At least you can admit those are two different things. Acknowledging your problem is they first step.
Of course, they are two different things. From your response, it's clear that you still don't understand the difference. That is your problem, not the problem of conservatives. It's the reason why progressive politicians fail to appeal to so much of the country: they misinterpret rejection of their policies as a rejection of facts, instead of a difference in values.
Will, it certainly starts with "othering" some group
I certainly have no problem with "othering" any group that wants to kill me. That includes neo-Nazis as much as radical Muslims. Not only do I not have a problem with "othering" those groups, neither does the US government, or the SPLC for that matter.
blaming many or most of a society's problems on them
I don't blame "most of society's problems" on hate groups, just the occasional mass murder.
In a column in The Guardian, the world-famous physicist wrote that "the automation of factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining." He adds his voice to a growing chorus of experts
Stephen Hawking isn't an "expert" on anything other than some obscure areas of physics. He certainly isn't an expert on automation, AI, jobs, or economics. Hawking never even held a regular middle-class job in his life. Hawking's opinions on social and economic matters are about as relevant as Shockley's.
They include squaring off against the incoming administration of Donald Trump.
Why didn't they "square off" against the Obama administration? Why aren't they "squaring off" against Pelosi? It looks to me like their "squaring off" is not so much based on an interest in free speech and a free Internet, but other political priorities that they have that are unrelated to the Internet.
who has used Twitter for the past 18 months as a megaphone for his views and rants, which many would consider as "hate speech." According to the American Bar Association, hate speech is "speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or other traits
Kind of like Hillary calling a whole bunch of people a "basket of deplorables" based on who they vote for? Or Hillary accusing all white people of being racist?
If Twitter wants to reduce hate speech, they can start by kicking of Hillary Clinton and Anita Sarkeesian off the platform.
Governments have the power to get root certificates in which case they can man-in-the-middle anything that relies on this, which is a hell of a lot of software. Browsers being the most prominent but tons of software depends on X509 certs with globally trusted roots.
They just rely on root certificates for authentication of public web pages. People rely on them when they don't have any other way of exchanging keys. They don't make the cryptographic protocols or keys themselves insecure.
That's why you need to actually _govern_ responsibly. It's something that Republicans know almost nothing about.
Both Democrats and Republicans know how to govern responsibly; neither actually does it, because all politicians are primarily selfish. They have to be primarily selfish because otherwise they don't get into, and stay, in power. Your belief that if you just vote for your favorite team and government will become "responsible" is the political equivalent of young earth creationism.
And you're probably living in a red state that hasn't seen responsible governance since the time of dinosaurs, so that's why you are thinking that ALL government spending is a waste.
No, my dismal experience with government dysfunction has been in California. And, no, I don't believe "ALL" government spending is waste. I think the federal government should spend money on defense, and (via the gas tax) on the Intertstate highway system. States should fund their judiciary and a small set of public universities. My local government should spend money on schools, local roads, and police. You know, traditional government functions, not the junk progressives want to spend money on.
Bullshit. Learn your history. Robber baron era lasted roughly from 1860 to 1910, there had been barely a federal government at that time. Even Fed hadn't been created yet.
You're reasoning from generalities: "the federal government was small, therefore all things being equal, most robber barons were mostly self-made". However, that reasoning is incorrect. You're correct that the federal government was much smaller. However, it happened to support strongly those industries that the Robber Barons made their money with: steel, banking, and railroads. In fact, the reason the Robber Barons stick so much in our minds is that, at the time, this kind of collusion between government and corporations was considered very unusual.
[sarcasm] That's why Blue states are all overwhelmingly poor.
Well, blue states tend to have the highest level of income inequality, highest cost of living, and largest welfare populations. So, if you're in the middle class, you'll probably have a better quality of life in a red state doing the same job.
In any case, you have cause and effect reversed there. It's the presence of rich elites that make a state blue, not the other way around. Democratic states today mirror the Democratic states of yore: they are filled with ultra-wealthy elites that have assembled a large number of dependents and followers around them.
