should clarify - I don't think the author of that piece is right about climate change. He does bring up a few valid points about it - namely, the historical unreliability of climate ecologists and the models maybe not being as good as we think - but I also think he dismisses it too much. The stuff about social sciences is, I think, compelling.
Sorry, not sure why it logged me out for a bit there.
From a centrist perspective, both sides are pretty bad about demagoguery. I don't think the Republicans have a monopoly on that. But we may just have to agree to disagree.
You should read this.
But they still blame other people less often than the Democrats do.
I don't think you can really call HRC "left". Farther left than Trump on some things, sure, but that's a really low bar.
The Left also has problems with intellectual integrity. (Note, I don't agree with the section on climate change, and also note that I'm not a conservative.)
Most conservatives don't believe a majority of those things, let alone all of them. You could just as easily make a liberal strawman to show the opposite point.
The Left is pretty bad about pre-conceived postulates as well, especially the social sciences. This article is quite interesting; I don't agree with his assessment of climate change, but the rest is pretty solid.
Hmm. Do you have a source for that breakdown?
He was talking about illegal immigrants. Saying that they're primarily criminals is bigoted and factually wrong, but it's not racism, especially when he's gone on to praise legal immigrants numerous times. I think he'll be a bad president for a lot of reasons, but I do blame the media for primarily, and to the exclusion of everything else wrong with him, focusing on this sort of "racism".
I agree, because laws require force to, well, enforce them. The fact that America as a country has been bad about following its own laws in the past does not mean it shouldn't try to do better in the future. And in the case of children born in America (granting them the right to stay) whose parents came illegally, the family doesn't have to be separated; the child could go back with the parents. Also, please do read that link.
The US does overspend, but its military spending as a proportion of GDP is actually not that far off from other developed countries. It could stand to cut down, but the US also has a huge economy in general. Moreover, military spending is closer to 16%, not 25%. No other major world power can project force the way the US can. The American navy is, practically speaking, the only real blue water navy in the world. Because American interests are everywhere, other world powers know that any conflict between them will involve America. Their economies are either too small (Russia) or they don't have an interested in a big military (Germany).
The difference is who came here legally and who didn't. Re: racism, look at this.
This piece may be of interest to you.
I'd say the statement isn't so much "continually pointing out racism is bad for you" as much as it is "continually pointing out perceived racism, over-generalizing and exaggerating it, and focusing on that to the exclusion of other, more legitimate criticisms is bad for you". Trump has said bigoted things about Muslims, no doubt, but he hasn't said anything against Hispanics. What he said was about illegal immigrants from Mexico; still a bigoted and untrue statement, but not racist. And he has praised legal immigrants numerous times. The attack should have been against what he actually said, not at an exaggerated or false version of it.
The point is, they probably won't be able to pass it before Trump takes office. And the GOP will try to repeal Obamacare, but replace it with something else. That's always been Trump's goal. Obamacare does have flaws, significant ones in some cases, so a replacement may not be a bad thing.
If negotiations are likely to take longer than the period until inauguration, it does sort of make sense to delay them. No point in starting them if you expect your priorities to change halfway through. Obama asked for some of the same things (to a lesser degree) when he took over.
I don't think it does, at least for these items; they wouldn't be able to get through negotiations to even start implementing them before the inauguration. If negotiations aren't finished, Trump can just drop it quietly instead of actively doing anything.
Minor quibble: Saddam did have poison gas, it was just the leftover stuff the US gave him long ago.
This opinion piece might be interesting to you. It's not nearly so clear-cut.
America's idea of center is largely in line with worldwide ideas, just not EU ideas. But the EU seems to think it's the part of the world that counts, for some reason.