we just don't need the fucking government to ask our neighbors if their kids are hungry. We're quite capable of that ourselves.
There are tens of millions of food-insecure people in the US today. We have homeless. We have people who are considered unemployable by the very companies and individuals you are imagining will solve the problem of hunger. We have people not getting adequate medical care. We have huge numbers of seniors living in poverty.
Your statement is self-deluded nonsense. As with most "things would be fine without government / with smaller government" tripe-spouting.
You are cordially invited to come back and say this again when we don't actually need social safety nets. Then your words will mean something (other than the fact that you live in your own echo chamber, and are demonstrably afflicted with either inherent dishonesty or a profound case of cognitive dissonance.)
I think they have shown they can have it both ways. Cognitive dissonance proved no barrier to Trump voters. Consequences incoming. I recommend ducking.
Are you guys insane? Just plug in an external keyboard and mouse and display if you want it. Get a docking station. Desktop PCs are dead, except for gaming. Get over it.
I have 8 monitors on my multi-CPU, multi-core, desktop machine. It works reasonably smoothly, and I do tax the system a bit. Realtime signal processing, concurrent (big) compiles, network monitoring, browsing, slack and Ryver, a virtual windows machine used for cross-platform builds and testing. It would be... interesting... to meet up with a laptop that could keep up with all this. Discounting the fact that it would really be in my way unless I hid it under the desk or something.
On the model Mac Pro I have, which is a nice silver tower, I can use a drive space to install an SD slot (along with more USB ports, etc.) Or whatever else I might need. because it's, you know, expandable.
I am actually in the market for a new Mac Pro. Luckily, EBay has plenty of 12-core silver towers at very reasonable prices. So no problem here. I can keep buying Apple's previous rational designs while eating popcorn and watching them go batshit with incredibly stupid (but courageous, oh so very courageous) new designs.
My 2008 8-core is doing fine, but I would like more speed, and memory for it is expensive, and I assume that eventually it will die in some horrible way, so time for some spares. I have a lot code invested in the Mac application zone. Plus I am reasonably fond of OS X, to the point where I definitely prefer it. So a Mac it still will be. From EBay!
Further translation: "Would you people like a computer using years-old tech that looks like a garbage can and is almost guaranteed to litter your workspace with wall warts and desk cancers? Because we can totally do that for you. Because we have courage."
2) A nice desk, with a surface that breathes; you don't want glass or something else that will make you sweat when you make solid contact with it.
3) Nice monitors: Don't be drawn in by the resolution; what you want is something easy to read so you don't get eyestrain. Use the TV standards: Looking straight on at any monitor, the size/ distance should allow you to see the whole thing.
4) A *great* keyboard, if you will be typing.
5) a fast, quality computer. You won't regret it.
6) Depending on how distractable you are and who else is around, and at what distances, you might want to consider soundproofing. This provides both privacy and prevents others from being irritated with your own noises.
7) Consider pets. They're awesome stress relievers, and good to hang out with on breaks.
Not to worry. moderation on slashdot is essentially random. There are responsible modders, "I disagree" modders, stalker modders, "I agree" modders, agenda-driven modders and "I don't like this person modders" Anything positive is lost in the noise, and there is zero accountability, so none of this ever ends. I generally mod up anons, because they contribute a lot at times, and the system unfairly discounts what they have to say. Whereupon some twerp is just as likely to reverse my mods, because that damn poster had the TEMERITY to post anonymously. Ah, slashdot. How to do it wrong, with authority.
Teslas can self-park. Perhaps Tesla (the company) should figure out a way to retrieve the charging connection, and then have the car move itself to a nearby parking space when done. Automagically. There are plenty of challenges, but probably this is what needs to happen eventually.
Also, if someone can afford a Tesla, $4.00 per ten minutes? That's not going to make a motivational dent for most. And yes, the whole "I paid to sit there, STFU" attitude and the wealthy... it's not an unlikely fit at all. Many of these are the same people who have no problem saying "What, you have cancer? No money? Die, then. You don't "deserve" healthcare." A lot of such folks hang out right here on slashdot. They're pretty easy to spot for the most part.
"Me first, fuck you and your family" is the core mantra of the selfish. And the US population is riddled with selfish.
