There isn't enough acreage to lay solar farms to meet our energy needs without affecting the ecosystem... and lets not forget about how bird kills will affect the bird population if we put wind farms everywhere.
I think you'll find that other energy sources have environmental effects as well. The ones you list are minor compared to what coal power does.
You seem to be comparing launching missiles at what is thought to be an enemy target with starting a war that cost us trillions, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, and played a large part in the formation of ISIS.
Name someone who was negligent with classified material and wound up in prison. Just try. I couldn't find one. Neither could anyone who tried to give me an example. Deliberately putting classified information where it shouldn't be is frequently prosecuted at the felony level. Negligently doing so is not prosecuted, but temporary or indefinite loss of security clearance is a real possibility.
The evidence I've seen is that it's a Russian state-sponsored operation. What I've seen isn't all that convincing, but it would be stupid to rule it out.
Note that Obama has made a diplomatic incident out of the break-in, which suggests (but doesn't confirm) that he knows of more reasons to think it's Russia.
People have been digging up dirt on Hillary for decades, even when there isn't any. Those people clearly need no protection. Wikileaks exists as an outlet for illegal activity, which has its good and bad points, but to evaluate the veracity of their releases you really do need to know who they got the stuff from.
Bernie did very well for a self-styled Socialist who wasn't a Democrat in the first place. The Democratic process is set up to not favor people like him, in an effort to avoid another McGovern or Trump.
Because don't these same companies rely on the public perception that they are merely conduits for other people's words, not publishers themselves?
Actually, I don't think the public is quite that stupid, and most stuff I see on Facebook is somebody else's words. Facebook may have impartiality problems with the "Trending" section, but they appear to let people make ridiculous arguments without being censored..
The actions of Facebook and others, especially Twitter (which is the worst), in deleting or censoring right-wing and conservative thought are undeniable.
I deny them. There's plenty of partisan crap floating around FB (I barely follow Twitter). If they're deleting or censoring right-wing and conservative thought, they're doing a bad job of it.
Facebook has had impartiality problems with its "Trending" section. If you have evidence that people who favor Trump and do not otherwise offend have been silenced, please post.
Voting is important. The media can only influence things. The final decision is with the voters.
If you don't like the candidates you get, get involved. I supported Sanders in the nomination campaign, and he did indeed get a lot of delegates. If he could get that many, he could have done better and gotten the nomination. The process was slanted against him, with good reason, but he could have won.
I have never, in all my years, seen a US election where one candidate was so incredibly unqualified in so many ways. Reagan and the Bushes were much better suited to be Presidents. Heck, Quayle and Agnew and even Palin were better choices. We know what Michelle Bachman stood for, and she had some government experience (unfortunately).
Trump has been saying all sorts of different things. His record as a businessman is spotted at best, and in my lifetime the only President who had no previous elective experience had commanded an entire theater of operations in Europe, and got involved in a lot of diplomacy. Trump has been insulting and offending people right and left.
Trump's policies don't matter, because approximately nobody knows what he'd actually do, and he hasn't made his campaign about his policies. It's fairly easy to pick out things he says that match whatever you want, and that gives a lot of people the impression that Trump will do what they want.
Revenge sucks as a political motivation. Things can get far worse.
What you appear to be objecting to is polls and other reporting that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. There are two possible reasons for a given story being anti-Trump: bias, or the facts are anti-Trump. There are two possible reasons for arguing that Clinton isn't that bad: bias, or her really being not that bad. You also seem to have this delusion that PACs colluding with parties and mudslinging against candidates are at all new or unusual. I have no idea where you get your conceptual model of politics. Watergate was a case of strong evidence that Nixon was involved in interfering with the selection of a Democratic nominee. There's no evidence that Clinton was involved in giving Trump the nomination. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors videos to show that Planned Parenthood sells fetus parts.
There's plenty of racism out there, and Black Lives Matter is largely about the fact that most police officers who shoot blacks get off with nothing worse than paid administrative leave. Once some of them start serving prison terms for something like walking up and just shooting a black child, things will get better.
