Yep, starting with getting rid of the stupid orange babbon who is president.
The next opportunity for that will be four years from now. Both R's and D's should work on creating a favorable political narrative for themselves and identifying candidates that represent the people.
So far, both parties seem to be burying their heads in the ground. And D's in particular seem to be doubling down on stupid policies and awful candidates. So far, it looks like we are looking at 8 years of orange baboon.
These are our friends and colleagues. If we don't speak up for them, we have no honor.
California and NYC did speak up for them, by voting for Hillary, who ran on an immigration/refugee friendly platform. Obviously, most of the rest of the country disappears; it may seem odd to you, but rust belt voters don't really care much about the visas of Google employees making $100k+ no matter where they may be from. Even in high tech, that solidarity seems to be rather mixed, if you look at the vitriol people in high tech spew over H1b visas and outsourcing.
If it's about strong restrictions on refugees, then why exactly go after people with green cards?
I'm sorry, do you really have to ask? I didn't feel like repeating all of Trump's campaign promises, vague as they were. Trump also promised a "temporary Muslim ban" of some form, and this is part of that.
Did you not notice the large numbers who voted for Trump who did so because he wasn't Hillary and not because they actually like Trump?
Both candidates were disliked, but Trump's personal unfavorability was even higher than Hillary's. That is, if anything, people voted for Hillary more because of identity and personality, whereas they voted for Trump more on issues.
Or what about noticing that Trump didn't actually get a majority of votes?
Popular vote tells you nothing about what the majority of voters want.
In this case, because of high unfavorability ratings for both candidates, Republican voters in secure states like California could simply express their dislike for Trump by not voting; if the same voters were transported into a swing state, they probably would have supported him. And Hillary's entire popular vote margin is accounted for by coastal California. (In fact, many Republican voters in California don't even bother voting at all anymore because it's a waste of time.)
To not run off half-cocked with thoughtless abandon? Apparently not.
Trump learned that from the previous administration too, which ran off "half-cocked with thoughtless abandon" on numerous issues.
But, obviously, here, people are just referring to the fact that Obama and the Democrats normalized massive executive overreach and, in addition, reduced the ability of Congressional minorities to intervene.
My personal feeling is that neither one will stop them. I think people severely underestimate the lengths that this administration will go to to see this through.
That's probably because polls suggest that this is what Americans actually want. E.g.:
And... Trump and Fox News will label them "activist" judges, denigrate their heritage or gender, etc... and the shit-show will continue.
Yes, same way as Democrats call anybody who doesn't agree with their policies "Nazis" and other names. It's politics, little snowflake: put on your big boy pants and learn to deal with it.
Note that Trump is actually doing what he was elected to do and what the majority of Americans want: strong restrictions on refugees.
Trump issues executive orders for what Congress has authorized him to issue executive orders for. Border security is one of those areas.
Obama did the same thing, when he unilaterally decided to loosen requirements for refugees and immigrants, not to mention to reduce enforcement against illegal migrants.
Solar energy provides about 0.6% of total US energy output. If it "accounts for 43% of the workers in the US power generating industry", that makes it enormously inefficient and wasteful in terms of human labor, and makes claims that it is anywhere near cost competitive with fossil fuels.
In the nordic countries politicians have to make public their income statements and they quite often ride public transportation to work every day. There are also dedicated government institutions to prosecute graft and corruption.
Putin's annual salary is $187000 and he owns a couple of beat-up cars. Socialist and communist leaders often made even less money. Yet, they live in the finest palaces, command jet airplanes, and can move billions at the stroke of a pen. The currency of politics, and the source of corruption, is often power, not money.
Furthermore, the rich and powerful in Europe have learned to keep a low profile and blend in with the middle class when appearing in public, while exercising enormous power over governments behind the scenes.
The irony is, of course, that the American left idolizes these countries, yet at the same time is trying to transform the US into a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural centralized empire. In any case, the reason why such small countries aren't more prevalent is simple: they can't defend themselves very well and get eaten up by neighboring empires. The solution the US came up with to that conundrum was to create a large number of diverse states and put them into a trade and defense union, with some minimal guarantees for individual liberties.The EU tried to do the same thing. But we're seeing that such constructs may not be stable long term.
You just described North Korea word for word, except for the church part
I suspect that if a North Korean organization in North Korea went around and asked North Korean citizens whether their country was corrupt, or whether their country was the greatest country on earth, they'd rank quite well because (1) the citizens don't know any better and (2) the citizens do know that if they give the wrong answer something bad will happen to them. Do you disagree?
In any case, my comment applied in the context of wealthy, prosperous, mostly-democratic nations, to explain the variations at the top end of the scale; it was also only a tendency, not a full explanation of all causes.
Seriously though, maybe we know exactly what corruption is, and we just don't tolerate it as a society. For example, in New Zealand there is no way you can bribe a police officer to get out of a traffic infringement. Don't even try it, it's not worth it.
I suspect you could have said the same things about Nazi Germany; individual bribery is only one form of corruption, and far from the most insidious.
I have never had to... We don't even... And we have...
