Because she never does anything all that bad, and people complain that they can't put her in prison for behavior that nobody else has been charged for.
Because, very often, there is a conspiracy or organized defamation. Why did Congress spend so much time and money investigating the Benghazi incident, even when they failed to find wrongdoing time after time? People have irrational hate of the Clintons, and try very hard to come up with reasons.
If you see no difference between, say, Bush and Obama, you're blind. Some differences include the ACA, which way the deficit went, and how many expensive military quagmires they've gotten us into.
Do you have any actual evidence of Clinton's dishonesty? I keep hearing bad things about her, but when I try to check them out I don't see the support. She's one of the most honest in this campaign according to Politifact. (I don't trust their methodology enough to pick out the difference between, say, Clinton and Kasich.) However, you insist that she's less honest than Trump, a fact that apparently came out of someone's ass.
Willpower is a limited resource, at least for most humans. In my case, I can only resist so much temptation of certain types. Put me through stressful situations with dark chocolate available, and I will eventually eat some. Assuming free will exists, this makes the issue more complicated.
Determinism and free will are not necessarily incompatible, depending on how you define free will. If I'm hungry, suppose you offer me two pizzas, one of which is sausage and mushroom and one of which is veggie that includes green pepper. I will, of my own free will as I experience it, eat slices of the sausage and mushroom one. Is that free will, determinism, both, or neither?
For example in a SigGraph (computer graphics) paper they might discuss a new algorithm. Without the ability to independently verify the results this means we have to take it on faith. That's not proper science.
You read the paper. If you're interested, you implement the new algorithm. You check it independently. That's really the only way to do it.
If the paper provides the software and the data, and you compile the software and run it on the data, you'll get the results in the paper. That tells you almost nothing. The software might be implemented wrong. The data might be unrepresentative. Simply compiling and running will tell you none of this. Writing your own implementation of the algorithm will tell you a lot more, and running it on your own data even more.
I went to the USSR once as a tourist. There's a lot of neat stuff there. It may not have been a good value (although the exchange rate with ordinary people, as opposed to people I thought likely in law enforcement, was pretty near the official one). (I remember the guy in the car with a US flag on the antenna, wearing a sweater with a red, white, and blue pattern, offering rubles really cheap. I think that if I'd taken him up on it it would have been my last day in the Soviet Union.)
There are favorable things to be said about Castro, depending on who you're comparing him with. Batista was no prize either.
You seem to be determine to categorize until it gets the result you like. I've seen no indication that Sanders is a communist, and he's running as a Democratic Socialist, so he's not hiding his politics. It's not true that anyone who's left enough to be centrist in many other democracies is a liar.
Yeah. I'm using myself as an example, because I'm familiar with the details.
I suffer from depression. I do not expect it to be cured, ever. It's well under control now, and I'm not dangerous to myself or others, despite suffering from a mental illness. I'd like to think I still have some Constitutional rights.
And you're right in wondering why people in general should be restricted from things criminals seem to have no difficult acquiring. I don't see any point in banning handguns (although there can be safety restrictions) and semi-automatic rifles.
What I am saying is that Google does not necessarily have any account other than his gmail.com account that will get a message to him. If I didn't have my own domain, which I use for email, Google would know only my gmail address. I'm not saying that the blog and account should or should not have been deleted, but that Google's only halfway reliable method of sending someone an email is their own email system.
We recently set my mother-in-law up on gmail, and she didn't have a pre-existing email address. It was apparently not required.
In the first place, I don't believe you. There's a lot of nonsense going around about Trump.
In the second place, being consistent in your political opinions for thirty-six years suggests some form of dementia rather than logical thinking. The world has changed since Reagan was elected, and we've learned things.
Please show me where her platform includes murder and lying. You are irrational and gullible enough to consider her a murdering liar, but she's not running as one.
I don't see in general why they would, since an airplane should not take off if there isn't a competent pilot. There's something to be said for an untrained person being able to land if something bad happens to the pilot and co-pilot.
