1. The first problem is that demographic has changed in a way that favours Democrats. Republicans need to court a different group from their traditional base (white men) otherwise they will not be competitive in any race in the future. Some of the other candidates even tried to do that early in the race, but the republican base, in their wisdom picked someone who is unelectable: not because he has no tactics and no policies and makes no case as why he should be president, but because his message means nothing to women and to folks with pigment. Even if 100% of the white men in the US vote for him he will not win, because white men are no longer near to 50% of the people who vote.
2. The electoral map tells the story. When Hillary speaks, she is speaking to the small number of people in the remaining states in play - all of these states, plus the states that Hillary has already won over, have to be won by Trump. Trumps supporters think that when she speaks, she is speaking to them - she doesn't care about them or their conspiracy theories and their labelling of her as a killer. She doesn't need to defend herself against them because she doesn't need their vote, they've made themselves irrelevant.
3. Romney was engaging, he was moderate, he made an argument. What are Trumps plans?
4. Hillary ought to care about the Republicans who have called it quits on Trump and are now focussed on the Senate and Congressional races recognising (rightly) that Trump cannot win and they are going to win more votes for the Republicans by being principled then by sticking with Trump.
I agree that the US is gradually becoming a one party state - and that's a problem. It's a problem for everybody. The people who vote Republican are not well represented and need a voice. If the Democrats become too powerful they will not listen to the people they should court to vote for them and only listen to the innards of their party - to some extent I surmise this is already happening. But then the ground is fertile and prepared for a new party with better ideas and less beholden to special interests. Hopefully, this experience will result in the formation of such a party (not a fake party like the Tea party, a real one).
Mm no I didn't forget, I based my answer upon it - "no reasonable person would prosecute" == "not guilty" in the eyes of the law. If this is not true, then Trump is guilty of rape, since, like Clinton, he was accused but not prosecuted.
I don't know enough about truimps x wife's allegations
It seems to me to be a bit odd to on the one hand claim to know nothing about the subject at hand, and on the other, to be claiming that Trumps situation is somehow different to Clintons. That doesn't seem a weird claim to you?
Which is ironic - because his policy is to make sure that YOU pay more taxes while people like him, including himself, pay less.
Do you like oligarchy?
TrumPutinites froth at the mouth at the supposed influence that oligarchs have over Clinton - yet cheer on their hero, who IS an oligarch, who boasts about being an oligarch, who tells them in no uncertain terms he intends to rule as an oligarch and that he is going to screw them over good. And they cheer and cheer and cheer.
Well, only one is going to be President, and it's Hillary.
And those people who gnash their teeth about it can blame the Republicans, since they chose the worst person they could find to represent the alternative, and then chose to attack Hillary's character, rather than articulating why their policies are better for America than Hillarys.
They sowed the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind.
n one case, his wife was the one wronged and she has every right to say yes or no to that, regardless of what we think.
In the other case, the one wronged is the public and the government refuses to address the wrong.
And the question of guilt or innocence, of allegation versus finding, of the presumption of innocence applies equally in both cases, unless you can explain how some have rights that are not naturally imbued on others.
If the presumption of innocence is to be set aside, then Trump is guilty of rape.
WTF? Who doesn't avoid paying taxes? Do you file a return?
In my country we don't file returns - I ought to know, because I work for what is the (rough) equivalent of the IRS. Only we are obviously better at it, because if he tried that here, we'd have him in jail.
Any other questions about my tax affairs?
Pay more taxes than you're required.
So, you're happy to let Trump not pay tax (he doesn't pay tax), whilst simultaneously boasting about how much money he makes, and running on a platform promising to make plebs (like you) pay more tax. You must pine for the days of an aristocracy where the distinction between the gentle folk like Trump and the filthy unwashed such as yourself was considered an edict from on high - woe betide anybody who suggest that the law apply equally to all.
Why not? Bill Clinton got re-elected after countless credible accusations from multiple named women who alleged he actually did things to them.
And the Republicans impeached him for it. So safe to assume they'll support an impeachment of Trump (in the highly, highly unlikely scenario that he becomes president).
People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is.
