Let's see. The 97% figure was from observing papers that said something about climate change. Calling a year the warmest ever because it's measured as the warmest ever, and is statistically likely to be, is reasonable. If it bothers you, call it the warmest year measured, since we have no measurements that exceed it. You're clueless about Antarctic ice,I see. Land ice seems to be melting, and this produces less saline water on the ocean, which freezes easier.
The conclusion is that you like to talk trash about things you have an irrational attachment to but don't understand. Got it.
If Trump does not get a majority, the three top vote-getters go to the House. They will be Trump, Clinton, and a Republican to be named later. The House is likely to choose the last.
The "dismissed and not counted" is speculative. It isn't clear that the states can do that. We'd likely need a Supreme Court ruling. Moreover, the majority is of the number of electors selected, so if the state can retroactively unselect, the number needed for a majority goes down. (Or so I think; this looks pretty clear to me but not necessarily to the courts).
It's also possible that Clinton will pick up a state or two in a recount, although I'd currently bet against it.
There really hasn't been this big an incentive for electors to vote other than their states did before. Trump scares a LOT of Republicans.
I'm also not really comfortable with electors doing what Federalist 68 calls for being called "faithless".
Back when I was a kid, we mostly had right-wing apologists for totalitarian regimes, and the US was eager to overthrow any democracy that might conceivably get friendly with Communists.
If we're talking about the parallels between Trump and Hitler, there's more than I care for. Both are minority-bashing, have no government experience, are used to doing what they want, and their supporters support them for fundamentally irrational and likely nihilistic reasons. Frankly, I'm more worried about the Trump supporters than about Trump, because they'll still be there when Trump's gone.
Unless Republican electors think they can get a majority of the EC for Kasich, it doesn't matter. If Trump doesn't get a majority, the top three vote-getters go to the House. In this scenario, one will be Trump, one will be Clinton, and one will be another Republican (Kasich has the advantage of being reasonably honest) who will probably become President. What the Democrat electors do matters not at all, unless Clinton manages to get a majority somehow.
The watches do seem to be selling to some extent, so people disagree with you on that. I have no intention of buying one, because I hate wearing a watch, and don't really care of somebody else does buy one. If I were trying for social status, I'd be someone else. I wore a Casio with the little keyboard for a few years and considered it a fashion statement.
This all started because some Western European countries observed ISIS propaganda on social media sites to have some apparent effect in radicalizing Muslims. This has nothing to do with fake news or Trump. Things are not always just about Trump.
Land lines are a natural monopoly, like every last-mile service. You can spin up a social media site today at low cost. There's nothing monopolistic about them.
Your cite says nothing about bakers refusing service based on anyone's religious belief. It says that a baker can refuse to put what he considers hate speech on a cake. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to impose your religion on others. The baker could indeed have refused to sell to them based on politics, or refused to put two women on top. As for going to another bakery, that's what they did, didn't they? They were very upset when they left the bakery, suggesting that they didn't get a polite refusal, and the bakers then started an internet harassment campaign against them, so I'm not at all sympathetic to the bakers.
There have been services, like newspapers, which provided information services of high importance, and they ran what they thought important and were perfectly able to not print what would interfere with their agenda. I've seen it happen.
Finally, if you don't like the social media available, make your own. It's cheap and easy. Don't just whine because a successful business owner doesn't do what you like.
This is a result of people in Europe complaining about social media being used to radicalize Muslims and other terrorists. This has nothing to do with conditions in the US, or the willingness of Trump fans to irrationally believe the worst about people who don't like Trump. The social media are doing this precisely because they're world-wide platforms, and want to be able to continue to operate in some Western European countries.
Public businesses must abide by some rules. It turns out to be expensive to run Internet harassment campaigns against would-be customers. Telecommunication companies are generally regulated monopolies, because they're natural monopolies. You can slap together a new social medium today if you like, and it will cost very little until you get acceptance.
The US doesn't have the only Western government, and few governments have such an extreme position on free speech. I'd suspect Western European governments.
