I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
There's a lot of things that could have gone wrong with this study, their corrections and adjustments to the historical deep sea temperature data could be incorrect, the model could have bad assumptions, their assumptions about the relationship between the deep sea and other waters could be incorrect, etc, etc.
This is a cool study, and it may be right, but it's better to think of it as starting the process for understanding the role of the deep sea rather than providing a solid answer.
For the taxing gross revenue, a sale of $500 in US would result in paying tax on that $500 in the US. That would close the US loophole. It opens questions about the multi-lateral agreements between many countries about avoiding double taxation, but like all agreements that could also be walked away from. Short answer is that it is a solvable problem for someone with adequate political spine.
So if the phone is bought from a foreign subsidiary for $400 then do you charge tax on the $500 or the $100? If you charge the full $500 then consumers will be unhappy as their prices skyrocket. I don't actually know the situation right now since that's retail. But what about this scenario?
The company is owned in the Netherlands, made in China, sold in the UK, but are the R&D was done in the US.
How do you get an appropriate cut of the sale into the US?
A company from the Netherlands makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500.
Which countries deserve to collect which taxes?
I think the point is that if you have company A in the the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, and company B in the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, then they should both pay the same amount of tax overall (other things being equal).
There is no good logical or economic reason for company A to pay (proportionately) less tax just because they're much bigger and richer and can hire more tax lawyers.
Except how much of company A is really in the Netherlands and how much is in the US or China? And is that bit of the company there because of tax policy or valid business reasons? You can point to obvious tax avoidance, but it's hard to encode tax avoidance in a bill.
Plus, suppose the Netherlands wants to encourage some behaviour like recycling or parental leave and does it with tax breaks. Company A might be bigger and better able to do those things. At what point is it legit and what point avoidance?
No matter how smart you are in thinking you can close up the loopholes there are armies of accountants and lawyers who are WAAAY smarter and can figure out a way around it.
Sick of this quote. It is easy to close the loopholes. It is just not a good move politically as you would be painted as introducing something "unfair" (or some other smear campaign).
Remember Dodd-Frank? It was one of those attempts to close a bunch of loopholes in the banking industry, and to an extent it worked and made the financial sector less risky.
It also made the big banks bigger and the small banks smaller.
The problem is to close loopholes you need lots of rules, and if you have lots of rules then businesses need lots of people to ensure they're following those rules, and the bigger the business the more people you can afford.
One of the reasons that Google and Apple are so dominant is there are a lot of rules meant to prevent companies exploiting loopholes, and it's the biggest companies who are best able to invest in circumventing those rules.
Try to close more loopholes and you might end up giving Apple and Google even bigger shares of the economy.
First easy solution: You pay the greater of X% on profit with existing rules OR Y% on gross revenue.
Gross revenue of what? A company from the Netherlands makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500.
How about the Democrats give Trump and this Representative Democracy Constitutional Republic of The United States of America its proper US Constitution Article IV Section 4 protection against invasion (and protection again resultant violence on domestic US ground when the illegals use force against US border security)?
You know why no one has built a wall previously? Why the GOP still isn't actually willing to give up meaningful concessions to the Democrats in exchange for wall funding?
Because a wall isn't actually an effective use of funds to keep out illegal immigrants and protect US security. It's a good campaign slogan since it's a simple concept, but reality gets more complicated.
Yes, for all the clammoring about "our Democracy", it's designed as REPRESENTATIVE and therefore a Republic.
What's your point?
Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall directly, but after it's built there is always Trump (and future presidents) MASSIVELY TARRIFING all items Product of Mexico or even Made in Mexico imported into the US.
Trade wars are more complicated than that. Trying to extort money from another nation does not end well, if for no other reason than other countries rightfully see your behaviour as a threat and find ways not to make it worth your while.
ICE and the US Border Patrol are insufficient in number and weaponry, the US military shouldn't need to have to defend the border as a backup against a mass threat of invasion (an approching caravan)
Wow, you almost made me split my tea over my keyboard.
We as a nation also, plain and simple, don't need Democrats fighting incrementally and aggressively for a PURE Democracy when even STATES operate as Republics (Assembly, Senate, Governor, note all state laws are by popular vote only),
Rant about one thing at a time.
Trump should ideally start jailing the resisting Democrats for US Constitutional violations...
Well this post sure started out batshit crazy and then went downhill.
But then, liberals would accuse Trump of fascism
Accuse him of fascism for jailing political opponents?!? How unfair!!!
Constitution of the United States of America (as required in Article II Section 1 Oath of Office) especially pertaining to Article IV Section 4.
Do you think if you cite things specifically enough that we'll believe you over all the real constitutional scholars?
often relying on their honor to comply with the laws.
Whatever the hell that means.
Yeah, right. It's long overdue to not allow DACA, DREAM, or even asylum to otherwise illegal aliens of any nation (not just Mexico) unless a proven life-threatening reason exists... and even then they shouldn't get EXPRESS priviliege toward citizenship.
Yeah, someone has to get rid of those kids who sometimes didn't even realize they weren't born in the US!
Fact check: Only partway through his campaign did he mention that Mexico would fund it. That wasn't an initial campaign promise only the "wall" was. That... after the liberal left demanded to know where the funding would come from and forced him to find an answer that wouldn't immediately impact the taxpayers.
Asking how you intend to pay for your signature campaign promise.
