2.1% is a landslide in anything? Sounds like mental gymnastics.
(Who ARE these people/guy?)
2.1% is a landslide in anything? Sounds like mental gymnastics.
(Who ARE these people/guy?)
"As for winning, what about Andrew Jackson?" This is a Republican talking point made in defense of Bush 2. When people say that Bush 2 was the worst president ever, this is the Republican counter.
Holy cow dude, in case you missed it the last guy who won the election and lost the popular vote was "Bush 2". How does someone lambasting both Jackson and Bush fit into your talking-point narrative?
The parties change so much every 50 years it hardly matters to current politics what either of them did back then. Yeah, the democrats were real jackasses... back in 1830.
The thing is, even if you blame the Indian Removal Act and its consequences entirely on Jackson (not reasonable)
Not reasonable? What kind of terse, un-cited, and unexplained counter point is this? You might as well end you post with "sad". Are your words great? Are they the best words?
He signed the bloody law. He fought Indians in wars prior to his presidency. He was generally a racist asshat. But wanted all white men to vote, which was a progressive step for the time. No, I don't think any elected official ever really deserves ALL the blame for anything they do in office, but the guy was clearly... Involved.
If we didn't have super-delegates and an establishment forcing a choice down our throats, I think we'd have seen what Bernie could have gotten done.
the kind of crisis that hasn't been seen since Iran-Contra or the Lewinsky affair, and, as with Watergate before it
Isn't it terrible that the Iran-Contra affair is more well known that the 1953 Iranian Coup d'état.
But if you want to draw comparisons to history, I'd go with pretty much everything about Andrew Jackson.
Before getting elected the "Democratic-Republican Party became factionalized" Kinda like the GOP and the TEA partiers.
Campained for "ending what he termed a "monopoly" of government by elites"
The election was personal, crude, and "the press accused Jackson's wife Rachel of bigamy". But he did win by a landslide.
"they favored geographical expansion, justifying it in terms of Manifest Destiny."
Hey, and some good things. Like pro-democracy. Voting for judges instead of appointing them. Power to the people. In that sense, he was a demagogue.
Then again, it's not democracy for everyone: "Jackson's expansion of democracy was largely limited to Americans of European descent, and voting rights were extended to adult white males only. There was little or no progress (and in some cases regression) for the rights of African-Americans and Native Americans."
He was "elected by the common man".
"Jackson created a spoils system to clear out elected officials in government of an opposing party and replace them with his supporters as a reward for their electioneering."
He kicked out a bunch of native Americans. Trump is trying to kick out a bunch of native central Americans.
"Jackson became the most influential and controversial political figure of the 1820s and 1830s."
Sorry, but if we don't self-police this sort of bullshit we'll end up as bad as the other side.
She won by 2.1%. That's not a landslide.
she just won them in the wrong places, but polls don't really measure THAT.
What the hell are you smoking? Polls most certainly measure the location of the poll and the state of the voter. You could argue about how the delegates vote as opposed to their constituents, but they don't appear to have been faithless.
-he was the worst choice to ever RUN let alone WIN a presidency in the USA.
You're not looking at anyone other than republican or democrats are you? Plenty of people "run". As for winning, what about Andrew Jackson? All those dead Indians? The last guy who won the election and lost the popular vote also got a few people killed. I'm not too hip on that. Trump hasn't gotten hundreds of thousands killed... Yet.
there's no point in crying that Clinton didn't win
We should reform the Democrat's election process, remove super-delegates, reprimand the DNC for so blatantly playing favorites, and reaffirm our belief in democracy. Also, teach our bloody leaders a thing or two about internal security. And maybe re-establish the 4th estate as something trustworthy.
I care about a lot of things. Tunnel vision will ruin us.
Large embedded systems too. My C code flies on satellites.
I tried, but my carrier doesn't support IoT traffic unless I pay extra.
So you maintained the same service for 18 years? That's fairly impressive.
