The intent of the Electoral College at least in part was to act as a final check against an unsuitable candidate becoming President. Now we can certainly debate Trump's suitability for high office, but as to complaining about the rules, well the EC is actually somewhat vague in that regard. The chief issue I see with Electors voting for someone other than who they are pledged for is that it could, in states where being a faithless electoral, end you up in hot water.
Because your theory worked so well in the Jim Crow south. Oddly enough the the Thirteenth Amendment and the defeat of the Confederacy didn't suddenly make an extremely disadvantaged group magically equal in fact.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant of American history, and not actually one of the current batch of American Nazis trying to white wash (pun intended) bigotry.
Cuba needs investment badly. Despite the obvious bad blood between the Castro's and the US, I get the impression Raul would rather that investment come in the form of greenbacks than renminbi.
To the Alt-right, someone pointing out that unarmed black men are far more likely to be gunned down by police than unarmed white men is an attack on the poor suffering majority of whites in America. They've conferred upon themselves the notion of victimhood, just like Neo-nazi and White Supremacist groups have been doing since before the Civil War.
Is Breitbart a protected class? By what definition? If I refuse to sell advertising in Breitbart I'm violating Breitbart's civil liberties, is that what you're trying to say?
The scope of civil rights legislation is pretty narrow; it deals with traditionally disadvantaged or persecuted groups of people based on identifiable characteristics like skin color, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. How could it ever include one business deciding to terminate a business relationship with another business?
Again and again, we see how the Alt-right seem to believe that the intent of civil liberties is to remove consequences, not in fact to assure equality. The alt-right wants to argue that the Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment, not only confer freedom of speech, but freedom from the consequences of speech.
As to businesses being forced by statute not to discriminate, the Supreme Court upheld both Civil Rights Acts a long time ago, so whether you agree with it or not, it has well over half of a century of jurisprudence behind it. Yes, governments can make certain groups protected where that group can be demonstrated to have been historically disadvantaged. I guess you can try to argue that your Nazi buddies are a disadvantaged group, but the notion of unfair disadvantage isn't just that people hate your fucking guts and don't want to be in the same room with you, but also that they hate your fucking guts unfairly. There's not unfair about being biased against Nazis.
That's idiotic. The First Amendment doesn't confer protection to criminal activities, and it most certainly does not offer cover to acts of treason. The notion of national secrets, as much as governments may at times abuse them, are still rational and necessary, and the First Amendment was never intended to protect those that would violate national security.
They are a noisy little sliver, perhaps, but they have mastered the way of making a lot of noise.
Part of me wants Trump to succeed, because the last thing the world needs is a really shitty president. The other part of me wants him to fail, because his fall would pretty much kill the Alt-right.
What will likely happen, of course, is something in between. He'll evolve into a typical president, not as bad as the worst, almost certainly not as good as the best. People bitch about "elites" and about the "old guard" and such, but any student of history understands the pressures of governance remain largely the same regardless of the team jersey that government is wearing. There have been a few times when leaders have been able to make transformative changes, but while there have been some examples of how that has lead to great good (like the Glorious Revolution and the American War of Independence), they have just as often lead to great ills (like Mao and Hitler).
As to the Alt-right, whether they like it or not, it looks like their primary channels of communication are beginning to react to the criticism that they allowed the lunatics to run the asylum. Without Facebook and Twitter, they really will lose their primary means of spreading their word. Whatever peoples' feeling on the mainstream media, I see no indication that Breitbarts and the like are becoming the new voice of the people. They remain largely niche players, echo chambers for the Alt-right, and not places to broadcast a message that will outcompete the rest.
The Alt-right, populated by adults with the emotional ages of nine year old boys who haven't figured out quite what their penises are for, but sure do know girls are icky!
Just picked up the $15 pack. Don't know when I'll be using yacc again, but that's such a steal, what do I care. Besides the guy that's taking over my job in IT really is kind of deficient on the Unix front, not to mention not being too great at DNS, so those will be of some use.
That the US government committed potentially criminal or unconstitutional acts doesn't somehow mean Snowden wouldn't be convicted. And since he hasn't appeared to have held much back, what is it exactly that he could reveal now that isn't already known?
Security through obscurity isn't security at all, and it's not like we haven't seen plenty of evidence of just how bad security has been on electronic voting systems.
And really, at this point in time, trying to claim that proprietary systems are somehow less vulnerable is still seen as a legitimate point of view?
Slashdot Mirror
The intent of the Electoral College at least in part was to act as a final check against an unsuitable candidate becoming President. Now we can certainly debate Trump's suitability for high office, but as to complaining about the rules, well the EC is actually somewhat vague in that regard. The chief issue I see with Electors voting for someone other than who they are pledged for is that it could, in states where being a faithless electoral, end you up in hot water.