Sigh. Anonymous Coward - Over and over and over and over and OVER again, Trump made it clear that MEXICO was going to pay for the wall. He made it clear that his fantastic negotiating skills will make that a reality.
All we're doing is holding him to his promise.
A promise *every* Trump supporter repeated back to me throughout 2016 and a lot of 2017.
Is that so hard? All he has to do is do what he said: Head to Mexico, and return with a check for $40 Billion dollars for the wall.
It's not even that. Just because Trump ran on the idea of the wall doesn't mean the Democrats need to give him a wall for nothing. In addition to electing Trump voters also elected Democrats in the Senate and those Senators needs to agree to wall funding, just like Obama needed GOP support for many of his policies.
And Democrats were actually willing to give Trump $25 billion in wall funding, which he desperately wanted, in exchange for DACA, which Trump also claimed to have wanted.
Of course Trump took all of 2 minutes to break his word and blow up that deal also
Certainly diminished inhibition seems to be a factor but that bit about the "hunger hormone" sounds interesting. Is the body trying to compensate for low energy from lack of sleep by getting some easily processed calories?
than logically, undermining a sitting president that has done nothing that is proven beyond attacking Russian interests and allies once they assumed office is playing right in Russia's hands.
Well he's hardly been secret about wanting to lift sanctions, or about not enacting the sanctions that congress passed. And the number of "weird links" and "oops we forgot to mention that" between Trump and Russia are unnerving.
The US President isn't a dictator, his ability to ease up on Russia is limited, and it's still not clear just how close the relationship was so we don't really know how hard he's trying.
Even if you dislike the President, having so little that you have to resort to linking him banging an American hooker to your Russian collusion investigation is pretty thin as far as evidence goes and precisely the type of chaos a foreign agent would love.
It's not our fault he broke campaign finance laws. Besides, that's not really part of the Russian collusion investigation, it's another matter entirely.
The obvious problem being that this support was bipartisan, as several pieces of evidence now clearly showed. The "social media ads"?
They supported both Clinton and Trump. The aim was clearly polarisation of the extremes of the supporting bases of each candidate, not supporting either of the candidates.
Polarization was an objective, but so was Trump. To say the Russian interference "supported both Clinton and Trump" is to ignore overwhelming evidence to contrary.
Trump's popularity on the other hand doesn't drop for a very simple reason. Political smear jobs based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies have to take out their target quickly. If they don't, the audience of the target sees one lie, than another lie, and then they simply assume that everything else coming out of those sources is probably a lie.
Virtually none of the attacks against Trump are "smear jobs", "misunderstandings", "misrepresentations", or "lies". The reason they don't hurt Trump's popularity is that virtually everyone except his base has abandoned him. And his base doesn't care about the attacks because they don't care if he's a corrupt businessman who colluded with Russia. They probably wouldn't even care if he was a literal Russian asset, at this point they're in it for the culture war, and no one goes after liberals with as much vitriol as Trump.
Yellow Jackets was a part of the exact same paradigm shift in a country that is about as different as a country could be to US while still remaining a part of "Western" umbrella. Utterly different court system, literal codification of anti-theism into all government functions, very socialist policies. And yet, France had protests that literally showed that Trump's paradigm shift clearly happened in France too, and it reached a point where it cannot be simply dismissed as "those deplorable people that are beneath us that we will call names and dismiss as if they're irrelevant".
The Yellow Vests in France have more to do with Marcon's centre-right economics than immigration and anti-globalism. It's just the US framing that makes it look Trumpy.
Hell, the entire point that leadership adhering to the will of the populace, "populism" is now considered a bad word in upper echelons of society shows just how badly fractured the political elite and ordinary people are becoming.
It's a dirty word because it's almost always used to justify policies that sound good as a slogan but have terrible consequences. The rise of populism is usually a sign that media institutions that help regulate the public debate and stop dump slogans from becoming policy are broken.
Mostly because I find that when they make points of failures of globalist aspects of policy, I find myself forced to agree with them because of my social democratic principles. I believe that those most disenfranchised in the nation, the workers, the farmers, should have a clear and loud voice in how country is run.
This has nothing to do with globalism. Globalism is just robust international trade and institutions. There's no reason why you can't have a boatload of those while still empowering the people to control their government. In fact if you look at the most "globalized" countries and the most democratic countries you have a really strong relationship.
And so, like so many people on the centre left, I find myself without a political home. Without even being an American. All because of Trump showing the world the ugliness that was allowed to fester for so long in the Western political systems as globalism co-opted the democratic republics.
The thing you actually hate is corporatism and oligarchy, corruption and rule by the rich. And that's exactly what Trump brings. Russia is probably the best example of the Trump model, and that's pretty much the definition of corruption and mass disenfranchisement.
I can sort of understand leaving out Pew as punishment for gaffes (he''s not actually racist though, try not to spread lies m'kay?).
I was very careful to be accurate. I didn't say he was racist, I said he made "repeated racist statements".
Now is he actually racist? I'm not sure, I don't really follow him well enough to make a judgment.
I do know that "oh I'm not actually being racist, I just said X as a joke" is a deliberate tactic used by racists in order to normalize racist views while keeping some deniability. I'm not claiming that PewDiePie does that, but there are real consequences to jokingly using racist language.
It was meant to be a feel-good celebration of a year's worth of YouTube creativity
How can that be true when it doesn't feature most of the CREATORS that make YouTube so popular?
