I'm sensing that the Libertarian faction on/. are generally backing Trump pretty vigorously. The only theory I offer is that it is yet another iteration of the Salem Hypothesis.
But she did get more votes, and the best you can produce is that you *think* Bernie would have got more votes under another system. I see little evidence that that is true.
A party can set any rules it likes. Clearly there are a lot of Democrats in the US, more than there are Republicans, so it suggests that Democrats are willing to put up with the system used to pick presidential candidates.
I don't think Trump actually wants the job. He's never really even tried to act like someone who is President, and he's going to be rewarded with a defeat. His only trick right now is to spin a defeat as some sort of victory, or at the very least as an undeserved defeat.
If the Republicans had selected someone like, say, Marco Rubio, no one would even be having this discussion, but of course, to the Tea Party, which is Trump's support base, Rubio is another RINO. So long as the Tea Party continues to wield such vast influence, the Republicans will keep having increasingly horrible presidential nominees.
The majority of American voters appear to be fed up with Donald Trump. So while you may speak for a certain Republican demographic, you can hardly claim to speak for *Americans*.
There's a reason the Democrats have superdelegates, and it's to prevent another 1972. Even if Sanders had somehow managed to do what Trump did and get enough delegates on board to sideline Clinton, the superdelegates would have eliminated him, but that wasn't even necessary.
I think Trump is a pretty good reason for the GOP to adopt a similar system.
What a delightful euphemism for forced sexual contact; "unappreciated kiss". My oh my, but it appears that in the world of Trump, all unwanted sexual contact is simply "unappreciated'.
There was no rigged election. The Democrats have a system built explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning. That she plotted to badmouth him shouldn't surprise anyone, that's how politics works. And it's not as if Bernie's supporters weren't badmouthing her, there just wasn't enough of them to make a difference.
I don't exactly think they're going to let Assange know when they're pulling the plug on his asylum. He'll wake up one morning, start eating breakfast, and then British police will appear, take him into handcuffs, and put him on suicide watch.
Besides, Assange is too much a egotist to ever actually commit suicide.
There hasn't been much uncovering of anything. The whole Wikileaks dump reminds me of the Prince Charles Spider Letters, where the Guardian put so much effort into getting access to Prince Charles' letters and memorandums to the British cabinet, absolutely certain that he was influencing policy in some evil nefarious way, only to find out he talked a lot about his concerns about agriculture.
Yes, there are some embarrassing things in the email dumps, as there would be if anyone's emails were leaked, but there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate this bizarre conspiracy theory that Clinton is the Lizard Queen of the Illuminati.
I have this funny feeling that Assange may be wearing out his welcome. I doubt very much Ecuador wants to be used as a conduit for Russia to try to undermine the US elections.
I doubt anyone on Clinton's side is worried about the last debate. Thus far Trump has shown an astonishing inability to capitalize upon Clinton's negatives. Quite the opposite, in fact, he seems to have become a master at magnifying his own issues.
If he's using wireless to connect, it's conceivable that the British government could have ordered the wireless ISP to kill his account. That I could buy. Mind you, the solution is equally easy, just get a new cell phone or wireless dongle or whatever he's using. Heck, I'm sure there are more than a few people that would happily let him use a phone in their name, so it could become very hard to target him in this way.
But as Wikileaks has released absolutely no details as to what happened, I have little reason to simply accept a "state actor" was involved. Assange is notorious for his persecution complex.
Britain is almost certainly not going to cut off the Ecuadorian Embassy's Internet, and indeed, if it had, by now there would be a formal protest lodged by the Ecuadorian Ambassador with the British government.
There are a few explanations that do not involve an international incident.
1. A rather mundane outage, perhaps a backhoe severing a fiber link, or a cell outage (since we have no idea how Assange actually connects, it could be either). 2. Hardware failure (i.e. his laptop's WiFi went dead) 3. If he's using wireless data, perhaps they've targeted his phone and shut that down. 4. He's full of shit.
I would put "5. Britain commits a hostile act against a foreign embassy in London" very low on the list, somewhere around where Assange's credibility is these days.
