Actually, I have good reasons for what you call groupthink. I might be incorrect, but I have reasons. Look at what happened in WWII in partisan warfare. When poorly armed, poorly trained, poorly led regular troops encountered valiant partisans with personal weapons, the partisans tended to lose.
I haven't seen good reasons for the ability of civilians to beat the US Army, other than by convincing parts of said Army to go over to their side. Nobody's explained to me how this is supposed to work, or how things have changed in the past seventy-odd years to make the lessons of Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the Balkans irrelevant.
Gender identity is not fluid in any case I know of. (It can get really complicated, and I'm not an expert in the field.) It's generally expressed in dress and actions.
The paragraph beginning "Now, you probably support the punishment...". In that, you said that the people you were characterizing as "you" permitted you to have an opinion but not to voice it, and "But we don't think like that over here". I simply gave an example of when publishing an opinion could be legally actionable and result in the loss of a civil lawsuit. Were you thinking strictly of criminal punishment?
Ten wrong entries is an autodestruct on an appropriately configured iPhone..
Instant autodestruct on entering a specific wrong passcode is dangerous, and any suspect who gives the police the kill passcode is going to be charged with destruction of evidence.
Could it be a regional thing? I live in a liberal metro area. Most of my family and the majority of my friends are left-wing. I never hear talk excusing criminals, although I do hear interesting ideas on ways to deal with crime other than locking criminals up for long periods of time. (The prison-industrial complex does exist, and is a bad thing.) I can get negative opinions on Batista easily enough, but my friends and family never seemed pro-Che or pro-Castro. There is no growing threat of al-Qaida and ISIS, and if you want me to believe otherwise you need to supply evidence I'm fairly sure doesn't exist.
The US is not strongly socialist. It is far behind every other developed nation in providing security to its citizens. By the standards of most developed nations, the Democrats are right-wing and Sanders is a centrist. It has religious groups that are powerful enough to screw up teaching in public schools and impose faith-based and ineffectual sex education and womens' care.
I didn't think capital punishment was a core right-wing value.
There have been right-wing movements with no major religion. Nazi Germany was somewhat hostile to religion. Fascist Italy was officially Catholic, but used that as more of a symbol of nationality than a source of authority.
f I wanted to live on a UBI income, I could just quit and collect social security and a pension. I'm going to do that anyway at some point, but I'm continuing to work.
We could save one of that trillion, on a national level, by adopting any other countries' health care system, since they all cost at least $3K less per person per year.
Lots of the money that would go into the UBI already comes out of taxes. This would remove the need for normal welfare benefits, for example, and would cover a lot of what Social Security does (including disability). The additional money would require raises in taxes. At some income, the extra taxes would take away all of the UBI, and people at higher incomes would lose some money.
On the other hand, we could save nearly a trillion a year by adopting the next most expensive health care system in the world, so it's not like we're spending money wisely anyway.
Depends. You suffered because the Navy retirees had extra money coming in and you didn't. With a UBI, everyone would have the extra money coming in. (Yeah, we need to make provisions for non-US citizens here.) On the other hand, nobody's forced into a crap job instead of homelessness and starvation, so the crap jobs will likely pay more.
I've read lots of welfare recipient stories that turned out to be bogus, and there's no voting requirements on welfare.
Obviously some people will rather not work if they can get away with it, particularly if they don't wind up significantly better off working. The study shows that the desirability of extra income over the UBI motivates most people to find work.
We don't have to have ratification to appropriate money.
A treaty that is ratified by the Senate is part of the law of the land, and we still aren't all that great at complying with them. Congress and the President can pass laws that conform to a treaty without ratification.
Of course, Congress had no part of this, so Trump is legally justified in reversing what Obama did. Whether it's a good idea is another question.
Or you have to develop the skills needed for modern manufacturing, which is usually not a case of being at a machine and doing something repetitive. (Actually, we do have some manufacturing jobs like that where I work, but most require skill with modern computer-controlled machinery.)
It's hard to cancel coal plants once they're already built. Their priorities are changing. Nor do I care whether they're moving from coal to non-fossil-fuel plants because of the treaty or because they didn't want the pollution or whatever. Diminishing the role of coal in producing electricity is good for a large number of reasons.