A parade of B-List celebs doing Fortnite dances is not a "celebration of creativity".
I don't really follow YouTube much at all, but this seemed like a big tone-deaf misstep on the part of YouTube that is trying to pretend like some people do not exist. Absurd. Celebrate what you are, all of it, or say nothing at all.
How is it supposed to be feel-good if the big creators you're referring to are extremely controversial due to repeated racist statements and making fun of dead bodies?
There's always been two ways to approach fame, you can be mainstream, and your audience will probably be very small, but if you do make it big then virtually everybody will be happy to associate with you.
Or you can be controversial, and you'll get a big audience just from the notoriety, but you'll piss off a bunch of people who aren't your audience and make yourself toxic to mainstream venues. Like the videos that YouTube chooses to showcase itself.
Logan Paul and PewDiePie made their choice, they went for controversy and got a boatload of cash and fame at the cost of mainstream acceptance. Everyone needs to deal with the consequences of their choices, I don't see why YouTube stars should be immune.
The cited Political Incidence Test quite obviously refers to domestic politics. It was written to thwart efforts of a foreign government to pursue opposition that managed to escape their reach in the country. Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the subject clarifies the test to apply only, when the fugitive is at odds with the state that applies for his extradition on some issue connected with the political control or government of the country.
The CFO for a major corporation in a Country you're in a trade war with is easily an "issue connected with the political control or government of the country". And Trump just associated her extradition with the trade war meaning the test passes. Even the original charges of violating Iranian sanctions could probably pass the test but tying it to the trade war makes it a much easier case.
The historical focus on Domestic crimes is only because it was historically rare that you could commit a crime against Country A without living in Country A, but the Internet and Multinational corporations change that.
False. The words I objected to started with "he basically implied..." — that's the opposite of "verbatim".
The implication came from his words verbatim. It's hard to take his phrase as anything other than an intent to use her as a political bargaining chip.
But it could also mean "I don't care if the case is falling apart, I need the leverage! Keep her in custody!!"
American President has no such power — and Canadians know this. Trump can pardon/release anyone, but he can not detain...
He's also made it very clear that he expects the Justice Department to protect him. If he hasn't been able to stop investigations against his allies and trigger them against his enemies it's not for lack of trying. And he currently has a hand-picked un-confirmed AG, if I were subject to an investigation with major political implications I'd be very concerned about Trump's influence.
You're missing the forest through the trees. A President is saying "I'm planning to use this prisoner as leverage in a trade war". How is that not political?
Regardless of whether or not you support him, wouldn't you expect this strategy from someone who wrote "The Art of the Deal"
Not really. I mean Trump endorsed it and it's certainly inspired by Trump but it represents a more sophisticated approach to dealmaking than he uses.
and promised to run the country like a business? I'm a little surprised his poll numbers aren't going up.
Successful businesses recognize that trying to exploit every loophole works in the short-term but it raises the costs of doing business and drives away partners and customers. There's a reason Trump made all his recent money from scams, Russian money launderers, and selling his image. No one legitimate wants to do business with him.
Trying to run a country the same way is a disaster. No one wants to let the bully get away with it. Sure you win the big public battles, but the diplomats and politicians of other nations will get back at you every chance they get.
"The political incidence test looks to whether the offence is "part of and incidental to a political struggle".
She is not part to a political struggle — she is not even a US citizen. She may be part of a trade-war between countries, but that's not political at all.
How is a trade war not political?
When the [sic] Trump said what he said he basically implied that this was part and incidental to a political struggle
He said nothing of the kind. The media's disease of putting words into Trump's mouth has, evidently, infected their best customers...
Damn fake news at it again! Putting words in Trump's mouth by printing them verbatim!!
He said, he might allow her to go, if China cooperates — the charges are perfectly real and not political.
The arrest didn't seem to be political, but now she's in custody Trump is talking about using the charges for political gain.
On the one hand that could mean "we got a deal, drop all charges!!"
But it could also mean "I don't care if the case is falling apart, I need the leverage! Keep her in custody!!"
Hence the reason why a Canadian Judge, even if they think the charges are legitimate, could refuse the extradition request on the grounds she won't be subjected to a fair legal process.
So called "net nutrality" is a scam, a way for marxist democrat party people to impose HUGE goverment regulation on the free market and make everything about the internet WORSE. If you care about internet freedom, you should join the millions of others like us and voice your oppose to so called "net nutrality".
Nothing screams rational balanced argument like the phrase "marxist democrat party".
If you go onto the internet and see an article about a guy you knew who died, and you start reading the article and then the comments and you DO NOT EXPECT the internet to be the internet then you shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.
The fact that some people are crappy isn't a justification to be crappy yourself.
As someone else said, there are 7.7 billion people on the planet and 1.8 billion seconds in a 90 year life span.
None of us here knew the guy, what are we supposed to do? Go into hysterics because he's dead and it's so TERRIBLE AND THE WORLD HAS ENDED AND NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME EVER AGAIN!
Do you realize how many people died around the world while I was typing this very post? Do you mourn all of them? And if so, do you then mourn the people who died while you mourned the first group?
No one is saying you need to mourn him, I wouldn't expect most people who lack a personal connection to have an emotional response.
But if you're not mourning there are other possible responses (or non-responses) than insensitive jokes.
Keep in mind this guy worked at Google, exactly the demographic who reads slashdot. Some of his friends and co-workers might actually be reading this comment section.
