Why should I trust US intelligence agencies, particularly after 2003 (or, for that matter, 1963)? And what makes you think that US-only sanctions would prevent Iran from making nukes? They were working on them before the deal was made, and making some progress.
If Trump wants a trade war, he can have it. US companies can be punished into oblivion, their EU assets ground down to nothing. The EU GDP is somewhat more than the US GDP, and the EU isn't trying to get into a trade war with anyone else.
In other words, you don't care at all whether the US is a world leader. The expenses (small relative to our economy) are one of the things it takes. If we contribute like the average country, we have the influence of the average country. The rest of the world will understand if the US decides to stop giving and leading.
The economy is currently on the trajectory Obama set it on. Trump so far has had little effect on it. He doesn't have a vision and the Republicans aren't doing much. My analysis is that he's going to hurt the economy instead.
The Korean War is not over. North Korea said things they thought we'd like to hear, just like they did after the Carter negotiations. The Carter agreements didn't do that much good, and I don't trust the Trump bullying to do any better. Trump didn't have much to do with the defeat of ISIS. Your opinion of Iranian actions with their own money is not shared by all.
The Democrats are very likely to take control in the House of Representatives, which will stop Trump's ability to get laws passed by his tame Republicans. The Senate is more questionable, since most of the seats up for election are held by Democrats, so it would take the Democrats keeping nearly all their seats and picking up some Republican-held ones to control the Senate. Most high government officials, including judges, are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so if the Democrats take control they can stop the current trend of having utterly unqualified people taking government offices, but it won't undo the ones already there.
The US needs trade with the rest of t he world more than the rest of the world needs trade with the US. It wasn't that way a century ago, but it is now. Any attempt to take on the EU, China, and Russia economically is going to cause the US economy loads of problems.
What you're failing to account for is the unconditional Trump support. Figuring that you'll support a bad candidate because the opposition is worse for you is at least rational. However, it looks like at least half of the evangelical Christians have jumped into full Trump support, calling him a man of God and denying his numerous failings.
And losing massive amounts of credibility. Iran can wait this out, under sanctions from the US. In the meantime, Trump is going to take EU trading with Iran as hostile and react inappropriately.
Exactly the same thing happened when President Obama abandoned US allies in Iraq and left the place open for ISIS.
You mean his withdrawal from Iraq as per the agreement that Bush negotiated and he was unable to get Iraq to extend? That was an example of the US under one President doing precisely what the previous President had negotiated.
Republicans are frightened of defying Trump. His supporters are enough to make sure pro-Trump Republicans win primaries and nominations. They're not likely to act against him.
Impeachment, in the US, requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives. Each Representative is up for re-election every two years. It's very likely that the Democrats will take a commanding lead in the House. The impeachment then leads to a trial in the Senate, and conviction is by a two-thirds vote. Currently, the Democrats have a little fewer than half the Senators - but only eight Republican Senators are up for re-election this cycle, the rest being Democrats, so it's an uphill climb for the Democrats to take the Senate (which would allow them to block Trump appointees), and they can't possibly have two-thirds of the Senate. Therefore, to remove Trump from office, some Republican Senators would have to vote to convict, and they've been falling in line behind him almost all the time.
There's another way to remove a President from office, as specified in the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, which requires a majority of the Cabinet members to declare him unfit. However, the President can then claim to be fit, and resumes office unless two-thirds of both houses disagrees. There's no way to remove him from office without a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Trump could die or become incapacitated in office (he's not young, and has anything but a healthy lifestyle). He could be convicted of a felony and imprisoned (there's nothing in the US Constitution preventing it). He could resign, but I don't really see that happening.
This could lead to the end of the Republican party, but in that case it'll be replaced by another party, and we'll continue to have a two-party system after a short interval.
The Republican Party is more coherent than the Democratic Party, but it does have several factions. One faction is evangelical Christians who want the Republicans to legislate their morality. Another is big business, wanting to remove all barriers to lassez-faire capitalism. There's some people who just want to go back to the time when a good work ethic could get someone a job that would support a house and a family (at least if you were a white man). The white supremacists have come out of the woodwork.
Some of these groups are doomed in their current form. The old factory job is never coming back. The evangelicals started losing members later than other Christian denominations, but they're losing them now, and the recent hypocrisy about Trump isn't helping them. The white supremacists and evangelicals are fighting against demographics. Non-Hispanic white Christians are no longer a majority in the US, and whites will cease to be a majority by mid-century. They're not really prepared for a world where they can't oppress others.
The upheaval will continue, although after January 20, 2021 (the next Presidential inauguration) we're likely to stop the worst excesses and start repairing some of the damage.
If we're talking about the Mule, the third book of the series was about the Second Foundation's work to get the First Foundation back on track. Trump and the Republicans are doing a lot of damage that will be slow to recover.
There were also a lot of people believing the intelligence agencies knew something we didn't. For some time afterwards, if not to the present day, there were people claiming Iraq had WMDs when we invaded and got them out of the country somehow, so not everyone wised up after the fact.
