Hillary would have done better. And she will do better when she wins the 2020 election. The entire world will be united under Hillary Clinton when she becomes president in 2020 or sooner.
Onward Together!
Sarcasm? I sure hope so.
Yes. It's got to be. Nobody could be that delusional, other than possibly HRC herself. (The "2020 or sooner" was the tipoff.)
The St. Louis Symphony was one of the pioneers of auditions where the performers being considered for a position played behind a barrier where they could not be seen and with their identities unknown to those making the hiring decision.
I don't know if the results of this process resulted in statistics that made some people get irrationally upset. But it wouldn't surprise me.
So some of their tax money is used to pay a bureaucracy to provide them with a handout to buy food? Really?
Do I need to ask the obvious question? Oh, let's save some time. I'll ask it now.
Why is someone who is making so little money they qualify for the dole being taxed in the first place?
What's wrong with letting them keep the money they earned, and cut the government (and the welfare bureaucracy) out of the loop? So politicians can look generous with other people's money?
Golly! Who knew that a government agency could be used to further or impede a political agenda? Or that people would have hopes or fears that that might happen?
The plus side is buyer and seller don't spend a lot of time and effort haggling (and developing and maintaining their haggling skills), making buying and selling less costly.
The downside is that people get the peculiar notion that every product and service has a "true price", and from that flows the silly-ass notion that charging anything other than that "one true price" is somehow wrong.
Which if the summary is to be believed, is where the Quakers were coming from in the first place.
And from that silly-ass notion flow all manner of silly-ass laws and court rulings. And the neo-medievalism that was Marxism. (I use the past tense, even though there are still a few backwards places where the word hasn't gotten, like Cuba and academia.)
Due to the nature of voting in the U.S., there are always just two political parties that elect candidates to office in any great number, except during times of transition. Those transitions occur when neither of the two dominant parties will address an issue that a large fraction of the voters think is important.
That's how the Republicans came from essentially nowhere in the early 1850s to electing a president in 1860 and replacing the Whigs. (Having 11 states withdraw from U.S. politics for 4 years and then be banned from it for several more years certainly helped the Republicans.)
Sometimes a new party will gain enough votes (and perhaps elected officials) that one of the two dominant parties will take that party's position. (The fans of Carrie Nation gave us Al Capone.) In that case the transition is not the replacement of one of the old parties, but the adoption of a position on that former "third-rail" issue.
It's pretty hard to start a new party these days and compete on an even footing with the statutory duopoly parties, thanks to state laws that pretty much guarantee that the two dominant parties are always same two parties.
For details about this process, and what party formation and operation was like before government-approved candidates and government-approved parties, see _Why American Stopped Voting_ by Mark L. Kornbluh. http://www.worldcat.org/search...
The bottom-line is it results in a country where a few people have much greater say in governance, which is antithetical to equitable representation and ensures rural bean farmers an outsized foothold in Washington.
I'll just remark briefly on your asshole attitude towards rural people, suggesting you think again about what you wrote during your next meal. On to the heart of the matter.
At the time the Constitution was written, the United States was a confederation of 13 largely independent nation-states. One of the concerns was that the "general government" (what we call the federal government) would get too powerful.
That is why senators were chosen by the state governments, just as the members of the House of Representatives were chosen by the voters. The states would choose senators that represented the interests of the states, just as the people would choose the interests of the people.
I can't speak to how effective that turned out to be in practice, for the first dozen decades of the republic. But regardless, it came to an end a century ago, with the direct election of senators.
And of course, the Constitution is largely a dead letter now. Nearly every elected and appointed official has quite thoroughly broken the promise they made as their first act in office, and routinely breaks it, day in and day out: promising to abide by the Constitution.
The government is run by liars, and the vast majority of what it does is unconstitutional.
The cause of this appalling situation is surely not the fact that Texas has no more representation in the Senate than does Rhode Island.
How about having something similar for the information that the government gathers -- without the person's consent -- for one purpose that is used for another?
And don't say it never happens. Here's some reminders of one especially awful one. Census Bureau. Japanese. FDR. Internment camps.
And simple failure to safeguard information. Sensitive personal information about me is now in China, thanks to the federal government's failure. And of millions of others, of course.
But in the 'American' judicial system, a person must agree to a plea bargain. It's not forced on them.
But it sure feels that way after a few months in jail with no trial date in sight, and you can't afford a legal team as good as what the prosecution has.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a problem now. And wasn't much of a problem at it's worst.
The beepocalypse has been canceled.
But please, go ahead and panic on.
I'll make some popcorn.
Try sniffing carbon dust, and tell me it's not a pollutant.
Or breathing in a couple lungsful of dihydrogen monoxide. That's outright kill you. It should be banned.
But the U.S. is not at war in Syria, right?
No boots on the ground, so it doesn't count.
Just like the first Sunday in December, 1941, at Pearl Harbor.
The first guy they matched that way turned out not to be the one, on examination of his own DNA. Oopsie!
Hillary would have done better. And she will do better when she wins the 2020 election. The entire world will be united under Hillary Clinton when she becomes president in 2020 or sooner.
Onward Together!
Sarcasm? I sure hope so.
Yes. It's got to be. Nobody could be that delusional, other than possibly HRC herself. (The "2020 or sooner" was the tipoff.)
The St. Louis Symphony was one of the pioneers of auditions where the performers being considered for a position played behind a barrier where they could not be seen and with their identities unknown to those making the hiring decision.
