(note the deception by climate change people. 10 years ago it was global warming... now it's climate change).
That's hardly deception. It's still Global Warming. It's also Climate Change.
Climate Change is a great acknowledgement of the complexity of the problem.
The Global Warming may not seem like it impacts you much. The slow increase of the average temperature of the globe seems like a problem that can be ignored for a long time. The much-faster alteration of large scale climates is a lot more important to people.
Climate Change Aint Real == Humans are not the prime mover of Global Warming.
Humans are the prime mover of Global Warming, and hence, Climate Change. This really is incontrovertible. Basic physics principles demand it. We're the source of the carbon cycle alteration currently at play. Long term- sure. We're a blip. We don't matter. All we're really doing is short-circuiting carbon cycles that are hundreds of millions of years in length. But for human timescales, it's all us.
The problem with climate change proponents is we're taking our eye off the the real harm - pollutants. (I guess Al Gore and company couldn't profit enough from that.)
That's another problem. No more real than Global Warming, or Climate Change, and arguably a lot less impacting, and easier to fix.
Why is it people keep claiming that because Person X profits in the fixing of Problem Y, Problem Y is ergo in invention by Person X to profit? You understand that is logically idiotic, yes?
The largest profiteers of the CFC shift were also the largest suppliers of the problem chemicals. It doesn't somehow negate the problem.
Would you have less objection if Exxon were peddling the solution?
That she fucked up hard, but fell short of the bar for reasonable prosecution, lacking a few required elements like intent...
Seems legit to me, and I'm no Hillary supporter.
I think you're peddling conspiracy theories. What she did was stupid, not criminal. And she has paid the price for her stupidity in the court of public opinion. Nobody helps anything by trying to turn it into a crime because the bad press wasn't enough.
If Miami condo owners are shitting themselves over a 1-2 degree temperature change by the year 2100
Christ, that is so fucking ignorant.
If cylinder #2 in my car jumps up 300 degrees for 12 seconds, that cylinder is done.
In that time, the average temperature of my engine raised 1 degree. Get it?
Go back to fucking school.
Generally speaking, a State is free to be stricter than the Federal Government, except in cases where Federal law prohibits it.
California's emissions standards, as an example.
Every states employment law as another.
That being said, I could see the fuckhead-in-chief threatening to go after (somehow) those states that decide to hold themselves to the higher set of standards.
Sure some people on "the right" supported it. But they were the minority in their party, and in the end, voted pretty much along standard liberal/conservative elective county lines to reject legalization.
conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
LOL. You don't really believe that.
Conservatism is against the use of government power in the same way that Liberalism is. They want to use it when it benefits them, and don't want it used when it annoys them.
No matter how you swing it, reaching into a woman's womb is a new area, and I've seen their careful consideration. Panels of men testifying to panels of men.
Sorry dude, you're speaking about a definition of a word that has no actual use in American politics.
How does the national platform matter?
Let's rattle off some states-
Washington, California, Oregon.
Some more...
New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska
Do I need to explain the significance of these to you? I'll give you a hint, when it comes right down to it, it was the Liberals that legalized weed. Not the Libertarians. But then we could argue all day about whether or not self-styled libertarians are anything but ashamed republicans.
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
Certainly you're aware that the label of "left" as applied to members of the Democratic party isn't the "left" you're using there.
Libertarians didn't get weed legalized. Lots of Democrats under Democratic legislatures did. Sure legalization of weed is definitely a libertarian ideal- but you'll find many Democratic ideals are.
Disclaimer: I'm in Seattle. I helped legalize weed for recreational purposes here. You'll notice that Seattle has something in common with other states with very liberal weed laws. The color blue.
How is the weed legalization fight going in the states that vote for Libertarian candidates in large numbers? New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma?
Perhaps there simply is No True Libertarian. Perhaps there simply is No True Democrat.
Here in Seattle, it wasn't the "libertarians" that brought the country's first full legalization of recreational Marijuana to life, it was our lefties.