What I am saying is that lots of people think an autopilot means the pilot doesn't have to pay attention, and that if there's enough of them who notice the word "autopilot", have this false belief, and don't bother noticing or retaining anything else, they endanger me. If I'm in an accident, I can suffer (and have suffered) even when the other person is completely to blame.
Lots of people believe that an autopilot on an aircraft can fly the plane so it doesn't need a pilot. Lots of people don't pay much attention to warnings. Lots of these people drive on the roads I drive on. We're not talking about people making bad assumptions and screwing up and getting their Darwin awards here, we're talking about people taking other people with them.
If Tesla encourages bad driving around me, it's my concern.
Yup, and when you start Pokemon Go, you get a loading screen telling you to watch where you're going, showing a player walking into a very large and angry-looking pokemon (a Gyrados, for those interested). Some people are never going to heed a warning.
If you make a left turn when you don't have the right of way, and your maneuver will force traffic with the right of way to brake sharply, you're screwing up and should be taken off the road until you can drive competently. I really doubt the autopilot sped up into the accident. Autopilots can screw up, but that's not a normal screw-up mode for them.
In other words, we aren't talking about kamikazes (and you should drive as if some of the drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians do want to kill themselves, if you want to stay out of accidents). The autopilot almost certainly did as well as a human would have, considering that humans get distracted momentarily a lot.
The Brexit "leave" voters, like Trump voters and many Sanders voters, aren't so much irrational as dissatisfied. They do not perceive that the system is working for them, and therefore they intensely distrust people who are tied up with the system. They'll listen to people who claim to want to break up the system as it exists, in the hope that they'll be better off when everything settles again. When the "elites" promise them more of the same if they vote the right way, they vote some other way.
The problem here is that the American Dream is simply not working for a lot of people. Many people graduate from college with large student debts and few good job prospects, and there's at least the perception that more jobs than ever require college degrees. In the 1950s, any reasonably able white man could get a factory job that paid enough to support a family in a small house (or at least that's the myth), and get a decent if limited lifestyle and retirement pension off nothing but hard work. Currently, minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, and many employers cap hours at 30 a week to avoid having to provide any benefits, meaning that many of the working poor have to work two jobs. Pensions have largely gone away, and many of the ones that did exist were underfunded or looted and didn't pay out what they were supposed to.
Talk to these people and tell them about how life is better, and they don't believe you. Tell them that voting one way will bring a collapse of the system, and they don't care. What these people need is fundamentally an opportunity to work hard forty hours a week for a halfway decent lifestyle, and a certain amount of security. One thing that would help greatly is some sort of health care system that would be separate from employment and prevent medical issues from turning into bankruptcies. Also, these people are not going to be sympathetic to other people, because of their own problems they can't escape.
As long as there's a large number of quietly desperate people, candidates like Trump will have drawing power. We're not talking about intellectual giants with a nuanced appreciation of the political landscape here, for the most part, and tactics like blaming people's problems on scapegoats has a lot of appeal. That's a tactic that has been tested time and again.
She mishandled classified information. She didn't do it intentionally, and she didn't cause any apparent harm. That level of mishandling is not normally handled with criminal prosecution, but by administrative sanctions. Hold it against her if you like, but she didn't get favorable treatment because of who she was.
Look through all the posts in this discussion and I think you will find that no one is arguing that Hillary would make a good president.
Actually, I like her policies in general and believe that she has what she needs to get things done. I think she'll be a good President. She won't be a perfect one.
I think people in the US just have no good idea what living under an actual repressive government would be like. I say what I like without government interference. I can move freely within the US (although air travel is unnecessarily screwed up). I work at a job of my choice, and spend my money (aside from a reasonable amount of taxes) as I choose.
So you think anyone who rethinks a political position is unreliable? That every politician should hatch with a fully formed rigid ideology burned into his or her cortex?
Slashdot Mirror
Because she never does anything all that bad, and people complain that they can't put her in prison for behavior that nobody else has been charged for.