Correct. But that doesn't mean that government investments CAN NOT yield direct or indirect returns.
Of course they can, but the difference between government spending and business investments is what happens when they don't yield positive returns. In a business setting, the investors pay for their bad choices; in the government setting, the "investors" (politicians) don't pay for their bad choices, they simply tax citizens for it.
Most robber barons acquired their wealth without government intervention.
No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. As the term "robber baron" implies, they were state actors first and robbers second. Their industries, foremost steel, banking, and railroads, were massively subsidized and protected by government.
EVERY action of Republicans helps to advance their pro-poverty and pro-robbery agenda.
I'm no great fan of Republicans, but relatively speaking, Democrats are a lot more "pro-poverty and pro-robbery".
No, you're delusional: government spending doesn't need to yield a return.
But I understand, you'd prefer all the wealth to be concentrated in robber-barons' hands that will extract as much wealth as possible from helpless
The "robber barons" refers to a group of ultra-wealthy people that enriched themselves through government spending. See above how government spending isn't investment.
California can solve its problems and if anything pensions will only require minor adjustments to the budget. People gravitate toward warmer coastal states and it pretty much explains all the migration.
Reading through the PDF, it looks like Ca. has a lot of the same problems as other states regarding pensions and stuff
True, a number of states have similar problems, mostly blue states. The point is that such states shouldn't be able to dominate national politics; it sets up bad economic and political incentives.
Look, I just read the article. It points out that California's credit rating has been raised. Yet it's somehow a catastrophe?
Yes, the article mentions that before pointing out the long term problems. Here's another article about pension problems in California.
Besides, _not_ borrowing when you can invest it profitably is stupid. Just ask the president-elect - he's built his empire entirely on managing debt.
Government spending isn't "investment" and doesn't work like a business.
And if you lower taxes then people will flock to your state, right? So Kansas should be bursting at the seams right now from a YUGE influx of people. Oh, wait....
Well, yes. Of course, the sad part is that many of the people who move from blue states to red states then attempt to wreck the states they move to in the same way they wrecked the states they moved from.
Taxes are just one factor that determines where people want to live.
True. It's primarily a factor for the middle class. People who don't pay taxes, or people who are quite rich, don't really care much about taxes. Which is probably why California is losing its middle class and why it has some of the highest levels of income inequality in the country. California truly is a bellwether for progressivism.
Even if they turn out to be reproducible, these results only apply to aspartame, not to all sugar-free products. Most sugar-free products don't contain aspartame.
A reformation requires federal-level effort and possibly an amendment. 29 states are not allowed to unilaterally decide to change how this country elects presidents.
Are you kidding? Most aspects of presidential elections are decided at the state level, and they differ wildly between states in many ways, not just the obligations of electors.
What the Republicans have done with debt negotiations and Scalia's replacement and trying to repeal Obamacare every 10 minutes and use of the filibuster is unprecedented in American history. I don't begrudge the Democrats using any "nuclear option" in the face of such obstructionism.
I have no idea whether it is "unprecedented", but it seems to be working for them politically. That shouldn't come as a surprise either: apparently, it doesn't endear the president or his party to the people when he repeatedly ignores their will and presses through legislation that the people don't want.
and just to wrap this up in a little bow, one of the reasons to pursue electoral college reform (in a highly aggressive manner, if need be) is to partially remove the disproportionate amount of power that the stupid are wielding.
Oh, I'm all for electoral college reform: let's get rid of the electors and codify the simple state-by-state winner take all system that we have effectively had for more than a century. That way, these pointless debates will stop. If you're hoping for a simple popular majority election of presidents, I guarantee you that's not going to happen.
The Democratic establishment is not aggressive
The Democratic establishment is arrogant, elitist, corrupt, and out of touch. And if you think becoming even more "aggressive" is going to help them, haven't been paying attention. Voters don't have a problem with the Democrats' level of aggressiveness, but with their policies and their messages. What the Democratic party needs to do is to listen to kick out some of its more extreme policies and politicians, listen to voters, and show some humility. Until it does, the Democrats will keep failing.
