Are you aware that the only reason you gave to vote for Gary Johnson is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Despite their respective flaws, there are actually a lot of people who are worse than both of them.
Yes, I am acutely aware of that. If I suspected that Gary Johnson was worse than either Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't be making my suggestion.
Not true. Let's get the ball rolling for Gary Johnson. Any issues that you might have can be overlooked when you consider that he is not Hillary or Trump.
Then vote for Gary Johnson. I know he's a (*gasp*) Libertarian. But, hell, it's time to overlook any of the relatively small issues that you may have with (*gasp*) Libertarians and start promoting someone who is not Hillary or Trump. He's the only candidate with even a small chance to save this election for everybody.
Please, don't lecture me on the nearly non-existent chance for a third-party candidacy. There has never been a presidential election like this, so you can't go by historical precedent.
I believe that Johnson will be on the ballot on all 50 states. If he can get just a bit of momentum, then he can get into the debates. If that happens, then who knows?
Talk about Johnson - push for articles about Johnson - do something!
And she understands the concepts of working with others (say: NATO) and the value of compromises.
First let me be clear - I would never vote for Trump, even though I loathe Hillary. However, if you don't think that Trump doesn't understand the value of compromises, then you are misreading him.
Trump takes outrageous positions precisely because he wants to compromise. He starts out with an extreme, knowing that by being the first to make a land grab that he's in the best position to compromise and still get what he really wants.
I haven't looked at the Yoga, but I disagree about the Surface Pro being crappy as a notebook replacement. That's exactly what I did (replaced a high-end HP Laptop) and I've been extremely happy with it.
Exactly!! Why don't these count? I have a Surface Pro 3 and it has been a complete laptop and desktop replacement for me for a year-and-a half. It has 8 GB of RAM and a 512 GB hard drive. When I'm at work, I plug it into a docking station and I have gigabit Ethernet and 3 displays. Pop it out and I have a tablet with a high-resolution display with pressure-sensitive pen capability and a pretty decent keyboard that doubles as a stand support.
Since you're posting as a Coward, I can't refer back to see if you actually posted any citations that countered anything that I posted. The original claim made no citations; at least I pointed to *some* sources. Post your own sources to show that lawyers don't overwhelmingly support the Democrats. I suspect that you can't. Post your own sources that demonstrate that Democrats don't get more of the top donations. I suspect that you can't.
The fundamental problem is that most of the so-called Republican Party now stands for "government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1%"...
"...the Democrats are the party of lawyers. Not only were lawyers their largest contributors in 2010, giving 81% of their donations to Democrats, but Democratic ranks are crawling with lawyers. In the last Senate, 35 of the 54 lawyers in the Senate were Democrats. In the last House, 106 of the 162 lawyers were Democrats."
"... prepare to see a lot of blue donkeys, because 20 of the top 32 donors lean Democrat, while only 6 lean Republican. The rest are on the fence.
Not only that, if you factor in all the indirect benefits the Democrat Party gets from the non-profit sector, left-wing activism, public and private sector unions, Wall Street banks, universities, and superfund contributors, it has been estimated by Dr. David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin in their book The New Leviathan that the Republican Party is outspent in politics by a factor of 7-to-1."
"Getting over half the popular vote from Republicans when Cruz and Kasich are still running..."
Trump hasn't gotten over 50% of the votes in any state primary, so far. So, I don't see how he could have "over half the popular vote" in total. Cruz is the only candidate that has gotten over half the votes in any state.
While we're on the subject, this is one rule that needs to go away. I see quotes (particularly as used above) as denoting a specific reference. If the reference didn't include the punctuation (or even the intonation, such as in a question), then the added punctuation shouldn't appear inside of the quotes.
The problem of course is that you have to kill the missile early in the boost phase of operation. That phase doesn't last long, and if you go detonating your enemy's missile over another country, you almost certainly make yourself another enemy.
I'm pretty confident that a space-based missile defense would not be "detonating" an enemy missile. If anything could be done, it would be to destroy the missile, almost certainly before it was even armed.