Infection, even from a flue, can in rare cases cause heart attacks. My brother had this happen at 25 years old. The worst part was that the ER nurses at the hospital thought he was just some kid OD'ing on drugs so gave him the lowest priority, as someone that young is unlikely to have a "legitimate" heart problem. It took yelling from his CO showing up several minutes later to convince them he wasn't some guy who just stumbled in from an alleyway. Normally, if you were a bit older, and mention having any sort of chest or heart problem in an ER, you get swarmed by people checking if it is a heart attack.
That said, I don't know why this is news. There is some chance of people dying at any age from unknown medical conditions or some really bad luck. Unless this is directly related to his work at Google, then it is something that happens at any large company from time to time.
A few years back a female friend, probably about 26 at time time, had some sort of bad chest infection (not a cold, but probably not life threatening). Either way she went to the doctor and mentioned it was giving her chest pains... 10 minutes later they had her in emergency for an overnight visit.
It did take her a few weeks to fully recover from the infection, but "chest pains" turned out ot be a magic phrase that escalated things very quickly.
I don't think this happens more frequently, it's just that historically people died much more frequently. So even when someone young and seemingly healthy died without a clear explanation it didn't seem much out of the ordinary since young and healthy people were dying on a regular basis.
This still seems odd as a news item, it's very tragic (and I'm not a fan of all the people trying to make a funny comment) but people do die at work.
"They've really unconscionably led people to believe, I think, that the car is far more capable of self-driving than actually is the case. That's a huge problem."
And yet...nobody was hurt, no cars were wrecked...so it did much better than any other car with a sleeping driver.
So it sounds like he was also drunk at the time, but we're really dealing with 3 possible scenarios:
a) He would have driven and passed out / fell asleep no matter what car he owned.
b) He would have driven no matter what car he owned, but he only fell asleep in the tesla since the autopilot was doing the driving.
c) He only drove because he was relying on the tesla to do the driving.
So in scenario a) the tesla definitely made things safer, but in b & c the tesla caused the incident to occur. That's the problem with evaluating the safety of autopilot, all else equal it probably does make drivers a lot safer. The problem is that everything else isn't held equal, driver behaviour changes in response to the autopilot and generally does so in a way to make driving less safe. Maybe not so unsafe as to be safe as no auto-pilot, but it's an open question.
The Heritage Foundation ran a special issue about health care, incorporating many suggestions from people all over the political spectrum. I know this may sound strange to you modern youth, but once upon a time people listened to multiple viewpoints. In that issue, one person proposed a plan like the PPACA, including the individual mandate. At least two writers wrote responses criticizing that plan. Several other plans were presented as well, with critical responses as well. At NO time did the Heritage Foundation ever endorse the PPACA or anything like it.
It was essentially the major health care proposal from the right. It never got big traction because... well it turns out it's hard to find a health care proposal that's acceptable to US conservatives and the general public. But you can't just write it off as some random article from the Heritage Foundation, it's not like they were running around the streets asking people to implement it, but among fixes for health care that was one of their winners.
If Romney had run and won in 2008 it's not inconceivable that he'd push and implement something very similar to the ACA.
And before you repeat the Romneycare myth either, remember that Romney VETOED that bill. The Democrat legislature overrode his veto to pass the law. He opposed it.
You might want to find more reliable sources of analysis.
Romney signed the bill. He only vetoed 8 sections (Massachusetts has line-item vetoes), but the mandate, the boogeyman of the right, was not among them.
As long as she used the one in her home, I guess it would be ok?
I mean, at least half of you MUST think that's ok (or you're hypocrites). The other half must condemn her for this (or you're hypocrites too).
Actually a lot of us thought Clinton's server was bad but not that big a deal.
As for this... It's not bad on it's own, but it exposes the absurd hypocrisy of the right. This email thing was the biggest issue in the country! A major scandal disqualifying for office! Someone should go to jail!!! As long as it involves Clinton or some Democrat, otherwise it isn't even worth the thought to make sure you're not being a ridiculous hypocrite.
Want more hypocrisy? Remember that terrible scary invasion of Central Americans who apparently vanished after the election? Or Trump skipping a major war ceremony in France because he didn't want to go out in the rain, and then skipping the traditional Veteran's Day ceremony so he could stay home and tweet.
If Obama pulled that last one in 2010 you'd still be hearing about it today!
Using personal email for work and vice-versa is something everybody does, even though it's often against some policy.
Sure, though if Ivanka was paying attention in 2016 you'd think she'd be a bit more careful.
What matters is whether Classified information is being sent over unsecured links.
Which is a completely separate manner from using personal email for work.
Neither Clinton's official state dept email address nor Ivanka's official white house email were cleared for sending classified information either. Classified information was supposed to be sent over a completely separate system.
It's just a perception issue. A few pieces of classified info going through your work email is a relatable mistake, but if they're going through your personal email address (even if you use it for work) it suddenly feels like you're trying to do something sketchy.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's important to note this is just one study. While the evidence for global warming as a whole is pretty overwhelming it doesn't mean that every bit of climate related research is correct.
There's a lot of things that could have gone wrong with this study, their corrections and adjustments to the historical deep sea temperature data could be incorrect, the model could have bad assumptions, their assumptions about the relationship between the deep sea and other waters could be incorrect, etc, etc.