Really, left is just a stupid moniker. It could mean something else in any particular demographic.
If you want to talk in terms of what the American people actually wanted, it could be basically surmised as taking a rocket, putting Clinton and Trump on it, sending said rocket in to the sun, and starting over with a new presidential election.
Can't argue that one bit.
So, the thing to take away is that Trump did not win. Clinton lost.
Also agreed, entirely.
It's not significant in validating Clinton.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me... it has nothing to do with validating Clinton. I was never on Clinton's side. She was just my choice. She wouldn't be able to call me loyal. For me, pointing out that she did in fact win the largest share of votes cast does more to validate my choice. Maybe to validate the country. That at the end of the day- the largest amount of votes went to the far less fucked up choice, even though the system hoisted the one we didn't choose upon us.
Clinton lost because of Clinton. But Trump won because our electoral system is kind of stupid, and highly outdated. It doesn't even make sense without the 3/5ths Compromise to anchor it with context anymore, given that 96% of states are winner-take-all, and thus, simply popular vote proxies with a fudge factor for state electoral weight. There is simply no good reason for an individual voting for the country's executive in some states to be worth the votes of me and 2 of my friends in my state. If we can't reform the system, then we need to add more representatives to narrow the spread in population per elector.
Because that's not what Nixon did.
Nixon directed his campaign staff to speak with the South Vietnamese and convince them (or rather, play into their fear) that Johnson was going to sell them out, and to keep fighting.
The effect may be essentially the same, but in cases of treason and use of the word collusion, actual Treason, or actual Collusion must exist. It did not in this case.
You can say he colluded with the South Vietnamese, an not-declared non-enemy of the United States to prolong a war that the United States was involved in. And that's a terrible and shitty thing, and there are laws designed to make him account for that. But it's not Treason, and it's not collusion with an enemy of the United States.
I know there are *some* who think Clinton should have won because of the popular vote. I'm not one of them. I think the poster isn't, either.
But to act like the winner of the plurality of votes out of the majority of people who voted isn't in any way significant, particularly toward assessing what the public wanted... That's ridiculous, and a lot of people are making that claim, or trying to frame the fact that he did lose the popular vote as an attempt at saying he shouldn't have won.
He did win. He won fair and square. Clinton lost fair and square. If you ask me, it indicates our system has a slight margin between votes and electoral weight that allows for shit to go sideways and be broken. I think it should be fixed. But I don't think Trump "stole" the election or something. He won, by the rules. But the people wanted someone else. That is a fact.
Undermining the Commander-in-Chief in wartime is very much treason
No, it very much is not. You're trying to redefine what Treason is, federally, in the United States of America- which, btw, was drafted specifically to avoid some of the abuses of the word in other countries (namely, Great Britain). Fortunately, some gentlemen back in the late 1700s decided to set it in stone-
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Undermining the President, or the government, or anything is punishable by many other statues (with lesser burdens of proof even) but they are NOT treason.
In the United States of America, to be a traitor, you have to collude with a declared enemy of this country. You can stretch the definition of Aid and Comfort until you're frothing at the mouth, but you'll still be wrong.
You're right, of course... But to be 100% fair, Trump can't fire them, and the person Trump would have asked to fire them would have been Comey, and the way Trump would force Comey to do so would be with an Executive Order, which would be a little ugly on the PR side of things.
Not that I believe this is the case... But Comey would be the right target for Trump if he wanted to affect the investigation. If it got handed off to a special prosecutor, it would be that person.
Except where the part where you invented yet another charge. Collusion? Aligned interests is not collusion. If they were, we wouldn't be investigating Trump right now, we would be arranging the firing squad.
That makes him a violator of the Logan Act, not a fucking traitor.
Now if he had opened the doors to a Vietnamese invasion of the United States, or turned coat on the battlefield to command Vietnamese Armies against the US, we could talk treason. But he didn't do that. Instead, he broke rules to get ahead politically... which is kind of what he was known for. Makes him a shitty and shady politician. Doesn't make him someone who was hellbent on seeing the fall of the United States.