You want your data? Then you're responsible for it. Right now, in the end, network presence costs somebody money. If you're not paying in some way, you can expect your data to go away at some point when they get tired of paying for you. Even if you are paying, eventually, they'll try and gain more profit by trimming service, and again you lose. Corporations always have to increase profit. The shareholders demand it. And you, you're the source of it. Anything you cost them, they will look to reduce if they possibly can.
Plus, you can't trust them. These services variously demand your name, your email, your mobile phone number, your mother's maiden name, your social security number... and then, bam, breach...
Most people on slashdot have no excuse. Set up an isolated server on its own wan-facing network, secure it, anything you want public facing, back it up off-LAN and then sneaker-net it to the server in a USB stick or whatever. Anything you don't want public facing... don't put it on the server. Put all those massively insecure home automation devices on the same network; then they can go crazy compromising security in an environment where they can't get at your non-public data. Watch the network traffic form the server, and if any of them start playing the "I am a botnet zombie", set them on fire and write off the manufacturer as a source of devices. The only way we'll ever get these companies to make good devices is if we make them pay for selling insecure crap. Plus, maybe then they'll hire real programmers again instead of these glorified script kiddies and cookie-cutter green-carders who don't know what a memory overrun even is.
Control your own destiny instead of handing it over to corporate entities. Otherwise... it's very likely going to bite you eventually.
That means your "dealt with" plan involves moving 50 million people off the planet in rockets per year.
Or it means space elevators.
Rockets are, as you intimate, not a good tool for this. They are expensive, polluting, risky, and only capable of small payloads.
But a space elevator would serve well in all of those categories. The materials science, which is the primary challenge that must be overcome, is coming along. Once funded -- which is a huge deal, but not an insurmountable one -- space would become much easier to access. At that point, any assumptions about what we can, or can't, do will have to be revised.
For a lot of people, space elevators seem impossible; but they aren't. It's just physics, and it's not unreasonable physics, either. It's just hard physics. Not as hard as fusion; not as easy as rockets.
There are no other technologies in view that will serve. There's no current physics path to "anti-gravity" or "transporters", for instance.
We have many reasons to go to space, most of them excellent. If we have to do it with rockets, it's going to be a very drawn-out, very expensive process. We'll almost certainly establish ourselves, even with rockets, but there won't be any mass transport of human beings going on if that's what we end up with for the long run. It's just too expensive, and the batches are far too small to send large numbers of people in what amounts to a casual manner. Likely any large population in space habitats or planetary settlements in a "we use rockets" environment will have to grow by reproduction rather than import.
We have some tech for moving around in space that looks to be inexpensive; after all, there's no shortage of continuous low-level energy supply in space -- but not for getting there.
Yes. Also, the electors can simply ignore the state's laws. Their votes will still count. Only four states implement legal penalties, as I understand it.
But I'm pretty sure we're just going to see a lockstep vote that disenfranchises the majority and screws everyone but the rich in the process.
I do think that the EC is a good thing in that is tempers the passion of the larger public and protects the minority from a simple majority
Well, we will see if it actually does that or not in a few days. I think it's highly unlikely (not impossible, certainly) but would welcome being wrong about this.
If they simply go by the "winner takes all" metric, as pretty much everyone is assuming, they would be doing the opposite of "protects the minority" (from anything) or "tempering passion" ("passionate" is the kindest word I can think of to describe the reality-divorced voters who selected Trump), and instead, basically going "oh, you want to shoot yourself in the foot? Okay, we'll hold and aim the gun for you. Turns out, you've selected a 12-gauge! This will be awesome! Ready?"
Yes, I agree, it's better if the transition is peaceful. The country will survive better. The low- and middle-income people are going to bear the brunt if Trump does even a fraction of what he has stated he will do. But the country will come out of it electing someone who is the anti-Trump. Sometimes it takes a real facedown with evil before you really understand what good is. Middle America is about to get that lesson, I think.
Here's the thing about my certainty as compared to the folks you are talking about.
Obama never said anything about sharia law, taking everyone's guns, or declaring himself president for life. That was all right-wing agitprop. Obama was perfectly reasonable about those things. And many others. I think he was a very good president, as they go. One of our best. I don't agree with everything he supports by any means, but the odds of that are pretty much zero no matter who is in there. I don't think he did much additional harm, and he did a great deal of good. There's plenty left to fix, of course -- he did let a number of things continue that I would really rather he had put a stop to. Perhaps someone in the future will get to some of those. Or not.