This is a cool study, and it may be right, but it's better to think of it as starting the process for understanding the role of the deep sea rather than providing a solid answer.
For the taxing gross revenue, a sale of $500 in US would result in paying tax on that $500 in the US. That would close the US loophole. It opens questions about the multi-lateral agreements between many countries about avoiding double taxation, but like all agreements that could also be walked away from. Short answer is that it is a solvable problem for someone with adequate political spine.
So if the phone is bought from a foreign subsidiary for $400 then do you charge tax on the $500 or the $100? If you charge the full $500 then consumers will be unhappy as their prices skyrocket. I don't actually know the situation right now since that's retail. But what about this scenario?
The company is owned in the Netherlands, made in China, sold in the UK, but are the R&D was done in the US.
How do you get an appropriate cut of the sale into the US?
A company from the Netherlands makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500.
Which countries deserve to collect which taxes?
I think the point is that if you have company A in the the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, and company B in the Netherlands which makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500, then they should both pay the same amount of tax overall (other things being equal).
There is no good logical or economic reason for company A to pay (proportionately) less tax just because they're much bigger and richer and can hire more tax lawyers.
Except how much of company A is really in the Netherlands and how much is in the US or China? And is that bit of the company there because of tax policy or valid business reasons? You can point to obvious tax avoidance, but it's hard to encode tax avoidance in a bill.
Plus, suppose the Netherlands wants to encourage some behaviour like recycling or parental leave and does it with tax breaks. Company A might be bigger and better able to do those things. At what point is it legit and what point avoidance?
No matter how smart you are in thinking you can close up the loopholes there are armies of accountants and lawyers who are WAAAY smarter and can figure out a way around it.
Sick of this quote. It is easy to close the loopholes. It is just not a good move politically as you would be painted as introducing something "unfair" (or some other smear campaign).
Remember Dodd-Frank? It was one of those attempts to close a bunch of loopholes in the banking industry, and to an extent it worked and made the financial sector less risky.
It also made the big banks bigger and the small banks smaller.
The problem is to close loopholes you need lots of rules, and if you have lots of rules then businesses need lots of people to ensure they're following those rules, and the bigger the business the more people you can afford.
One of the reasons that Google and Apple are so dominant is there are a lot of rules meant to prevent companies exploiting loopholes, and it's the biggest companies who are best able to invest in circumventing those rules.
Try to close more loopholes and you might end up giving Apple and Google even bigger shares of the economy.
First easy solution: You pay the greater of X% on profit with existing rules OR Y% on gross revenue.
Gross revenue of what? A company from the Netherlands makes a phone in China and sells it in the US for $500.
Which countries deserve to collect which taxes?
How about the Democrats give Trump and this Representative Democracy Constitutional Republic of The United States of America its proper US Constitution Article IV Section 4 protection against invasion (and protection again resultant violence on domestic US ground when the illegals use force against US border security)?
You know why no one has built a wall previously? Why the GOP still isn't actually willing to give up meaningful concessions to the Democrats in exchange for wall funding?
Because a wall isn't actually an effective use of funds to keep out illegal immigrants and protect US security. It's a good campaign slogan since it's a simple concept, but reality gets more complicated.
Yes, for all the clammoring about "our Democracy", it's designed as REPRESENTATIVE and therefore a Republic.
What's your point?
Mexico isn't going to pay for the wall directly, but after it's built there is always Trump (and future presidents) MASSIVELY TARRIFING all items Product of Mexico or even Made in Mexico imported into the US.
Trade wars are more complicated than that. Trying to extort money from another nation does not end well, if for no other reason than other countries rightfully see your behaviour as a threat and find ways not to make it worth your while.
ICE and the US Border Patrol are insufficient in number and weaponry, the US military shouldn't need to have to defend the border as a backup against a mass threat of invasion (an approching caravan)
Wow, you almost made me split my tea over my keyboard.
We as a nation also, plain and simple, don't need Democrats fighting incrementally and aggressively for a PURE Democracy when even STATES operate as Republics (Assembly, Senate, Governor, note all state laws are by popular vote only),
Rant about one thing at a time.
Trump should ideally start jailing the resisting Democrats for US Constitutional violations...
Well this post sure started out batshit crazy and then went downhill.
But then, liberals would accuse Trump of fascism
Accuse him of fascism for jailing political opponents?!? How unfair!!!
Constitution of the United States of America (as required in Article II Section 1 Oath of Office) especially pertaining to Article IV Section 4.
Do you think if you cite things specifically enough that we'll believe you over all the real constitutional scholars?
often relying on their honor to comply with the laws.
Whatever the hell that means.
Yeah, right. It's long overdue to not allow DACA, DREAM, or even asylum to otherwise illegal aliens of any nation (not just Mexico) unless a proven life-threatening reason exists... and even then they shouldn't get EXPRESS priviliege toward citizenship.
Yeah, someone has to get rid of those kids who sometimes didn't even realize they weren't born in the US!
Fact check: Only partway through his campaign did he mention that Mexico would fund it. That wasn't an initial campaign promise only the "wall" was. That... after the liberal left demanded to know where the funding would come from and forced him to find an answer that wouldn't immediately impact the taxpayers.
Asking how you intend to pay for your signature campaign promise.
A classic gotcha question.
Just fund the wall that Americans want and need.
Sigh. Anonymous Coward - Over and over and over and over and OVER again, Trump made it clear that MEXICO was going to pay for the wall. He made it clear that his fantastic negotiating skills will make that a reality.