What we've reliably seen out of Facebook is that, for whatever reasons, the "Trending" part tends to have pro-Clinton stories. There's plenty of pro-Trump people on Facebook who haven't been silenced, no matter what stupid things they say.
A disproportionate number of people who argue for free markets believe they will benefit from them. Free markets are theoretically for mutually beneficial voluntary relationships, but in practice that works as well as Communism or expecting people to have good passwords. Someone will get an advantage and exploit it. I await your explanation of how it isn't about individuals when individuals have to either accept or reject whatever services people offer them, and that includes overpriced stores in the poorer areas of town who rely on the fact that most poor people don't have good transportation and can't get to Target or Walmart.
Free market advocates talk about conditions under which the most gifted and skilled in working in the market succeed, reap rewards, and have offspring, while those less gifted or business-savvy get fewer resources and fewer children. This is exactly what you blast progressives for, just a different definition of "gifted" and "skilled".
Socialists and progressives in the US are perfectly aware that the pie has been growing. They also know who's eating it. In the past few decades, worker productivity has soared and worker compensation has been fairly flat. Growing the pie doesn't help people who have an ever-diminishing share.
Government per se doesn't cause cheating and competition-killing oligopolies. Barriers to entry and lack of regulation do that. Government does often increase barriers to entry, but they're not the only ones, and they do try to keep things sane in some areas that lack competition.
I do think the eyeball loving Media did everything they could to help him win the Republican primary
Fixed that for you. Having Trump as a candidate has to be doing wonders for the media's clicks and readership. Be very careful about attributing to ideology something that can be explained by profit. Also, remember that journalists are heavily Democratic, and people who own media are heavily Republican (although that seems to be changing somewhat).
O'Keefe has been found to lie with his videos. After his claim that Planned Parenthood sold fetal parts, some states that sure look hostile to PP conducted investigations and found nothing. His video on Project Acorn was fake, and unfortunately succeeded in destroying the organization. There's no reason on Earth to trust him.
There's plenty of reasons why people would resign, and that includes being unfairly attacked and deciding it's better to resign than to defend themselves, for whatever reasons.
You can swipe arguments form anywhere. Facts are different, and O'Keefe doesn't deal in facts.
I'm obviously biased in this election, and I've been posting a lot of pro-Clinton stuff. I'm not being paid for this (I'm naturally leftist and intellectually confrontational), but it's arguable that it does help Clinton (I hope it does). I'm using my free speech to find a forum (in this case Slashdot) that will air my views.
Now, suppose I decide that a larger audience needs to hear what I've said, so I organize a group of people to write letters to the editor and call radio shows. I maintain this is still covered by the First Amendment.
My friends and I decide to escalate, so we buy some ad spots wherever we can get them and use them. Is this OK?
Suppose we just counter what we see as false allegations about Clinton? Attack Trump? Make specific arguments why we should elect Clinton? Try to promote policies Clinton is associated with? I believe I should be able to favor free college tuition, which Clinton supports and Trump (as far as I know) doesn't.
However, ad hominem isn't always a fallacy, particularly when facts are in question. Some sources are simply more reliable than others. I disregard what I read from seriously partisan organizations, no matter their preference, because I've found them unreliable.
Ad hominem is a fallacy when discussing arguments from more or less known facts. It looks like the known facts are that some corporate executives favor Clinton, and that a member of the John Birch society doesn't like someone she's rumored to be favoring for a Cabinet post. I'm shocked! Shocked! to find that there's politics as usual in this campaign.
The DNC is a private organization that is basically an umbrella organization for its dozens of component parts. It does not have authority over whether delegates are picked by caucus or primary, because that's up to the state parties. Primaries are usually open or closed depending on state law, which is also not under the DNC's control.
What you're saying is that Democrats should give up control of who's their candidate to anyone who wants, regardless of whether they're pro-Democrat or neutral or anti-Democrat. Minnesota has open primaries, which means that, when there's a close race for the Democratic/Republican nomination, and none for the other party, the Republicans/Democrats can freely vote for the Democratic/Republican nominee they think will lose. Is this really what you want?
I don't know that Clinton will push through Obama's trade deals. She's come out against the final form of the TPP, unlike Obama.
