It's not encryption. They need a sim card and a good antenna that can let them either stream data out live or immediately push data to DropBox or Google Drive.
Stop breaking the laws you are supposed to uphold, you fucks.
The problem isn't the officers who break the law, but the police commanders that defend them. The majority of people would not care about police breaking the law if there were direct and legal consequences for the officers on a fairly consistent basis. There is a minority that would hate the police even if cops who break the law are consistently held legally accountable just because they believe in collective judgment and demand perfection from other groups that their own could not provide.
Groups like BLM are part of the problem on police reform. When Castro died, BLM mourned him because he gave refuge to known cop killers. What is even worse, Castro was precisely the sort of leader domestically that is the stuff of BLM nightmares in terms of police brutality. Think stop and frisk over guns and drugs is bad? How about stop and frisk over having extra cans of beans? That literally happens in Cuba all the dang time. The fact that BLM has not be totally marginalized and ridiculed into obscurity by opponents of police brutality because many of them have blinders that make them sympathetic is part of why the movement isn't getting much traction.
If we were a little more like the Chinese in dealing with our companies, you'd see less of this. Throwing an executive in general lock up has a certain pour encourager les autres effect that fining a company and letting them debate a sock party for the people responsible does not have. It's like I said after Deepwater Horizon. You really think if we left BP alone but brought the death penalty for felony murder against the executive(s) responsible for 11 oilmen dying and that much environment damage that the oil industry wouldn't stand up, sphincters puckered and be good Boy Scouts on worker safety and the environment?
A school can't correct for a class filled with poor single parent household kids who refuse to be educated
A school cannot, but society can. All it would take is a degree of ruthlessness on the part of the law-abiding and productive majority in dealing with them.
1. End no fault divorce. 2. Provide that unwed, non-custodial fathers are entitled to no welfare or public housing at all. 3. Provide that unwed mothers can never receive more than 1/3 the welfare of married mothers. 4. Inflict corporal punishment on men who abandon their children. 5. Make having two or more children out of wedlock (including outside of common law marriage) that you cannot fully support without welfare, for men or women, would be treated as a sex offense under the logic that it is sexual social parasitism.
You may not like that, but it would work. All society has to do to such people is give them a harsh ultimatum. That is, you can socialize the cost of your lifestyle, but the cost will be your freedom and autonomy since you aren't an invalid and this is by your own doing.
All of these initiatives keep reinforcing it. Wake me up when some poor, rural community or ghetto school has seen a major improvement. I'm sick and tired of the nonsense where we give an already decent school more resources, some middle class kid (probably a girl) gets cajoled into taking CS as an elective and it's like "look ma, we're fighting inequality and making America work for everyone!"
FFS, we half of the kids that leave (one way or another) from inner city schools are functionally illiterate and we worry that some middle class kid who doesn't have enough curiosity to google "how to start programming" is not going to start? Priorities, you don't have them...
There is strong evidence that net job growth has entirely gone to the benefit of immigrants. It does nothing to benefit those who have lost out if we keep adding foreigners and handing them a majority or all of the new jobs.
Marijuana, like alcohol, screws with your brain to achieve its effects. There is a reason we are particularly squeamish about handing out legal medicine that works on brain chemistry. It's because messing with brain chemistry can be like opening Pandora's Box.
This isn't a good reason to keep the War on Drugs, but it is a good reason to reevaluate some of our society's basic principles on dealing with intoxicating substances.
The one concern I have about legalization is that there are a lot of people (probably 5-10% of the adult population) that can look at what crack, meth and heroin do and still use them. They just don't care. Their time preference barely goes a millimeter past the tip of their nose. Then they and many "good people" will piss and moan that they are poor and our "indecent society" is bankrupting them by not providing medical coverage to them on an affordable basis.
If the US were more of a republic, it wouldn't bother me because in a more republican state these people (and many of their supporters) could not even vote. However, if we do go full on legalization we will need to veer strongly toward the more pure republic model from the trend toward more "democracy" in order to keep legalization from becoming a crippling effect on our system.
Your argument is quite literally argumentum ad hominem. You people are down to arguing that literally anything Trump does is suspect because it is Trump doing it. He could personally drive an ambulance full of injured kids to the hospital and cover their stay in cash and you'd probably question his motives.