And I still fail to see the problem. California has no problems with servicing its debt. I realize that your time horizon is "the heat death of the Universe". California will be SO screwed by then!
Look, why don't you just read the article that I pointed you to, in the Washington Post. In it, the current Democratic governor of California explains to you what the problem is and what time horizon we are talking about here.
And so why is it so bad? I fail to see any problems here.
Because the only way that California can pay for its pension obligations is to raise taxes, but if California raises taxes, the people paying those taxes move away, which only worsens the fiscal problems. That's what these migration trends are telling you. It's a death spiral that we have already seen at the city level in places like Detroit.
And post-election, I have to say that statement seems pretty hard to support given a Republican congress and senate
Yes, the Senate and House majorities of Republicans tell you that the rejection of Hillary Clinton wasn't just a fluke or sexism: Americans reject the policies Democrats are pursuing.
with likely multiple open SCOTUS seats [...] We KNOW the sorts of damage Trump is almost certain to be involved in, whereas the damage Hillary could do would be fairly minimal with presumably independent-leaning compromise judges appointed to the SCOTUS
Compromise? Are you kidding? The Democrats invoked the "nuclear option" to override the need for a 3/5 majority for nominees. Hillary was quite clear that she would ram through candidates that advanced a progressive, statist, activist agenda, and that she was going to select candidates based on race and gender. She announced that legal attacks on 1A and 2A were high on her agenda. Concern about Hillary's agenda for SCOTUS was probably one major reason she lost, because many Republicans who couldn't stand Trump as a candidate really, really didn't want more liberal supreme court justices.
Democrats have been utterly unwilling to give an inch on healthcare, abortion, or gay marriage, let alone compromise, and that has pissed off even people like me who (for example) agree with a very liberal policy on abortion, but would be willing to compromise.
The best potential upsides to a Trump presidency are the changes it could potentially bring about on both the right and left.
Oh, there are plenty of other upsides: lower corporate taxes, less likelihood of a major war, less racial divisiveness, more economic growth, a less activist supreme court, etc.
But, yeah, both parties need to change: Republicans need to kick out the Christian conservatives and Democrats need to kick out the social justice warriors and neo-Marxists. Alternatively, the Republicans can kick the Christian conservatives over to the Democrats, since Christian conservatives and progressives are largely indistinguishable in their dogma, statism, and disdain for liberty.
In terms of their original purpose, yes they were. Too lazy to dig deep but I found this earlier: Alexander Hamilton: "A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]."
But electors weren't selected "in terms of their original purpose". The electors we have were not "selected by their fellow citizens". Electors were appointed by party committees for a ceremonial function. It is dishonest to pretend that they were selected according for their "original purpose" when clearly they were not.
In any case, all of this is academic. There isn't going to be an elector revolt.
Mainly because the Democrats are still run by cowards.
I'm sorry, but that logic escapes me. Hillary ran one of the most divisive and ad hominem campaigns in recent memory, Democratic supporters are committing acts of violence in the streets, and Democrats are making death threats to Republican electors. How much more aggressive do you want Democrats to become?
I'd be interested in seeing this pursued for the sake of EC reform
The original idea behind the EC was a failure, which is why we already have reformed it and turned it into a winner-take-all system based on parties and states. Unlike Napoleonic legal systems, where such changes are codified precisely in laws, in the US, such changes take place gradually and involve custom and common law.
Yes, and that places it at the high end of US states. Note that this is on top of the already high federal debt to gdp ratio.
California's credit rating got INCREASED several times recently.
That's a different time horizon from the one we are talking about.
Yeah, sure. It's plummeting so fast that cities are emptying and property can be bought for next to nothing. Oh, wait... https://www.google.com/publicd... Dude, at least take care to factcheck your drivel.
I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between "domestic net migration" and "population growth". Go ahead, think about it some more, I'm sure you can figure it out.
