I can attest to this. Almost every time I go diving, the tourist pamphlets and nearby sea museums and info pictures show beautiful vibrant colors. And then I go diving and I see so much less color than the images I'd been set up with. This is not anecdotal. This is already seriously alarming, people. Hopefully, there's a lot of wrong scientists out there. Probably, they're not.
Vote. Or, if you're flippant about math, statistics, and science, don't.
If you think that the US allows corporate and union donations you are ill-informed. Why does it seem that the people least informed are most likely to act? Generally in irrational ways.
To be Partisan, I would recognize that dems tend to be well meaning but horribly ill-informed on many issues that is the current fashionable outrage.
Section 203 restricts corporations and labor unions from funding electioneering communications from their general funds except under certain specific circumstances, e.g., get-out-the-vote campaigns.
I'm sorry, you seem... heh... very misinformed. Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is exactly what was overthrown by the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Your first link talks about Citizens United, but doesn't seem to mention the final decision. Your 2nd link is the BCRA that ended up being overturned. That's why Citizens v FEC was so important. Notice your first link doesn't mention any decision after September 9, 2009, when I think the final decision was handed down in January 2010.
The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has "ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs...
, political action committees which make no financial contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions.
If you have to use loc.gov, I didn't immediately find the final decision, but here's an article that really does talk about the decision, and it's from 2010.
Abstract: In Citizens United, the Supreme Court relaxed the ability of corporations to spend money on elections, rejecting a shareholder-protection rationale for restrictions on spending
Logical response, although if they lack funds, they can still contribute time. My complaint includes the comments in this story, so you can't say they don't have time.
Everyone on here sees the same problem: money in politics. But in the fifteen 3+ posts, not one. single. solution. Saying "we need to take the money out of politics" does not actually do a darn thing to take the money out of politics. Voting by yourself doesn't do it, there's another popular mantra "my vote doesn't matter, waahh."
The notion that corporations are people is ludicrous. Campaign contributions shouldn't be considered speech, either. These campaign contributions are tantamount to bribery. The wealth is cleverly spread around to guarantee the support of whoever gets elected, regardless of party. There's no legitimate reason that corporations can make campaign contributions. Require that donations be placed by individuals through non-partisan government agencies. Those agencies can then be responsible for providing the money to individuals candidates, without revealing the donors. Stop the bribery.
The Supreme Court ruled corporations are people. See the Citizens United case. This can only be undone with an amendment to the constitution. Good luck accomplishing that in today's political climate.
Agreed it'll be difficult, but here is the only way to do it, afaik: https://represent.us/
There's no legitimate reason that corporations can make campaign contributions.
If you stop corporations from making contributions you would also need to stop unions. But that's never going to happen, because if the unions know that if they don't own their lawmakers the unions would cease to exist.
Here in Canada, both corporate and union donations have been stopped, as well as real people (actually only citizens and permanent residents) being limited to just over $1000 donations. We still have both unions and corporations.
Agreed, and the bipartisan way to change it is this. I really don't understand how so many people can be outraged by this much money flying around, yet seldom do they contribute to the orgs that actually do anything to fight it.
To be partisan, I would personally recognize dems as slightly better than R's who brought us Citizen's United to begin with, but ignore that if it distracts from doing something about it.
We need to fix the funding of our political system or just accept bribery as the political norm.
I've found the only realistic first step is contribute to causes that get money out of politics. Then support their candidates. I think there's other orgs that do it, that's just my favorite.
It might feel slimey, but I believe it's legal. Anyone that's outraged, at all, should be contributing to causes that get money out of politics. Or maybe support the candidates that take the least donations.
It still is called corruption by anybody that understands how societies work. It is the cancer that corrodes a society.
So much outrage over corruption, is anyone of you complaining actually doing something about it? The least of which might be to contribute to causes that get money out of politics.
KKK and Nazis don't represent the right any more than Stalin and Mao represent the left.
So we all agree KKK and Nazis represent the right to some degree. The difference is the thousands of people that proudly march with KKK and Nazi banners in America, while I've never seen a Stalinist. In other words, one side is reping 'elitist asshole', and it's not the dems.
I remember seeing how excited everyone was about his "day one" promise to ask his treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator. He said it sooo many times. It'd be soo easy, and Trumpers in my own family told me how necessary it was and how much they believed in it.
Well, day one came and went. What day are we at?
You don't need congressional approval. Just ask somebody to do something. Instead, he killed TPP, which helped China. And China officially became a dictatorship again. Wow, Trump really kept his promise about fighting China. I guess they did give him a bunch of patents. So maybe he fought them for those. Congrats Trumpers, your president got a bunch of patents.