For the sake of argument, suppose this is possible.
You will wake up about 5 generations beyond where you are now. Assuming her death doesn't end the bloodline altogether, the relatives she has in 100 years will have no real familial connection to her. Everyone and everything that defines her sense of happiness now will likely be dead and gone or so evolved that it is unrecognizable (like tech and hobbies).
Then you have the cultural change. Imagine being frozen in 1900 and waking up in 2016. The whole social order is different. You likely are deeply at odds with it culturally.
So odds are you just wake up a social pariah, with no skills, in an alien social order with no friends and family. Heck, you might not even speak the lingua franca of that age. For all we know, Mandarin could replace English by 2116.
People imagine it like a movie where you wake up in a shiny, accepting utopia and you just go like Ender to the stars where no one knows your past or cares. The reality is probably more akin to you becoming a ward of the state for years, being looked down on except as a curiosity.
We need to not only have IDs, but a state wide system that tracks when people check in at the voting precinct. That solves two problems in and of itself. First, it blocks people from voting who should not be voting and second, it would allow for people to vote wherever is convenient for them. It would mean that you could just go to a precinct near your workplace instead of one close to home. It would also mean that state voting officials could tell people who might have to wait in line where they can go to vote more quickly.
Have them sign an affidavit, and take their picture. If you insist on ID cards, make the voter ID itself come with a picture, and don't charge money for them. That way everyone who's registered to vote automatically has a valid ID.
Consider the common liberal scenario where the poor are supposedly being disenfranchised. All you have to do to establish a reasonable effort to get them what they need is to send a mobile registration team with smart card printers, notaries and a lawyer or two. Just announce that the people will be showing up to do free voter registration in 3-6 months and that they will need a Social Security card and either a birth certificate or naturalization documentation.
You know what the best part of this sort of registration is? You can register convicted felons if you do it right. Doesn't matter. Just tie state and federal criminal justice records to the voter ID so that if someone is convicted of a felony, the record automatically gets flagged so it doesn't work until the system either lifts the block or they get a pardon.
he certainly was qualified for the job though, but that has little to do with what ends up appealing to the voter.
Actually, that's just your blinders talking. When she got involved in the use of military force, she made the Bush Administration's handling of the occupation of Iraq look like it was being handled by Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. Do you realize what she did just in Libya that we can confirm?
1. We overthrew a dictator who was complying with international WMD disarmament protocol.
2. We knew in advance that the majority of rebels were Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda.
3. There was precisely no ground game, not even a counter-insurgency strategy for helping a transition regime wipe out undesirable rebel factions that wouldn't submit to the new regime (and that's assuming that we found ourselves in a position where the new regime wasn't worse than the rebels that wouldn't submit!)
4. She knew that there were a ton of MANPADs and other devices suitable for serious and brazen acts of terror that needed to be secured. Did we even get boots on the ground early on to secure them? Nope. She, like most politicians today, thinks you can win a war with air power alone.
#1 alone should have sent blood chilling tingles down the entire foreign policy establishment's spines. The harm she did to WMD disarmament efforts with Libya was incalculable. She assured us of a scenario where even if a substantial faction of Iranian leaders wanted to comply in good faith, they would not be able to bring themselves to do it because the evidence that "compliance means assassination" was right before their eyes under the same administration that was negotiating with them.
I don't know if you are German, but I'm an American who has tried to follow European news on what is happening with the migrant issue. What I see is a people who are more prone to law and order and obedience than Americans actually doing things like firebombing buildings, knifing politicians and such. Germany is now starting to go down a very interesting path, and if Merkel gets her way much longer I suspect that path will include electing leaders who make Trump look like he favors open borders. She wags her finger and openly silences criticism, but to any objective observe it should be obvious that she herself is the primary reason why "hate" is becoming a problem in Germany. Germans, like Americans, and pretty much most of the human race, don't want to be inundated by foreigners especially under a leader who acts like she is all but "electing a new people" for her country.