Which is ironic - because HE IS WALL STREET. He doesn't even bother to hide it. He doesn't just avoid paying taxes, he boasts about it. He is not beholden to the man behind the curtain - the curtain has been drawn back, and the guy behind it is Trump.
Hillary Clinton was accused of wrongful handling of classified material, investigated but no charge was ever laid. Trump was accused of rape, but no charges were ever laid (because the accuser, his wife, chose not to lay charges, even while describing him forcing her to have sex when she did not want it).
If Hillary is guilty of wrongdoing in the Bengazi incident, or guilty of wrongdoing with respect to her mail server, then Trump is guilty of rape. So if you say Hillary is guilty, then you must say Trump is also guilty.
but read Hillary's emails that she funded the moderate beheaders in Syria so Israel would be happy with a nuclear Iran and now we've got 400k dead, ISIS, and the migrant crisis threatening to destabalize Europe and they're totally cool with that. I do not get it. I mean, I get why the media and the political classes do it: money. But I have no idea what your average left-leaning voter gets out of this.
Of course, al of those 450K were killed by the rebel group that Clinton supported, not by your mate Assad, who Putin and his gay lover Trump supports, who barrelled bombed whole cities of innocent people, but you are now saying, nobody was killed in those strikes? Sounds plausible. And your friends in ISIS, created by Republican allies in the War on Terror which was started by Republicans who also started the war in Iraq (I forgot, exactly, why again now, but I'm sure it was for a good reason). But reports that ISIS beheads people and that the war in Iraq killed a million or so, or that Trump promised to launch Trident missiles at Allepo and kill a million people in a nuclear holocaust are all just a vast conspiracy, right? None of that ever happen, ISIS and Assad are our friends.
Why would it be a bad thing to know about how supposed Democrats are cheating?
If that ever happens, we'll worry about it then.
That sounds like it helps the democratic process, to me.
But you also said:
But then again you are probably being paid by the letter by Hillary's campaign so even responding to this drivel only gets more drivel
And
Lie to us for decades, and we welcome the truth from any source that will give it to us
Which gives us all the insight we need into your state of mind.
You imagine that somehow, working for the DNC and expressing an opinion about who the best Democratic candidate for president might be is somehow equally on foot with openly collaborating with America's enemies to steal an election.
So we find that the Republicans have effectively collaborated with Putin's efforts to poison the democratic process in the US, happy to trade away US global influence in return for Putin's help to elect Trump. The same Republicans who instigated the practice of spying on Americans (under false pretenses) , who encouraged it, and who have every intention to keep on doing it more and more if they ever get back into power.
I think the phrase you were looking for here was The FBI alleges since the FBI is not on trial here, they are a prosecuting authority, who, in this case, has determined that they do not have a strong enough case to prosecute. That's all there is to it.
Wanderlust is an integral part of the human experience.
If you have the wanderlust and a quest for adventure, might I suggest either a Kontiki style holiday or sign up to something like Doctors without Borders (or equivalent depending on your training).
Not everyone has it, but aside from people who might be fleeing overcrowding or lack of opportunity, it is something rooted in their psyche.
Of course. all the major migrations of the past (from Africa to Asia, across the land bridges to the Americas and Australia) most likely occurred because of scarcity or population pressure (e.g. looking for new sources of food). Later migrations (post 1800's) occurred because their economic circumstances caused people to seek a better life. Adventure? Sure, I imagine some got on a boat to California or Victoria because they envisioned an adventure - but the end results was a lot of digging and hard work for most, with only a few actually profiting. And this is where the similarity with space breaks down.
People aren't going to rush to space on a new gold rush, nor gradually migrate to space over generations because of game. There is no get rich quick, because space is a vacuum, and it doesn't support life. You can't build a bark shanty and claim a block or prospecting site to base a life on. There is no commodity to make you rich. There is no game roaming around for you to eat. If you find gold, who is it exactly that you sell it to? Other prospectors on the same asteroid?
Really, unless we are paying for Boeing to do this, then they are paying for it using money that we gave them for the other thing - the military technology. Or they make a larger profit on civilian planes than anyone suspected. All this exercise would do is cement the power of the military industrial complex, by demonstrating that it, and not us, is capable of such feats.