If that is true, which isn't even relevant, and certainly not difficult to believe, it still doesn't make him a traitor. I think you're a traitor for treasonously misusing the word traitor.
Violating the Logan Act makes you shady. Not a traitor to your fucking country.
Chilling effect. It's real. Not saying it's guaranteed to apply here, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider that it might.
Someone's got to do the investigating. Someone has been (at least generally perceived to have been) fired because of that investigation. Do you want to stand up for your ideals, or feed your 3 year old daughter?
I am not saying that *is* the case here. But it *is* plausible, and it's not a conspiracy theory.
Also not to equate this with the Saturday Night Massacre as has been done ad nauseum, but that is a perfect example of an attempt at apply a chilling effect to an investigation.
That old gag...it amazes me that people are still fixated on the popular vote like it actually indicates something meaningful. Since individual votes don't matter and voter turn-out was only about 55% of the overall population, using that as some way to just who "really" won is disingenuous at best and outright stupid if you're even pretending to be objective.
Actually, poster said:
You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump.
Which is 100% accurate, not in any way trying to spin some kind of political meaning to that fact, and relevant in its own right.
Fact is, you're just a fucktard trying to spin an argument you can't win away from its facts.
Having some experience in this... I think it has more to do with how terrible our actual knowledge is about a lot of bad problems (or more fairly, how ridiculously wide the spectrum of their symptoms are)
The guidelines for differential diagnosis are... sometimes embarrassing to look at. But I'm not sure they could be better.
What do you do when lupus erythematosus can present with identical symptoms to an autoeczematous id reaction to a fungal tinea incognito infection on your damn shin? The doctor throws you on steroids... Why? Because if you really do have lupus, at least this stands a good chance of prolonging your life. Unfortunately, if you don't, it can shorten it. But you may never find that goddamn asymptomatic fungal infection.
It also doesn't help that doctors aren't biochemists. Not by a long shot. They're car mechanics, but they don't really understand VE curves or stoichiometric ratios.
On average, they're shit without a Chilton manual.
And I agree with what he said, at least as literally written.
The Windows GUI is by far the most productive GUI layout for me. I don't use Windows... I can't use Windows. I need a GNU or BSD userland... I can't live without it anymore. But the GUI layout- Fuck Unity. Fuck Gnome3. Fuck KDE in spite of its astounding beauty and brilliant customization... it's just too fucking cluttered.
I administrate nearly 200 machines, and design networks and write software on a daily basis. There's one thing I care about for my DE- my productivity. My ability to keep my wasted overhead to a minimum.
The fact that you're using a 30 year old FVWM means you largely agree with that precept, albeit with a different preference in layout.
And no matter how you swing it, RDP is simply better in almost every use case unless you're attached to a very low latency network, even in spite of the fact that it's not even a replacement for X network transparency. It's just.... better. In practice.
And much to my consternation as both a Linux desktop (laptop) user, and a sysadmin for a large amount of servers, Windows and Linux-
better.
Don't get me wrong- I love the concept of network transparency in X. I think it's beautiful. The way I can run an X app remotely on my machine almost as if it were native... It's awesome. In practice? Give me an RDP connection to a Windows server any fucking day of the week.
Slashdot Mirror
(note the deception by climate change people. 10 years ago it was global warming ... now it's climate change).
That's hardly deception. It's still Global Warming. It's also Climate Change.
Climate Change is a great acknowledgement of the complexity of the problem.
The Global Warming may not seem like it impacts you much. The slow increase of the average temperature of the globe seems like a problem that can be ignored for a long time. The much-faster alteration of large scale climates is a lot more important to people.
Climate Change Aint Real == Humans are not the prime mover of Global Warming.
