The problem with this, is that it's actually not in any state's benefit to do so. If you're a winner-takes-all state, then the stakes are high, and the candidates need to pay attention to you. If you're a proportional state, then campaigning there is only going to net you a handful of votes - there'll be a large core that stays for each party, with a relatively small number of votes attached to the swing voters. There's no real incentive for the candidates to pay any attention to you whatsoever.
In order for that to work, it'd have to be federally mandated and enforced, which would be problematic in itself.
It is the exact same thing they do with gerrymandering. They go out of their way to draw the map such that there is as few democratic districts as possible, and the democrats there win elections by very high margins, while there is as many republican districts as possible.
Right, it's always "Republicans" gerrymandering, and the poor, unblemished Democrats who are victims of it.
It's because you don't really understand what people mean by "eite".
Trump isn't one of the elite. Sure, he's richer by orders of magnitude than most of the rest of us, but that just makes him "new rich" (Trump inherited his money, but his father made it - it hasn't been in the family that long). He didn't go to Ivy League college; he hasn't spent years politicking to gain power; he hasn't "paid his dues" climbing either of the two major party ladders; he's not a lawyer, nor a military officer; he's never previously held a political post.
You can tell he's not one of the elite by how they reacted to him - in both Democratic and Republican circles. He's not an everyman by any stretch of the imagination, but he's not a member of "the elite" either.
His general disdain for constitutional rights. People think it's no big deal now because they aren't the target of his disgust, but wait until the day you disagree with him.
You say that like it's a distinguishing feature. You know what would have really made Trump completely unproblematic as a president? Maintaining the original constitutional limits of power, instead of growing the power of the federal government for centuries. The left has been pushing for more power in Washington since forever, because they needed it to "fix" the world. Well, now someone else is sitting in front of those levers you built, promising to "fix" the world.
Do you understand why Libertarians support narrow limits to governmental power now?
My interpretation of this would be a criticism of the state's immigration/refugee policy. If "21" is his district's number, "Daesh 21" sounds like he thinks his district is turning into an outpost of Islamic State.
But, you know, far be it from the state to persecute people for disagreeing with them by abusing stupid laws.
By itself that's no reason Apple should worry, Android got the volume and Apple the big spenders.
Not quite true. Up until the Notesplosion debacle, Samsung had been getting a good chunk of the high-spender market too, along with other manufacturer's Android flagships. Apple got half the big spenders, and Android got half the big spenders, and all the volume.
Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior.
And it's obvious that Uber disagrees. Because Austin and Uber can't come to an agreement, Uber doesn't operate in Austin. That's not "taking their ball and going home", any more than it is Austin kicking them out of the city - it's simply a "contract" whose terms are not suitable to both parties, and thus isn't taken up.
What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles?
Sure. I dunno if it's the same in the US, but here in Australia, you can get a background check without needing to fingerprint someone. The problem isn't the background check, it's the collection (and presumably storing) of biometric information on someone. That sort of stuff usually needs a warrant.
I actually think they're to be commended for pulling out of a market rather than compromising their principles.
Mandatory fingerprinting just for being employed in a particular industry sounds horrifically intrusive. Kudos to Uber for sacrificing the potential profit of the Austin region in order to protect the privacy of their drivers. They're not punishing their customers - if their customers want Uber services, then their customers can not vote for bullshit, abusive laws.
Reading the article, it doesn't sound like this study is based on anything other than correlation. X happened, and Y happened at around the same place, at around the same time. There's no real description of mechanisms, or proposed experiments that could validate a mechanism, or predictions that could be validated against future events.
Cry me a river for AirBnB and for the landlords who have been abusing the already existing NYC law to extort even more money from their already overpriced NYC housing inventory. They bought their apartments knowing what the law was; they just figured that nobody would bother enforcing it. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
Uh, the whole point of this article was that this practice was lowering prices in the short-term rental market. Providing a demanded service cheaply is rare considered "extortion". And just because a law was pre-existing doesn't mean it's a good law - just like the various taxi restrictions that Uber ran into, it was a service using governmental power to protect themselves from competition. If you want to talk actual extortion, start there.