All we're doing is holding him to his promise.
A promise *every* Trump supporter repeated back to me throughout 2016 and a lot of 2017.
Is that so hard? All he has to do is do what he said: Head to Mexico, and return with a check for $40 Billion dollars for the wall.
It's not even that. Just because Trump ran on the idea of the wall doesn't mean the Democrats need to give him a wall for nothing. In addition to electing Trump voters also elected Democrats in the Senate and those Senators needs to agree to wall funding, just like Obama needed GOP support for many of his policies.
And Democrats were actually willing to give Trump $25 billion in wall funding, which he desperately wanted, in exchange for DACA, which Trump also claimed to have wanted.
Of course Trump took all of 2 minutes to break his word and blow up that deal also
Certainly diminished inhibition seems to be a factor but that bit about the "hunger hormone" sounds interesting. Is the body trying to compensate for low energy from lack of sleep by getting some easily processed calories?
than logically, undermining a sitting president that has done nothing that is proven beyond attacking Russian interests and allies once they assumed office is playing right in Russia's hands.
Well he's hardly been secret about wanting to lift sanctions, or about not enacting the sanctions that congress passed. And the number of "weird links" and "oops we forgot to mention that" between Trump and Russia are unnerving.
The US President isn't a dictator, his ability to ease up on Russia is limited, and it's still not clear just how close the relationship was so we don't really know how hard he's trying.
Even if you dislike the President, having so little that you have to resort to linking him banging an American hooker to your Russian collusion investigation is pretty thin as far as evidence goes and precisely the type of chaos a foreign agent would love.
It's not our fault he broke campaign finance laws. Besides, that's not really part of the Russian collusion investigation, it's another matter entirely.
The obvious problem being that this support was bipartisan, as several pieces of evidence now clearly showed. The "social media ads"?
They supported both Clinton and Trump. The aim was clearly polarisation of the extremes of the supporting bases of each candidate, not supporting either of the candidates.
Polarization was an objective, but so was Trump. To say the Russian interference "supported both Clinton and Trump" is to ignore overwhelming evidence to contrary.
Trump's popularity on the other hand doesn't drop for a very simple reason. Political smear jobs based on misunderstandings, misrepresentations and lies have to take out their target quickly. If they don't, the audience of the target sees one lie, than another lie, and then they simply assume that everything else coming out of those sources is probably a lie.
Virtually none of the attacks against Trump are "smear jobs", "misunderstandings", "misrepresentations", or "lies". The reason they don't hurt Trump's popularity is that virtually everyone except his base has abandoned him. And his base doesn't care about the attacks because they don't care if he's a corrupt businessman who colluded with Russia. They probably wouldn't even care if he was a literal Russian asset, at this point they're in it for the culture war, and no one goes after liberals with as much vitriol as Trump.
Yellow Jackets was a part of the exact same paradigm shift in a country that is about as different as a country could be to US while still remaining a part of "Western" umbrella. Utterly different court system, literal codification of anti-theism into all government functions, very socialist policies. And yet, France had protests that literally showed that Trump's paradigm shift clearly happened in France too, and it reached a point where it cannot be simply dismissed as "those deplorable people that are beneath us that we will call names and dismiss as if they're irrelevant".
The Yellow Vests in France have more to do with Marcon's centre-right economics than immigration and anti-globalism. It's just the US framing that makes it look Trumpy.
Hell, the entire point that leadership adhering to the will of the populace, "populism" is now considered a bad word in upper echelons of society shows just how badly fractured the political elite and ordinary people are becoming.
It's a dirty word because it's almost always used to justify policies that sound good as a slogan but have terrible consequences. The rise of populism is usually a sign that media institutions that help regulate the public debate and stop dump slogans from becoming policy are broken.
Mostly because I find that when they make points of failures of globalist aspects of policy, I find myself forced to agree with them because of my social democratic principles. I believe that those most disenfranchised in the nation, the workers, the farmers, should have a clear and loud voice in how country is run.
This has nothing to do with globalism. Globalism is just robust international trade and institutions. There's no reason why you can't have a boatload of those while still empowering the people to control their government. In fact if you look at the most "globalized" countries and the most democratic countries you have a really strong relationship.
And so, like so many people on the centre left, I find myself without a political home. Without even being an American. All because of Trump showing the world the ugliness that was allowed to fester for so long in the Western political systems as globalism co-opted the democratic republics.
The thing you actually hate is corporatism and oligarchy, corruption and rule by the rich. And that's exactly what Trump brings. Russia is probably the best example of the Trump model, and that's pretty much the definition of corruption and mass disenfranchisement.
Logan Paul and PewDiePie made their choice
I can sort of understand leaving out Pew as punishment for gaffes (he''s not actually racist though, try not to spread lies m'kay?).
I was very careful to be accurate. I didn't say he was racist, I said he made "repeated racist statements".
Now is he actually racist? I'm not sure, I don't really follow him well enough to make a judgment.
I do know that "oh I'm not actually being racist, I just said X as a joke" is a deliberate tactic used by racists in order to normalize racist views while keeping some deniability. I'm not claiming that PewDiePie does that, but there are real consequences to jokingly using racist language.
It was meant to be a feel-good celebration of a year's worth of YouTube creativity
How can that be true when it doesn't feature most of the CREATORS that make YouTube so popular?