Because, very often, there is a conspiracy or organized defamation. Why did Congress spend so much time and money investigating the Benghazi incident, even when they failed to find wrongdoing time after time? People have irrational hate of the Clintons, and try very hard to come up with reasons.
If you see no difference between, say, Bush and Obama, you're blind. Some differences include the ACA, which way the deficit went, and how many expensive military quagmires they've gotten us into.
Do you have any actual evidence of Clinton's dishonesty? I keep hearing bad things about her, but when I try to check them out I don't see the support. She's one of the most honest in this campaign according to Politifact. (I don't trust their methodology enough to pick out the difference between, say, Clinton and Kasich.) However, you insist that she's less honest than Trump, a fact that apparently came out of someone's ass.
Willpower is a limited resource, at least for most humans. In my case, I can only resist so much temptation of certain types. Put me through stressful situations with dark chocolate available, and I will eventually eat some. Assuming free will exists, this makes the issue more complicated.
Determinism and free will are not necessarily incompatible, depending on how you define free will. If I'm hungry, suppose you offer me two pizzas, one of which is sausage and mushroom and one of which is veggie that includes green pepper. I will, of my own free will as I experience it, eat slices of the sausage and mushroom one. Is that free will, determinism, both, or neither?
You read the paper. If you're interested, you implement the new algorithm. You check it independently. That's really the only way to do it.
If the paper provides the software and the data, and you compile the software and run it on the data, you'll get the results in the paper. That tells you almost nothing. The software might be implemented wrong. The data might be unrepresentative. Simply compiling and running will tell you none of this. Writing your own implementation of the algorithm will tell you a lot more, and running it on your own data even more.
I went to the USSR once as a tourist. There's a lot of neat stuff there. It may not have been a good value (although the exchange rate with ordinary people, as opposed to people I thought likely in law enforcement, was pretty near the official one). (I remember the guy in the car with a US flag on the antenna, wearing a sweater with a red, white, and blue pattern, offering rubles really cheap. I think that if I'd taken him up on it it would have been my last day in the Soviet Union.)
There are favorable things to be said about Castro, depending on who you're comparing him with. Batista was no prize either.
You seem to be determine to categorize until it gets the result you like. I've seen no indication that Sanders is a communist, and he's running as a Democratic Socialist, so he's not hiding his politics. It's not true that anyone who's left enough to be centrist in many other democracies is a liar.
Yeah. I'm using myself as an example, because I'm familiar with the details.
I suffer from depression. I do not expect it to be cured, ever. It's well under control now, and I'm not dangerous to myself or others, despite suffering from a mental illness. I'd like to think I still have some Constitutional rights.
And you're right in wondering why people in general should be restricted from things criminals seem to have no difficult acquiring. I don't see any point in banning handguns (although there can be safety restrictions) and semi-automatic rifles.
What I am saying is that Google does not necessarily have any account other than his gmail.com account that will get a message to him. If I didn't have my own domain, which I use for email, Google would know only my gmail address. I'm not saying that the blog and account should or should not have been deleted, but that Google's only halfway reliable method of sending someone an email is their own email system.
We recently set my mother-in-law up on gmail, and she didn't have a pre-existing email address. It was apparently not required.
Good thinking.
There's a lot of stuff on my computers that isn't backed up, which does not include anything I created myself. That's recoverable after a disaster.
In the first place, I don't believe you. There's a lot of nonsense going around about Trump.
In the second place, being consistent in your political opinions for thirty-six years suggests some form of dementia rather than logical thinking. The world has changed since Reagan was elected, and we've learned things.
Please show me where her platform includes murder and lying. You are irrational and gullible enough to consider her a murdering liar, but she's not running as one.
I don't see in general why they would, since an airplane should not take off if there isn't a competent pilot. There's something to be said for an untrained person being able to land if something bad happens to the pilot and co-pilot.