Stronger border security makes it easier to push the anti-terrorism measures out of the civil society and to its borders. The EU is living in a fantasy world about how easy it is for terrorists to land in Europe and move at will under the various agreements and treaties. Restoring British sovereignty over the movement of people and border security will help civil libertarians build a case for reducing the internal measures to purging bad actors and their sympathizers/enablers while moving most of the security apparatus to proactively keeping the threat out of the society itself. No electorate is going to accept a regime that simultaneously allows bad actors to move in easily AND that doesn't provide some sort of sweeping measure to protect society from them. So pick one. Either you restrict access to your country or you spy on it and carry out regular anti-terrorism raids.
Twitter decides that black activists calling for various felonies against "the right people" (including minors) is ok, but how dare you espouse white separatism.
Why should we care about the opinions and rebukes of people who live like that? It is precisely how you feel being rebuked about sexual morality by a pastor like Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart. It's how you'd feel if Bernie Madoff self-righteously stuck his finger in your face and said "you're a fucking asshole who deserves to be shot for ripping people off."
All of the self-styled super educated people who mock Trump voters as rubes because they've heard of this guy named David Ricardo and his intellectual descendants who made superficially good arguments about Free Trade.
I've had some fun asking such people "cool story bro, now tell me the implications of the bank wire transfer, jet plane and mega cargo ship on Comparative Advantage."
"Uh duh duh, herp derp, muh degree."
Most free trade supporters, today, are literally as stupid as that person in the horror movie, who sees the monster's victim and declares "there is no monster" despite every fact staring them in the face.
China has absolutely no appreciation for how much of the Republican base and the blue dog democrats are at a total ZFG attitude toward free trade now. What are you going to do, China? Make my LG G5 that was made in South Korea more expensive? Make it harder for Hyundai, Kia, Honda and Toyota to produce their parts in South Korea and Japan and then assemble them in the American South for millions of Americans? Ford management is probably saying "yes, more please" as this will primarily hurt GM and Chrysler since Ford mainly outsources to developed countries and Mexico.
Our trade partners are probably splitting their sides over this. South Korea's response will simply be "we see China is acting like a crybully bitch. You want to trade with someone who ain't a bitch?"
Say what you will about Hillary she is not an impulsive person
She asked why we can't just launch a drone strike on a foreign embassy in London. Even if that's a joke (which would be contingent upon proof she has a real sense of humor), that is a gaffe that would have Biden muttering "seriously, not cool."
Trump has had so many women in his love life that could be or were models that his natural reaction to using one as a bribe when he's President is far more likely to be withering contempt. It's like trying to bribe a very wealthy and successful rancher with a good steak dinner to seal the deal.
Hillary is almost the perfect foil to her husband in politics. If Bill divorced her and ran as a Republican he'd probably have crushed her 70/30 that is how unpopular she is.
Look at her stats. She is damn near in McCain/Palin territory. She is the Nickelback of Democratic candidates.
Trump's main argument on Obamacare is that what employers and buyers need is a federal market where a buyer in one state can bypass their state and go directly to a seller in another state. I would have LOVED that a year ago before I changed employers. I was stuck with a crappy Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that covered half of my doctors. CIGNA covered everyone but they don't sell directly to Virginia residents like they do in the North East and elsewhere. Why? Probably because CIGNA hasn't found enough of a market to justify jumping through another set of regulatory hoops like a trained seal to sell to 3% of Virginia.
But imagine if I could just call their office in CT and say "Virginia resident here, ship me a quote. My Virginia doctors ALL take you. Would love to buy direct." No middle man, no bureaucrat. I say "give me the same plan you helped my self-insured employer XYZ sold." They give me a quote. That's it.
You know what I expect? Trump just might be the guy who tells the FCC to damn the torpedos and go full speed ahead on plowing under local franchise rules and monopolies. I expect that that case in NC where no one wanted to sell to a community but the state wouldn't let the community solve its own problems would rub Trump precisely the same way buying healthcare for his employees rubbed him. That is, very very raw at seeing regulators say "nuh uh cuz... uh nuh uh" and seeing his people get lower quality health care at higher prices.
Apparently a company in Maryland actually builds these...
1. Paper scantron ballot with a serial number. 2. You press down hard and get a carbon copy of your ballot to take home. 3. When the machine scans the ballot, it scans the serial number and the choice.