Don't underestimate Hanoi. They have working IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) and they're working in an ICBM that would put the US within their range. So far this year, they've gone from an estimated 7-10 kt to 20-30 kt.
Vietnam possesses no nuclear weapons and has no nuclear nor territorial ambitions. This whole thing is a product of your fevered imagination.
I can guarantee you that if I handled documents in the way that secretary Clinton did, I would be arrested.
Has there been a trial that I'm unaware of?
You can keep defending her all you want, but the court case and the hearing was handled in a very strange way.
No need for me to defend her. I hear a lot of allegations flying around, but mostly coming from the Republican Party, who, in their wisdom, invited Donald Trump to be their representative. Donald Trump ascribes to numerous conspiracy theories - he thinks that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, he think vaccines are a conspiracy, he (for a long time) claimed there was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that Barack Obama was not born in America. Later he denied it, but then claimed this conspiracy was started by hillary clinton (yet another conspiracy theory).
Nothing that these people, or their supporters say, is the least bit believable to me.
If the choice is taking out Hanoi with a nuke, or having Taiwan and Japan nuked, that's an easy choice.
No it isn't, and anybody who thinks it is has no business being in a position of responsibility or power with the welfare of others at stake.
Only a delusional conspiracist would even imagine that Hanoi poses a threat to anyone. Someone like Kim Jong Un, or the man after his own heart, Donald Trump.
Heck, China would probably nuke Hanoi at that point
It's not a comparison of mining equipment or no mining equipment - it's a comparison of A) automated, self-maintaining, may-not-get-damaged-or-it's-lost-forever mining equipment or B) human-controlled, human-maintained, human-salveagable mining equipment. In an environment where the premise is that humans already are.
You said that you could demonstrate a way to sustain the Martian economy using mining. Can you demonstrate this, or is it just what it appears to be - a handwave over a problem likely to doom the attempts to settle Mars in the medium term?
Do mining companies use robots to perform repairs? To some extent they do, but like many such situations it boils down to economics. Robots are good for remote locations where humans are not (like pretty much anywhere on the surface of Mars, regardless of whether there is a settlement or not). In many places (currently) it's cheaper to employ humans to swap parts in and out. But in difficult situations, or in volume economics (like in vehicle manufacture) or where precision is required, robots are used.
So: the economics of mining of Mars.
1. Humans are likely to cost about 0.75 Billion dollars per person per annum to house on Mars. A person of that skillest on earth, maybe $75K in wages. So for each person sent to the surface of Mars, the mine must make 750 million dollars before transport costs For one third of what it costs to send one person for one year, 4 or 5 robots could be designed and built that are sophisticated enough to perform any of the mechnical repairs that a human could do on the mining machines.
2. Humans on Mars can only travel maybe 100km a day, because they must return to shelter at night, and cannot bear the surface radiation for extended periods. There are no roads. This means potential mining sites are limited to a 50km radius of the encampment.
Robots, on the other hand could travel to any mining site by just landing there. They don't need camps, they don't need to crawl underground to escape the radiation, the ground itself does not poison them.
Because there are no humans there. What about this is hard for you to understand? I'll repeat: there is precisely one place in the solar system where humans exist outside of Earth: ISS. Do robots outcompete them there - yes or no?
It's not hard for me to understand at all. You are attempting to establish a kind of false dichotomy where it costs nothing to fly humans to Mars and it cost nothing to sustain them once they are there, and once they are there, they are magically able to move around the whole plant without effort. Don't have water? Never mind, there is water at the poles despite the fact that they have no ability to move around. Somehow, magically. the planet is the size of Tasmania.
With respect to the ISS - robots outperform humans by orders of magnitude. Robots generate the power, recycle the water make the air breathable, move the station around, transport the humans and all the things they need to and from the station, bring the fuel up to the station that it needs. Robots make the modules and then carry those modules to the ISS. The ISS IS A MACHINE.
Could we sustain the ISS in orbit and keep it operational without having humans onboard, and do so more cheaply? You bet we could, and save $5.5 BILLION dollars a year.