Trump, however, has stuffed his cabinet with the ultra-rich who have specific public agendas that counter a great deal of the remaining good things about this country, not to mention stating intent to roll back a lot of social progress -- yes, progress -- and both he and they have stated multiple goals that range from simply unconstitutional to outrageous.
All it would take for him to really put a hurt on the middle- and low-income folks is to follow through on one or two things, such as actually flushing the immigrants out (watch the prices of fruit and vegetables skyrocket) or applying high tariffs to Chinese imports (watch the prices in big-box, electronics, and clothing store skyrocket) or simply pissing them off really bad about Taiwan (same result is very likely, only perhaps worse)... I mean seriously, the difference is that Obama said nothing crazy, that was all the right-wingers pushing a false narrative. Finding something crazy Trump claims he is going to do... that's the work of a few seconds. The problem there is picking one out of the many to focus upon.
On the other hand, Trump has recently been very forward in explaining how he straight-up lied to those he got to vote for him.
Just listen to him. Never mind that it's the Daily Show: ignore everything Trevor Noah has to say and listen to what Trump has to say. His voters were hoodwinked, plain and simple.
So when I say I'm certain... these are are consequences that will arise from actions Trump and his cabinet have indicated direct intent for. It's not "like Obama." It's "like Trump."
Bottom line: It looks like a person specifically stating intent to implement seriously problematic policies is going to become president. I anticipate problems if that is the case. Does that really seem unreasonable to you?
Anyway, if you still think this is "like Obama", I am pretty confident you're really not seeing the big picture: I encourage you to apply a very serious think to the axioms here. Perhaps you'll change positions. Some people can.
I simply described the facts as they stand at this point in time. I'm not denying anything at all.
Trump will probably be elected next week. That's how the EC votes look to be allocated right now. That is the actual election. Not the popular vote. The popular vote is, as we have just been reminded, not the determining factor in who gets to be president.
Pretending that's a good thing, no, that I'm not inclined to do. I am fairly confident that should we, as seems quite likely, endure a Trump presidency, it will eventually be described as "Like Bush II, but considerably more damaging to the nation."
It will be very interesting to watch. As for me being "butthurt", I am quite certain that the middle-income and poor people who voted for this man are going to suffer worse than I will as a result of those of his policies that he manages to put in place through whatever means -- congress, executive orders, direct control via the executive branch hierarchy. presidential authority for foreign policy decisions, etc.
I do feel bad for those people. It's one thing to observe that they have been hoodwinked. It would be quite another to glory in their suffering. I won't be doing that.
Highly doubtful. Even the people who voted for Trump aren't broadly clueless enough to destroy their ability to live in relative comfort and safety.
What would probably happen would be a couple more occupations of wildlife refuges or similar by those too dim to remember to pack socks for a midwinter camping trip.
But if imagining a civil war is what lets you sleep smiling... by all means, carry on. We all have our dreams.
Right now, Mr. Trump is the person who lost the popular vote. By millions of votes.
He's not the president-elect unless the electoral college vote next week overrides the popular vote.
That will probably happen, based on arbitrary pro-bias applied to votes coming out of low-population regions (and outright abandonment of the EC's obligation to pick a qualified candidate); but until/unless it does happen, Mr. Trump's operating on an assumption, not an election, and so is anyone else who assumes this is a done deal.
Moving forward after the EC votes, assuming Mr. Trump wins that vote, anyone who thinks that he "won the election" might want to keep in mind that the majority of Americans selected Mrs. Clinton -- by a significant margin, as in, no doubt about it. The election he would have won is that of the electoral college, that august institution that disenfranchises the citizens of their votes. He has no mandate. We're also already seeing considerable congressional resistance to many of his stated goals.
It's not a circle. It's a waveform. Any distance, any additional number of degrees out from the origin, is possible.
We are certainly a long way from the constitution now. The worst flaw in it -- a day-1 flaw -- is that is was crafted without any provision for punishment for legislators who violate it. The largest injury ever done to it was the supreme court arrogating the power of amendment in Marbury vs. Madison, and that, too, was quite a while ago. That, combined with the enormously toxic "well, it doesn't mean what it says..." attitude... those three factors outright bought us the oligarchy we have today.