I'm not focusing on illegal immigration at all - Trump is. I was just clarifying Trump's position. To claim that he hates Mexicans because he's against illegal immigration is stupid and disingenuous. I can clarify his position without supporting it.
Specifically, illegal immigrants from the places that statistically generate the most illegal immigrants - Mexico is the source of the most illegal immigrants by an order of magnitude; Canada doesn't even make the top 10.
Yeah, nobody ever complains about companies having a preponderance of males.
I was intending to do that thing where you hyperlink each word in a phrase to a different article supporting that phrase, but I couldn't be bothered, and frankly, it's unnecessary unless you're being deliberately ignorant.
Actually, he took leave from his position at Breitbart when he accepted the position on the Trump Campaign. He was also at Breitbart for four years before joining the Trump campaign - it's not the Trump parachuted him in to change the direction of the site.
People have been spouting this prophecy for more than 300 years, and its never come true. Despite incredible technological advancement, more people are employed now than in any point in history. Some people mightl lose out in the short term, but in the long term, the number of jobs only grows.
A basic income may or may not be a good idea - I know in Australia, that the cost of the bureaucracy attached to our welfare system means that replacing it with a basic income (or better, negative income tax) is actually cheaper for the state. I don't know if the same is true in the US, bu t I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
The very idea of a foreign country interfering in our elections is an affront to our very democracy and a direct and present threat.
You call it "an affront to our very democracy", I call it karma. Just be thankful they did it via cyber attacks instead of insurgencies and drone strikes.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with this, is that it's actually not in any state's benefit to do so. If you're a winner-takes-all state, then the stakes are high, and the candidates need to pay attention to you. If you're a proportional state, then campaigning there is only going to net you a handful of votes - there'll be a large core that stays for each party, with a relatively small number of votes attached to the swing voters. There's no real incentive for the candidates to pay any attention to you whatsoever.
In order for that to work, it'd have to be federally mandated and enforced, which would be problematic in itself.
It is the exact same thing they do with gerrymandering. They go out of their way to draw the map such that there is as few democratic districts as possible, and the democrats there win elections by very high margins, while there is as many republican districts as possible.
Right, it's always "Republicans" gerrymandering, and the poor, unblemished Democrats who are victims of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's because you don't really understand what people mean by "eite".
Trump isn't one of the elite. Sure, he's richer by orders of magnitude than most of the rest of us, but that just makes him "new rich" (Trump inherited his money, but his father made it - it hasn't been in the family that long). He didn't go to Ivy League college; he hasn't spent years politicking to gain power; he hasn't "paid his dues" climbing either of the two major party ladders; he's not a lawyer, nor a military officer; he's never previously held a political post.
You can tell he's not one of the elite by how they reacted to him - in both Democratic and Republican circles. He's not an everyman by any stretch of the imagination, but he's not a member of "the elite" either.
His general disdain for constitutional rights. People think it's no big deal now because they aren't the target of his disgust, but wait until the day you disagree with him.
You say that like it's a distinguishing feature. You know what would have really made Trump completely unproblematic as a president? Maintaining the original constitutional limits of power, instead of growing the power of the federal government for centuries. The left has been pushing for more power in Washington since forever, because they needed it to "fix" the world. Well, now someone else is sitting in front of those levers you built, promising to "fix" the world.
Do you understand why Libertarians support narrow limits to governmental power now?
My interpretation of this would be a criticism of the state's immigration/refugee policy. If "21" is his district's number, "Daesh 21" sounds like he thinks his district is turning into an outpost of Islamic State.
But, you know, far be it from the state to persecute people for disagreeing with them by abusing stupid laws.
Yeah, but they only delisted the evidence because an EU citizen demanded they forget it.
By itself that's no reason Apple should worry, Android got the volume and Apple the big spenders.
Not quite true. Up until the Notesplosion debacle, Samsung had been getting a good chunk of the high-spender market too, along with other manufacturer's Android flagships. Apple got half the big spenders, and Android got half the big spenders, and all the volume.
What even is "the dark web"? Is it just websites people don't know about because they aren't Facebook or Google?