Saying "X tends to produce Y" isn't saying that "Y is the only way to produce X".
And our schools can be public or private.
Just since you brought it up and since you might want to reflect on it... about 5% of NZ children go to private schools, for an average of NZ$20000. That kind of public/private split is a nice and tidy arrangement by which elites have the common kids indoctrinated to obey, while they send their own kids to schools that train them to lead. And both kinds of kids are taught that this system is superior to all the others in the world.
You may want to mention that the least-corrupt countries on the list are Nordic states (and New Zealand) with strong social welfare systems and high taxes.
Those aren't objectively the least-corrupt countries, they are the least corrupt countries according to what the citizens believe as measured by the CPI. Those are also countries with little foreign media; they have government-run educational systems, media, and churches; and they are small, protestant, ethnically uniform countries. It's not surprising that under those conditions, citizens believe their countries to be non-corrupt.
are Nordic states (and New Zealand) with strong social welfare systems and high taxes.
The Nordic countries differ on so many dimensions from other countries that there is no particular reason to attribute things you like in them to their "strong social welfare systems and high taxes". In fact, traditionally, their success was attributed to the "protestant work ethic", something that probably has more statistical support than their brief flirtation with democratic socialism. In addition, their social welfare spending and taxes are no higher than in the US.
It's the corruption perception index; it reflects what people believe about their country. People believing that their country is democratic isn't the same as their country actually being democratic.
Wow, how did you ever pass Chemistry? Metal is not a state of matter. Liquid, Gas, Solid, Plasma, and a couple others.
Those are the "classical states of matter", the ones you learn about in high school chemistry. The term also has a broader meaning ("non-classical states of matter") and is sometimes used interchangeably with "phase of matter", in particular when the phase change involves large changes in the electronic structure.
At the same time, sticking one's head in the sand and completely ignoring the continued compounding of the problem is also utterly irresponsible.
The problem is already solving itself: prices for renewable energy sources keep falling without government help. If you want to help further, stop subsidies, reduce taxes, and reduce regulations.
On the other hand, adding massive crony capitalism, raising taxes, and wrecking the world's economy is going to make the problem worse, and that's what Democrats and people like Gore are proposing.
Do you put it past Trump to drop a nuclear weapon on a leader somewhere that calls him an idiot?
I certainly don't put it past Hillary to kill people who get in their way or who have insulted her. After all, Hillary has already approved many killings in her official capacity.
While I don't particularly like Trump, he actually strikes me as less of a psychopath than Hillary; that woman has liquid Helium in her veins. So, given the alternative...
All ice melting takes upwards of a thousand years.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of people in the year 1000 giving up farming, metal working, horses, clothes, and roads in order to avoid depleting resources for the people of the 21st century.
Worrying about what happens centuries from now isn't just stupid, it is utterly irresponsible.
Slashdot Mirror
The next opportunity for that will be four years from now. Both R's and D's should work on creating a favorable political narrative for themselves and identifying candidates that represent the people.
So far, both parties seem to be burying their heads in the ground. And D's in particular seem to be doubling down on stupid policies and awful candidates. So far, it looks like we are looking at 8 years of orange baboon.
California and NYC did speak up for them, by voting for Hillary, who ran on an immigration/refugee friendly platform. Obviously, most of the rest of the country disappears; it may seem odd to you, but rust belt voters don't really care much about the visas of Google employees making $100k+ no matter where they may be from. Even in high tech, that solidarity seems to be rather mixed, if you look at the vitriol people in high tech spew over H1b visas and outsourcing.
I'm sorry, do you really have to ask? I didn't feel like repeating all of Trump's campaign promises, vague as they were. Trump also promised a "temporary Muslim ban" of some form, and this is part of that.
The majority seems to want to have a temporary "Muslim ban":
http://thehill.com/policy/defe...
Admission of refugees has usually been opposed by strong majorities:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
Both candidates were disliked, but Trump's personal unfavorability was even higher than Hillary's. That is, if anything, people voted for Hillary more because of identity and personality, whereas they voted for Trump more on issues.
Popular vote tells you nothing about what the majority of voters want.
In this case, because of high unfavorability ratings for both candidates, Republican voters in secure states like California could simply express their dislike for Trump by not voting; if the same voters were transported into a swing state, they probably would have supported him. And Hillary's entire popular vote margin is accounted for by coastal California. (In fact, many Republican voters in California don't even bother voting at all anymore because it's a waste of time.)
I think the issuance of the executive order was careless, though politically, it may work out OK for Trump.
However, the simple fact is that as a non-citizen, travel is and always has been risky.
Trump learned that from the previous administration too, which ran off "half-cocked with thoughtless abandon" on numerous issues.
But, obviously, here, people are just referring to the fact that Obama and the Democrats normalized massive executive overreach and, in addition, reduced the ability of Congressional minorities to intervene.
That's probably because polls suggest that this is what Americans actually want. E.g.:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...
Now, you can argue that the majority of Americans are deluded fools, but that's the way the cookie crumbles in a democracy.