Just in case someone actually falls for that idiocy, it was obviously the remnants of a Tic-Tac or some other breath mint. Sheesh. It was bright white, just like... a breath mint!
That's a ridiculous position and absolutely false. Nothing in the Constitution constrains the Senate's consent. They are advising the President about their intent. When Obama, Biden, and Schumer were in the Senate, they all did the same thing. Do you not think that freedom of speech holds for Senators the same as it does for other citizens? What a bizarre opinion.
I'd imagine that he is fine with Obama nominating someone to the Supreme Court. He's probably also fine with the Senate having the choice as to whether to confirm that nominee. You know that this is all in the Constitution, right?
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint... Judges of the supreme Court..."
The position that the Senate is currently taking is the exact same position that Obama, Biden, and Chuck Schumer very publicly took when their party did not hold the Presidency.
As a long-time, very-conservative commenter here on Slashdot and a frequent critic of Obama (look up my posting history), I must strongly disagree. Trump would take the worst of Obama and elevate it to heights never dreamed of. He would be terrible for this country and the world.
I was recently at a game covered by ESPN where they used a drone. It was at a smaller university with a new stadium and it appeared that a normal overhead camera wasn't in place. So, when I saw the camera-equipped drone (with ESPN logo), I assumed they would be using it to replace the cable-mounted camera. However, I'm pretty sure that it was only used for crowd shots and that it was never allowed over the field of play - ESPN just flew it over the stadium crowd. I'm guessing that there was some restriction (like from the NCAA) that kept them from using the drone that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you aware that the only reason you gave to vote for Gary Johnson is that he's not Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? Despite their respective flaws, there are actually a lot of people who are worse than both of them.
Yes, I am acutely aware of that. If I suspected that Gary Johnson was worse than either Hillary or Trump, I wouldn't be making my suggestion.
Not true. Let's get the ball rolling for Gary Johnson. Any issues that you might have can be overlooked when you consider that he is not Hillary or Trump.
Then vote for Gary Johnson. I know he's a (*gasp*) Libertarian. But, hell, it's time to overlook any of the relatively small issues that you may have with (*gasp*) Libertarians and start promoting someone who is not Hillary or Trump. He's the only candidate with even a small chance to save this election for everybody.
Please, don't lecture me on the nearly non-existent chance for a third-party candidacy. There has never been a presidential election like this, so you can't go by historical precedent.
I believe that Johnson will be on the ballot on all 50 states. If he can get just a bit of momentum, then he can get into the debates. If that happens, then who knows?
Talk about Johnson - push for articles about Johnson - do something!
And she understands the concepts of working with others (say: NATO) and the value of compromises.
First let me be clear - I would never vote for Trump, even though I loathe Hillary. However, if you don't think that Trump doesn't understand the value of compromises, then you are misreading him.
Trump takes outrageous positions precisely because he wants to compromise. He starts out with an extreme, knowing that by being the first to make a land grab that he's in the best position to compromise and still get what he really wants.
He does this all of the time.
And people would need to show some form of ID that matches one of the names on the ticket to use it.
According to Democrats, that's racist.
I haven't looked at the Yoga, but I disagree about the Surface Pro being crappy as a notebook replacement. That's exactly what I did (replaced a high-end HP Laptop) and I've been extremely happy with it.
Exactly!! Why don't these count? I have a Surface Pro 3 and it has been a complete laptop and desktop replacement for me for a year-and-a half. It has 8 GB of RAM and a 512 GB hard drive. When I'm at work, I plug it into a docking station and I have gigabit Ethernet and 3 displays. Pop it out and I have a tablet with a high-resolution display with pressure-sensitive pen capability and a pretty decent keyboard that doubles as a stand support.
Good idea! It should also have the Ranyhyn ability http://unbeliever.wikia.com/wi... to arrive at the very moment that you summon it.
And yet they are sources, whereas you present nothing.