If we mandated a system like that, validation would be simple. We'd dump the results into a database on Nov 9th and let people compare their serial # to the data that shows up. Instant voter fraud protection because if your vote mysteriously goes from Clinton to Trump or vice versa, you go to law enforcement and show the carbon copy. At that point, it's all but "guilty until proven innocent" on the data entry side.
As a southerner who understands that a vote for secession would mean massive poverty for much of the South, I would say the same thing to my own people if we voted on leaving in the Union. If Alabama decided to leave and got devastated financially, I would encourage the rest of the US to say "sorry, you had your chance, live with the consequences." At the end of the day, if the people want power they have to accept full responsibility for taking an educated and measured approach to the ballot and whatever referendums and initiatives are on it. Sure, there are people who won't vote that way and get victimized in the process. But at the end of the day you have only two choices: either a (hopefully educated and wise *snickers at our government*) elite rules the masses or the majority rules. "Enlightened, managed democracy" has given us neither.
1. You had a referendum that was clean. 2. Your sovereignty is worth more than the conveniences the EU provides.
No one in their right mind should support a second referendum because the first was clean and dissidents had their chance to vote. They lost. Holding a second referendum on any big issue that has been decided in a clean vote is nothing less than "make the plebs vote until they 'get it right.'" It's the most subtle way of undermining the democratic process there is. Who is going to keep taking time off from work to affirm "yes, I really meant that?" If someone didn't understand and "voted wrong" they don't get a do-over. That's not how the democratic process works. "I was too damn lazy to use Google and educate myself" is a confession that one lacks civic virtue, not a valid excuse. If you don't know, don't vote.
Here is a thought to all you people complaining about Apple's decision making on their products... DON'T BUY IT.
I've been an Apple customer since 8.6 and the next laptop I buy won't be one Apple makes. I was using Macs to do CS class work in 2001 when I literally had peers say "Macs are kinda gay dude." Apple has lost me as a customer, and I know I'm not alone. If I'm going to spend $2500 or more on a laptop, I want 32GB of RAM and a replaceable battery. Those are bare minimums for a "Pro" laptop.
You know what "pro" uses a MacBook pro now? Literal office professionals who just use them for super slick web surfacing and Microsoft Office type work. That's it. Want to build real software that requires more than a few REST APIs like anything Big Data? Get Lenovo, Dell or HP on the phone because Apple thinks we need battery life more than 32GB of RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not encryption. They need a sim card and a good antenna that can let them either stream data out live or immediately push data to DropBox or Google Drive.
The problem isn't the officers who break the law, but the police commanders that defend them. The majority of people would not care about police breaking the law if there were direct and legal consequences for the officers on a fairly consistent basis. There is a minority that would hate the police even if cops who break the law are consistently held legally accountable just because they believe in collective judgment and demand perfection from other groups that their own could not provide.
Groups like BLM are part of the problem on police reform. When Castro died, BLM mourned him because he gave refuge to known cop killers. What is even worse, Castro was precisely the sort of leader domestically that is the stuff of BLM nightmares in terms of police brutality. Think stop and frisk over guns and drugs is bad? How about stop and frisk over having extra cans of beans? That literally happens in Cuba all the dang time. The fact that BLM has not be totally marginalized and ridiculed into obscurity by opponents of police brutality because many of them have blinders that make them sympathetic is part of why the movement isn't getting much traction.
If we were a little more like the Chinese in dealing with our companies, you'd see less of this. Throwing an executive in general lock up has a certain pour encourager les autres effect that fining a company and letting them debate a sock party for the people responsible does not have. It's like I said after Deepwater Horizon. You really think if we left BP alone but brought the death penalty for felony murder against the executive(s) responsible for 11 oilmen dying and that much environment damage that the oil industry wouldn't stand up, sphincters puckered and be good Boy Scouts on worker safety and the environment?
A school cannot, but society can. All it would take is a degree of ruthlessness on the part of the law-abiding and productive majority in dealing with them.
1. End no fault divorce.
2. Provide that unwed, non-custodial fathers are entitled to no welfare or public housing at all.
3. Provide that unwed mothers can never receive more than 1/3 the welfare of married mothers.
4. Inflict corporal punishment on men who abandon their children.
5. Make having two or more children out of wedlock (including outside of common law marriage) that you cannot fully support without welfare, for men or women, would be treated as a sex offense under the logic that it is sexual social parasitism.