At this point it looks like Trump will probably win the EC vote, at which point we will have the cherry on top of our Sundae of Shite: a misogynist, xenophobic, sexist, rude, compulsive, racist, poorly spoken, selfish, scientifically illiterate, and frankly, not too bright president.
When you trade money for news, you tend to get the news that makes the most money. It's human nature, unless controlled by regulation. Just as corporations, utilities, colleges, all mostly get financially out of hand unless regulated, because people are mostly naturally greedy. There's scant sense of fairness, and gross excess of "take the market for all it can bear."
Look, news is all mostly biased anyway. Biased by what they cover and what they choose not to cover; by the editor's influence; by the publisher's influence; by the advertiser's influence; by the stockholder's influence; by ridiculous "equal time for superstitious nonsense" policies (because the news consumers are bewildered, so in order to get their money, they are pandered to), etc. I'm just not going to actually pay for more bias.
It's a complete waste of time to put a paywalled link in front of me. Not going to click it if I know what it is; not going to stay if I am snookered into clicking.
For news, here's what I want: facts and relevance to actual news. Not the Kardumbians, not some actor's opinion, not breathless reporting of some lab result as if it was tech coming down next Friday, Politics, cover the candidates and what they say. Even handedly. Don't leave some out (Sanders, cough) don't over-cover some (Trump, cough), don't report bland, content free remarks as if they were incoming legal doom (Clinton, cough)... you get the idea.
Simple enough, you'd think. Just do a good job. But they don't. Okay then, fine. But expecting me to pay for that crap? Not happening. They oughta pay me for having to fact check every goddam thing they write and speak about.
Slashdot Mirror
There are tens of millions of food-insecure people in the US today. We have homeless. We have people who are considered unemployable by the very companies and individuals you are imagining will solve the problem of hunger. We have people not getting adequate medical care. We have huge numbers of seniors living in poverty.
Your statement is self-deluded nonsense. As with most "things would be fine without government / with smaller government" tripe-spouting.
You are cordially invited to come back and say this again when we don't actually need social safety nets. Then your words will mean something (other than the fact that you live in your own echo chamber, and are demonstrably afflicted with either inherent dishonesty or a profound case of cognitive dissonance.)
I think they have shown they can have it both ways. Cognitive dissonance proved no barrier to Trump voters. Consequences incoming. I recommend ducking.
I have 8 monitors on my multi-CPU, multi-core, desktop machine. It works reasonably smoothly, and I do tax the system a bit. Realtime signal processing, concurrent (big) compiles, network monitoring, browsing, slack and Ryver, a virtual windows machine used for cross-platform builds and testing. It would be... interesting... to meet up with a laptop that could keep up with all this. Discounting the fact that it would really be in my way unless I hid it under the desk or something.
I'm looking for more power. Not less.
On the model Mac Pro I have, which is a nice silver tower, I can use a drive space to install an SD slot (along with more USB ports, etc.) Or whatever else I might need. because it's, you know, expandable.
I am actually in the market for a new Mac Pro. Luckily, EBay has plenty of 12-core silver towers at very reasonable prices. So no problem here. I can keep buying Apple's previous rational designs while eating popcorn and watching them go batshit with incredibly stupid (but courageous, oh so very courageous) new designs.
My 2008 8-core is doing fine, but I would like more speed, and memory for it is expensive, and I assume that eventually it will die in some horrible way, so time for some spares. I have a lot code invested in the Mac application zone. Plus I am reasonably fond of OS X, to the point where I definitely prefer it. So a Mac it still will be. From EBay!
Purchases would decline sharply in many market segments, because the perception of value (such as it is) would evaporate in very short order.
Which would not boost the American economy.
How about the attitudes that change to "I don't think I need another iPhone"? Do you think that's a factor that should be ignored?
You want to boil the froggies, you better turn the heat up very slowly. Or those uncooperative little #00FF00 bastards will hop right the hell away.
Further translation: "Would you people like a computer using years-old tech that looks like a garbage can and is almost guaranteed to litter your workspace with wall warts and desk cancers? Because we can totally do that for you. Because we have courage."
