There there did not seem to be one Republican contender of the calibre of John McCain or Mitt Romney.
Are you kidding me? McCain and Romney were clowns. It's like the Republicans said "okay, who's turn is it to lose next?", just like they did with Bob Dole. They constantly choose the weakest candidates. The only time they manage to win is when the Dems pick someone even worse.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are Timmmmah in disguise (albeit a bad one). So quit making a fool of your self and just leave well enough alone.
Which is ludicrous. Waiting for the perfect candidate is rather like waiting for the perfect spouse. Both are naive and overly romantic. All candidates are going to have flaws, and if you believe your favorite candidate doesn't have flaws and isn't going to be a forced into countless compromises, then you've ceased to have a political point of view, and have become a religious adherent.
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. He is far from my ideal candidate, but I still agree with him much more than Clinton/Trump. I recently saw a post on FB with this quote, which I think sums it up really well:
"When someone tells you you're wasting your vote, recognize that they don't care about you. It's a selfish statement. They are saying your beliefs aren't worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder. Vote your conscience, not someone else's politics."
So if you're suggesting that not voting for the Dem or Rep candidate (which is what the original post was referring to) is acting like a petulant child, maybe that's because you're being selfish.
Don't reward bad behavior. While the law does need to be changed, the other avenue is to stop buying John Deere tractors. There are several other options. Case IH seems to be more than willing to supply repair manuals for their equipment.
If she told me the sky was blue I'd glance up just to check.
Yeah, with these kinds of numbers, she's almost as bad as Baghdad Bob saying the Iraqis were in full control as American tanks were rolling by in the background.
The one exception to this union employees, since their contracts are usually tied to minimum wage.
Usually in real life? Or usually in what you post?
It would be pretty funny if the government passed two minimum wages. Say one for regularly scheduled work during regular working hours, and a different one for jerk-around shift work. Go, unions, go.
Unions tie their wages to the minimum wage in their contract so that if the minimum wage goes up, so does their wage. The know cost of living will go up with a minimum wage increase.
People who think Donald Trump is going to fix it have their heads up their asses.
I'm not voting for Trump, but I doubt it would be any better with Clinton. Just ask yourself this: Has wealth distribution in the U.S. gotten better or worse during Obama's 8 years. Most people would say "The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer." Now, is that trend likely to continue with Clinton? If not, how is she going to change it?
If minimum wage kept up with inflation, maybe we wouldn't have so many people on welfare.
Except for the people who will be earning $0, which is the minimum wage you get when you can't get a job.
It's a joke that someone can put 40 hours in per week with one employer and still need to work a 2nd job or require government assistance simply to pay the bills and put food on the table.
Minimum wage increases are usually met with price increases as well, meaning that the gains seen by minimum wage earners is minimal. However, the people earning more than minimum wage are actually hurt.
Consider this scenario. Suppose you've been working a job for 5 years and you started out at minimum wage, $7.25. Now you're making $15 an hour due to annual increases from good performance reviews. That's a 107% increase over that time. Suddenly, the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour. What's the likely outcome? You know you're not going to be getting a 107% increase again to $31.03. More likely, you'll get a $3-$5 raise, meaning that after 5 years of hard work, you're going to be making about 20% to 33.3% more than a person who was just hired. In addition to that, most thing you'd like to buy are now going to cost more.
Essentially, a minimum wage increase is a wage decrease for everyone else. It doesn't hurt the rich, who will barely notice the increase, but it especially hurts the working lower & middle-lower class people who were making slightly more than minimum wage, which is a lot more than those who earn just the minimum wage.
The one exception to this union employees, since their contracts are usually tied to minimum wage. They're always in favor of minimum wage increases because they'll get the full proportional raise, making them slightly better off than before, because everyone else is being dragged down.
Is there any alternative to Clinton or Donald? Having maybe a third or fourth political party in the system to get some alternatives?
Fat chance, tried before several times, cannot even get into TV discussions, why? Status quo benefits the delusionary folks making the rules or pulling the strings to leave the status quo intact so things keep running as smooth as they are for decades or centuries - for the people by the people....
Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson is currently polling at around 13% in some polls like CNN. 15% is the threshold for getting into the debates. Unfortunately, you need a 15% average on 4 national polls, and most don't include him. Jill Stein is currently at about 5%. The difference between her & Johnson though is that Johnson will (most likely) be on the ballot on all 50 states, whereas Stein won't--last I recall it would be something in the low 40's. For someone like Johnson to get into the debates would be huge, because it would greatly increase his support. Stein won't be able to get close to 15%, even with the influx of Bernouts that are flocking to her campaign. Most of them are supporting Hillary, with smaller numbers going to Trump & Johnson.
We didn't end slavery to make sure that black people could carry guns. We ended it because it was a reprehensible practice and we fought a real shooting civil war over it. NOBODY at the time was standing around saying "we need to make sure black people can own guns". If anything people back then were generally terrified of the concept of armed black people.
Sorry, meant 14th amendment. Lots of southerners were terrified of black people owning guns, so after slavery was ended, they passed laws prohibiting them from doing so, along with voting, access to courts, etc.
If you think we actually live in a police state you have NO idea what a real police state is or what it is like to live in one. Come back and argue when you have some real perspective and life experience.
Nice straw man. I didn't say we live in one *yet*, but I'm hoping that we'll be able to avoid one.
All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.
The fact that black people were barred from owning firearms is one of the reasons the 13th amendment was passed.
The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.
Yeah, look at what a wonderful police state the rest of the world is turning into.
There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
Yet Martin Luther King Jr. almost always had people with guns around him for self-defense.
See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights.
There were several armed protesters in the group who didn't shoot anyone.
Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection.
Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone.
Yes, that worked well in Tienanmen Square.
If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun... You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.
You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away.
It sounds as if you would like to take semi-automatic or full automatic guns away from people. Several entertainers recently have advocated for Australian Style gun control which was enforced by mass confiscation.
Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they on the streets?
They can start be dismantling the USA PATRIOT Act. A bad idea, always was. Tell the security services they need to play by the same rules everyone else does.
Justin Amash recently prevented it from being expanded, at least in the short term. This guy is as principled as they come in the House of Reps.
The Supreme Court might help with some of it -- they ruled the government needs warrants to listen in on your phone calls, even though it passes through the hands of third parties because, among other things, The People have an expectation of privacy.
I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court to help with the 4th Amendment. They seem to get more wrong these days than they get right.
"Flying Cell-On-Wings" - doesn't the "Wings" part cover that? Unless you're gonna go the whole mile and dress these things up like cows and pronounce it "Flying Cow" (instead of see-oh-double-you).
Yeah, it's redundant, but Flying COD (Cell-On-Drone) doesn't quite have the same humor factor.
The fix is rather simple really. Minimum salary for H1-B visas is $100k/yr.
If you have a magic wand, what are you doing wasting your time posting on Slashdot? Why aren't you out there reshaping the world the way you'd like it to be? What you think would happen by passing a law like this is probably quite different than what would really happen. Think of the $15 minimum wage and things like fast food kiosks, mom & pop corner stores shutting down while Walmart grows bigger, etc.
Sanders was an outsider taking on the elites and the political establishment.
I told my friends on FB that were supporting him back in May that he would eventually sell out & endorse her. They were still delusional that he could win and said "no way!"
Hillary is the establishment, she is the perennial insider candidate. It will be interesting to see how many of Sanders supporters stay true to their ideals and refuse to vote for the women they spent months campaigning against./do Bernie Sanders fans care about corruption?
Most of them will likely be climbing over each other to vote for her.
Slashdot Mirror
There there did not seem to be one Republican contender of the calibre of John McCain or Mitt Romney.
Are you kidding me? McCain and Romney were clowns. It's like the Republicans said "okay, who's turn is it to lose next?", just like they did with Bob Dole. They constantly choose the weakest candidates. The only time they manage to win is when the Dems pick someone even worse.
The only conclusion I can come to is that you are Timmmmah in disguise (albeit a bad one). So quit making a fool of your self and just leave well enough alone.
Maybe he recently joined the American Non Sequitur Society.
Which part confuses you? You have a different dielectric than the air whilst alive.
Orange peels are capacitive, but so are some rubber sytluses, and a rubber stylus is most certainly not alive.