Well, obviously the people living in Austin believe that it is reasonable to make sure that people who run a livery service have been vetted for certain types of criminal behavior.
And it's obvious that Uber disagrees. Because Austin and Uber can't come to an agreement, Uber doesn't operate in Austin. That's not "taking their ball and going home", any more than it is Austin kicking them out of the city - it's simply a "contract" whose terms are not suitable to both parties, and thus isn't taken up.
What are you going to suggest now, that it's unreasonable to fingerprint elementary school teachers and daycare workers to make sure they aren't convicted pedophiles?
Sure. I dunno if it's the same in the US, but here in Australia, you can get a background check without needing to fingerprint someone. The problem isn't the background check, it's the collection (and presumably storing) of biometric information on someone. That sort of stuff usually needs a warrant.
I actually think they're to be commended for pulling out of a market rather than compromising their principles.
Mandatory fingerprinting just for being employed in a particular industry sounds horrifically intrusive. Kudos to Uber for sacrificing the potential profit of the Austin region in order to protect the privacy of their drivers. They're not punishing their customers - if their customers want Uber services, then their customers can not vote for bullshit, abusive laws.
Read the whole story. It wasn't "typo-squatters" it was a Russian bank owned by oligarchs that was connecting to Trump's secret private email server.
Uh, by "secret, private email server", do you mean the server openly and publicly registered to the Trump Organisation?
Reading the article, it doesn't sound like this study is based on anything other than correlation. X happened, and Y happened at around the same place, at around the same time. There's no real description of mechanisms, or proposed experiments that could validate a mechanism, or predictions that could be validated against future events.
GP was pointing out that "John" is also slang for toilet.
You already posted that upthread, and were corrected. At least keep your fearmongering to once per thread.
Cry me a river for AirBnB and for the landlords who have been abusing the already existing NYC law to extort even more money from their already overpriced NYC housing inventory. They bought their apartments knowing what the law was; they just figured that nobody would bother enforcing it. Well, surprise, surprise, surprise!
Uh, the whole point of this article was that this practice was lowering prices in the short-term rental market. Providing a demanded service cheaply is rare considered "extortion". And just because a law was pre-existing doesn't mean it's a good law - just like the various taxi restrictions that Uber ran into, it was a service using governmental power to protect themselves from competition. If you want to talk actual extortion, start there.
He didn't say the USSR was ahead; he said the USSR took a chance at getting ahead, failed, and collapsed.
I'm not focusing on illegal immigration at all - Trump is. I was just clarifying Trump's position. To claim that he hates Mexicans because he's against illegal immigration is stupid and disingenuous. I can clarify his position without supporting it.
Specifically, illegal immigrants from the places that statistically generate the most illegal immigrants - Mexico is the source of the most illegal immigrants by an order of magnitude; Canada doesn't even make the top 10.
His flagship policy is a wall to keep illegal immigrants out.
Same thing happened in the UK with Brexit.
You mean, people not voting the way they were told to?
Yeah, nobody ever complains about companies having a preponderance of males.
I was intending to do that thing where you hyperlink each word in a phrase to a different article supporting that phrase, but I couldn't be bothered, and frankly, it's unnecessary unless you're being deliberately ignorant.
Actually, he took leave from his position at Breitbart when he accepted the position on the Trump Campaign. He was also at Breitbart for four years before joining the Trump campaign - it's not the Trump parachuted him in to change the direction of the site.
People have been spouting this prophecy for more than 300 years, and its never come true. Despite incredible technological advancement, more people are employed now than in any point in history. Some people mightl lose out in the short term, but in the long term, the number of jobs only grows.
A basic income may or may not be a good idea - I know in Australia, that the cost of the bureaucracy attached to our welfare system means that replacing it with a basic income (or better, negative income tax) is actually cheaper for the state. I don't know if the same is true in the US, bu t I wouldn't be surprised if it is.
It was Paul Combetta; he was just being thorough.
The very idea of a foreign country interfering in our elections is an affront to our very democracy and a direct and present threat.
You call it "an affront to our very democracy", I call it karma. Just be thankful they did it via cyber attacks instead of insurgencies and drone strikes.