This. People need to pay attention. Trumpers will almost admit they favor authoritarianism. Ask them if they think it's ok that Trump does X thing that's traditionally outside of classical presidential power. Nepotism, back room deals, emoluments, willful blindness, constant open about-faces/outright lying, etc. The answer is always deflection or denial.
Leaving TPP was a huge win for China, the country that just confirmed dictatorial rule. Just after Trump helped China, he was given a bunch of patents. Like almost all of his decisions, he didn't care about saving anyone from anything, except himself.
Authoritarian governments will march under whatever flag
This.
Although, just to note,
It wasn't about the left or the right it was about extreme authoritarianism.
The only numbers I've seen show that the last 20 years, the Republicans have officially put their hat in the ring for title 'the authoritarian party'.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Donald "I can shoot someone in Manhattan" Trump did after all win bigly with the R's.
I know I'll get downvotes for "bias", but I'm sorry, these are just facts. I'm willing to be convinced with opposing numbers, please show them.
Yup, and I just want to point out yet another negative story about a Republican action. Why does this site talk endlessly about Hilary's email, while R's do actual damage and nobody mentions the party? Can't find the word Republican or Pai in a search on this page.
I want to agree for personal reactions, but then the topic might really be about media. How do you balance the notion against losing revenue to the other media publication that gets all the 'likes' (revenue)? Just give up, continue reporting (with journalistic integrity) less interesting stories just because the subject is flamboyant? I.e., slowly fire your staff and close shop.
And then, even personally, what do you do when you find yourself surrounded by people who start following a charlatan? Keep on ignoring it, allowing opinions to grow stronger about his 'excellence', unopposed?
While I agree that congress should technically be making the law, but the reality has been that it's controlled by Republicans, in turn controlled by the big biz interests that have repealed NN getting us into this mess. Time to kick the bums out.
Your claim reads "Bitcoin is a failure", but your explanation is roughly "Bitcoin has problems".
But you're not willing, or, more likely, not capable, of offering any explanation about the problems.
You know what's that called? Bullshit. And you are full of it.
Idk, maybe that's going a bit far. 15 million people use bitcoin. I bet less than 6.5 million use the Sierra Leonean Leone. I can see it's easy to call anything a failure. The US dollar doesn't even represent gold any more. Therefore I curse you.
What was curiously absent from the article is any mention of attempts to report the impersonators, twitter has a policy which states that impersonation is not allowed after all.
No, I think twitter's impersonation policy is about impersonating someone specifically.
I found the linked article a useful reminder, I don't always think about this thing about impersonating a type of person. The twitter impersonation policy doesn't seem to make using an image automatically a violation, so I can see how reporting these types of hate impersonations wouldn't do anything, thus the need for this imposter buster bot. If you agree with it is a different story, but you can't say the bot is pointless.
Homophobia and death threats. What makes you any better than them?
I agree and disassociate from the author of the title, despite being on the left myself. As alluded on the good article linked, I suspect the author philosophically sits either on the right, or in the realm of anarchist.
instead of uniting all Americans like President Trump did.
Wow, this is so rich, it's... well, actually kind of boring at this point. But just for grins, let's see if I can find a few times Trump tried to unite people:
Women: "Blood coming from Megyn Kelly's whatever", "I just grab em by the p***y"
Mexicans are "rapists", incapable of being Judges.
Iowans: "How stupid are the people of Iowa?"
Bush supporters: Too many quotes to list
Cruz supporters: 'Ted's father killed JFK'
Muslims should be banned (reminder there's over 3 million Muslim American citizens)
Vets, anyone brave enough to actually be drafted and run the risk of capture. "I [only like soldiers] who weren’t captured"
All targets of the KKK: Some KKK are "very fine people"
All targets of racism: Some racists are "very fine people"
God the list could go on for ever. Lately, it's a message to anyone opposed to pedophilia: "Vote for Moore".
I guess the argument could be made that he's offended everyone except white male racist terrorist pedophiles. So we should technically all be united. Ya, he needs to offend that group, then the statement will actually be true.
FYI I'm reposting since I didn't realize I wasn't logged in.
Slashdot Mirror
I can attest to this. Almost every time I go diving, the tourist pamphlets and nearby sea museums and info pictures show beautiful vibrant colors. And then I go diving and I see so much less color than the images I'd been set up with. This is not anecdotal. This is already seriously alarming, people. Hopefully, there's a lot of wrong scientists out there. Probably, they're not.
