Yeah, but by absurdly long tradition, the seat is given to the most senior(in terms of years served) member of the party. This is partly because the senate is intended to be "elder statesmen", and not a populist body like the house.
Yes, there's a number of things the Government retains a monopoly on, by intent. Argument by hypocrisy doesn't make sense for criticism of the government*.
"Want to forcibly enter people's homes? Get a job with the government." "Want to kill another human being? Get a job with the government." "Want to demand money from another person? Get a job with the government."
These are normal behaviors practiced by parts of every government in the world(except maybe Lichtenstein, the Vatican, etc). Now I'm all for shutting all the bullshit the NSA does down, and wish our democracy was better engineered to allow that, but the structure of the argument you're using is absurd.
*I know it's a joke, this post is more directed at the people modding it insightful, as if this is some meaningful argument.
Reid isn't the individual person who kept it from the senate floor, it's nice that there's a powerful figure for your ensconce in your conspiracy theory as the core of the problem That does make it easier on you to make it seem like you've got the magic answer to fix the problem.
Yeah, and not to derail into an unpopular political argument, but I thought Arab spring was a remarkable warning against the idea of revolutionary solutions to democratic problems. You can always get a worse system of government as the result of a revolution, and you should be exceedingly careful about throwing off the shackles of a temporarily unpleasant democratic government through violent revolution.
That's not the contentious derail part: the derail part is how negatively that reality reflects on the 2nd amendment and its support in the US.
I said that purposeful temporal intransigence was a possible factor. But sure, let's pretend it's all completely non-partisan, since I was suggesting reductionism is a bad idea.
Well, the senate is complicated, and we could go into the whole details of how anonymous holds work, the potential for "single senator" filibusters, the difficulties of getting things out of committee in the face of a single powerful shill against the bill. The likely imperfections in the bill's language that would make those who actually support the concept to not support the actual thing, the fact that one party actively made a mission of having no bipartisan bills pass until Obama is out of office, or the relative lack of popular support outside of the tech sector.
Any or all of those could have come to into play. But it's easier to pretend that those damn [other party] have the opposite of America's best interest at heart.
So the evidence is your subjective judgement of both the candidates and the electorate? Let me remind you that there's no shortage of stupid voters, especially in primaries.
"Pretty good evidence" means ballots that are legally required to be anonymous? I mean is there some published conspiracy on the part of rabble rousers, or is this like screaming "false flag" on an entire election?
I don't deny the possibility that there is such evidence, but saying there is evidence isn't the same presenting evidence.
We actually do have the idea that representatives are supposed to represent their entire constituency, not just those in their party. Matching the more extreme half of their party because they slightly outnumber the moderate portion means that 3/4 of people get no real choice.
There's a huge poison pill there, and money in politics and partisan districting exacerbates it by helping push for incumbency, once present.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, I ran a simulation just like this on a 1992 super computer, and I haven't paid a cent.
I guess the agreement did say payment was due when processing finishes next decade, though.
I think you're mistaking prone for meaning "more likely than not" or some other highly specific threshold. That's not the definition.
adj. Having a tendency; inclined: paper that is prone to yellowing; children who are prone to mischief.
That's a totally reasonable usage of the word, and not even remotely hyperbolic.
Usually they don't issue recalls over completely unsubstantiated hypotheticals.
I get that. I made it clear I support that notion. I am simply saying that this argument in favor of the correct conclusion is fallacious.
Yeah, but by absurdly long tradition, the seat is given to the most senior(in terms of years served) member of the party. This is partly because the senate is intended to be "elder statesmen", and not a populist body like the house.
Yes, there's a number of things the Government retains a monopoly on, by intent. Argument by hypocrisy doesn't make sense for criticism of the government*.
"Want to forcibly enter people's homes? Get a job with the government."
"Want to kill another human being? Get a job with the government."
"Want to demand money from another person? Get a job with the government."
These are normal behaviors practiced by parts of every government in the world(except maybe Lichtenstein, the Vatican, etc). Now I'm all for shutting all the bullshit the NSA does down, and wish our democracy was better engineered to allow that, but the structure of the argument you're using is absurd.
*I know it's a joke, this post is more directed at the people modding it insightful, as if this is some meaningful argument.
Nothing. You can do nothing unless you live in Nevada(or are a billionaire, I suppose). Yay, democracy.
I do read my own posts. Over and over. Oh man, they're all so great.
Good advice! Much appreciated!
"Why won't you accept that the people I personally hate are simply evil monsters?"
--the person pretending that I'm a partisan shill.
Maybe? I feel the problems are more systemic and less personal.
"Bold faced lie" == "More complicated that I'm willing accept the world as being"
Objection withdrawn due to obvious factual error on my part.
Reid isn't the individual person who kept it from the senate floor, it's nice that there's a powerful figure for your ensconce in your conspiracy theory as the core of the problem That does make it easier on you to make it seem like you've got the magic answer to fix the problem.
This happened after that, and since things always have exactly one cause, you must be right.
Yeah, and not to derail into an unpopular political argument, but I thought Arab spring was a remarkable warning against the idea of revolutionary solutions to democratic problems. You can always get a worse system of government as the result of a revolution, and you should be exceedingly careful about throwing off the shackles of a temporarily unpleasant democratic government through violent revolution.
That's not the contentious derail part: the derail part is how negatively that reality reflects on the 2nd amendment and its support in the US.
I said that purposeful temporal intransigence was a possible factor. But sure, let's pretend it's all completely non-partisan, since I was suggesting reductionism is a bad idea.
Well, the senate is complicated, and we could go into the whole details of how anonymous holds work, the potential for "single senator" filibusters, the difficulties of getting things out of committee in the face of a single powerful shill against the bill. The likely imperfections in the bill's language that would make those who actually support the concept to not support the actual thing, the fact that one party actively made a mission of having no bipartisan bills pass until Obama is out of office, or the relative lack of popular support outside of the tech sector.
Any or all of those could have come to into play. But it's easier to pretend that those damn [other party] have the opposite of America's best interest at heart.
People I disagree with?
That's what we're going to do in here, right?
So the evidence is your subjective judgement of both the candidates and the electorate? Let me remind you that there's no shortage of stupid voters, especially in primaries.
Hedge fund managers battling isn't nearly as terrifying as the reality of them colluding
"Pretty good evidence" means ballots that are legally required to be anonymous? I mean is there some published conspiracy on the part of rabble rousers, or is this like screaming "false flag" on an entire election?
I don't deny the possibility that there is such evidence, but saying there is evidence isn't the same presenting evidence.
We actually do have the idea that representatives are supposed to represent their entire constituency, not just those in their party. Matching the more extreme half of their party because they slightly outnumber the moderate portion means that 3/4 of people get no real choice.
There's a huge poison pill there, and money in politics and partisan districting exacerbates it by helping push for incumbency, once present.
It's not "responsible" for anything. It's just a symptom of a broken system.
Yes, this is the politically correct interpretation according to libertarians.
It's wrong though. The actual wealth generation occurs in some factory in Beijing.
There's definitely an aspect to that too. I shouldn't have been so 1 dimensional.