A "minority-majority" is a Democratic political strategy, an attempt to divide America artificially into minorities and then foment resentment and distrust between them. It's a great way for a ruling elite to stay in power: divide and conquer. It's pretty much the same last time Democrats tried this, when they brought us Jim Crow laws, eugenics, and forced sterilizations. Hopefully, by 2050, we will look back at Democratic policies today with the same revulsion that we now look back on early 20th century progressivism.
As we say in California, "What are you smoking and where can I get some?"
Well, then I suggest you stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking and actually read up on the history of racism, segregation, and eugenics and their relationship to the Democratic party and progressivism, as well as favorite policies of the left, like gun control, minimum wage, unions, welfare, and public funding of abortions. It's not pretty.
Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
You were asking "Are you prepare [sic] for the changes to come?" after a tirade about how out of touch your "lily-white" relatives from Idaho were and how the US would become "minority-majority" in 2050. I was explaining to you that my experience with "diversity" goes a lot further than yours and that I have absolutely no problem with diversity. Your experience with diversity seems to be limited to marveling at all those non-"lily-white" people that you find yourself next to on the bus.
Next set of demographic milestones is the baby boomers being retired in 2030 and America becoming a minority-majority country in 2050.
A "minority-majority" is a Democratic political strategy, an attempt to divide America artificially into minorities and then foment resentment and distrust between them. It's a great way for a ruling elite to stay in power: divide and conquer. It's pretty much the same last time Democrats tried this, when they brought us Jim Crow laws, eugenics, and forced sterilizations. Hopefully, by 2050, we will look back at Democratic policies today with the same revulsion that we now look back on early 20th century progressivism.
Are you prepare for the changes to come?
I've lived all over the world and have had boyfriends among all the major "races" that progressive Americans are so fond of dividing people into. Does that assuage your race-obsessed little mind?
This election is the tip of the iceberg.
Oh, you are certainly right about that one: the fact that Hillary lost to Trump is only the tip of the iceberg.
No, like the idea that the fact that global warming is occurring means that people must vote for corrupt politicians that want to waste trillions on ineffective and harmful policies.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, they are two different things. From your response, it's clear that you still don't understand the difference. That is your problem, not the problem of conservatives. It's the reason why progressive politicians fail to appeal to so much of the country: they misinterpret rejection of their policies as a rejection of facts, instead of a difference in values.
I certainly have no problem with "othering" any group that wants to kill me. That includes neo-Nazis as much as radical Muslims. Not only do I not have a problem with "othering" those groups, neither does the US government, or the SPLC for that matter.
I don't blame "most of society's problems" on hate groups, just the occasional mass murder.
Stephen Hawking isn't an "expert" on anything other than some obscure areas of physics. He certainly isn't an expert on automation, AI, jobs, or economics. Hawking never even held a regular middle-class job in his life. Hawking's opinions on social and economic matters are about as relevant as Shockley's.
Electron shells matter for chemical properties, not for nuclear stability.
Why didn't they "square off" against the Obama administration? Why aren't they "squaring off" against Pelosi? It looks to me like their "squaring off" is not so much based on an interest in free speech and a free Internet, but other political priorities that they have that are unrelated to the Internet.
Kind of like Hillary calling a whole bunch of people a "basket of deplorables" based on who they vote for? Or Hillary accusing all white people of being racist?
If Twitter wants to reduce hate speech, they can start by kicking of Hillary Clinton and Anita Sarkeesian off the platform.
Trump isn't the supreme leader, he is merely the president. So, his "position on libel laws" really doesn't matter.
They just rely on root certificates for authentication of public web pages. People rely on them when they don't have any other way of exchanging keys. They don't make the cryptographic protocols or keys themselves insecure.
Both Democrats and Republicans know how to govern responsibly; neither actually does it, because all politicians are primarily selfish. They have to be primarily selfish because otherwise they don't get into, and stay, in power. Your belief that if you just vote for your favorite team and government will become "responsible" is the political equivalent of young earth creationism.
No, my dismal experience with government dysfunction has been in California. And, no, I don't believe "ALL" government spending is waste. I think the federal government should spend money on defense, and (via the gas tax) on the Intertstate highway system. States should fund their judiciary and a small set of public universities. My local government should spend money on schools, local roads, and police. You know, traditional government functions, not the junk progressives want to spend money on.