And, of course, you're giving up on having any influence on politics. If you want the Democrats to change, you need to get involved with them. Voting Green will register dissatisfaction and do very little else.
Third part of the problem: there has been an intense mudslinging campaign against Clinton for decades now, to the point where people who don't know any better believe much of it. Heck, what this thread is about is that some high executives have come out for Clinton, and may even have slanted things her way. If she was a male Republican, that would be considered to be Tuesday. Add to that her temerity in apparently favoring someone the article writer doesn't like for a Cabinet post. Damn, from TFS, you'd think that there was something not completely normal going on.
but what nobody seems to realize is that 99% of the people who read the New York Times don't understand that Obama is bankrupting the country and that Clinton is a sociopath.
They're smarter than you are. Obama has cut the deficit more than any other President (partly because no other President was handed such a deficit disaster to begin with), and has done a good job with the economy. Typically, in my lifetime, Republican Presidents have raised the deficit and Democratic ones have reduced it. Clinton even got a balanced budget with some smoke and mirrors. Bush, with a Congressional makeup similar to Clinton's, sent the deficit way up.
Psychological diagnosis is normally done by competent people who have private knowledge of the person being diagnosed, and I doubt you qualify on either count. Clinton, to me, appears to be a politician. I don't know whether you consider that being a sociopath, but she's not out of the ordinary.
Such a gun is not worth having for self-defense. If you are holding a firearm in a confrontation, you are an imminent lethal threat who needs to be dealt with. If you have to fire it, you have to fire it right then, or you're likely dead or seriously injured. Unless and until it is tested extensively and found to fire reliably under all weather conditions and all conditions involving dirt, blood, or injured fingers, it's pretty much useless for self-defense.
As far as statistics on number of lives saved vs. lost, good luck. I don't trust any figures except the counted totals, and they don't have the information needed. All other stats I've seen are provided or recommended by people with strong agendas that I don't trust. Now, I know a lot of you out there think they've got reliable stats, but if you all send them to me I'll find that they contradict each other.
Now, if police start adopting them, I'll feel they're suitable for self-defense, but that isn't happening.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you'll find that other energy sources have environmental effects as well. The ones you list are minor compared to what coal power does.
I don't know any global warming supporters. Most people I know are aware of it and are against it.
You seem to be comparing launching missiles at what is thought to be an enemy target with starting a war that cost us trillions, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, and played a large part in the formation of ISIS.
Name someone who was negligent with classified material and wound up in prison. Just try. I couldn't find one. Neither could anyone who tried to give me an example. Deliberately putting classified information where it shouldn't be is frequently prosecuted at the felony level. Negligently doing so is not prosecuted, but temporary or indefinite loss of security clearance is a real possibility.
Except that the evidence of Clinton's corruption always seems exaggerated at least when I look at it, much like most other attacks against her.
The evidence I've seen is that it's a Russian state-sponsored operation. What I've seen isn't all that convincing, but it would be stupid to rule it out.
Note that Obama has made a diplomatic incident out of the break-in, which suggests (but doesn't confirm) that he knows of more reasons to think it's Russia.
People have been digging up dirt on Hillary for decades, even when there isn't any. Those people clearly need no protection. Wikileaks exists as an outlet for illegal activity, which has its good and bad points, but to evaluate the veracity of their releases you really do need to know who they got the stuff from.
Bernie did very well for a self-styled Socialist who wasn't a Democrat in the first place. The Democratic process is set up to not favor people like him, in an effort to avoid another McGovern or Trump.
Actually, I don't think the public is quite that stupid, and most stuff I see on Facebook is somebody else's words. Facebook may have impartiality problems with the "Trending" section, but they appear to let people make ridiculous arguments without being censored..
I deny them. There's plenty of partisan crap floating around FB (I barely follow Twitter). If they're deleting or censoring right-wing and conservative thought, they're doing a bad job of it.
Facebook has had impartiality problems with its "Trending" section. If you have evidence that people who favor Trump and do not otherwise offend have been silenced, please post.
Voting is important. The media can only influence things. The final decision is with the voters.