Slashdot Mirror
1. The first problem is that demographic has changed in a way that favours Democrats. Republicans need to court a different group from their traditional base (white men) otherwise they will not be competitive in any race in the future. Some of the other candidates even tried to do that early in the race, but the republican base, in their wisdom picked someone who is unelectable: not because he has no tactics and no policies and makes no case as why he should be president, but because his message means nothing to women and to folks with pigment. Even if 100% of the white men in the US vote for him he will not win, because white men are no longer near to 50% of the people who vote.
2. The electoral map tells the story. When Hillary speaks, she is speaking to the small number of people in the remaining states in play - all of these states, plus the states that Hillary has already won over, have to be won by Trump. Trumps supporters think that when she speaks, she is speaking to them - she doesn't care about them or their conspiracy theories and their labelling of her as a killer. She doesn't need to defend herself against them because she doesn't need their vote, they've made themselves irrelevant.
3. Romney was engaging, he was moderate, he made an argument. What are Trumps plans?
4. Hillary ought to care about the Republicans who have called it quits on Trump and are now focussed on the Senate and Congressional races recognising (rightly) that Trump cannot win and they are going to win more votes for the Republicans by being principled then by sticking with Trump.
I agree that the US is gradually becoming a one party state - and that's a problem. It's a problem for everybody. The people who vote Republican are not well represented and need a voice. If the Democrats become too powerful they will not listen to the people they should court to vote for them and only listen to the innards of their party - to some extent I surmise this is already happening. But then the ground is fertile and prepared for a new party with better ideas and less beholden to special interests. Hopefully, this experience will result in the formation of such a party (not a fake party like the Tea party, a real one).
I don't know enough about truimps x wife's allegations
It seems to me to be a bit odd to on the one hand claim to know nothing about the subject at hand, and on the other, to be claiming that Trumps situation is somehow different to Clintons. That doesn't seem a weird claim to you?
Do you like oligarchy?
TrumPutinites froth at the mouth at the supposed influence that oligarchs have over Clinton - yet cheer on their hero, who IS an oligarch, who boasts about being an oligarch, who tells them in no uncertain terms he intends to rule as an oligarch and that he is going to screw them over good. And they cheer and cheer and cheer.
I mean why would you - it's a shoe in.
And those people who gnash their teeth about it can blame the Republicans, since they chose the worst person they could find to represent the alternative, and then chose to attack Hillary's character, rather than articulating why their policies are better for America than Hillarys.
They sowed the wind, and are now reaping the whirlwind.
n one case, his wife was the one wronged and she has every right to say yes or no to that, regardless of what we think. In the other case, the one wronged is the public and the government refuses to address the wrong.
And the question of guilt or innocence, of allegation versus finding, of the presumption of innocence applies equally in both cases, unless you can explain how some have rights that are not naturally imbued on others.
If the presumption of innocence is to be set aside, then Trump is guilty of rape.
WTF? Who doesn't avoid paying taxes? Do you file a return?
In my country we don't file returns - I ought to know, because I work for what is the (rough) equivalent of the IRS. Only we are obviously better at it, because if he tried that here, we'd have him in jail.
Any other questions about my tax affairs?
Pay more taxes than you're required.
So, you're happy to let Trump not pay tax (he doesn't pay tax), whilst simultaneously boasting about how much money he makes, and running on a platform promising to make plebs (like you) pay more tax. You must pine for the days of an aristocracy where the distinction between the gentle folk like Trump and the filthy unwashed such as yourself was considered an edict from on high - woe betide anybody who suggest that the law apply equally to all.
Why not? Bill Clinton got re-elected after countless credible accusations from multiple named women who alleged he actually did things to them.
And the Republicans impeached him for it. So safe to assume they'll support an impeachment of Trump (in the highly, highly unlikely scenario that he becomes president).
People see him as a political outsider who isn't completely beholden to Wall Street in the same way that every mainstream Republican is.
Which is ironic - because HE IS WALL STREET. He doesn't even bother to hide it. He doesn't just avoid paying taxes, he boasts about it. He is not beholden to the man behind the curtain - the curtain has been drawn back, and the guy behind it is Trump.
If Hillary is guilty of wrongdoing in the Bengazi incident, or guilty of wrongdoing with respect to her mail server, then Trump is guilty of rape. So if you say Hillary is guilty, then you must say Trump is also guilty.
Sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.
Because the Republicans haven't collaborated with Putin's efforts to poison the democratic process in the US?
The left is bizarre to me.
Not being on the left, I don't particularly care.
They're incensed about the leaks, about something naughty Trump said,
But they I assume you mean Trumps wife correct?
but read Hillary's emails that she funded the moderate beheaders in Syria so Israel would be happy with a nuclear Iran and now we've got 400k dead, ISIS, and the migrant crisis threatening to destabalize Europe and they're totally cool with that. I do not get it. I mean, I get why the media and the political classes do it: money. But I have no idea what your average left-leaning voter gets out of this.
Of course, al of those 450K were killed by the rebel group that Clinton supported, not by your mate Assad, who Putin and his gay lover Trump supports, who barrelled bombed whole cities of innocent people, but you are now saying, nobody was killed in those strikes? Sounds plausible. And your friends in ISIS, created by Republican allies in the War on Terror which was started by Republicans who also started the war in Iraq (I forgot, exactly, why again now, but I'm sure it was for a good reason). But reports that ISIS beheads people and that the war in Iraq killed a million or so, or that Trump promised to launch Trident missiles at Allepo and kill a million people in a nuclear holocaust are all just a vast conspiracy, right? None of that ever happen, ISIS and Assad are our friends.
Why would it be a bad thing to know about how supposed Democrats are cheating?
If that ever happens, we'll worry about it then.
That sounds like it helps the democratic process, to me.
But you also said:
But then again you are probably being paid by the letter by Hillary's campaign so even responding to this drivel only gets more drivel
And
Lie to us for decades, and we welcome the truth from any source that will give it to us
Which gives us all the insight we need into your state of mind.
You imagine that somehow, working for the DNC and expressing an opinion about who the best Democratic candidate for president might be is somehow equally on foot with openly collaborating with America's enemies to steal an election.
Well, that statement, at least, is correct.
Well, Colin is well known internationally as someone who tells the truth.
How do you know?
I don't know dude. The Democrats nominated a woman so venal that she makes Nixon look like a sweetheart.
Mm yes she's horrible - so much so that even Donald Trump won't publicly admit that he wants to grope her. Or so I've heard.
So we find that the Republicans have effectively collaborated with Putin's efforts to poison the democratic process in the US, happy to trade away US global influence in return for Putin's help to elect Trump. The same Republicans who instigated the practice of spying on Americans (under false pretenses) , who encouraged it, and who have every intention to keep on doing it more and more if they ever get back into power.
You aren't outraged?
The FBI admits
I think the phrase you were looking for here was The FBI alleges since the FBI is not on trial here, they are a prosecuting authority, who, in this case, has determined that they do not have a strong enough case to prosecute. That's all there is to it.
Wanderlust is an integral part of the human experience.
If you have the wanderlust and a quest for adventure, might I suggest either a Kontiki style holiday or sign up to something like Doctors without Borders (or equivalent depending on your training).
Not everyone has it, but aside from people who might be fleeing overcrowding or lack of opportunity, it is something rooted in their psyche.
Of course. all the major migrations of the past (from Africa to Asia, across the land bridges to the Americas and Australia) most likely occurred because of scarcity or population pressure (e.g. looking for new sources of food). Later migrations (post 1800's) occurred because their economic circumstances caused people to seek a better life. Adventure? Sure, I imagine some got on a boat to California or Victoria because they envisioned an adventure - but the end results was a lot of digging and hard work for most, with only a few actually profiting. And this is where the similarity with space breaks down.
People aren't going to rush to space on a new gold rush, nor gradually migrate to space over generations because of game. There is no get rich quick, because space is a vacuum, and it doesn't support life. You can't build a bark shanty and claim a block or prospecting site to base a life on. There is no commodity to make you rich. There is no game roaming around for you to eat. If you find gold, who is it exactly that you sell it to? Other prospectors on the same asteroid?
Really, unless we are paying for Boeing to do this, then they are paying for it using money that we gave them for the other thing - the military technology. Or they make a larger profit on civilian planes than anyone suspected. All this exercise would do is cement the power of the military industrial complex, by demonstrating that it, and not us, is capable of such feats.