Humans are the prime mover of Global Warming, and hence, Climate Change. This really is incontrovertible. Basic physics principles demand it. We're the source of the carbon cycle alteration currently at play. Long term- sure. We're a blip. We don't matter. All we're really doing is short-circuiting carbon cycles that are hundreds of millions of years in length. But for human timescales, it's all us.
The problem with climate change proponents is we're taking our eye off the the real harm - pollutants. (I guess Al Gore and company couldn't profit enough from that.)
That's another problem. No more real than Global Warming, or Climate Change, and arguably a lot less impacting, and easier to fix.
Why is it people keep claiming that because Person X profits in the fixing of Problem Y, Problem Y is ergo in invention by Person X to profit? You understand that is logically idiotic, yes?
The largest profiteers of the CFC shift were also the largest suppliers of the problem chemicals. It doesn't somehow negate the problem.
Would you have less objection if Exxon were peddling the solution?
That she fucked up hard, but fell short of the bar for reasonable prosecution, lacking a few required elements like intent...
Seems legit to me, and I'm no Hillary supporter.
I think you're peddling conspiracy theories. What she did was stupid, not criminal. And she has paid the price for her stupidity in the court of public opinion. Nobody helps anything by trying to turn it into a crime because the bad press wasn't enough.
If Miami condo owners are shitting themselves over a 1-2 degree temperature change by the year 2100
Christ, that is so fucking ignorant.
If cylinder #2 in my car jumps up 300 degrees for 12 seconds, that cylinder is done.
In that time, the average temperature of my engine raised 1 degree. Get it?
Go back to fucking school.
Not American farmers. They rely on Federally subsidized insurances and land-use subsidies to run a profitable enterprise.
Which is exactly why they're concerned. About welfare dollars other than theirs. They understand full well that the pie has a finite size.
Generally speaking, a State is free to be stricter than the Federal Government, except in cases where Federal law prohibits it.
California's emissions standards, as an example.
Every states employment law as another.
That being said, I could see the fuckhead-in-chief threatening to go after (somehow) those states that decide to hold themselves to the higher set of standards.
If "rights to birth control" means all tax payers need to pay for it then yeah fuck that.
Why not? We're all paying for your insulin shots and limp-dick pills. Women are 51% of the population, after all. You shitbags are a minority.
County support for Colorado Amendment 64:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
2012 Election results by County for Colorado (I didn't do 2016... Because I'm not really sure that election was a liberal/conservative thing):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Sure some people on "the right" supported it. But they were the minority in their party, and in the end, voted pretty much along standard liberal/conservative elective county lines to reject legalization.
conservatism is against the use of government power to reach into new areas without careful consideration.
LOL. You don't really believe that. Conservatism is against the use of government power in the same way that Liberalism is. They want to use it when it benefits them, and don't want it used when it annoys them.
No matter how you swing it, reaching into a woman's womb is a new area, and I've seen their careful consideration. Panels of men testifying to panels of men.
Sorry dude, you're speaking about a definition of a word that has no actual use in American politics.
How does the national platform matter? Let's rattle off some states-
Washington, California, Oregon.
Some more...
New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska
Do I need to explain the significance of these to you? I'll give you a hint, when it comes right down to it, it was the Liberals that legalized weed. Not the Libertarians. But then we could argue all day about whether or not self-styled libertarians are anything but ashamed republicans.
Abortion and gay rights have nothing to do with the left. Che and other socialists killed gay men as being part of the decadent bourgeoisie.
Certainly you're aware that the label of "left" as applied to members of the Democratic party isn't the "left" you're using there.
Libertarians didn't get weed legalized. Lots of Democrats under Democratic legislatures did. Sure legalization of weed is definitely a libertarian ideal- but you'll find many Democratic ideals are.
Disclaimer: I'm in Seattle. I helped legalize weed for recreational purposes here. You'll notice that Seattle has something in common with other states with very liberal weed laws. The color blue.
How is the weed legalization fight going in the states that vote for Libertarian candidates in large numbers? New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma?