You're reasoning from generalities: "the federal government was small, therefore all things being equal, most robber barons were mostly self-made". However, that reasoning is incorrect. You're correct that the federal government was much smaller. However, it happened to support strongly those industries that the Robber Barons made their money with: steel, banking, and railroads. In fact, the reason the Robber Barons stick so much in our minds is that, at the time, this kind of collusion between government and corporations was considered very unusual.
Well, blue states tend to have the highest level of income inequality, highest cost of living, and largest welfare populations. So, if you're in the middle class, you'll probably have a better quality of life in a red state doing the same job.
In any case, you have cause and effect reversed there. It's the presence of rich elites that make a state blue, not the other way around. Democratic states today mirror the Democratic states of yore: they are filled with ultra-wealthy elites that have assembled a large number of dependents and followers around them.
Of course they can, but the difference between government spending and business investments is what happens when they don't yield positive returns. In a business setting, the investors pay for their bad choices; in the government setting, the "investors" (politicians) don't pay for their bad choices, they simply tax citizens for it.
No, I'm sorry, that's just not true. As the term "robber baron" implies, they were state actors first and robbers second. Their industries, foremost steel, banking, and railroads, were massively subsidized and protected by government.
I'm no great fan of Republicans, but relatively speaking, Democrats are a lot more "pro-poverty and pro-robbery".
No, you're delusional: government spending doesn't need to yield a return.
The "robber barons" refers to a group of ultra-wealthy people that enriched themselves through government spending. See above how government spending isn't investment.
You're obviously living in a fact free world.
True, a number of states have similar problems, mostly blue states. The point is that such states shouldn't be able to dominate national politics; it sets up bad economic and political incentives.
Yes, the article mentions that before pointing out the long term problems. Here's another article about pension problems in California.
Government spending isn't "investment" and doesn't work like a business.
Well, yes. Of course, the sad part is that many of the people who move from blue states to red states then attempt to wreck the states they move to in the same way they wrecked the states they moved from.
True. It's primarily a factor for the middle class. People who don't pay taxes, or people who are quite rich, don't really care much about taxes. Which is probably why California is losing its middle class and why it has some of the highest levels of income inequality in the country. California truly is a bellwether for progressivism.
Even if they turn out to be reproducible, these results only apply to aspartame, not to all sugar-free products. Most sugar-free products don't contain aspartame.
Are you kidding? Most aspects of presidential elections are decided at the state level, and they differ wildly between states in many ways, not just the obligations of electors.
I have no idea whether it is "unprecedented", but it seems to be working for them politically. That shouldn't come as a surprise either: apparently, it doesn't endear the president or his party to the people when he repeatedly ignores their will and presses through legislation that the people don't want.
Oh, I'm all for electoral college reform: let's get rid of the electors and codify the simple state-by-state winner take all system that we have effectively had for more than a century. That way, these pointless debates will stop. If you're hoping for a simple popular majority election of presidents, I guarantee you that's not going to happen.
The Democratic establishment is arrogant, elitist, corrupt, and out of touch. And if you think becoming even more "aggressive" is going to help them, haven't been paying attention. Voters don't have a problem with the Democrats' level of aggressiveness, but with their policies and their messages. What the Democratic party needs to do is to listen to kick out some of its more extreme policies and politicians, listen to voters, and show some humility. Until it does, the Democrats will keep failing.
Look, why don't you just read the article that I pointed you to, in the Washington Post. In it, the current Democratic governor of California explains to you what the problem is and what time horizon we are talking about here.
Because the only way that California can pay for its pension obligations is to raise taxes, but if California raises taxes, the people paying those taxes move away, which only worsens the fiscal problems. That's what these migration trends are telling you. It's a death spiral that we have already seen at the city level in places like Detroit.
Yes, the Senate and House majorities of Republicans tell you that the rejection of Hillary Clinton wasn't just a fluke or sexism: Americans reject the policies Democrats are pursuing.