A parade of B-List celebs doing Fortnite dances is not a "celebration of creativity".
I don't really follow YouTube much at all, but this seemed like a big tone-deaf misstep on the part of YouTube that is trying to pretend like some people do not exist. Absurd. Celebrate what you are, all of it, or say nothing at all.
How is it supposed to be feel-good if the big creators you're referring to are extremely controversial due to repeated racist statements and making fun of dead bodies?
There's always been two ways to approach fame, you can be mainstream, and your audience will probably be very small, but if you do make it big then virtually everybody will be happy to associate with you.
Or you can be controversial, and you'll get a big audience just from the notoriety, but you'll piss off a bunch of people who aren't your audience and make yourself toxic to mainstream venues. Like the videos that YouTube chooses to showcase itself.
Logan Paul and PewDiePie made their choice, they went for controversy and got a boatload of cash and fame at the cost of mainstream acceptance. Everyone needs to deal with the consequences of their choices, I don't see why YouTube stars should be immune.
The cited Political Incidence Test quite obviously refers to domestic politics. It was written to thwart efforts of a foreign government to pursue opposition that managed to escape their reach in the country. Indeed, the Wikipedia article on the subject clarifies the test to apply only, when the fugitive is at odds with the state that applies for his extradition on some issue connected with the political control or government of the country .
The CFO for a major corporation in a Country you're in a trade war with is easily an "issue connected with the political control or government of the country". And Trump just associated her extradition with the trade war meaning the test passes. Even the original charges of violating Iranian sanctions could probably pass the test but tying it to the trade war makes it a much easier case.
The historical focus on Domestic crimes is only because it was historically rare that you could commit a crime against Country A without living in Country A, but the Internet and Multinational corporations change that.
False. The words I objected to started with "he basically implied ..." — that's the opposite of "verbatim".
The implication came from his words verbatim. It's hard to take his phrase as anything other than an intent to use her as a political bargaining chip.
American President has no such power — and Canadians know this. Trump can pardon/release anyone, but he can not detain...
He's also made it very clear that he expects the Justice Department to protect him. If he hasn't been able to stop investigations against his allies and trigger them against his enemies it's not for lack of trying. And he currently has a hand-picked un-confirmed AG, if I were subject to an investigation with major political implications I'd be very concerned about Trump's influence.
You're missing the forest through the trees. A President is saying "I'm planning to use this prisoner as leverage in a trade war". How is that not political?
Regardless of whether or not you support him, wouldn't you expect this strategy from someone who wrote "The Art of the Deal"
Not really. I mean Trump endorsed it and it's certainly inspired by Trump but it represents a more sophisticated approach to dealmaking than he uses.
and promised to run the country like a business? I'm a little surprised his poll numbers aren't going up.
Successful businesses recognize that trying to exploit every loophole works in the short-term but it raises the costs of doing business and drives away partners and customers. There's a reason Trump made all his recent money from scams, Russian money launderers, and selling his image. No one legitimate wants to do business with him.
Trying to run a country the same way is a disaster. No one wants to let the bully get away with it. Sure you win the big public battles, but the diplomats and politicians of other nations will get back at you every chance they get.
She is not part to a political struggle — she is not even a US citizen. She may be part of a trade-war between countries, but that's not political at all.
How is a trade war not political?
He said nothing of the kind. The media's disease of putting words into Trump's mouth has, evidently, infected their best customers...
Damn fake news at it again! Putting words in Trump's mouth by printing them verbatim!!
He said, he might allow her to go, if China cooperates — the charges are perfectly real and not political.
The arrest didn't seem to be political, but now she's in custody Trump is talking about using the charges for political gain.
On the one hand that could mean "we got a deal, drop all charges!!"
But it could also mean "I don't care if the case is falling apart, I need the leverage! Keep her in custody!!"
Hence the reason why a Canadian Judge, even if they think the charges are legitimate, could refuse the extradition request on the grounds she won't be subjected to a fair legal process.
So called "net nutrality" is a scam, a way for marxist democrat party people to impose HUGE goverment regulation on the free market and make everything about the internet WORSE. If you care about internet freedom, you should join the millions of others like us and voice your oppose to so called "net nutrality".
Nothing screams rational balanced argument like the phrase "marxist democrat party".
I wonder how she will pull that off, given the GPS tracker she must wear and the security team that must escort her everywhere she goes.
I get it, she's rich, but its still QUITE an operation she would have to pull in order to escape the country.
She's rich, she doesn't have to jump bail to stay out of jail. Heck, if you're rich enough you can be a pedophile and still avoid jail time.
If you go onto the internet and see an article about a guy you knew who died, and you start reading the article and then the comments and you DO NOT EXPECT the internet to be the internet then you shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.
The fact that some people are crappy isn't a justification to be crappy yourself.
As someone else said, there are 7.7 billion people on the planet and 1.8 billion seconds in a 90 year life span.
None of us here knew the guy, what are we supposed to do? Go into hysterics because he's dead and it's so TERRIBLE AND THE WORLD HAS ENDED AND NOTHING WILL EVER BE THE SAME EVER AGAIN!
Do you realize how many people died around the world while I was typing this very post? Do you mourn all of them? And if so, do you then mourn the people who died while you mourned the first group?
No one is saying you need to mourn him, I wouldn't expect most people who lack a personal connection to have an emotional response.