You may not like that, but it would work. All society has to do to such people is give them a harsh ultimatum. That is, you can socialize the cost of your lifestyle, but the cost will be your freedom and autonomy since you aren't an invalid and this is by your own doing.
All of these initiatives keep reinforcing it. Wake me up when some poor, rural community or ghetto school has seen a major improvement. I'm sick and tired of the nonsense where we give an already decent school more resources, some middle class kid (probably a girl) gets cajoled into taking CS as an elective and it's like "look ma, we're fighting inequality and making America work for everyone!"
FFS, we half of the kids that leave (one way or another) from inner city schools are functionally illiterate and we worry that some middle class kid who doesn't have enough curiosity to google "how to start programming" is not going to start? Priorities, you don't have them...
There is strong evidence that net job growth has entirely gone to the benefit of immigrants. It does nothing to benefit those who have lost out if we keep adding foreigners and handing them a majority or all of the new jobs.
Marijuana, like alcohol, screws with your brain to achieve its effects. There is a reason we are particularly squeamish about handing out legal medicine that works on brain chemistry. It's because messing with brain chemistry can be like opening Pandora's Box.
This isn't a good reason to keep the War on Drugs, but it is a good reason to reevaluate some of our society's basic principles on dealing with intoxicating substances.
The one concern I have about legalization is that there are a lot of people (probably 5-10% of the adult population) that can look at what crack, meth and heroin do and still use them. They just don't care. Their time preference barely goes a millimeter past the tip of their nose. Then they and many "good people" will piss and moan that they are poor and our "indecent society" is bankrupting them by not providing medical coverage to them on an affordable basis.
If the US were more of a republic, it wouldn't bother me because in a more republican state these people (and many of their supporters) could not even vote. However, if we do go full on legalization we will need to veer strongly toward the more pure republic model from the trend toward more "democracy" in order to keep legalization from becoming a crippling effect on our system.
Your argument is quite literally argumentum ad hominem. You people are down to arguing that literally anything Trump does is suspect because it is Trump doing it. He could personally drive an ambulance full of injured kids to the hospital and cover their stay in cash and you'd probably question his motives.
For the sake of argument, suppose this is possible.
You will wake up about 5 generations beyond where you are now. Assuming her death doesn't end the bloodline altogether, the relatives she has in 100 years will have no real familial connection to her. Everyone and everything that defines her sense of happiness now will likely be dead and gone or so evolved that it is unrecognizable (like tech and hobbies).
Then you have the cultural change. Imagine being frozen in 1900 and waking up in 2016. The whole social order is different. You likely are deeply at odds with it culturally.
So odds are you just wake up a social pariah, with no skills, in an alien social order with no friends and family. Heck, you might not even speak the lingua franca of that age. For all we know, Mandarin could replace English by 2116.
People imagine it like a movie where you wake up in a shiny, accepting utopia and you just go like Ender to the stars where no one knows your past or cares. The reality is probably more akin to you becoming a ward of the state for years, being looked down on except as a curiosity.
We need to not only have IDs, but a state wide system that tracks when people check in at the voting precinct. That solves two problems in and of itself. First, it blocks people from voting who should not be voting and second, it would allow for people to vote wherever is convenient for them. It would mean that you could just go to a precinct near your workplace instead of one close to home. It would also mean that state voting officials could tell people who might have to wait in line where they can go to vote more quickly.
Consider the common liberal scenario where the poor are supposedly being disenfranchised. All you have to do to establish a reasonable effort to get them what they need is to send a mobile registration team with smart card printers, notaries and a lawyer or two. Just announce that the people will be showing up to do free voter registration in 3-6 months and that they will need a Social Security card and either a birth certificate or naturalization documentation.
You know what the best part of this sort of registration is? You can register convicted felons if you do it right. Doesn't matter. Just tie state and federal criminal justice records to the voter ID so that if someone is convicted of a felony, the record automatically gets flagged so it doesn't work until the system either lifts the block or they get a pardon.
Actually, that's just your blinders talking. When she got involved in the use of military force, she made the Bush Administration's handling of the occupation of Iraq look like it was being handled by Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. Do you realize what she did just in Libya that we can confirm?