Compromise? Are you kidding? The Democrats invoked the "nuclear option" to override the need for a 3/5 majority for nominees. Hillary was quite clear that she would ram through candidates that advanced a progressive, statist, activist agenda, and that she was going to select candidates based on race and gender. She announced that legal attacks on 1A and 2A were high on her agenda. Concern about Hillary's agenda for SCOTUS was probably one major reason she lost, because many Republicans who couldn't stand Trump as a candidate really, really didn't want more liberal supreme court justices.
Democrats have been utterly unwilling to give an inch on healthcare, abortion, or gay marriage, let alone compromise, and that has pissed off even people like me who (for example) agree with a very liberal policy on abortion, but would be willing to compromise.
Oh, there are plenty of other upsides: lower corporate taxes, less likelihood of a major war, less racial divisiveness, more economic growth, a less activist supreme court, etc.
But, yeah, both parties need to change: Republicans need to kick out the Christian conservatives and Democrats need to kick out the social justice warriors and neo-Marxists. Alternatively, the Republicans can kick the Christian conservatives over to the Democrats, since Christian conservatives and progressives are largely indistinguishable in their dogma, statism, and disdain for liberty.
But electors weren't selected "in terms of their original purpose". The electors we have were not "selected by their fellow citizens". Electors were appointed by party committees for a ceremonial function. It is dishonest to pretend that they were selected according for their "original purpose" when clearly they were not.
I'm sorry, but that logic escapes me. Hillary ran one of the most divisive and ad hominem campaigns in recent memory, Democratic supporters are committing acts of violence in the streets, and Democrats are making death threats to Republican electors. How much more aggressive do you want Democrats to become?
The original idea behind the EC was a failure, which is why we already have reformed it and turned it into a winner-take-all system based on parties and states. Unlike Napoleonic legal systems, where such changes are codified precisely in laws, in the US, such changes take place gradually and involve custom and common law.
Yes, and that places it at the high end of US states. Note that this is on top of the already high federal debt to gdp ratio.
That's a different time horizon from the one we are talking about.
I'm sorry you don't understand the difference between "domestic net migration" and "population growth". Go ahead, think about it some more, I'm sure you can figure it out.
Well, then I suggest you stop smoking whatever it is you're smoking and actually read up on the history of racism, segregation, and eugenics and their relationship to the Democratic party and progressivism, as well as favorite policies of the left, like gun control, minimum wage, unions, welfare, and public funding of abortions. It's not pretty.
You were asking "Are you prepare [sic] for the changes to come?" after a tirade about how out of touch your "lily-white" relatives from Idaho were and how the US would become "minority-majority" in 2050. I was explaining to you that my experience with "diversity" goes a lot further than yours and that I have absolutely no problem with diversity. Your experience with diversity seems to be limited to marveling at all those non-"lily-white" people that you find yourself next to on the bus.
A "minority-majority" is a Democratic political strategy, an attempt to divide America artificially into minorities and then foment resentment and distrust between them. It's a great way for a ruling elite to stay in power: divide and conquer. It's pretty much the same last time Democrats tried this, when they brought us Jim Crow laws, eugenics, and forced sterilizations. Hopefully, by 2050, we will look back at Democratic policies today with the same revulsion that we now look back on early 20th century progressivism.
I've lived all over the world and have had boyfriends among all the major "races" that progressive Americans are so fond of dividing people into. Does that assuage your race-obsessed little mind?
Oh, you are certainly right about that one: the fact that Hillary lost to Trump is only the tip of the iceberg.
No, like the idea that the fact that global warming is occurring means that people must vote for corrupt politicians that want to waste trillions on ineffective and harmful policies.
Yes: you view everybody around you through the lens of race.
Well, both the election and polls suggest otherwise.
Creimer asked When is a good time to change the Electoral College; that's what I responded to.
No, I said that the EC is working as intended: it kept a dangerous demagogue (Hillary Clinton) out of office.
No, you wrote "Trump", but you should have said "Hillary", because a dangerous demagogue is what she is.
In true fascist fashion, you fantasize about the deaths of those who politically disagree with you.