1) The best chair you can find for desk work
2) A nice desk, with a surface that breathes; you don't want glass or something else that will make you sweat when you make solid contact with it.
3) Nice monitors: Don't be drawn in by the resolution; what you want is something easy to read so you don't get eyestrain. Use the TV standards: Looking straight on at any monitor, the size/ distance should allow you to see the whole thing.
4) A *great* keyboard, if you will be typing.
5) a fast, quality computer. You won't regret it.
6) Depending on how distractable you are and who else is around, and at what distances, you might want to consider soundproofing. This provides both privacy and prevents others from being irritated with your own noises.
7) Consider pets. They're awesome stress relievers, and good to hang out with on breaks.
8) take breaks.
Not to worry. moderation on slashdot is essentially random. There are responsible modders, "I disagree" modders, stalker modders, "I agree" modders, agenda-driven modders and "I don't like this person modders" Anything positive is lost in the noise, and there is zero accountability, so none of this ever ends. I generally mod up anons, because they contribute a lot at times, and the system unfairly discounts what they have to say. Whereupon some twerp is just as likely to reverse my mods, because that damn poster had the TEMERITY to post anonymously. Ah, slashdot. How to do it wrong, with authority.
But I do appreciate the thought. :)
Teslas can self-park. Perhaps Tesla (the company) should figure out a way to retrieve the charging connection, and then have the car move itself to a nearby parking space when done. Automagically. There are plenty of challenges, but probably this is what needs to happen eventually.
Also, if someone can afford a Tesla, $4.00 per ten minutes? That's not going to make a motivational dent for most. And yes, the whole "I paid to sit there, STFU" attitude and the wealthy... it's not an unlikely fit at all. Many of these are the same people who have no problem saying "What, you have cancer? No money? Die, then. You don't "deserve" healthcare." A lot of such folks hang out right here on slashdot. They're pretty easy to spot for the most part.
"Me first, fuck you and your family" is the core mantra of the selfish. And the US population is riddled with selfish.
Live by the cloud, die by the cloud...
You want your data? Then you're responsible for it. Right now, in the end, network presence costs somebody money. If you're not paying in some way, you can expect your data to go away at some point when they get tired of paying for you. Even if you are paying, eventually, they'll try and gain more profit by trimming service, and again you lose. Corporations always have to increase profit. The shareholders demand it. And you, you're the source of it. Anything you cost them, they will look to reduce if they possibly can.
Plus, you can't trust them. These services variously demand your name, your email, your mobile phone number, your mother's maiden name, your social security number... and then, bam, breach...
Most people on slashdot have no excuse. Set up an isolated server on its own wan-facing network, secure it, anything you want public facing, back it up off-LAN and then sneaker-net it to the server in a USB stick or whatever. Anything you don't want public facing... don't put it on the server. Put all those massively insecure home automation devices on the same network; then they can go crazy compromising security in an environment where they can't get at your non-public data. Watch the network traffic form the server, and if any of them start playing the "I am a botnet zombie", set them on fire and write off the manufacturer as a source of devices. The only way we'll ever get these companies to make good devices is if we make them pay for selling insecure crap. Plus, maybe then they'll hire real programmers again instead of these glorified script kiddies and cookie-cutter green-carders who don't know what a memory overrun even is.
Control your own destiny instead of handing it over to corporate entities. Otherwise... it's very likely going to bite you eventually.
Live by the cloud, die by the cloud...
Or it means space elevators.
Rockets are, as you intimate, not a good tool for this. They are expensive, polluting, risky, and only capable of small payloads.
But a space elevator would serve well in all of those categories. The materials science, which is the primary challenge that must be overcome, is coming along. Once funded -- which is a huge deal, but not an insurmountable one -- space would become much easier to access. At that point, any assumptions about what we can, or can't, do will have to be revised.
For a lot of people, space elevators seem impossible; but they aren't. It's just physics, and it's not unreasonable physics, either. It's just hard physics. Not as hard as fusion; not as easy as rockets.
There are no other technologies in view that will serve. There's no current physics path to "anti-gravity" or "transporters", for instance.
We have many reasons to go to space, most of them excellent. If we have to do it with rockets, it's going to be a very drawn-out, very expensive process. We'll almost certainly establish ourselves, even with rockets, but there won't be any mass transport of human beings going on if that's what we end up with for the long run. It's just too expensive, and the batches are far too small to send large numbers of people in what amounts to a casual manner. Likely any large population in space habitats or planetary settlements in a "we use rockets" environment will have to grow by reproduction rather than import.