Perhaps there simply is No True Libertarian. Perhaps there simply is No True Democrat.
Here in Seattle, it wasn't the "libertarians" that brought the country's first full legalization of recreational Marijuana to life, it was our lefties.
Really, left is just a stupid moniker. It could mean something else in any particular demographic.
If you want to talk in terms of what the American people actually wanted, it could be basically surmised as taking a rocket, putting Clinton and Trump on it, sending said rocket in to the sun, and starting over with a new presidential election.
Can't argue that one bit.
So, the thing to take away is that Trump did not win. Clinton lost.
Also agreed, entirely.
It's not significant in validating Clinton.
I can't speak for everyone, but for me... it has nothing to do with validating Clinton. I was never on Clinton's side. She was just my choice. She wouldn't be able to call me loyal. For me, pointing out that she did in fact win the largest share of votes cast does more to validate my choice. Maybe to validate the country. That at the end of the day- the largest amount of votes went to the far less fucked up choice, even though the system hoisted the one we didn't choose upon us.
Clinton lost because of Clinton. But Trump won because our electoral system is kind of stupid, and highly outdated. It doesn't even make sense without the 3/5ths Compromise to anchor it with context anymore, given that 96% of states are winner-take-all, and thus, simply popular vote proxies with a fudge factor for state electoral weight. There is simply no good reason for an individual voting for the country's executive in some states to be worth the votes of me and 2 of my friends in my state. If we can't reform the system, then we need to add more representatives to narrow the spread in population per elector.
Because that's not what Nixon did.
Nixon directed his campaign staff to speak with the South Vietnamese and convince them (or rather, play into their fear) that Johnson was going to sell them out, and to keep fighting.
The effect may be essentially the same, but in cases of treason and use of the word collusion, actual Treason, or actual Collusion must exist. It did not in this case.
You can say he colluded with the South Vietnamese, an not-declared non-enemy of the United States to prolong a war that the United States was involved in. And that's a terrible and shitty thing, and there are laws designed to make him account for that. But it's not Treason, and it's not collusion with an enemy of the United States.
I know there are *some* who think Clinton should have won because of the popular vote. I'm not one of them. I think the poster isn't, either.
But to act like the winner of the plurality of votes out of the majority of people who voted isn't in any way significant, particularly toward assessing what the public wanted... That's ridiculous, and a lot of people are making that claim, or trying to frame the fact that he did lose the popular vote as an attempt at saying he shouldn't have won.
He did win. He won fair and square. Clinton lost fair and square. If you ask me, it indicates our system has a slight margin between votes and electoral weight that allows for shit to go sideways and be broken. I think it should be fixed. But I don't think Trump "stole" the election or something. He won, by the rules. But the people wanted someone else. That is a fact.
Undermining the Commander-in-Chief in wartime is very much treason
No, it very much is not. You're trying to redefine what Treason is, federally, in the United States of America- which, btw, was drafted specifically to avoid some of the abuses of the word in other countries (namely, Great Britain). Fortunately, some gentlemen back in the late 1700s decided to set it in stone-
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Undermining the President, or the government, or anything is punishable by many other statues (with lesser burdens of proof even) but they are NOT treason.
In the United States of America, to be a traitor, you have to collude with a declared enemy of this country. You can stretch the definition of Aid and Comfort until you're frothing at the mouth, but you'll still be wrong.
You're right, of course... But to be 100% fair, Trump can't fire them, and the person Trump would have asked to fire them would have been Comey, and the way Trump would force Comey to do so would be with an Executive Order, which would be a little ugly on the PR side of things.
Not that I believe this is the case... But Comey would be the right target for Trump if he wanted to affect the investigation. If it got handed off to a special prosecutor, it would be that person.
Except where the part where you invented yet another charge. Collusion? Aligned interests is not collusion. If they were, we wouldn't be investigating Trump right now, we would be arranging the firing squad.