Since you're posting as a Coward, I can't refer back to see if you actually posted any citations that countered anything that I posted. The original claim made no citations; at least I pointed to *some* sources. Post your own sources to show that lawyers don't overwhelmingly support the Democrats. I suspect that you can't. Post your own sources that demonstrate that Democrats don't get more of the top donations. I suspect that you can't.
The fundamental problem is that most of the so-called Republican Party now stands for "government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1%" ...
If this is in comparison to the Democrats, then you have it very wrong. From http://commentarama.blogspot.c...:
"...the Democrats are the party of lawyers. Not only were lawyers their largest contributors in 2010, giving 81% of their donations to Democrats, but Democratic ranks are crawling with lawyers. In the last Senate, 35 of the 54 lawyers in the Senate were Democrats. In the last House, 106 of the 162 lawyers were Democrats."
And the 0.1%-ers give to the Democrats as much or more than they give to the Republicans. From: http://www.ijreview.com/2014/0...
"... prepare to see a lot of blue donkeys, because 20 of the top 32 donors lean Democrat, while only 6 lean Republican. The rest are on the fence.
Not only that, if you factor in all the indirect benefits the Democrat Party gets from the non-profit sector, left-wing activism, public and private sector unions, Wall Street banks, universities, and superfund contributors, it has been estimated by Dr. David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin in their book The New Leviathan that the Republican Party is outspent in politics by a factor of 7-to-1."
Interestingly, those six nations all make it into the top 21 of World Suicide Rates (by country). http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Trump hasn't gotten over 50% of the votes in any state primary, so far. So, I don't see how he could have "over half the popular vote" in total. Cruz is the only candidate that has gotten over half the votes in any state.
While we're on the subject, this is one rule that needs to go away. I see quotes (particularly as used above) as denoting a specific reference. If the reference didn't include the punctuation (or even the intonation, such as in a question), then the added punctuation shouldn't appear inside of the quotes.
Because, he didn't?
The problem of course is that you have to kill the missile early in the boost phase of operation. That phase doesn't last long, and if you go detonating your enemy's missile over another country, you almost certainly make yourself another enemy.
I'm pretty confident that a space-based missile defense would not be "detonating" an enemy missile. If anything could be done, it would be to destroy the missile, almost certainly before it was even armed.
Just in case someone actually falls for that idiocy, it was obviously the remnants of a Tic-Tac or some other breath mint. Sheesh. It was bright white, just like ... a breath mint!
With a 100% photon-to-electron conversion efficiency? If that is is the case, why are they concerned with the water-splitting?
That's a ridiculous position and absolutely false. Nothing in the Constitution constrains the Senate's consent. They are advising the President about their intent. When Obama, Biden, and Schumer were in the Senate, they all did the same thing. Do you not think that freedom of speech holds for Senators the same as it does for other citizens? What a bizarre opinion.
I'd imagine that he is fine with Obama nominating someone to the Supreme Court. He's probably also fine with the Senate having the choice as to whether to confirm that nominee. You know that this is all in the Constitution, right?
"he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court..."
The position that the Senate is currently taking is the exact same position that Obama, Biden, and Chuck Schumer very publicly took when their party did not hold the Presidency.
Cruz is not a Theocrat. He is a strict Constitutionalist with strong religious beliefs.
- Being a strict Constitutionalist virtually precludes him from being a Theocrat
As a long-time, very-conservative commenter here on Slashdot and a frequent critic of Obama (look up my posting history), I must strongly disagree. Trump would take the worst of Obama and elevate it to heights never dreamed of. He would be terrible for this country and the world.
Implying that Trump is an Evangelical? I doubt that he claims that and I'm pretty sure that few Evangelicals would claim him.
I was recently at a game covered by ESPN where they used a drone. It was at a smaller university with a new stadium and it appeared that a normal overhead camera wasn't in place. So, when I saw the camera-equipped drone (with ESPN logo), I assumed they would be using it to replace the cable-mounted camera. However, I'm pretty sure that it was only used for crowd shots and that it was never allowed over the field of play - ESPN just flew it over the stadium crowd. I'm guessing that there was some restriction (like from the NCAA) that kept them from using the drone that way.
Accidental moderation removal.