We have some tech for moving around in space that looks to be inexpensive; after all, there's no shortage of continuous low-level energy supply in space -- but not for getting there.
Gravity is a bitch.
The reason solar is relatively inexpensive right now is because of Chinese panel manufacturing costs, or lack of them.
With the planned 45% (or short-term 15%, if he can't convince congress) tariff, solar may not be cheaper for very long. And/or if China continues to be aggravated about Taiwan.
Well, not here in the US, anyway. They'll still be cheaper everywhere else. Unless China actually stops subsidizing its manufacturers.
Yes. Also, the electors can simply ignore the state's laws. Their votes will still count. Only four states implement legal penalties, as I understand it.
But I'm pretty sure we're just going to see a lockstep vote that disenfranchises the majority and screws everyone but the rich in the process.
Well, we will see if it actually does that or not in a few days. I think it's highly unlikely (not impossible, certainly) but would welcome being wrong about this.
If they simply go by the "winner takes all" metric, as pretty much everyone is assuming, they would be doing the opposite of "protects the minority" (from anything) or "tempering passion" ("passionate" is the kindest word I can think of to describe the reality-divorced voters who selected Trump), and instead, basically going "oh, you want to shoot yourself in the foot? Okay, we'll hold and aim the gun for you. Turns out, you've selected a 12-gauge! This will be awesome! Ready?"
Yes, I agree, it's better if the transition is peaceful. The country will survive better. The low- and middle-income people are going to bear the brunt if Trump does even a fraction of what he has stated he will do. But the country will come out of it electing someone who is the anti-Trump. Sometimes it takes a real facedown with evil before you really understand what good is. Middle America is about to get that lesson, I think.
Here's the thing about my certainty as compared to the folks you are talking about.
Obama never said anything about sharia law, taking everyone's guns, or declaring himself president for life. That was all right-wing agitprop. Obama was perfectly reasonable about those things. And many others. I think he was a very good president, as they go. One of our best. I don't agree with everything he supports by any means, but the odds of that are pretty much zero no matter who is in there. I don't think he did much additional harm, and he did a great deal of good. There's plenty left to fix, of course -- he did let a number of things continue that I would really rather he had put a stop to. Perhaps someone in the future will get to some of those. Or not.
Trump, however, has stuffed his cabinet with the ultra-rich who have specific public agendas that counter a great deal of the remaining good things about this country, not to mention stating intent to roll back a lot of social progress -- yes, progress -- and both he and they have stated multiple goals that range from simply unconstitutional to outrageous.
All it would take for him to really put a hurt on the middle- and low-income folks is to follow through on one or two things, such as actually flushing the immigrants out (watch the prices of fruit and vegetables skyrocket) or applying high tariffs to Chinese imports (watch the prices in big-box, electronics, and clothing store skyrocket) or simply pissing them off really bad about Taiwan (same result is very likely, only perhaps worse)... I mean seriously, the difference is that Obama said nothing crazy, that was all the right-wingers pushing a false narrative. Finding something crazy Trump claims he is going to do... that's the work of a few seconds. The problem there is picking one out of the many to focus upon.
On the other hand, Trump has recently been very forward in explaining how he straight-up lied to those he got to vote for him.
Just listen to him. Never mind that it's the Daily Show: ignore everything Trevor Noah has to say and listen to what Trump has to say. His voters were hoodwinked, plain and simple.
So when I say I'm certain... these are are consequences that will arise from actions Trump and his cabinet have indicated direct intent for. It's not "like Obama." It's "like Trump."
Bottom line: It looks like a person specifically stating intent to implement seriously problematic policies is going to become president. I anticipate problems if that is the case. Does that really seem unreasonable to you?
Anyway, if you still think this is "like Obama", I am pretty confident you're really not seeing the big picture: I encourage you to apply a very serious think to the axioms here. Perhaps you'll change positions. Some people can.
I simply described the facts as they stand at this point in time. I'm not denying anything at all.
Trump will probably be elected next week. That's how the EC votes look to be allocated right now. That is the actual election. Not the popular vote. The popular vote is, as we have just been reminded, not the determining factor in who gets to be president.