But network neutrality wasn't supposed to magically increase your speed. It ensured that your 1-5MBps could get everything on the Internet. Get ready to shell out extra to the ISP for the right to access netflix, HBOGO, Amazon, Facebook, and/or wikipedia. Or you'll have the choice between the "comcast family" which includes Hulu and ebay and infopedia, or the "ATT-space" which has Netflix, Amazon, and Wikipedia. HAHA, just joking, ATT doesn't compete with comcast's turf since you're in the boondocks. Your only choice is comcast and if you want Netflix you'll have to shell about about 4x as much for the "ultra premium open Internet".
Except for things like the Monty Hall problem where people "should" switch their choice.
Language is hard.
huh. Went looking to call bullshit on some flimsy anonymous coward's lie.
I wonder what sort of incentive was given to make this thing happen. I mean, I imagine that's why it's happening. Trump needs to show some results and he can certainly buy business. Pay $11 for every $10 in wages or investment it brings in. But it's tax breaks or profit guarantees, so it's hard to count. And hey, end of the day, it might be a net win. But if they get paid $5 million to talk about a $7 Billion plant that never gets built, it's a scam.
Sorry for being skeptical. I'll call it a win once people start collecting paychecks and the deal is transparent.
Jesus, focus. This ISN'T a "social or political system". It's an economic one.
How to actually build such systems I don't really know.
FOCUS. The proposal is to charge people for their software according to their ability to pay. Specifically charging nations with less GDP a lower rate.
And that might seem like a great idea. But people would take advantage of it. You can look at nearly any other post in this thread for examples, but we've got:
A) People will buy the software in el-cheapo land and bring it to the rich nation.
B) It requires nightmare dystopian levels of DRM to enforce.
C) It won't necessarily stop piracy.
D) It's not necessarily more fair.
E) GDP is a really rough-cut metric.
Because of those problems, it's a bad idea and we shouldn't do it. How about, instead of selling things cheaper to poor people, we tax rich people at a larger rate than poor people? That seems easier to control and manage. As for international inequality, let them freaking pirate it until they make enough money to be worth sueing. You can't sue poor people, they don't have anything to take. Get over it.
Some fundamental shifts in the way we divide up our society's immense riches between its members in light of the impact of automation, AI, and other advances seems likely to be necessary.
The proposal is how we divide up the costs, not the riches, but sure, close enough. Automation, AI, and advances are kinda moot in the discussion. There's plenty of inequality already and the issue is here and now not some far-off impending impact of future tech.
Yeah yeah, you're gearing up for the UBI rant. We get it.
the death toll of capitalism. Those people who starve to death because they can't afford food, die of curable disease because they can't afford medicines.
The 1890's? When late-stage capitalism was so bad and inequality was rampant and the robber-barons forced millions into deadly working conditions and overcharged them for basic needs?
Yeah, capitalism killed plenty. The riff-raff rebelled, fought, unionized, regulated the industries, busted up the trusts and took power away from the oligarchy. Been there, done that. We've learned that being too capitalistic is poisonous. Now we're capitalistic, but temper it with socialistic ideas like a progressive tax structure, regulation on industries, and monopoly/anti-competition laws. And if we were sane, we'd socialize healthcare. My dad's a diabetic. What's going to kill him is when he can no longer afford the doctor's visits and medicine.
The centralized economy that Stalin and Mao tried in the name of communism got a whole ton of people killed.
The ideas of capitalism and communism have killed plenty.
Ok, fine. It's SOUNDS like a great idea, but it'll be abused by evil people for their own gain. Therefore we shouldn't do it.
Does that little distinction make you happy?
And then you work your ass off for a few years making money. Then you take a break, earn zero income, and upgrade.
As a poor college student with no income paying American cost of living expenses, I desperately wanted to pay the cheaper foreign prices. And you could if you knew the right foreigner student who illegally sold them at profit.
Also, while I understand cheaper material and soft-covers, I think it's really going out of their way to edit the book to be more boring. That just seems vindictive.
and many times the professors would prefer the local books (local authors many times connect better),
The hell? You had professors that didn't demand you shell out for THEIR book? Huh, I guess America is just ahead of the curve when it comes to corruption.
There must be more to life than having everything. -- Maurice Sendak