Don't underestimate Hanoi. They have working IRBMs (Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles) and they're working in an ICBM that would put the US within their range. So far this year, they've gone from an estimated 7-10 kt to 20-30 kt.
Vietnam possesses no nuclear weapons and has no nuclear nor territorial ambitions. This whole thing is a product of your fevered imagination.
Well, we only have his word that he does. But he could be lying.
I can guarantee you that if I handled documents in the way that secretary Clinton did, I would be arrested.
Has there been a trial that I'm unaware of?
You can keep defending her all you want, but the court case and the hearing was handled in a very strange way.
No need for me to defend her. I hear a lot of allegations flying around, but mostly coming from the Republican Party, who, in their wisdom, invited Donald Trump to be their representative. Donald Trump ascribes to numerous conspiracy theories - he thinks that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy, he think vaccines are a conspiracy, he (for a long time) claimed there was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that Barack Obama was not born in America. Later he denied it, but then claimed this conspiracy was started by hillary clinton (yet another conspiracy theory).
Nothing that these people, or their supporters say, is the least bit believable to me.
If the choice is taking out Hanoi with a nuke, or having Taiwan and Japan nuked, that's an easy choice.
No it isn't, and anybody who thinks it is has no business being in a position of responsibility or power with the welfare of others at stake.
Only a delusional conspiracist would even imagine that Hanoi poses a threat to anyone. Someone like Kim Jong Un, or the man after his own heart, Donald Trump.
Heck, China would probably nuke Hanoi at that point
No, they wouldn't.
It's not a comparison of mining equipment or no mining equipment - it's a comparison of A) automated, self-maintaining, may-not-get-damaged-or-it's-lost-forever mining equipment or B) human-controlled, human-maintained, human-salveagable mining equipment. In an environment where the premise is that humans already are.
You said that you could demonstrate a way to sustain the Martian economy using mining. Can you demonstrate this, or is it just what it appears to be - a handwave over a problem likely to doom the attempts to settle Mars in the medium term?
Do mining companies use robots to perform repairs? To some extent they do, but like many such situations it boils down to economics. Robots are good for remote locations where humans are not (like pretty much anywhere on the surface of Mars, regardless of whether there is a settlement or not). In many places (currently) it's cheaper to employ humans to swap parts in and out. But in difficult situations, or in volume economics (like in vehicle manufacture) or where precision is required, robots are used.
So: the economics of mining of Mars.
1. Humans are likely to cost about 0.75 Billion dollars per person per annum to house on Mars. A person of that skillest on earth, maybe $75K in wages. So for each person sent to the surface of Mars, the mine must make 750 million dollars before transport costs For one third of what it costs to send one person for one year, 4 or 5 robots could be designed and built that are sophisticated enough to perform any of the mechnical repairs that a human could do on the mining machines.
2. Humans on Mars can only travel maybe 100km a day, because they must return to shelter at night, and cannot bear the surface radiation for extended periods. There are no roads. This means potential mining sites are limited to a 50km radius of the encampment.
Robots, on the other hand could travel to any mining site by just landing there. They don't need camps, they don't need to crawl underground to escape the radiation, the ground itself does not poison them.
Because there are no humans there. What about this is hard for you to understand? I'll repeat: there is precisely one place in the solar system where humans exist outside of Earth: ISS. Do robots outcompete them there - yes or no?
It's not hard for me to understand at all. You are attempting to establish a kind of false dichotomy where it costs nothing to fly humans to Mars and it cost nothing to sustain them once they are there, and once they are there, they are magically able to move around the whole plant without effort. Don't have water? Never mind, there is water at the poles despite the fact that they have no ability to move around. Somehow, magically. the planet is the size of Tasmania.
With respect to the ISS - robots outperform humans by orders of magnitude. Robots generate the power, recycle the water make the air breathable, move the station around, transport the humans and all the things they need to and from the station, bring the fuel up to the station that it needs. Robots make the modules and then carry those modules to the ISS. The ISS IS A MACHINE.
Could we sustain the ISS in orbit and keep it operational without having humans onboard, and do so more cheaply? You bet we could, and save $5.5 BILLION dollars a year.