I know how the Electoral College works. I've considered it a bad idea for quite a few decades now.
Rural areas receive lots of Federal and State money. Roads aren't cheap. Neither is running electricity and phone lines all over the place. They tend to be poorer than the urban areas, so Federal and State money for education tends to matter more to them. Overall, urban areas tend to support the rural ones financially.
Drug tests on welfare recipients show that very few of them do illegal drugs, and so the drug tests are largely a waste of money.
People in rural areas tend not to understand the challenges of urban areas (and vice versa), and a lot of the cultural differences are because of different circumstances. From my point of view, people in rural areas like to stick their noses into other people's business. It's not their business what other people's religion is. Unless they're thinking of having sex with someone, that person's gender and sexual orientation are not their business.
Cutting down on our military power (which is not what the Republicans and Trump apparently want to do) has its advantages.. Throwing away US leadership in other areas really doesn't.
Typically, liberals complain about local school boards who want their specific religion to have a special place in the schools, from what I've seen. This is either official prayer or displays or replacing science with religious nonsense.
My experience is that males say things around and to females. I've had numerous jobs, and only in one case was I not supposed to talk to a woman. (I'd insisted that a certain tricky configuration she'd set up was wrong, because it was and I could see how it was wrong, and offered to help her. Next thing I know, we're ordered not to talk to each other. It had nothing to do with gender.) I don't know if it's a regional thing or not.
Except that employers are clearly and strictly forbidden to retaliate against someone launching a non-frivolous lawsuit against them. If the woman in question has reasonable evidence (and apparently she does), the lawsuit is not frivolous, whether or not she wins.
She may have been becoming increasingly hostile against the company, but that could be because the company was becoming increasingly hostile to her. I don't know whether or not it was, but just providing a hostile environment in the face of a lawsuit is retaliation.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, it would be bad if the candidate who got more votes to win because you disagree with her politically.
If the election were held again today, there'd be campaigning leading up to it. It wouldn't happen in a vacuum. The poll results are not definitive.
Actually, I have good reasons for what you call groupthink. I might be incorrect, but I have reasons. Look at what happened in WWII in partisan warfare. When poorly armed, poorly trained, poorly led regular troops encountered valiant partisans with personal weapons, the partisans tended to lose.
I haven't seen good reasons for the ability of civilians to beat the US Army, other than by convincing parts of said Army to go over to their side. Nobody's explained to me how this is supposed to work, or how things have changed in the past seventy-odd years to make the lessons of Yugoslavia and elsewhere in the Balkans irrelevant.
Gender identity is not fluid in any case I know of. (It can get really complicated, and I'm not an expert in the field.) It's generally expressed in dress and actions.
The paragraph beginning "Now, you probably support the punishment...". In that, you said that the people you were characterizing as "you" permitted you to have an opinion but not to voice it, and "But we don't think like that over here". I simply gave an example of when publishing an opinion could be legally actionable and result in the loss of a civil lawsuit. Were you thinking strictly of criminal punishment?
Ten wrong entries is an autodestruct on an appropriately configured iPhone..
Instant autodestruct on entering a specific wrong passcode is dangerous, and any suspect who gives the police the kill passcode is going to be charged with destruction of evidence.
Could it be a regional thing? I live in a liberal metro area. Most of my family and the majority of my friends are left-wing. I never hear talk excusing criminals, although I do hear interesting ideas on ways to deal with crime other than locking criminals up for long periods of time. (The prison-industrial complex does exist, and is a bad thing.) I can get negative opinions on Batista easily enough, but my friends and family never seemed pro-Che or pro-Castro. There is no growing threat of al-Qaida and ISIS, and if you want me to believe otherwise you need to supply evidence I'm fairly sure doesn't exist.
The US is not strongly socialist. It is far behind every other developed nation in providing security to its citizens. By the standards of most developed nations, the Democrats are right-wing and Sanders is a centrist. It has religious groups that are powerful enough to screw up teaching in public schools and impose faith-based and ineffectual sex education and womens' care.
I didn't think capital punishment was a core right-wing value.
There have been right-wing movements with no major religion. Nazi Germany was somewhat hostile to religion. Fascist Italy was officially Catholic, but used that as more of a symbol of nationality than a source of authority.