1. We overthrew a dictator who was complying with international WMD disarmament protocol.
2. We knew in advance that the majority of rebels were Islamists aligned with Al Qaeda.
3. There was precisely no ground game, not even a counter-insurgency strategy for helping a transition regime wipe out undesirable rebel factions that wouldn't submit to the new regime (and that's assuming that we found ourselves in a position where the new regime wasn't worse than the rebels that wouldn't submit!)
4. She knew that there were a ton of MANPADs and other devices suitable for serious and brazen acts of terror that needed to be secured. Did we even get boots on the ground early on to secure them? Nope. She, like most politicians today, thinks you can win a war with air power alone.
#1 alone should have sent blood chilling tingles down the entire foreign policy establishment's spines. The harm she did to WMD disarmament efforts with Libya was incalculable. She assured us of a scenario where even if a substantial faction of Iranian leaders wanted to comply in good faith, they would not be able to bring themselves to do it because the evidence that "compliance means assassination" was right before their eyes under the same administration that was negotiating with them.
I don't know if you are German, but I'm an American who has tried to follow European news on what is happening with the migrant issue. What I see is a people who are more prone to law and order and obedience than Americans actually doing things like firebombing buildings, knifing politicians and such. Germany is now starting to go down a very interesting path, and if Merkel gets her way much longer I suspect that path will include electing leaders who make Trump look like he favors open borders. She wags her finger and openly silences criticism, but to any objective observe it should be obvious that she herself is the primary reason why "hate" is becoming a problem in Germany. Germans, like Americans, and pretty much most of the human race, don't want to be inundated by foreigners especially under a leader who acts like she is all but "electing a new people" for her country.
Stronger border security makes it easier to push the anti-terrorism measures out of the civil society and to its borders. The EU is living in a fantasy world about how easy it is for terrorists to land in Europe and move at will under the various agreements and treaties. Restoring British sovereignty over the movement of people and border security will help civil libertarians build a case for reducing the internal measures to purging bad actors and their sympathizers/enablers while moving most of the security apparatus to proactively keeping the threat out of the society itself. No electorate is going to accept a regime that simultaneously allows bad actors to move in easily AND that doesn't provide some sort of sweeping measure to protect society from them. So pick one. Either you restrict access to your country or you spy on it and carry out regular anti-terrorism raids.
Twitter decides that black activists calling for various felonies against "the right people" (including minors) is ok, but how dare you espouse white separatism.
Why should we care about the opinions and rebukes of people who live like that? It is precisely how you feel being rebuked about sexual morality by a pastor like Ted Haggard or Jimmy Swaggart. It's how you'd feel if Bernie Madoff self-righteously stuck his finger in your face and said "you're a fucking asshole who deserves to be shot for ripping people off."
So when BLM activists agitate for felonies to be committed against teenage girls that disagree with them, Twitter will finally block their accounts, right?
Right?
All of the self-styled super educated people who mock Trump voters as rubes because they've heard of this guy named David Ricardo and his intellectual descendants who made superficially good arguments about Free Trade.
I've had some fun asking such people "cool story bro, now tell me the implications of the bank wire transfer, jet plane and mega cargo ship on Comparative Advantage."
"Uh duh duh, herp derp, muh degree."
Most free trade supporters, today, are literally as stupid as that person in the horror movie, who sees the monster's victim and declares "there is no monster" despite every fact staring them in the face.
China has absolutely no appreciation for how much of the Republican base and the blue dog democrats are at a total ZFG attitude toward free trade now. What are you going to do, China? Make my LG G5 that was made in South Korea more expensive? Make it harder for Hyundai, Kia, Honda and Toyota to produce their parts in South Korea and Japan and then assemble them in the American South for millions of Americans? Ford management is probably saying "yes, more please" as this will primarily hurt GM and Chrysler since Ford mainly outsources to developed countries and Mexico.
Our trade partners are probably splitting their sides over this. South Korea's response will simply be "we see China is acting like a crybully bitch. You want to trade with someone who ain't a bitch?"
She asked why we can't just launch a drone strike on a foreign embassy in London. Even if that's a joke (which would be contingent upon proof she has a real sense of humor), that is a gaffe that would have Biden muttering "seriously, not cool."