If you don't like the candidates you get, get involved. I supported Sanders in the nomination campaign, and he did indeed get a lot of delegates. If he could get that many, he could have done better and gotten the nomination. The process was slanted against him, with good reason, but he could have won.
I have never, in all my years, seen a US election where one candidate was so incredibly unqualified in so many ways. Reagan and the Bushes were much better suited to be Presidents. Heck, Quayle and Agnew and even Palin were better choices. We know what Michelle Bachman stood for, and she had some government experience (unfortunately).
Trump has been saying all sorts of different things. His record as a businessman is spotted at best, and in my lifetime the only President who had no previous elective experience had commanded an entire theater of operations in Europe, and got involved in a lot of diplomacy. Trump has been insulting and offending people right and left.
Trump's policies don't matter, because approximately nobody knows what he'd actually do, and he hasn't made his campaign about his policies. It's fairly easy to pick out things he says that match whatever you want, and that gives a lot of people the impression that Trump will do what they want.
Revenge sucks as a political motivation. Things can get far worse.
What you appear to be objecting to is polls and other reporting that doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. There are two possible reasons for a given story being anti-Trump: bias, or the facts are anti-Trump. There are two possible reasons for arguing that Clinton isn't that bad: bias, or her really being not that bad. You also seem to have this delusion that PACs colluding with parties and mudslinging against candidates are at all new or unusual. I have no idea where you get your conceptual model of politics. Watergate was a case of strong evidence that Nixon was involved in interfering with the selection of a Democratic nominee. There's no evidence that Clinton was involved in giving Trump the nomination. Nothing is off limits to the same group that doctors videos to show that Planned Parenthood sells fetus parts.
There's plenty of racism out there, and Black Lives Matter is largely about the fact that most police officers who shoot blacks get off with nothing worse than paid administrative leave. Once some of them start serving prison terms for something like walking up and just shooting a black child, things will get better.
What we've reliably seen out of Facebook is that, for whatever reasons, the "Trending" part tends to have pro-Clinton stories. There's plenty of pro-Trump people on Facebook who haven't been silenced, no matter what stupid things they say.
A disproportionate number of people who argue for free markets believe they will benefit from them. Free markets are theoretically for mutually beneficial voluntary relationships, but in practice that works as well as Communism or expecting people to have good passwords. Someone will get an advantage and exploit it. I await your explanation of how it isn't about individuals when individuals have to either accept or reject whatever services people offer them, and that includes overpriced stores in the poorer areas of town who rely on the fact that most poor people don't have good transportation and can't get to Target or Walmart.
Free market advocates talk about conditions under which the most gifted and skilled in working in the market succeed, reap rewards, and have offspring, while those less gifted or business-savvy get fewer resources and fewer children. This is exactly what you blast progressives for, just a different definition of "gifted" and "skilled".
Socialists and progressives in the US are perfectly aware that the pie has been growing. They also know who's eating it. In the past few decades, worker productivity has soared and worker compensation has been fairly flat. Growing the pie doesn't help people who have an ever-diminishing share.
Government per se doesn't cause cheating and competition-killing oligopolies. Barriers to entry and lack of regulation do that. Government does often increase barriers to entry, but they're not the only ones, and they do try to keep things sane in some areas that lack competition.
Fixed that for you. Having Trump as a candidate has to be doing wonders for the media's clicks and readership. Be very careful about attributing to ideology something that can be explained by profit. Also, remember that journalists are heavily Democratic, and people who own media are heavily Republican (although that seems to be changing somewhat).
O'Keefe has been found to lie with his videos. After his claim that Planned Parenthood sold fetal parts, some states that sure look hostile to PP conducted investigations and found nothing. His video on Project Acorn was fake, and unfortunately succeeded in destroying the organization. There's no reason on Earth to trust him.
There's plenty of reasons why people would resign, and that includes being unfairly attacked and deciding it's better to resign than to defend themselves, for whatever reasons.
You can swipe arguments form anywhere. Facts are different, and O'Keefe doesn't deal in facts.
One problem is stuff done not by campaigns.