What I read is "As little as 0%"
It's kind of like Sex Panther. 80% of the time, it works every time!
Now, if we could only prove that free will actually exists, we would have something.
Did you have to say that?
Has anyone bothered to ask Alexa? I don't own one, but it would be interesting to hear the device's own reply to "Alexa, have you been wiretapped?"
This kind of thing won't happen when Obama^H^H^H^H^H Hillary is President!
So are they supposed to just whip out an iPhone in the middle of a HALO jump to figure out when they need to open their chute?
<sarcasm>That's what I always do, don't you?</sarcasm>
Maybe it communicates with a headset via Bluetooth to tell them when to deploy their chute. At least that's how I'd set it up.
Which is ludicrous. Waiting for the perfect candidate is rather like waiting for the perfect spouse. Both are naive and overly romantic. All candidates are going to have flaws, and if you believe your favorite candidate doesn't have flaws and isn't going to be a forced into countless compromises, then you've ceased to have a political point of view, and have become a religious adherent.
I'm voting for Gary Johnson. He is far from my ideal candidate, but I still agree with him much more than Clinton/Trump. I recently saw a post on FB with this quote, which I think sums it up really well:
"When someone tells you you're wasting your vote, recognize that they don't care about you. It's a selfish statement. They are saying your beliefs aren't worth being represented. That you should silence your voice so theirs can be louder. Vote your conscience, not someone else's politics."
So if you're suggesting that not voting for the Dem or Rep candidate (which is what the original post was referring to) is acting like a petulant child, maybe that's because you're being selfish.
Don't reward bad behavior. While the law does need to be changed, the other avenue is to stop buying John Deere tractors. There are several other options. Case IH seems to be more than willing to supply repair manuals for their equipment.
If she told me the sky was blue I'd glance up just to check.
Yeah, with these kinds of numbers, she's almost as bad as Baghdad Bob saying the Iraqis were in full control as American tanks were rolling by in the background.
Good way to be there and not risk getting shot
How many people were shot yesterday at the RNC? I mean, with all those guns around, somebody had to have gotten shot, right?
The one exception to this union employees, since their contracts are usually tied to minimum wage.
Usually in real life? Or usually in what you post?
It would be pretty funny if the government passed two minimum wages. Say one for regularly scheduled work during regular working hours, and a different one for jerk-around shift work. Go, unions, go.
Unions tie their wages to the minimum wage in their contract so that if the minimum wage goes up, so does their wage. The know cost of living will go up with a minimum wage increase.
People who think Donald Trump is going to fix it have their heads up their asses.
I'm not voting for Trump, but I doubt it would be any better with Clinton. Just ask yourself this: Has wealth distribution in the U.S. gotten better or worse during Obama's 8 years. Most people would say "The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer." Now, is that trend likely to continue with Clinton? If not, how is she going to change it?
If minimum wage kept up with inflation, maybe we wouldn't have so many people on welfare.
Except for the people who will be earning $0, which is the minimum wage you get when you can't get a job.
It's a joke that someone can put 40 hours in per week with one employer and still need to work a 2nd job or require government assistance simply to pay the bills and put food on the table.
Minimum wage increases are usually met with price increases as well, meaning that the gains seen by minimum wage earners is minimal. However, the people earning more than minimum wage are actually hurt.
Consider this scenario. Suppose you've been working a job for 5 years and you started out at minimum wage, $7.25. Now you're making $15 an hour due to annual increases from good performance reviews. That's a 107% increase over that time. Suddenly, the minimum wage is raised to $15 an hour. What's the likely outcome? You know you're not going to be getting a 107% increase again to $31.03. More likely, you'll get a $3-$5 raise, meaning that after 5 years of hard work, you're going to be making about 20% to 33.3% more than a person who was just hired. In addition to that, most thing you'd like to buy are now going to cost more.
Essentially, a minimum wage increase is a wage decrease for everyone else. It doesn't hurt the rich, who will barely notice the increase, but it especially hurts the working lower & middle-lower class people who were making slightly more than minimum wage, which is a lot more than those who earn just the minimum wage.
The one exception to this union employees, since their contracts are usually tied to minimum wage. They're always in favor of minimum wage increases because they'll get the full proportional raise, making them slightly better off than before, because everyone else is being dragged down.