Trump has had so many women in his love life that could be or were models that his natural reaction to using one as a bribe when he's President is far more likely to be withering contempt. It's like trying to bribe a very wealthy and successful rancher with a good steak dinner to seal the deal.
Hillary is almost the perfect foil to her husband in politics. If Bill divorced her and ran as a Republican he'd probably have crushed her 70/30 that is how unpopular she is.
Look at her stats. She is damn near in McCain/Palin territory. She is the Nickelback of Democratic candidates.
Trump's main argument on Obamacare is that what employers and buyers need is a federal market where a buyer in one state can bypass their state and go directly to a seller in another state. I would have LOVED that a year ago before I changed employers. I was stuck with a crappy Blue Cross Blue Shield plan that covered half of my doctors. CIGNA covered everyone but they don't sell directly to Virginia residents like they do in the North East and elsewhere. Why? Probably because CIGNA hasn't found enough of a market to justify jumping through another set of regulatory hoops like a trained seal to sell to 3% of Virginia.
But imagine if I could just call their office in CT and say "Virginia resident here, ship me a quote. My Virginia doctors ALL take you. Would love to buy direct." No middle man, no bureaucrat. I say "give me the same plan you helped my self-insured employer XYZ sold." They give me a quote. That's it.
You know what I expect? Trump just might be the guy who tells the FCC to damn the torpedos and go full speed ahead on plowing under local franchise rules and monopolies. I expect that that case in NC where no one wanted to sell to a community but the state wouldn't let the community solve its own problems would rub Trump precisely the same way buying healthcare for his employees rubbed him. That is, very very raw at seeing regulators say "nuh uh cuz... uh nuh uh" and seeing his people get lower quality health care at higher prices.
Apparently a company in Maryland actually builds these...
1. Paper scantron ballot with a serial number.
2. You press down hard and get a carbon copy of your ballot to take home.
3. When the machine scans the ballot, it scans the serial number and the choice.
If we mandated a system like that, validation would be simple. We'd dump the results into a database on Nov 9th and let people compare their serial # to the data that shows up. Instant voter fraud protection because if your vote mysteriously goes from Clinton to Trump or vice versa, you go to law enforcement and show the carbon copy. At that point, it's all but "guilty until proven innocent" on the data entry side.
As a southerner who understands that a vote for secession would mean massive poverty for much of the South, I would say the same thing to my own people if we voted on leaving in the Union. If Alabama decided to leave and got devastated financially, I would encourage the rest of the US to say "sorry, you had your chance, live with the consequences." At the end of the day, if the people want power they have to accept full responsibility for taking an educated and measured approach to the ballot and whatever referendums and initiatives are on it. Sure, there are people who won't vote that way and get victimized in the process. But at the end of the day you have only two choices: either a (hopefully educated and wise *snickers at our government*) elite rules the masses or the majority rules. "Enlightened, managed democracy" has given us neither.
Your Parliament should approve for two reasons:
1. You had a referendum that was clean.
2. Your sovereignty is worth more than the conveniences the EU provides.
No one in their right mind should support a second referendum because the first was clean and dissidents had their chance to vote. They lost. Holding a second referendum on any big issue that has been decided in a clean vote is nothing less than "make the plebs vote until they 'get it right.'" It's the most subtle way of undermining the democratic process there is. Who is going to keep taking time off from work to affirm "yes, I really meant that?" If someone didn't understand and "voted wrong" they don't get a do-over. That's not how the democratic process works. "I was too damn lazy to use Google and educate myself" is a confession that one lacks civic virtue, not a valid excuse. If you don't know, don't vote.
I've been an Apple customer since 8.6 and the next laptop I buy won't be one Apple makes. I was using Macs to do CS class work in 2001 when I literally had peers say "Macs are kinda gay dude." Apple has lost me as a customer, and I know I'm not alone. If I'm going to spend $2500 or more on a laptop, I want 32GB of RAM and a replaceable battery. Those are bare minimums for a "Pro" laptop.
You know what "pro" uses a MacBook pro now? Literal office professionals who just use them for super slick web surfacing and Microsoft Office type work. That's it. Want to build real software that requires more than a few REST APIs like anything Big Data? Get Lenovo, Dell or HP on the phone because Apple thinks we need battery life more than 32GB of RAM.