Jesus fucking Christ, it's a temporary situation that will be amended in fairly short order. The pro-China types would have everyone believe that the US is capable of virtually nothing.
When China can send probes to Pluto, and put Rovers on Mars that work for over a decade, you let me know.
There is enough known about memory to know that the only "photographic" memory is what some researchers call the "sensory registry" which is a form of short term memory that lasts at best a few seconds, and holds a sensory "image" (whether visual, auditory, tactile, etc.), by the time memories are even shuffled into short term memory, the memories have already been encoded. Memories shuffled off to long term memory are what you might call heavily compressed, and when the brain accesses them, it uses its knowledge of the world to reassemble a coherent narrative. It is because of the nature of declarative memories that they are susceptible to being altered, and it is why witness testimony can be so faulty, and why when questioning witnesses, it is critical to do it correctly, and keep multiple witnesses apart, because failure to do both can often taint even very recent memories.
That's not to say that we can't remember events fairly accurately, but we should always be conscious of the fact that what we are "remembering" isn't a video playback, but rather a compressed and encoded pieces of information that are put back together by the brain when a memory is recalled.
It's for this reason that various claims surrounding "repressed memories" have been so regularly debunked, and why when you hear about someone put under hypnosis and who recounted his parents being Satanists that murdered a baby, you're listening to fabrication, usually unintentional on the subject's part, but also usually involving the hypnotist basically creating a whole series of suggestions which the subject's brain uses to assemble a memory of a situation which never happened.
Now, that all being said, that doesn't mean that memory is completely faulty. Obviously it isn't, and we can recall events relatively well, particularly where we actively commit them to memory or they were of some significance (i.e. the birth of one's child, or, say, being groped by Donald Trump), but it does raise the question as to why an observer would have such vivid memories countering that.
Maybe, but the fact that he appears to be assembling an army of people to "police the polls", because apparently the Dems are going to be bussing in blacks and Mexicans, is a recipe for election day violence. He even has Pence doing it now, which makes me sad, because while I think Pence is a bit of a regressive person, I thought he did have a core of decency. The GOP is, of course, looking on this in horror. For democracy to work, there has to be acceptance on the part of the loser that they did indeed lose. Gore did it in 2000, even if he may have had some right to continue pressing his claim, but he did it because he knew that the principle that was at stake was more important than even who got into the Oval Office.
Yes, Trump is different than those that came before. He's a bad tempered man incapable of admitting who fault who would clearly burn the whole damned thing to the ground just to prove that somehow someone else was responsible for his defeat.
There has been an ideal of female purity dating back at least to the Middle Ages, and probably further back into Greco-Roman times. There has also been the reality that women, unless they were of some social station, could be sexually assaulted with few repercussions for the attacker. The ideal of female purity sadly didn't trickle much down below the highest ranks of society. That is until legal codes in the Western world finally began to take sexual assault seriously, as politicians and judges were forced to put down their foot and stop giving an easy ride to those who committed sexual assault. But even well into my working life, there were men, usually bosses and managers who treated women, usually women at the bottom of the pay scale like waitresses, file clerks and the like, like pieces of meat to be subjected to sexualized language, groping, and on occasion even worse. Yes, someone chose to play this all the way, but most just went home, washed themselves off, picked themselves up and went back the next day because they had to pay the rent.
Power imbalances often look like that; to the guy on top it all seems very voluntary, to the people at the bottom, it's what one has to put up with to keep their job.
Clinton was a defense attorney and doing her job, as the Constitution requires. Defending really bad people sucks, but lawyers, particularly early in the careers, frequently have to do it. So are you arguing that people accused of really bad crimes shouldn't have as vigorous a defense as possible, and that lawyers defending such clients should simply not defend them in an effective way? Is that what you would want your legal council to do if you were accused of rape?
Slashdot Mirror
You think Coulter is a journalist?
I think that says all we need to know about you. You just cherry pick sources that reinforce your preconceived notions.
I'm sensing that the Libertarian faction on /. are generally backing Trump pretty vigorously. The only theory I offer is that it is yet another iteration of the Salem Hypothesis.