But if you're not mourning there are other possible responses (or non-responses) than insensitive jokes.
Keep in mind this guy worked at Google, exactly the demographic who reads slashdot. Some of his friends and co-workers might actually be reading this comment section.
Infection, even from a flue, can in rare cases cause heart attacks. My brother had this happen at 25 years old. The worst part was that the ER nurses at the hospital thought he was just some kid OD'ing on drugs so gave him the lowest priority, as someone that young is unlikely to have a "legitimate" heart problem. It took yelling from his CO showing up several minutes later to convince them he wasn't some guy who just stumbled in from an alleyway. Normally, if you were a bit older, and mention having any sort of chest or heart problem in an ER, you get swarmed by people checking if it is a heart attack.
That said, I don't know why this is news. There is some chance of people dying at any age from unknown medical conditions or some really bad luck. Unless this is directly related to his work at Google, then it is something that happens at any large company from time to time.
A few years back a female friend, probably about 26 at time time, had some sort of bad chest infection (not a cold, but probably not life threatening). Either way she went to the doctor and mentioned it was giving her chest pains... 10 minutes later they had her in emergency for an overnight visit.
It did take her a few weeks to fully recover from the infection, but "chest pains" turned out ot be a magic phrase that escalated things very quickly.
I have no idea why it happens so much more frequently these days, but every now and then you get reports of young adults and teens just dropping dead from a heart condition nobody knew they had. Young athletes regularly get screened for these nowadays, but most people aren't aware of the risk.
I don't think this happens more frequently, it's just that historically people died much more frequently. So even when someone young and seemingly healthy died without a clear explanation it didn't seem much out of the ordinary since young and healthy people were dying on a regular basis.
This still seems odd as a news item, it's very tragic (and I'm not a fan of all the people trying to make a funny comment) but people do die at work.
"They've really unconscionably led people to believe, I think, that the car is far more capable of self-driving than actually is the case. That's a huge problem."
And yet...nobody was hurt, no cars were wrecked...so it did much better than any other car with a sleeping driver.
So it sounds like he was also drunk at the time, but we're really dealing with 3 possible scenarios:
a) He would have driven and passed out / fell asleep no matter what car he owned.
b) He would have driven no matter what car he owned, but he only fell asleep in the tesla since the autopilot was doing the driving.
c) He only drove because he was relying on the tesla to do the driving.
So in scenario a) the tesla definitely made things safer, but in b & c the tesla caused the incident to occur. That's the problem with evaluating the safety of autopilot, all else equal it probably does make drivers a lot safer. The problem is that everything else isn't held equal, driver behaviour changes in response to the autopilot and generally does so in a way to make driving less safe. Maybe not so unsafe as to be safe as no auto-pilot, but it's an open question.
Stop with the myths.
The Heritage Foundation ran a special issue about health care, incorporating many suggestions from people all over the political spectrum. I know this may sound strange to you modern youth, but once upon a time people listened to multiple viewpoints.
In that issue, one person proposed a plan like the PPACA, including the individual mandate. At least two writers wrote responses criticizing that plan. Several other plans were presented as well, with critical responses as well.
At NO time did the Heritage Foundation ever endorse the PPACA or anything like it.
It was essentially the major health care proposal from the right. It never got big traction because... well it turns out it's hard to find a health care proposal that's acceptable to US conservatives and the general public. But you can't just write it off as some random article from the Heritage Foundation, it's not like they were running around the streets asking people to implement it, but among fixes for health care that was one of their winners.
If Romney had run and won in 2008 it's not inconceivable that he'd push and implement something very similar to the ACA.
And before you repeat the Romneycare myth either, remember that Romney VETOED that bill. The Democrat legislature overrode his veto to pass the law. He opposed it.
You might want to find more reliable sources of analysis.
Romney signed the bill. He only vetoed 8 sections (Massachusetts has line-item vetoes), but the mandate, the boogeyman of the right, was not among them.
As long as she used the one in her home, I guess it would be ok?
I mean, at least half of you MUST think that's ok (or you're hypocrites).
The other half must condemn her for this (or you're hypocrites too).
Actually a lot of us thought Clinton's server was bad but not that big a deal.
As for this... It's not bad on it's own, but it exposes the absurd hypocrisy of the right. This email thing was the biggest issue in the country! A major scandal disqualifying for office! Someone should go to jail!!! As long as it involves Clinton or some Democrat, otherwise it isn't even worth the thought to make sure you're not being a ridiculous hypocrite.
Want more hypocrisy? Remember that terrible scary invasion of Central Americans who apparently vanished after the election? Or Trump skipping a major war ceremony in France because he didn't want to go out in the rain, and then skipping the traditional Veteran's Day ceremony so he could stay home and tweet.
If Obama pulled that last one in 2010 you'd still be hearing about it today!
Using personal email for work and vice-versa is something everybody does, even though it's often against some policy.
Sure, though if Ivanka was paying attention in 2016 you'd think she'd be a bit more careful.
What matters is whether Classified information is being sent over unsecured links.
Which is a completely separate manner from using personal email for work.
Neither Clinton's official state dept email address nor Ivanka's official white house email were cleared for sending classified information either. Classified information was supposed to be sent over a completely separate system.
It's just a perception issue. A few pieces of classified info going through your work email is a relatable mistake, but if they're going through your personal email address (even if you use it for work) it suddenly feels like you're trying to do something sketchy.