Pretending that's a good thing, no, that I'm not inclined to do. I am fairly confident that should we, as seems quite likely, endure a Trump presidency, it will eventually be described as "Like Bush II, but considerably more damaging to the nation."
It will be very interesting to watch. As for me being "butthurt", I am quite certain that the middle-income and poor people who voted for this man are going to suffer worse than I will as a result of those of his policies that he manages to put in place through whatever means -- congress, executive orders, direct control via the executive branch hierarchy. presidential authority for foreign policy decisions, etc.
I do feel bad for those people. It's one thing to observe that they have been hoodwinked. It would be quite another to glory in their suffering. I won't be doing that.
Highly doubtful. Even the people who voted for Trump aren't broadly clueless enough to destroy their ability to live in relative comfort and safety.
What would probably happen would be a couple more occupations of wildlife refuges or similar by those too dim to remember to pack socks for a midwinter camping trip.
But if imagining a civil war is what lets you sleep smiling... by all means, carry on. We all have our dreams.
If the EC delivers its anticipated screwing of the American public next week, then, yes, exactly.
Wins the thread.
Right now, Mr. Trump is the person who lost the popular vote. By millions of votes.
He's not the president-elect unless the electoral college vote next week overrides the popular vote.
That will probably happen, based on arbitrary pro-bias applied to votes coming out of low-population regions (and outright abandonment of the EC's obligation to pick a qualified candidate); but until/unless it does happen, Mr. Trump's operating on an assumption, not an election, and so is anyone else who assumes this is a done deal.
Moving forward after the EC votes, assuming Mr. Trump wins that vote, anyone who thinks that he "won the election" might want to keep in mind that the majority of Americans selected Mrs. Clinton -- by a significant margin, as in, no doubt about it. The election he would have won is that of the electoral college, that august institution that disenfranchises the citizens of their votes. He has no mandate. We're also already seeing considerable congressional resistance to many of his stated goals.
So don't be too smug.
(incoming comet threat, panic):
Excellent news on that front: lawyer robots have no lawyer personality.
It's not a circle. It's a waveform. Any distance, any additional number of degrees out from the origin, is possible.
We are certainly a long way from the constitution now. The worst flaw in it -- a day-1 flaw -- is that is was crafted without any provision for punishment for legislators who violate it. The largest injury ever done to it was the supreme court arrogating the power of amendment in Marbury vs. Madison, and that, too, was quite a while ago. That, combined with the enormously toxic "well, it doesn't mean what it says..." attitude... those three factors outright bought us the oligarchy we have today.
At this point it looks like Trump will probably win the EC vote, at which point we will have the cherry on top of our Sundae of Shite: a misogynist, xenophobic, sexist, rude, compulsive, racist, poorly spoken, selfish, scientifically illiterate, and frankly, not too bright president.
It's popcorn time, folks.
When you trade money for news, you tend to get the news that makes the most money. It's human nature, unless controlled by regulation. Just as corporations, utilities, colleges, all mostly get financially out of hand unless regulated, because people are mostly naturally greedy. There's scant sense of fairness, and gross excess of "take the market for all it can bear."
Look, news is all mostly biased anyway. Biased by what they cover and what they choose not to cover; by the editor's influence; by the publisher's influence; by the advertiser's influence; by the stockholder's influence; by ridiculous "equal time for superstitious nonsense" policies (because the news consumers are bewildered, so in order to get their money, they are pandered to), etc. I'm just not going to actually pay for more bias.
It's a complete waste of time to put a paywalled link in front of me. Not going to click it if I know what it is; not going to stay if I am snookered into clicking.
For news, here's what I want: facts and relevance to actual news. Not the Kardumbians, not some actor's opinion, not breathless reporting of some lab result as if it was tech coming down next Friday, Politics, cover the candidates and what they say. Even handedly. Don't leave some out (Sanders, cough) don't over-cover some (Trump, cough), don't report bland, content free remarks as if they were incoming legal doom (Clinton, cough)... you get the idea.
Simple enough, you'd think. Just do a good job. But they don't. Okay then, fine. But expecting me to pay for that crap? Not happening. They oughta pay me for having to fact check every goddam thing they write and speak about.
The moderators clearly agree, lol.