But she did get more votes, and the best you can produce is that you *think* Bernie would have got more votes under another system. I see little evidence that that is true.
A party can set any rules it likes. Clearly there are a lot of Democrats in the US, more than there are Republicans, so it suggests that Democrats are willing to put up with the system used to pick presidential candidates.
I don't think Trump actually wants the job. He's never really even tried to act like someone who is President, and he's going to be rewarded with a defeat. His only trick right now is to spin a defeat as some sort of victory, or at the very least as an undeserved defeat.
If the Republicans had selected someone like, say, Marco Rubio, no one would even be having this discussion, but of course, to the Tea Party, which is Trump's support base, Rubio is another RINO. So long as the Tea Party continues to wield such vast influence, the Republicans will keep having increasingly horrible presidential nominees.
The majority of American voters appear to be fed up with Donald Trump. So while you may speak for a certain Republican demographic, you can hardly claim to speak for *Americans*.
If Donald Trump planted a kiss on your lips, how would you feel?
There's a reason the Democrats have superdelegates, and it's to prevent another 1972. Even if Sanders had somehow managed to do what Trump did and get enough delegates on board to sideline Clinton, the superdelegates would have eliminated him, but that wasn't even necessary.
I think Trump is a pretty good reason for the GOP to adopt a similar system.
What a delightful euphemism for forced sexual contact; "unappreciated kiss". My oh my, but it appears that in the world of Trump, all unwanted sexual contact is simply "unappreciated'.
There was no rigged election. The Democrats have a system built explicitly to prevent people like Sanders from winning. That she plotted to badmouth him shouldn't surprise anyone, that's how politics works. And it's not as if Bernie's supporters weren't badmouthing her, there just wasn't enough of them to make a difference.
I don't exactly think they're going to let Assange know when they're pulling the plug on his asylum. He'll wake up one morning, start eating breakfast, and then British police will appear, take him into handcuffs, and put him on suicide watch.
Besides, Assange is too much a egotist to ever actually commit suicide.
Have you any confirmation at all that the Embassy's Internet has indeed been cut? Others here are reporting that Assange doesn't use their Internet.
There hasn't been much uncovering of anything. The whole Wikileaks dump reminds me of the Prince Charles Spider Letters, where the Guardian put so much effort into getting access to Prince Charles' letters and memorandums to the British cabinet, absolutely certain that he was influencing policy in some evil nefarious way, only to find out he talked a lot about his concerns about agriculture.
Yes, there are some embarrassing things in the email dumps, as there would be if anyone's emails were leaked, but there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate this bizarre conspiracy theory that Clinton is the Lizard Queen of the Illuminati.
I have this funny feeling that Assange may be wearing out his welcome. I doubt very much Ecuador wants to be used as a conduit for Russia to try to undermine the US elections.
I doubt anyone on Clinton's side is worried about the last debate. Thus far Trump has shown an astonishing inability to capitalize upon Clinton's negatives. Quite the opposite, in fact, he seems to have become a master at magnifying his own issues.
If he's using wireless to connect, it's conceivable that the British government could have ordered the wireless ISP to kill his account. That I could buy. Mind you, the solution is equally easy, just get a new cell phone or wireless dongle or whatever he's using. Heck, I'm sure there are more than a few people that would happily let him use a phone in their name, so it could become very hard to target him in this way.
But as Wikileaks has released absolutely no details as to what happened, I have little reason to simply accept a "state actor" was involved. Assange is notorious for his persecution complex.
Britain is almost certainly not going to cut off the Ecuadorian Embassy's Internet, and indeed, if it had, by now there would be a formal protest lodged by the Ecuadorian Ambassador with the British government.
There are a few explanations that do not involve an international incident.
1. A rather mundane outage, perhaps a backhoe severing a fiber link, or a cell outage (since we have no idea how Assange actually connects, it could be either).
2. Hardware failure (i.e. his laptop's WiFi went dead)
3. If he's using wireless data, perhaps they've targeted his phone and shut that down.
4. He's full of shit.
I would put "5. Britain commits a hostile act against a foreign embassy in London" very low on the list, somewhere around where Assange's credibility is these days.