Vote. Or, if you're flippant about math, statistics, and science, don't.
Every time - I forget how alarming that xkcd is. And funny. HAHA! haha. ha.... Jeez.
If you think that the US allows corporate and union donations you are ill-informed. Why does it seem that the people least informed are most likely to act? Generally in irrational ways.
To be Partisan, I would recognize that dems tend to be well meaning but horribly ill-informed on many issues that is the current fashionable outrage.
Section 203 restricts corporations and labor unions from funding electioneering communications from their general funds except under certain specific circumstances, e.g., get-out-the-vote campaigns.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/c... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'm sorry, you seem ... heh ... very misinformed. Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is exactly what was overthrown by the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Your first link talks about Citizens United, but doesn't seem to mention the final decision. Your 2nd link is the BCRA that ended up being overturned. That's why Citizens v FEC was so important. Notice your first link doesn't mention any decision after September 9, 2009, when I think the final decision was handed down in January 2010.
Wikipedia - Citizens majority opion
Wikipedia - Citizens political impact
The Citizens United ruling "opened the door" for unlimited election spending by corporations, but most of this spending has "ended up being funneled through the groups that have become known as super PACs... , political action committees which make no financial contributions to candidates or parties, and so can accept unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations and unions.
If you have to use loc.gov, I didn't immediately find the final decision, but here's an article that really does talk about the decision, and it's from 2010.
Abstract: In Citizens United, the Supreme Court relaxed the ability of corporations to spend money on elections, rejecting a shareholder-protection rationale for restrictions on spending
Logical response, although if they lack funds, they can still contribute time. My complaint includes the comments in this story, so you can't say they don't have time.
Have you compared his data sources to those of TFA? Please share.
Everyone on here sees the same problem: money in politics. But in the fifteen 3+ posts, not one. single. solution. Saying "we need to take the money out of politics" does not actually do a darn thing to take the money out of politics. Voting by yourself doesn't do it, there's another popular mantra "my vote doesn't matter, waahh."
How about we actually do something? https://represent.us/
The notion that corporations are people is ludicrous. Campaign contributions shouldn't be considered speech, either. These campaign contributions are tantamount to bribery. The wealth is cleverly spread around to guarantee the support of whoever gets elected, regardless of party. There's no legitimate reason that corporations can make campaign contributions. Require that donations be placed by individuals through non-partisan government agencies. Those agencies can then be responsible for providing the money to individuals candidates, without revealing the donors. Stop the bribery.
And there is only one way to do this, afaik.
The Supreme Court ruled corporations are people. See the Citizens United case. This can only be undone with an amendment to the constitution. Good luck accomplishing that in today's political climate.
Agreed it'll be difficult, but here is the only way to do it, afaik: https://represent.us/
There's no legitimate reason that corporations can make campaign contributions.
If you stop corporations from making contributions you would also need to stop unions. But that's never going to happen, because if the unions know that if they don't own their lawmakers the unions would cease to exist.
Here in Canada, both corporate and union donations have been stopped, as well as real people (actually only citizens and permanent residents) being limited to just over $1000 donations. We still have both unions and corporations.
Agreed, and the bipartisan way to change it is this. I really don't understand how so many people can be outraged by this much money flying around, yet seldom do they contribute to the orgs that actually do anything to fight it.
To be partisan, I would personally recognize dems as slightly better than R's who brought us Citizen's United to begin with, but ignore that if it distracts from doing something about it.
We need to fix the funding of our political system or just accept bribery as the political norm.
I've found the only realistic first step is contribute to causes that get money out of politics. Then support their candidates. I think there's other orgs that do it, that's just my favorite.
It might feel slimey, but I believe it's legal. Anyone that's outraged, at all, should be contributing to causes that get money out of politics. Or maybe support the candidates that take the least donations.
It still is called corruption by anybody that understands how societies work. It is the cancer that corrodes a society.
So much outrage over corruption, is anyone of you complaining actually doing something about it? The least of which might be to contribute to causes that get money out of politics.
KKK and Nazis don't represent the right any more than Stalin and Mao represent the left.
So we all agree KKK and Nazis represent the right to some degree. The difference is the thousands of people that proudly march with KKK and Nazi banners in America, while I've never seen a Stalinist. In other words, one side is reping 'elitist asshole', and it's not the dems.
I remember seeing how excited everyone was about his "day one" promise to ask his treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator. He said it sooo many times. It'd be soo easy, and Trumpers in my own family told me how necessary it was and how much they believed in it.