During the invasion, there were a lot of things touted as WMDs. A piece of uranium centrifuge was buried in a scientist's rose garden. We found a few shells left over from when we'd helped Saddam get chemical weapons, likely unusable. A couple of trucks to manufacture hydrogen for balloons wound up being described as biological warfare trucks.
Speaking of Nazi hunters and information failure....
A few years back, my next-door neighbor turned out to have been an officer in the Galician SS, and that his men had committed war crimes. Turns out he'd written his memoirs a fair number of years before the discovery, but since they were written in Ukrainian nobody seems to have noticed.
Powell claims that what he had to go on was essentially a legal brief from Cheney, and that he would have preferred to nail things down but wasn't permitted the time. I listened to "It Worked For Me" as an audiobook, read by Powell, and his voice remained calm except when talking about this.
The question is whether it's worth it to the police. If you refuse to answer them, and they let you go, there's no hassle, and, best, no paperwork to fill out.
Nah. I';m a straight cis white man who's well-off and can afford a good lawyer. (This officially does not imply a belief in the rule of law, of course. I do believe in fairness, ethics, and justice, and think the "criminal justice" system would be better off with them.)
I tried bringing up Minesweeper in Windows 10, to get a harder-to-use version that advertised that I could get an ad-free version by paying money. Every time I think about the Windows Store, I remember that.
I don't know that astrologers ever observed effects, frankly. I studied it as a youth, and there wasn't any empiricism in anything I read. When the US started running the draft by birthday (in the Vietnam years) we were joking that, astrologically, that was concentrating traits. I never heard anything about that empirically.
The problem with moving habitat is that there's people living in the new ideal habitat for pachyderms who really don't want elephants and rhinos wandering around where they live.
Can you show a deliberate act where those 3 parties have abused or failed to secure your data?
I have never failed to secure any data you sent me, or abused it. I assume you then trust me with your data - actually, that I've proven that you can trust me.
Accidental data leaks are just as bad as deliberate security failures, so strike "deliberate" from your list. As far as "abuse" goes, how would I detect if Microsoft or Google or Amazon was abusing my data?
It may be that those companies have excellent security (although no security is perfect) and have never abused data. That doesn't mean they've been proven trustworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should I trust US intelligence agencies, particularly after 2003 (or, for that matter, 1963)? And what makes you think that US-only sanctions would prevent Iran from making nukes? They were working on them before the deal was made, and making some progress.
If Trump wants a trade war, he can have it. US companies can be punished into oblivion, their EU assets ground down to nothing. The EU GDP is somewhat more than the US GDP, and the EU isn't trying to get into a trade war with anyone else.
In other words, you don't care at all whether the US is a world leader. The expenses (small relative to our economy) are one of the things it takes. If we contribute like the average country, we have the influence of the average country. The rest of the world will understand if the US decides to stop giving and leading.
The economy is currently on the trajectory Obama set it on. Trump so far has had little effect on it. He doesn't have a vision and the Republicans aren't doing much. My analysis is that he's going to hurt the economy instead.
The Korean War is not over. North Korea said things they thought we'd like to hear, just like they did after the Carter negotiations. The Carter agreements didn't do that much good, and I don't trust the Trump bullying to do any better. Trump didn't have much to do with the defeat of ISIS. Your opinion of Iranian actions with their own money is not shared by all.
The Democrats are very likely to take control in the House of Representatives, which will stop Trump's ability to get laws passed by his tame Republicans. The Senate is more questionable, since most of the seats up for election are held by Democrats, so it would take the Democrats keeping nearly all their seats and picking up some Republican-held ones to control the Senate. Most high government officials, including judges, are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, so if the Democrats take control they can stop the current trend of having utterly unqualified people taking government offices, but it won't undo the ones already there.
The US needs trade with the rest of t he world more than the rest of the world needs trade with the US. It wasn't that way a century ago, but it is now. Any attempt to take on the EU, China, and Russia economically is going to cause the US economy loads of problems.
What you're failing to account for is the unconditional Trump support. Figuring that you'll support a bad candidate because the opposition is worse for you is at least rational. However, it looks like at least half of the evangelical Christians have jumped into full Trump support, calling him a man of God and denying his numerous failings.
Tell me how Obama knew the next President would break the deal unilaterally.
And losing massive amounts of credibility. Iran can wait this out, under sanctions from the US. In the meantime, Trump is going to take EU trading with Iran as hostile and react inappropriately.
You mean his withdrawal from Iraq as per the agreement that Bush negotiated and he was unable to get Iraq to extend? That was an example of the US under one President doing precisely what the previous President had negotiated.
The problem with impeachment....
Republicans are frightened of defying Trump. His supporters are enough to make sure pro-Trump Republicans win primaries and nominations. They're not likely to act against him.