That makes him a violator of the Logan Act, not a fucking traitor.
Now if he had opened the doors to a Vietnamese invasion of the United States, or turned coat on the battlefield to command Vietnamese Armies against the US, we could talk treason. But he didn't do that. Instead, he broke rules to get ahead politically... which is kind of what he was known for. Makes him a shitty and shady politician. Doesn't make him someone who was hellbent on seeing the fall of the United States.
If that is true, which isn't even relevant, and certainly not difficult to believe, it still doesn't make him a traitor. I think you're a traitor for treasonously misusing the word traitor.
Violating the Logan Act makes you shady. Not a traitor to your fucking country.
Christ, that's ignorant. I wish it were a capital crime to misuse the word 'traitor' while slandering someone.
Nixon was a crook, no doubt about it. But a traitor to his country? Fuck you, both your literally, and my literally.
Chilling effect. It's real. Not saying it's guaranteed to apply here, but it's perfectly reasonable to consider that it might.
Someone's got to do the investigating. Someone has been (at least generally perceived to have been) fired because of that investigation. Do you want to stand up for your ideals, or feed your 3 year old daughter?
I am not saying that *is* the case here. But it *is* plausible, and it's not a conspiracy theory.
Also not to equate this with the Saturday Night Massacre as has been done ad nauseum, but that is a perfect example of an attempt at apply a chilling effect to an investigation.
That old gag...it amazes me that people are still fixated on the popular vote like it actually indicates something meaningful. Since individual votes don't matter and voter turn-out was only about 55% of the overall population, using that as some way to just who "really" won is disingenuous at best and outright stupid if you're even pretending to be objective.
Actually, poster said:
You conveniently forget that she actually won the popular vote, so considerably more people wanted her than wanted Trump.
Which is 100% accurate, not in any way trying to spin some kind of political meaning to that fact, and relevant in its own right.
Fact is, you're just a fucktard trying to spin an argument you can't win away from its facts.
Having some experience in this... I think it has more to do with how terrible our actual knowledge is about a lot of bad problems (or more fairly, how ridiculously wide the spectrum of their symptoms are)
The guidelines for differential diagnosis are... sometimes embarrassing to look at. But I'm not sure they could be better.
What do you do when lupus erythematosus can present with identical symptoms to an autoeczematous id reaction to a fungal tinea incognito infection on your damn shin? The doctor throws you on steroids... Why? Because if you really do have lupus, at least this stands a good chance of prolonging your life. Unfortunately, if you don't, it can shorten it. But you may never find that goddamn asymptomatic fungal infection.
It also doesn't help that doctors aren't biochemists. Not by a long shot. They're car mechanics, but they don't really understand VE curves or stoichiometric ratios. On average, they're shit without a Chilton manual.
I do not agree to your second point
And I agree with what he said, at least as literally written.
The Windows GUI is by far the most productive GUI layout for me. I don't use Windows... I can't use Windows. I need a GNU or BSD userland... I can't live without it anymore. But the GUI layout- Fuck Unity. Fuck Gnome3. Fuck KDE in spite of its astounding beauty and brilliant customization... it's just too fucking cluttered.
I administrate nearly 200 machines, and design networks and write software on a daily basis. There's one thing I care about for my DE- my productivity. My ability to keep my wasted overhead to a minimum.
The fact that you're using a 30 year old FVWM means you largely agree with that precept, albeit with a different preference in layout. And no matter how you swing it, RDP is simply better in almost every use case unless you're attached to a very low latency network, even in spite of the fact that it's not even a replacement for X network transparency. It's just.... better. In practice.
(albeit differently than X)
And much to my consternation as both a Linux desktop (laptop) user, and a sysadmin for a large amount of servers, Windows and Linux-
better.
Don't get me wrong- I love the concept of network transparency in X. I think it's beautiful. The way I can run an X app remotely on my machine almost as if it were native... It's awesome. In practice? Give me an RDP connection to a Windows server any fucking day of the week.