It's not possible for a private party to directly violate your First Amendment rights. Only the government can do that.
These are social networking sites. If you don't like what's out there, you're perfectly free to start your own. Most cloud providers will allow you to get started without spending unreasonable amounts of money.
This is how it's always been. Newspapers have always decided what they would and wouldn't print. If you didn't like it, you could print your own stuff, which is why freedom of the press is in the First.
Do we need to make guidelines on how big and successful a business can be before we nationalize it? That seems to be what you want.
The phone company is a regulated monopoly, and operates under certain rules. If I were to start a new phone company, I'd have a tremendous amount of expense running fiber to all my subscribers. If I were to start a new social medium, I'd probably just spin it up on Amazon Web Services, and have it in operation tomorrow, without having to spend a lot of money until it became successful. There's a difference here.
The bakers in that case, if you're interested, started an internet harassment campaign against the people who wanted to be their customers. From what I could tell from the finding of facts in the case, they started out being extremely rude and offensive (which isn't illegal), and got worse from there. If they had merely refused and accepted the small fine for not living up to the legal duties of a public business, we'd never have heard of the case.
If all major media companies started to censor certain controversial positions
That "If" is completely superfluous, and has been for decades. The difference is that, when the MSM decided to censor a position, it was a lot harder to find out about it.
The DMCA is there to protect websites from copyright liability when users post infringing content. It's impractical to make sites liable for such content, since there's no general way to tell what's infringing. As it happens, the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act covers only copyrights and liability for infringement. Other content can have problems for various reasons, including destroying the forum as a revenue source.
Once the trolls become too common, and roam unchecked, there's a slippery slope to a completely worthless forum and drastically reduced stock prices. I watched the fall of soc.history.misc.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. We'll have a crack team of climate scientists overthrow the Chinese and Indian governments. We'll start tomorrow.
Let's see. The 97% figure was from observing papers that said something about climate change. Calling a year the warmest ever because it's measured as the warmest ever, and is statistically likely to be, is reasonable. If it bothers you, call it the warmest year measured, since we have no measurements that exceed it. You're clueless about Antarctic ice,I see. Land ice seems to be melting, and this produces less saline water on the ocean, which freezes easier.
The conclusion is that you like to talk trash about things you have an irrational attachment to but don't understand. Got it.
As a guy who took Sanders advocacy to the level above the precinct caucus, I seem to remember him urging us to support Clinton, which I did.
Who said anything about letting China conquer Taiwan? Heck, is there a better way to get China interested in that than in favoring Taiwan?
Republican control of the Senate will be seriously up in 2022.
If Trump does not get a majority, the three top vote-getters go to the House. They will be Trump, Clinton, and a Republican to be named later. The House is likely to choose the last.
The "dismissed and not counted" is speculative. It isn't clear that the states can do that. We'd likely need a Supreme Court ruling. Moreover, the majority is of the number of electors selected, so if the state can retroactively unselect, the number needed for a majority goes down. (Or so I think; this looks pretty clear to me but not necessarily to the courts).
It's also possible that Clinton will pick up a state or two in a recount, although I'd currently bet against it.
There really hasn't been this big an incentive for electors to vote other than their states did before. Trump scares a LOT of Republicans.
I'm also not really comfortable with electors doing what Federalist 68 calls for being called "faithless".
Back when I was a kid, we mostly had right-wing apologists for totalitarian regimes, and the US was eager to overthrow any democracy that might conceivably get friendly with Communists.
If we're talking about the parallels between Trump and Hitler, there's more than I care for. Both are minority-bashing, have no government experience, are used to doing what they want, and their supporters support them for fundamentally irrational and likely nihilistic reasons. Frankly, I'm more worried about the Trump supporters than about Trump, because they'll still be there when Trump's gone.
Unless Republican electors think they can get a majority of the EC for Kasich, it doesn't matter. If Trump doesn't get a majority, the top three vote-getters go to the House. In this scenario, one will be Trump, one will be Clinton, and one will be another Republican (Kasich has the advantage of being reasonably honest) who will probably become President. What the Democrat electors do matters not at all, unless Clinton manages to get a majority somehow.