Impeachment, in the US, requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives. Each Representative is up for re-election every two years. It's very likely that the Democrats will take a commanding lead in the House. The impeachment then leads to a trial in the Senate, and conviction is by a two-thirds vote. Currently, the Democrats have a little fewer than half the Senators - but only eight Republican Senators are up for re-election this cycle, the rest being Democrats, so it's an uphill climb for the Democrats to take the Senate (which would allow them to block Trump appointees), and they can't possibly have two-thirds of the Senate. Therefore, to remove Trump from office, some Republican Senators would have to vote to convict, and they've been falling in line behind him almost all the time.
There's another way to remove a President from office, as specified in the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution, which requires a majority of the Cabinet members to declare him unfit. However, the President can then claim to be fit, and resumes office unless two-thirds of both houses disagrees. There's no way to remove him from office without a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Trump could die or become incapacitated in office (he's not young, and has anything but a healthy lifestyle). He could be convicted of a felony and imprisoned (there's nothing in the US Constitution preventing it). He could resign, but I don't really see that happening.
This could lead to the end of the Republican party, but in that case it'll be replaced by another party, and we'll continue to have a two-party system after a short interval.
The Republican Party is more coherent than the Democratic Party, but it does have several factions. One faction is evangelical Christians who want the Republicans to legislate their morality. Another is big business, wanting to remove all barriers to lassez-faire capitalism. There's some people who just want to go back to the time when a good work ethic could get someone a job that would support a house and a family (at least if you were a white man). The white supremacists have come out of the woodwork.
Some of these groups are doomed in their current form. The old factory job is never coming back. The evangelicals started losing members later than other Christian denominations, but they're losing them now, and the recent hypocrisy about Trump isn't helping them. The white supremacists and evangelicals are fighting against demographics. Non-Hispanic white Christians are no longer a majority in the US, and whites will cease to be a majority by mid-century. They're not really prepared for a world where they can't oppress others.
The upheaval will continue, although after January 20, 2021 (the next Presidential inauguration) we're likely to stop the worst excesses and start repairing some of the damage.
If we're talking about the Mule, the third book of the series was about the Second Foundation's work to get the First Foundation back on track. Trump and the Republicans are doing a lot of damage that will be slow to recover.
There were also a lot of people believing the intelligence agencies knew something we didn't. For some time afterwards, if not to the present day, there were people claiming Iraq had WMDs when we invaded and got them out of the country somehow, so not everyone wised up after the fact.
During the invasion, there were a lot of things touted as WMDs. A piece of uranium centrifuge was buried in a scientist's rose garden. We found a few shells left over from when we'd helped Saddam get chemical weapons, likely unusable. A couple of trucks to manufacture hydrogen for balloons wound up being described as biological warfare trucks.
Speaking of Nazi hunters and information failure....
A few years back, my next-door neighbor turned out to have been an officer in the Galician SS, and that his men had committed war crimes. Turns out he'd written his memoirs a fair number of years before the discovery, but since they were written in Ukrainian nobody seems to have noticed.
Powell claims that what he had to go on was essentially a legal brief from Cheney, and that he would have preferred to nail things down but wasn't permitted the time. I listened to "It Worked For Me" as an audiobook, read by Powell, and his voice remained calm except when talking about this.
It has to be the whole world, not just most of it. It only takes one to start a fight.
The question is whether it's worth it to the police. If you refuse to answer them, and they let you go, there's no hassle, and, best, no paperwork to fill out.
Nah. I';m a straight cis white man who's well-off and can afford a good lawyer. (This officially does not imply a belief in the rule of law, of course. I do believe in fairness, ethics, and justice, and think the "criminal justice" system would be better off with them.)
Clinton wasn't a liberal. His support for it doesn't mean that liberals support it.
Putting one over on investors is far more feasible than producing large numbers of air taxis that the FAA will allow to operate.
I tried bringing up Minesweeper in Windows 10, to get a harder-to-use version that advertised that I could get an ad-free version by paying money. Every time I think about the Windows Store, I remember that.
Is there anything interesting on it?
Making a sentence more concise takes thought. Double-spacing is almost a reflex action. It doesn't waste any significant time.
I wouldn't change. I'd just write a perl script for when I was sending off a manuscript.
I don't know that astrologers ever observed effects, frankly. I studied it as a youth, and there wasn't any empiricism in anything I read. When the US started running the draft by birthday (in the Vietnam years) we were joking that, astrologically, that was concentrating traits. I never heard anything about that empirically.
The problem with moving habitat is that there's people living in the new ideal habitat for pachyderms who really don't want elephants and rhinos wandering around where they live.
I have never failed to secure any data you sent me, or abused it. I assume you then trust me with your data - actually, that I've proven that you can trust me.
Accidental data leaks are just as bad as deliberate security failures, so strike "deliberate" from your list. As far as "abuse" goes, how would I detect if Microsoft or Google or Amazon was abusing my data?
It may be that those companies have excellent security (although no security is perfect) and have never abused data. That doesn't mean they've been proven trustworthy.