I don't know if the results of this process resulted in statistics that made some people get irrationally upset. But it wouldn't surprise me.
So some of their tax money is used to pay a bureaucracy to provide them with a handout to buy food? Really?
Do I need to ask the obvious question? Oh, let's save some time. I'll ask it now.
Why is someone who is making so little money they qualify for the dole being taxed in the first place?
What's wrong with letting them keep the money they earned, and cut the government (and the welfare bureaucracy) out of the loop? So politicians can look generous with other people's money?
Nicolas Bourbaki, the hydra of mathematics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you can define what "screw" means in that prediction, and pick a date by which you say it will happen, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
And perhaps a modest wager. How's fifty bucks sound?
I'm more worried about the "emergency police override". (Robert Heinlein, call your office.)
Which meaning? Breaking into computers? Or cleverly/expediently accomplishing something in an unconventional way?
We've got to stop letting journalists redefine our words. They're the ones who created this unfortunate situation.
Oh, wait. He's dead.
Well, I'm available to bet Kurzweil, in his stead. How does $500 sound, Ray?
duckduckgo.com/?wager+julian.simon+paul.ehrlich
Pill-splitter.
Golly! Who knew that a government agency could be used to further or impede a political agenda? Or that people would have hopes or fears that that might happen?
Gosh!
The plus side is buyer and seller don't spend a lot of time and effort haggling (and developing and maintaining their haggling skills), making buying and selling less costly.
The downside is that people get the peculiar notion that every product and service has a "true price", and from that flows the silly-ass notion that charging anything other than that "one true price" is somehow wrong.
Which if the summary is to be believed, is where the Quakers were coming from in the first place.
And from that silly-ass notion flow all manner of silly-ass laws and court rulings. And the neo-medievalism that was Marxism. (I use the past tense, even though there are still a few backwards places where the word hasn't gotten, like Cuba and academia.)
Yeah, that's it. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Democratic nominee was so awful that even a turd like Donald Trump could beat her.
And we know this is true, because the Pentagon has never lied to use before.
Due to the nature of voting in the U.S., there are always just two political parties that elect candidates to office in any great number, except during times of transition. Those transitions occur when neither of the two dominant parties will address an issue that a large fraction of the voters think is important.
That's how the Republicans came from essentially nowhere in the early 1850s to electing a president in 1860 and replacing the Whigs. (Having 11 states withdraw from U.S. politics for 4 years and then be banned from it for several more years certainly helped the Republicans.)
Sometimes a new party will gain enough votes (and perhaps elected officials) that one of the two dominant parties will take that party's position. (The fans of Carrie Nation gave us Al Capone.) In that case the transition is not the replacement of one of the old parties, but the adoption of a position on that former "third-rail" issue.
It's pretty hard to start a new party these days and compete on an even footing with the statutory duopoly parties, thanks to state laws that pretty much guarantee that the two dominant parties are always same two parties.
For details about this process, and what party formation and operation was like before government-approved candidates and government-approved parties, see _Why American Stopped Voting_ by Mark L. Kornbluh. http://www.worldcat.org/search...
A new phenomenon? Hardly.
How long did the US stay in Vietnam after most Americans thought it was time to get out?
Less than the NSA does, I expect. As did the FBI during the Hoover years. (And I bet that ended with J. Edgar's time in office, riiiight?)
Say, how come the Congress doesn't rein in the NSA and FBI, anyway? They're in charge, aren't they?
"Creating jobs" is a dumb reason to do anything.
Digging holes and filling them back in "creates jobs". And it's stupid.
Doing something the hard way "creates jobs". And it's stupid.
Bad economics.
But it's good politics.
The bottom-line is it results in a country where a few people have much greater say in governance, which is antithetical to equitable representation and ensures rural bean farmers an outsized foothold in Washington.
I'll just remark briefly on your asshole attitude towards rural people, suggesting you think again about what you wrote during your next meal. On to the heart of the matter.
At the time the Constitution was written, the United States was a confederation of 13 largely independent nation-states. One of the concerns was that the "general government" (what we call the federal government) would get too powerful.
That is why senators were chosen by the state governments, just as the members of the House of Representatives were chosen by the voters. The states would choose senators that represented the interests of the states, just as the people would choose the interests of the people.
I can't speak to how effective that turned out to be in practice, for the first dozen decades of the republic. But regardless, it came to an end a century ago, with the direct election of senators.
And of course, the Constitution is largely a dead letter now. Nearly every elected and appointed official has quite thoroughly broken the promise they made as their first act in office, and routinely breaks it, day in and day out: promising to abide by the Constitution.
The government is run by liars, and the vast majority of what it does is unconstitutional.
The cause of this appalling situation is surely not the fact that Texas has no more representation in the Senate than does Rhode Island.
The USPS is extremely inefficient. Auditing it can only be a good thing.
And unconstitutional. Not that that much matters, in post-constitutional America.
How about having something similar for the information that the government gathers -- without the person's consent -- for one purpose that is used for another?
And don't say it never happens. Here's some reminders of one especially awful one. Census Bureau. Japanese. FDR. Internment camps.
And simple failure to safeguard information. Sensitive personal information about me is now in China, thanks to the federal government's failure. And of millions of others, of course.
But in the 'American' judicial system, a person must agree to a plea bargain. It's not forced on them.
But it sure feels that way after a few months in jail with no trial date in sight, and you can't afford a legal team as good as what the prosecution has.