What I am saying is that lots of people think an autopilot means the pilot doesn't have to pay attention, and that if there's enough of them who notice the word "autopilot", have this false belief, and don't bother noticing or retaining anything else, they endanger me. If I'm in an accident, I can suffer (and have suffered) even when the other person is completely to blame.
Lots of people believe that an autopilot on an aircraft can fly the plane so it doesn't need a pilot. Lots of people don't pay much attention to warnings. Lots of these people drive on the roads I drive on. We're not talking about people making bad assumptions and screwing up and getting their Darwin awards here, we're talking about people taking other people with them.
If Tesla encourages bad driving around me, it's my concern.
Yup, and when you start Pokemon Go, you get a loading screen telling you to watch where you're going, showing a player walking into a very large and angry-looking pokemon (a Gyrados, for those interested). Some people are never going to heed a warning.
If you make a left turn when you don't have the right of way, and your maneuver will force traffic with the right of way to brake sharply, you're screwing up and should be taken off the road until you can drive competently. I really doubt the autopilot sped up into the accident. Autopilots can screw up, but that's not a normal screw-up mode for them.
In other words, we aren't talking about kamikazes (and you should drive as if some of the drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians do want to kill themselves, if you want to stay out of accidents). The autopilot almost certainly did as well as a human would have, considering that humans get distracted momentarily a lot.
Human drivers who kill pedestrians or cyclists aren't necessarily immune from consequences, either.
So an autopilot could take off if that were designed into it?
The Brexit "leave" voters, like Trump voters and many Sanders voters, aren't so much irrational as dissatisfied. They do not perceive that the system is working for them, and therefore they intensely distrust people who are tied up with the system. They'll listen to people who claim to want to break up the system as it exists, in the hope that they'll be better off when everything settles again. When the "elites" promise them more of the same if they vote the right way, they vote some other way.
The problem here is that the American Dream is simply not working for a lot of people. Many people graduate from college with large student debts and few good job prospects, and there's at least the perception that more jobs than ever require college degrees. In the 1950s, any reasonably able white man could get a factory job that paid enough to support a family in a small house (or at least that's the myth), and get a decent if limited lifestyle and retirement pension off nothing but hard work. Currently, minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, and many employers cap hours at 30 a week to avoid having to provide any benefits, meaning that many of the working poor have to work two jobs. Pensions have largely gone away, and many of the ones that did exist were underfunded or looted and didn't pay out what they were supposed to.
Talk to these people and tell them about how life is better, and they don't believe you. Tell them that voting one way will bring a collapse of the system, and they don't care. What these people need is fundamentally an opportunity to work hard forty hours a week for a halfway decent lifestyle, and a certain amount of security. One thing that would help greatly is some sort of health care system that would be separate from employment and prevent medical issues from turning into bankruptcies. Also, these people are not going to be sympathetic to other people, because of their own problems they can't escape.
As long as there's a large number of quietly desperate people, candidates like Trump will have drawing power. We're not talking about intellectual giants with a nuanced appreciation of the political landscape here, for the most part, and tactics like blaming people's problems on scapegoats has a lot of appeal. That's a tactic that has been tested time and again.
If Trump is elected, I think lots of us will then hate him for what he does. I'm already not at all fond of what he's done as a private person.
She mishandled classified information. She didn't do it intentionally, and she didn't cause any apparent harm. That level of mishandling is not normally handled with criminal prosecution, but by administrative sanctions. Hold it against her if you like, but she didn't get favorable treatment because of who she was.
Actually, I like her policies in general and believe that she has what she needs to get things done. I think she'll be a good President. She won't be a perfect one.
I think people in the US just have no good idea what living under an actual repressive government would be like. I say what I like without government interference. I can move freely within the US (although air travel is unnecessarily screwed up). I work at a job of my choice, and spend my money (aside from a reasonable amount of taxes) as I choose.
So you think anyone who rethinks a political position is unreliable? That every politician should hatch with a fully formed rigid ideology burned into his or her cortex?