Or maybe Assange has an agenda.
You seriously think Trump is clean?
Jesus fucking Christ, it's a temporary situation that will be amended in fairly short order. The pro-China types would have everyone believe that the US is capable of virtually nothing.
When China can send probes to Pluto, and put Rovers on Mars that work for over a decade, you let me know.
Russia's situation had materially changed at the time. Little in China has changed.
It did very little, because Trump was already losing.
There is enough known about memory to know that the only "photographic" memory is what some researchers call the "sensory registry" which is a form of short term memory that lasts at best a few seconds, and holds a sensory "image" (whether visual, auditory, tactile, etc.), by the time memories are even shuffled into short term memory, the memories have already been encoded. Memories shuffled off to long term memory are what you might call heavily compressed, and when the brain accesses them, it uses its knowledge of the world to reassemble a coherent narrative. It is because of the nature of declarative memories that they are susceptible to being altered, and it is why witness testimony can be so faulty, and why when questioning witnesses, it is critical to do it correctly, and keep multiple witnesses apart, because failure to do both can often taint even very recent memories.
That's not to say that we can't remember events fairly accurately, but we should always be conscious of the fact that what we are "remembering" isn't a video playback, but rather a compressed and encoded pieces of information that are put back together by the brain when a memory is recalled.
It's for this reason that various claims surrounding "repressed memories" have been so regularly debunked, and why when you hear about someone put under hypnosis and who recounted his parents being Satanists that murdered a baby, you're listening to fabrication, usually unintentional on the subject's part, but also usually involving the hypnotist basically creating a whole series of suggestions which the subject's brain uses to assemble a memory of a situation which never happened.
Now, that all being said, that doesn't mean that memory is completely faulty. Obviously it isn't, and we can recall events relatively well, particularly where we actively commit them to memory or they were of some significance (i.e. the birth of one's child, or, say, being groped by Donald Trump), but it does raise the question as to why an observer would have such vivid memories countering that.
Maybe, but the fact that he appears to be assembling an army of people to "police the polls", because apparently the Dems are going to be bussing in blacks and Mexicans, is a recipe for election day violence. He even has Pence doing it now, which makes me sad, because while I think Pence is a bit of a regressive person, I thought he did have a core of decency. The GOP is, of course, looking on this in horror. For democracy to work, there has to be acceptance on the part of the loser that they did indeed lose. Gore did it in 2000, even if he may have had some right to continue pressing his claim, but he did it because he knew that the principle that was at stake was more important than even who got into the Oval Office.
Yes, Trump is different than those that came before. He's a bad tempered man incapable of admitting who fault who would clearly burn the whole damned thing to the ground just to prove that somehow someone else was responsible for his defeat.
There has been an ideal of female purity dating back at least to the Middle Ages, and probably further back into Greco-Roman times. There has also been the reality that women, unless they were of some social station, could be sexually assaulted with few repercussions for the attacker. The ideal of female purity sadly didn't trickle much down below the highest ranks of society. That is until legal codes in the Western world finally began to take sexual assault seriously, as politicians and judges were forced to put down their foot and stop giving an easy ride to those who committed sexual assault. But even well into my working life, there were men, usually bosses and managers who treated women, usually women at the bottom of the pay scale like waitresses, file clerks and the like, like pieces of meat to be subjected to sexualized language, groping, and on occasion even worse. Yes, someone chose to play this all the way, but most just went home, washed themselves off, picked themselves up and went back the next day because they had to pay the rent.
Power imbalances often look like that; to the guy on top it all seems very voluntary, to the people at the bottom, it's what one has to put up with to keep their job.
Clinton was a defense attorney and doing her job, as the Constitution requires. Defending really bad people sucks, but lawyers, particularly early in the careers, frequently have to do it. So are you arguing that people accused of really bad crimes shouldn't have as vigorous a defense as possible, and that lawyers defending such clients should simply not defend them in an effective way? Is that what you would want your legal council to do if you were accused of rape?