Yes, same way as Democrats call anybody who doesn't agree with their policies "Nazis" and other names. It's politics, little snowflake: put on your big boy pants and learn to deal with it.
Note that Trump is actually doing what he was elected to do and what the majority of Americans want: strong restrictions on refugees.
Trump issues executive orders for what Congress has authorized him to issue executive orders for. Border security is one of those areas.
Obama did the same thing, when he unilaterally decided to loosen requirements for refugees and immigrants, not to mention to reduce enforcement against illegal migrants.
Solar energy provides about 0.6% of total US energy output. If it "accounts for 43% of the workers in the US power generating industry", that makes it enormously inefficient and wasteful in terms of human labor, and makes claims that it is anywhere near cost competitive with fossil fuels.
Putin's annual salary is $187000 and he owns a couple of beat-up cars. Socialist and communist leaders often made even less money. Yet, they live in the finest palaces, command jet airplanes, and can move billions at the stroke of a pen. The currency of politics, and the source of corruption, is often power, not money.
Furthermore, the rich and powerful in Europe have learned to keep a low profile and blend in with the middle class when appearing in public, while exercising enormous power over governments behind the scenes.
The irony is, of course, that the American left idolizes these countries, yet at the same time is trying to transform the US into a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural centralized empire. In any case, the reason why such small countries aren't more prevalent is simple: they can't defend themselves very well and get eaten up by neighboring empires. The solution the US came up with to that conundrum was to create a large number of diverse states and put them into a trade and defense union, with some minimal guarantees for individual liberties.The EU tried to do the same thing. But we're seeing that such constructs may not be stable long term.
I suspect that if a North Korean organization in North Korea went around and asked North Korean citizens whether their country was corrupt, or whether their country was the greatest country on earth, they'd rank quite well because (1) the citizens don't know any better and (2) the citizens do know that if they give the wrong answer something bad will happen to them. Do you disagree?
In any case, my comment applied in the context of wealthy, prosperous, mostly-democratic nations, to explain the variations at the top end of the scale; it was also only a tendency, not a full explanation of all causes.
I suspect you could have said the same things about Nazi Germany; individual bribery is only one form of corruption, and far from the most insidious.
Saying "X tends to produce Y" isn't saying that "Y is the only way to produce X".
Just since you brought it up and since you might want to reflect on it... about 5% of NZ children go to private schools, for an average of NZ$20000. That kind of public/private split is a nice and tidy arrangement by which elites have the common kids indoctrinated to obey, while they send their own kids to schools that train them to lead. And both kinds of kids are taught that this system is superior to all the others in the world.
Yes, which the educated elites listens to.
Try to give some meat to that argument.
Nice, empty phrases. Also, cause vs effect.
Those aren't objectively the least-corrupt countries, they are the least corrupt countries according to what the citizens believe as measured by the CPI. Those are also countries with little foreign media; they have government-run educational systems, media, and churches; and they are small, protestant, ethnically uniform countries. It's not surprising that under those conditions, citizens believe their countries to be non-corrupt.
The Nordic countries differ on so many dimensions from other countries that there is no particular reason to attribute things you like in them to their "strong social welfare systems and high taxes". In fact, traditionally, their success was attributed to the "protestant work ethic", something that probably has more statistical support than their brief flirtation with democratic socialism. In addition, their social welfare spending and taxes are no higher than in the US.
It's the corruption perception index; it reflects what people believe about their country. People believing that their country is democratic isn't the same as their country actually being democratic.
Those are the "classical states of matter", the ones you learn about in high school chemistry. The term also has a broader meaning ("non-classical states of matter") and is sometimes used interchangeably with "phase of matter", in particular when the phase change involves large changes in the electronic structure.
"Do something specific" like removing the pressure, so that it quickly sublimates away.
Metal is a state of matter, not a category of elements.
The problem is already solving itself: prices for renewable energy sources keep falling without government help. If you want to help further, stop subsidies, reduce taxes, and reduce regulations.
On the other hand, adding massive crony capitalism, raising taxes, and wrecking the world's economy is going to make the problem worse, and that's what Democrats and people like Gore are proposing.
Correct. If you understood rational behavior, discounting and risk, you would understand why.
I was responding to a posting that talked about "all ice melting". Is it that you can't read, or are you deliberately shifting the goalposts?
Yes, it occurs at 1-2 feet per century. Your point being?
Coastal areas are always significantly affected by something. The best thing to do is to stop subsidizing people living there.
This was embarrassing.
The Mexican president canceling a meeting in a huff? Not so much.
I certainly don't put it past Hillary to kill people who get in their way or who have insulted her. After all, Hillary has already approved many killings in her official capacity.
While I don't particularly like Trump, he actually strikes me as less of a psychopath than Hillary; that woman has liquid Helium in her veins. So, given the alternative...
All ice melting takes upwards of a thousand years.
What you are suggesting is the equivalent of people in the year 1000 giving up farming, metal working, horses, clothes, and roads in order to avoid depleting resources for the people of the 21st century.
Worrying about what happens centuries from now isn't just stupid, it is utterly irresponsible.