Because your theory worked so well in the Jim Crow south. Oddly enough the the Thirteenth Amendment and the defeat of the Confederacy didn't suddenly make an extremely disadvantaged group magically equal in fact.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're just ignorant of American history, and not actually one of the current batch of American Nazis trying to white wash (pun intended) bigotry.
Just keep on moving those goalposts. When all else fails you've always got your fallacies.
I don't disagree, but if that was the intent of the embargo, it has been a stunning failure.
I'm his manager now
Cuba needs investment badly. Despite the obvious bad blood between the Castro's and the US, I get the impression Raul would rather that investment come in the form of greenbacks than renminbi.
Cuba is still firmly in the Castro regimes hands, though Raul does seen somewhat more pragmatic than his big brother.
To the Alt-right, someone pointing out that unarmed black men are far more likely to be gunned down by police than unarmed white men is an attack on the poor suffering majority of whites in America. They've conferred upon themselves the notion of victimhood, just like Neo-nazi and White Supremacist groups have been doing since before the Civil War.
Is Breitbart a protected class? By what definition? If I refuse to sell advertising in Breitbart I'm violating Breitbart's civil liberties, is that what you're trying to say?
The scope of civil rights legislation is pretty narrow; it deals with traditionally disadvantaged or persecuted groups of people based on identifiable characteristics like skin color, ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation. How could it ever include one business deciding to terminate a business relationship with another business?
Again and again, we see how the Alt-right seem to believe that the intent of civil liberties is to remove consequences, not in fact to assure equality. The alt-right wants to argue that the Bill of Rights, and in particular the First Amendment, not only confer freedom of speech, but freedom from the consequences of speech.
As to businesses being forced by statute not to discriminate, the Supreme Court upheld both Civil Rights Acts a long time ago, so whether you agree with it or not, it has well over half of a century of jurisprudence behind it. Yes, governments can make certain groups protected where that group can be demonstrated to have been historically disadvantaged. I guess you can try to argue that your Nazi buddies are a disadvantaged group, but the notion of unfair disadvantage isn't just that people hate your fucking guts and don't want to be in the same room with you, but also that they hate your fucking guts unfairly. There's not unfair about being biased against Nazis.
Because denying business to a gay man is totally the same as refusing business to a news aggregator site.
I doubt AppNexus gives a flying fuck about a few cranky alt-right goons.
63% percent of the US population is white. I urge you to get a lawyer and sue every math teacher you ever had.
That's idiotic. The First Amendment doesn't confer protection to criminal activities, and it most certainly does not offer cover to acts of treason. The notion of national secrets, as much as governments may at times abuse them, are still rational and necessary, and the First Amendment was never intended to protect those that would violate national security.
They are a noisy little sliver, perhaps, but they have mastered the way of making a lot of noise.
Part of me wants Trump to succeed, because the last thing the world needs is a really shitty president. The other part of me wants him to fail, because his fall would pretty much kill the Alt-right.
What will likely happen, of course, is something in between. He'll evolve into a typical president, not as bad as the worst, almost certainly not as good as the best. People bitch about "elites" and about the "old guard" and such, but any student of history understands the pressures of governance remain largely the same regardless of the team jersey that government is wearing. There have been a few times when leaders have been able to make transformative changes, but while there have been some examples of how that has lead to great good (like the Glorious Revolution and the American War of Independence), they have just as often lead to great ills (like Mao and Hitler).
As to the Alt-right, whether they like it or not, it looks like their primary channels of communication are beginning to react to the criticism that they allowed the lunatics to run the asylum. Without Facebook and Twitter, they really will lose their primary means of spreading their word. Whatever peoples' feeling on the mainstream media, I see no indication that Breitbarts and the like are becoming the new voice of the people. They remain largely niche players, echo chambers for the Alt-right, and not places to broadcast a message that will outcompete the rest.
The only one complaining here is you. What's wrong, delicate snowflake? Your mom make you clean your room?
The Alt-right, populated by adults with the emotional ages of nine year old boys who haven't figured out quite what their penises are for, but sure do know girls are icky!
Just picked up the $15 pack. Don't know when I'll be using yacc again, but that's such a steal, what do I care. Besides the guy that's taking over my job in IT really is kind of deficient on the Unix front, not to mention not being too great at DNS, so those will be of some use.
If they're so damned intelligent, why are the pining for jobs that will never come back?
Oh shut up you ignorant fucking moron
It's your conclusion that's the problem.
So what you're so saying is Soros is a moron
You really do just make shit up, don't you?
That the US government committed potentially criminal or unconstitutional acts doesn't somehow mean Snowden wouldn't be convicted. And since he hasn't appeared to have held much back, what is it exactly that he could reveal now that isn't already known?
You can't expect the Alt-right to get hung up on little things like fact. REmember, we're in the post-truth era now.
Security through obscurity isn't security at all, and it's not like we haven't seen plenty of evidence of just how bad security has been on electronic voting systems.
And really, at this point in time, trying to claim that proprietary systems are somehow less vulnerable is still seen as a legitimate point of view?