If I have to pay a thousand more in taxes, and four thousand less in medical care, I think I could live with that.
Yup. You want more money than the UBI, you find a job or start a business or something.
The last time general price controls were in effect was during the Nixon administration. They were as ineffectual as you'd think.
f I wanted to live on a UBI income, I could just quit and collect social security and a pension. I'm going to do that anyway at some point, but I'm continuing to work.
We could save one of that trillion, on a national level, by adopting any other countries' health care system, since they all cost at least $3K less per person per year.
Lots of the money that would go into the UBI already comes out of taxes. This would remove the need for normal welfare benefits, for example, and would cover a lot of what Social Security does (including disability). The additional money would require raises in taxes. At some income, the extra taxes would take away all of the UBI, and people at higher incomes would lose some money.
On the other hand, we could save nearly a trillion a year by adopting the next most expensive health care system in the world, so it's not like we're spending money wisely anyway.
Depends. You suffered because the Navy retirees had extra money coming in and you didn't. With a UBI, everyone would have the extra money coming in. (Yeah, we need to make provisions for non-US citizens here.) On the other hand, nobody's forced into a crap job instead of homelessness and starvation, so the crap jobs will likely pay more.
I've read lots of welfare recipient stories that turned out to be bogus, and there's no voting requirements on welfare.
Obviously some people will rather not work if they can get away with it, particularly if they don't wind up significantly better off working. The study shows that the desirability of extra income over the UBI motivates most people to find work.
We don't have to have ratification to appropriate money.
A treaty that is ratified by the Senate is part of the law of the land, and we still aren't all that great at complying with them. Congress and the President can pass laws that conform to a treaty without ratification.
Of course, Congress had no part of this, so Trump is legally justified in reversing what Obama did. Whether it's a good idea is another question.
Or you have to develop the skills needed for modern manufacturing, which is usually not a case of being at a machine and doing something repetitive. (Actually, we do have some manufacturing jobs like that where I work, but most require skill with modern computer-controlled machinery.)
It's hard to cancel coal plants once they're already built. Their priorities are changing. Nor do I care whether they're moving from coal to non-fossil-fuel plants because of the treaty or because they didn't want the pollution or whatever. Diminishing the role of coal in producing electricity is good for a large number of reasons.
I know how the Electoral College works. I've considered it a bad idea for quite a few decades now.
Rural areas receive lots of Federal and State money. Roads aren't cheap. Neither is running electricity and phone lines all over the place. They tend to be poorer than the urban areas, so Federal and State money for education tends to matter more to them. Overall, urban areas tend to support the rural ones financially.
Drug tests on welfare recipients show that very few of them do illegal drugs, and so the drug tests are largely a waste of money.
People in rural areas tend not to understand the challenges of urban areas (and vice versa), and a lot of the cultural differences are because of different circumstances. From my point of view, people in rural areas like to stick their noses into other people's business. It's not their business what other people's religion is. Unless they're thinking of having sex with someone, that person's gender and sexual orientation are not their business.
Cutting down on our military power (which is not what the Republicans and Trump apparently want to do) has its advantages.. Throwing away US leadership in other areas really doesn't.
Almost as fast as the right can.
Typically, liberals complain about local school boards who want their specific religion to have a special place in the schools, from what I've seen. This is either official prayer or displays or replacing science with religious nonsense.
My experience is that males say things around and to females. I've had numerous jobs, and only in one case was I not supposed to talk to a woman. (I'd insisted that a certain tricky configuration she'd set up was wrong, because it was and I could see how it was wrong, and offered to help her. Next thing I know, we're ordered not to talk to each other. It had nothing to do with gender.) I don't know if it's a regional thing or not.
I hope whoever's in the right wins.
Except that employers are clearly and strictly forbidden to retaliate against someone launching a non-frivolous lawsuit against them. If the woman in question has reasonable evidence (and apparently she does), the lawsuit is not frivolous, whether or not she wins.
She may have been becoming increasingly hostile against the company, but that could be because the company was becoming increasingly hostile to her. I don't know whether or not it was, but just providing a hostile environment in the face of a lawsuit is retaliation.