The watches do seem to be selling to some extent, so people disagree with you on that. I have no intention of buying one, because I hate wearing a watch, and don't really care of somebody else does buy one. If I were trying for social status, I'd be someone else. I wore a Casio with the little keyboard for a few years and considered it a fashion statement.
I used to have one of those, or something similar. I used it as a fashion statement.
Wherever you're getting your facts and editorials....distrust it.
This all started because some Western European countries observed ISIS propaganda on social media sites to have some apparent effect in radicalizing Muslims. This has nothing to do with fake news or Trump. Things are not always just about Trump.
Land lines are a natural monopoly, like every last-mile service. You can spin up a social media site today at low cost. There's nothing monopolistic about them.
Your cite says nothing about bakers refusing service based on anyone's religious belief. It says that a baker can refuse to put what he considers hate speech on a cake. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you get to impose your religion on others. The baker could indeed have refused to sell to them based on politics, or refused to put two women on top. As for going to another bakery, that's what they did, didn't they? They were very upset when they left the bakery, suggesting that they didn't get a polite refusal, and the bakers then started an internet harassment campaign against them, so I'm not at all sympathetic to the bakers.
There have been services, like newspapers, which provided information services of high importance, and they ran what they thought important and were perfectly able to not print what would interfere with their agenda. I've seen it happen.
Finally, if you don't like the social media available, make your own. It's cheap and easy. Don't just whine because a successful business owner doesn't do what you like.
This is a result of people in Europe complaining about social media being used to radicalize Muslims and other terrorists. This has nothing to do with conditions in the US, or the willingness of Trump fans to irrationally believe the worst about people who don't like Trump. The social media are doing this precisely because they're world-wide platforms, and want to be able to continue to operate in some Western European countries.
It isn't always about you, or about the US.
Public businesses must abide by some rules. It turns out to be expensive to run Internet harassment campaigns against would-be customers. Telecommunication companies are generally regulated monopolies, because they're natural monopolies. You can slap together a new social medium today if you like, and it will cost very little until you get acceptance.
The US doesn't have the only Western government, and few governments have such an extreme position on free speech. I'd suspect Western European governments.
What it might do is cut down the crap enough so that actual people can deal with the remainder.
It's not possible for a private party to directly violate your First Amendment rights. Only the government can do that.
These are social networking sites. If you don't like what's out there, you're perfectly free to start your own. Most cloud providers will allow you to get started without spending unreasonable amounts of money.
This is how it's always been. Newspapers have always decided what they would and wouldn't print. If you didn't like it, you could print your own stuff, which is why freedom of the press is in the First.
Political party affiliations do not constitute protected classes anywhere I know of. Go ahead.
Do we need to make guidelines on how big and successful a business can be before we nationalize it? That seems to be what you want.
The phone company is a regulated monopoly, and operates under certain rules. If I were to start a new phone company, I'd have a tremendous amount of expense running fiber to all my subscribers. If I were to start a new social medium, I'd probably just spin it up on Amazon Web Services, and have it in operation tomorrow, without having to spend a lot of money until it became successful. There's a difference here.
The bakers in that case, if you're interested, started an internet harassment campaign against the people who wanted to be their customers. From what I could tell from the finding of facts in the case, they started out being extremely rude and offensive (which isn't illegal), and got worse from there. If they had merely refused and accepted the small fine for not living up to the legal duties of a public business, we'd never have heard of the case.
That "If" is completely superfluous, and has been for decades. The difference is that, when the MSM decided to censor a position, it was a lot harder to find out about it.
The DMCA is there to protect websites from copyright liability when users post infringing content. It's impractical to make sites liable for such content, since there's no general way to tell what's infringing. As it happens, the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act covers only copyrights and liability for infringement. Other content can have problems for various reasons, including destroying the forum as a revenue source.
Once the trolls become too common, and roam unchecked, there's a slippery slope to a completely worthless forum and drastically reduced stock prices. I watched the fall of soc.history.misc.