Is there any alternative to Clinton or Donald? Having maybe a third or fourth political party in the system to get some alternatives? Fat chance, tried before several times, cannot even get into TV discussions, why? Status quo benefits the delusionary folks making the rules or pulling the strings to leave the status quo intact so things keep running as smooth as they are for decades or centuries - for the people by the people....
Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson is currently polling at around 13% in some polls like CNN. 15% is the threshold for getting into the debates. Unfortunately, you need a 15% average on 4 national polls, and most don't include him. Jill Stein is currently at about 5%. The difference between her & Johnson though is that Johnson will (most likely) be on the ballot on all 50 states, whereas Stein won't--last I recall it would be something in the low 40's. For someone like Johnson to get into the debates would be huge, because it would greatly increase his support. Stein won't be able to get close to 15%, even with the influx of Bernouts that are flocking to her campaign. Most of them are supporting Hillary, with smaller numbers going to Trump & Johnson.
We didn't end slavery to make sure that black people could carry guns. We ended it because it was a reprehensible practice and we fought a real shooting civil war over it. NOBODY at the time was standing around saying "we need to make sure black people can own guns". If anything people back then were generally terrified of the concept of armed black people.
Sorry, meant 14th amendment. Lots of southerners were terrified of black people owning guns, so after slavery was ended, they passed laws prohibiting them from doing so, along with voting, access to courts, etc.
If you think we actually live in a police state you have NO idea what a real police state is or what it is like to live in one. Come back and argue when you have some real perspective and life experience.
Nice straw man. I didn't say we live in one *yet*, but I'm hoping that we'll be able to avoid one.
I'm surprised that Rand Paul isn't in the list. Kinda makes me wonder which side is the sham.
This is a House of Representatives caucus. Paul is a Senator.
All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.
The fact that black people were barred from owning firearms is one of the reasons the 13th amendment was passed.
The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.
Yeah, look at what a wonderful police state the rest of the world is turning into.
There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
Yet Martin Luther King Jr. almost always had people with guns around him for self-defense.
See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights.
There were several armed protesters in the group who didn't shoot anyone.
Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection.
Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone.
Yes, that worked well in Tienanmen Square.
If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun... You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.
Except when you do.
You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away.
It sounds as if you would like to take semi-automatic or full automatic guns away from people. Several entertainers recently have advocated for Australian Style gun control which was enforced by mass confiscation.
Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they on the streets?
They can start be dismantling the USA PATRIOT Act. A bad idea, always was. Tell the security services they need to play by the same rules everyone else does.
Justin Amash recently prevented it from being expanded, at least in the short term. This guy is as principled as they come in the House of Reps.
The Supreme Court might help with some of it -- they ruled the government needs warrants to listen in on your phone calls, even though it passes through the hands of third parties because, among other things, The People have an expectation of privacy.
I wouldn't count on the Supreme Court to help with the 4th Amendment. They seem to get more wrong these days than they get right.
Great show, and a nice follow-up to a heavier show like GoT.
"Flying Cell-On-Wings" - doesn't the "Wings" part cover that? Unless you're gonna go the whole mile and dress these things up like cows and pronounce it "Flying Cow" (instead of see-oh-double-you).
Yeah, it's redundant, but Flying COD (Cell-On-Drone) doesn't quite have the same humor factor.
The fix is rather simple really. Minimum salary for H1-B visas is $100k/yr.
If you have a magic wand, what are you doing wasting your time posting on Slashdot? Why aren't you out there reshaping the world the way you'd like it to be? What you think would happen by passing a law like this is probably quite different than what would really happen. Think of the $15 minimum wage and things like fast food kiosks, mom & pop corner stores shutting down while Walmart grows bigger, etc.
Sanders was an outsider taking on the elites and the political establishment.
I told my friends on FB that were supporting him back in May that he would eventually sell out & endorse her. They were still delusional that he could win and said "no way!"
Hillary is the establishment, she is the perennial insider candidate. It will be interesting to see how many of Sanders supporters stay true to their ideals and refuse to vote for the women they spent months campaigning against. /do Bernie Sanders fans care about corruption?
Most of them will likely be climbing over each other to vote for her.