I'm obviously biased in this election, and I've been posting a lot of pro-Clinton stuff. I'm not being paid for this (I'm naturally leftist and intellectually confrontational), but it's arguable that it does help Clinton (I hope it does). I'm using my free speech to find a forum (in this case Slashdot) that will air my views.
Now, suppose I decide that a larger audience needs to hear what I've said, so I organize a group of people to write letters to the editor and call radio shows. I maintain this is still covered by the First Amendment.
My friends and I decide to escalate, so we buy some ad spots wherever we can get them and use them. Is this OK?
Suppose we just counter what we see as false allegations about Clinton? Attack Trump? Make specific arguments why we should elect Clinton? Try to promote policies Clinton is associated with? I believe I should be able to favor free college tuition, which Clinton supports and Trump (as far as I know) doesn't.
This gets real complicated real fast.
However, ad hominem isn't always a fallacy, particularly when facts are in question. Some sources are simply more reliable than others. I disregard what I read from seriously partisan organizations, no matter their preference, because I've found them unreliable.
Ad hominem is a fallacy when discussing arguments from more or less known facts. It looks like the known facts are that some corporate executives favor Clinton, and that a member of the John Birch society doesn't like someone she's rumored to be favoring for a Cabinet post. I'm shocked! Shocked! to find that there's politics as usual in this campaign.
Trump likes to present himself as an able businessman. It would be nice to know exactly how false that is.
So you think Corney was lying when he truthfully said she wouldn't be prosecuted normally, and you think one death is a pattern?
The DNC is a private organization that is basically an umbrella organization for its dozens of component parts. It does not have authority over whether delegates are picked by caucus or primary, because that's up to the state parties. Primaries are usually open or closed depending on state law, which is also not under the DNC's control.
What you're saying is that Democrats should give up control of who's their candidate to anyone who wants, regardless of whether they're pro-Democrat or neutral or anti-Democrat. Minnesota has open primaries, which means that, when there's a close race for the Democratic/Republican nomination, and none for the other party, the Republicans/Democrats can freely vote for the Democratic/Republican nominee they think will lose. Is this really what you want?
I don't know that Clinton will push through Obama's trade deals. She's come out against the final form of the TPP, unlike Obama.
And, of course, you're giving up on having any influence on politics. If you want the Democrats to change, you need to get involved with them. Voting Green will register dissatisfaction and do very little else.
Third part of the problem: there has been an intense mudslinging campaign against Clinton for decades now, to the point where people who don't know any better believe much of it. Heck, what this thread is about is that some high executives have come out for Clinton, and may even have slanted things her way. If she was a male Republican, that would be considered to be Tuesday. Add to that her temerity in apparently favoring someone the article writer doesn't like for a Cabinet post. Damn, from TFS, you'd think that there was something not completely normal going on.
They're smarter than you are. Obama has cut the deficit more than any other President (partly because no other President was handed such a deficit disaster to begin with), and has done a good job with the economy. Typically, in my lifetime, Republican Presidents have raised the deficit and Democratic ones have reduced it. Clinton even got a balanced budget with some smoke and mirrors. Bush, with a Congressional makeup similar to Clinton's, sent the deficit way up.
Psychological diagnosis is normally done by competent people who have private knowledge of the person being diagnosed, and I doubt you qualify on either count. Clinton, to me, appears to be a politician. I don't know whether you consider that being a sociopath, but she's not out of the ordinary.
Such a gun is not worth having for self-defense. If you are holding a firearm in a confrontation, you are an imminent lethal threat who needs to be dealt with. If you have to fire it, you have to fire it right then, or you're likely dead or seriously injured. Unless and until it is tested extensively and found to fire reliably under all weather conditions and all conditions involving dirt, blood, or injured fingers, it's pretty much useless for self-defense.
As far as statistics on number of lives saved vs. lost, good luck. I don't trust any figures except the counted totals, and they don't have the information needed. All other stats I've seen are provided or recommended by people with strong agendas that I don't trust. Now, I know a lot of you out there think they've got reliable stats, but if you all send them to me I'll find that they contradict each other.
Now, if police start adopting them, I'll feel they're suitable for self-defense, but that isn't happening.