Well, day one came and went. What day are we at?
You don't need congressional approval. Just ask somebody to do something. Instead, he killed TPP, which helped China. And China officially became a dictatorship again. Wow, Trump really kept his promise about fighting China. I guess they did give him a bunch of patents. So maybe he fought them for those. Congrats Trumpers, your president got a bunch of patents.
This. People need to pay attention. Trumpers will almost admit they favor authoritarianism. Ask them if they think it's ok that Trump does X thing that's traditionally outside of classical presidential power. Nepotism, back room deals, emoluments, willful blindness, constant open about-faces/outright lying, etc. The answer is always deflection or denial.
Leaving TPP was a huge win for China, the country that just confirmed dictatorial rule. Just after Trump helped China, he was given a bunch of patents. Like almost all of his decisions, he didn't care about saving anyone from anything, except himself.
Authoritarian governments will march under whatever flag
This. Although, just to note,
It wasn't about the left or the right it was about extreme authoritarianism.
The only numbers I've seen show that the last 20 years, the Republicans have officially put their hat in the ring for title 'the authoritarian party'. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Donald "I can shoot someone in Manhattan" Trump did after all win bigly with the R's.
I know I'll get downvotes for "bias", but I'm sorry, these are just facts. I'm willing to be convinced with opposing numbers, please show them.
Yup, and I just want to point out yet another negative story about a Republican action. Why does this site talk endlessly about Hilary's email, while R's do actual damage and nobody mentions the party? Can't find the word Republican or Pai in a search on this page.
I want to agree for personal reactions, but then the topic might really be about media. How do you balance the notion against losing revenue to the other media publication that gets all the 'likes' (revenue)? Just give up, continue reporting (with journalistic integrity) less interesting stories just because the subject is flamboyant? I.e., slowly fire your staff and close shop.
And then, even personally, what do you do when you find yourself surrounded by people who start following a charlatan? Keep on ignoring it, allowing opinions to grow stronger about his 'excellence', unopposed?
While I agree that congress should technically be making the law, but the reality has been that it's controlled by Republicans, in turn controlled by the big biz interests that have repealed NN getting us into this mess. Time to kick the bums out.
Your claim reads "Bitcoin is a failure", but your explanation is roughly "Bitcoin has problems".
But you're not willing, or, more likely, not capable, of offering any explanation about the problems.
You know what's that called? Bullshit. And you are full of it.
Idk, maybe that's going a bit far. 15 million people use bitcoin. I bet less than 6.5 million use the Sierra Leonean Leone. I can see it's easy to call anything a failure. The US dollar doesn't even represent gold any more. Therefore I curse you.
What was curiously absent from the article is any mention of attempts to report the impersonators, twitter has a policy which states that impersonation is not allowed after all.
No, I think twitter's impersonation policy is about impersonating someone specifically.
I found the linked article a useful reminder, I don't always think about this thing about impersonating a type of person. The twitter impersonation policy doesn't seem to make using an image automatically a violation, so I can see how reporting these types of hate impersonations wouldn't do anything, thus the need for this imposter buster bot. If you agree with it is a different story, but you can't say the bot is pointless.
Homophobia and death threats. What makes you any better than them?
I agree and disassociate from the author of the title, despite being on the left myself. As alluded on the good article linked, I suspect the author philosophically sits either on the right, or in the realm of anarchist.
Well said. Heh, I can tell by this score, the Russian trolls are back. I was wondering where they went.
instead of uniting all Americans like President Trump did.
Wow, this is so rich, it's... well, actually kind of boring at this point. But just for grins, let's see if I can find a few times Trump tried to unite people:
Women: "Blood coming from Megyn Kelly's whatever", "I just grab em by the p***y"
Mexicans are "rapists", incapable of being Judges.
Iowans: "How stupid are the people of Iowa?"
Bush supporters: Too many quotes to list
Cruz supporters: 'Ted's father killed JFK'
Muslims should be banned (reminder there's over 3 million Muslim American citizens)
Vets, anyone brave enough to actually be drafted and run the risk of capture. "I [only like soldiers] who weren’t captured"
All targets of the KKK: Some KKK are "very fine people"
All targets of racism: Some racists are "very fine people"
God the list could go on for ever. Lately, it's a message to anyone opposed to pedophilia: "Vote for Moore".
I guess the argument could be made that he's offended everyone except white male racist terrorist pedophiles. So we should technically all be united. Ya, he needs to offend that group, then the statement will actually be true.
FYI I'm reposting since I didn't realize I wasn't logged in.