I have sometimes compared those who have studied computer science (as opposed to learning how to program) with those who have studied music. You can be a very successful programmer without any computer science just as you can be a very successful musician without music theory. Mastery of the advanced studies of your discipline will make you a better than merely someone who can just get the job done.
It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase.
Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act? Sounds like more leftist hypocrisy and hyperbole to me.
Sounds like more SOP conservative false equivalence to me: President Obama never threatend a crackdown on dissent, never threatened to jail his opponents, and never showed himself predisposed to seek revenge against critics with as many levers of power as are at his disposal.
you want your rural state to get proportional representation.
If someone gave me the godlike power to craft a fair system of government for our country, it would probably be parliamentary with proportional representation, so as to prevent the situation that the Canadians are dealing with, where they have a parliament, but still have a "two party system," so they still have problems with the two parties not totally representing all Canadians between the two of them. I do think their "two parties" do a better job than ours at representing a bigger proportion of the population, but I'm sure there are some valid, but not popular viewpoints in Canada that aren't represented by the Conservatives nor the LIberals.
Most political systems have some degree of protection for rural areas to prevent them from being utterly steamrolled and dominated by the cities.
Very true, but we have that even without the Electoral College--we have individual constitutional rights that are supposed to serve that function. And if the "steamrolling" they fear is one that is political rather than tyrannical, I'm not sure why rural states should get to be "protected" from being in the minority as long as the thing being done doesn't violate those individual rights.
Consider the current situation, which more or less amounts to a tyranny of the minority, especially when you factor in the "southern states/rural states" Republican "majority" that exists despite not having received a majority of the votes in "The people's house" since 2010. In fact, they got fewer votes in 2012, 2014, and 2016 than they did in the "wave" election of 2010, but have vastly more seats after those elections than they got in 2010.
Tyranny by the minority is just as tyrannical as tyranny by the majority.
So, that one time you got drunk, and wondered "What's Autofellatio" and typed it into Google? Yep, that's why that Traffic Cop is looking at you funny. He's not judging, just trying to picture you blowing yourself.
Maybe its time to get rid of the entire union.....
Impossible--those flyover states also consume the bulk of the welfare dollars pad into by the productive coastal states. Break up the union, you create an instant refugee crisis for the productive states as unemployed rednecks who think "College is a scam so I ain't going--now where's my money-check?!?!?!" suddenly can't afford to exist because the productive big cities simply stop subsidizing them, as they're now part of a "different country."
Now, the possibility of "Regional autonomy" government solution (where the existing 50 states going one of several "provinces" that are governed separately, rather than at the Federal level) might be possible.
Hillary Clinton won 300 counties while Trump won 5000. If you think that the election of a nation should be swayed by a handful of cities while the rest of the nation is completely ignored, well, you're an idiot.
Not so fast, Billy Bob... Some of those "counties" have fewer residents than single neighborhoods even a small city. So perhaps a better way to say it is "If you think rural voters are somehow so superior to city dwellers that they should get their way despite accumulating 2 million fewer votes for their preferred candidate, well, you're an idiot."
So bottom line, slavery is defunct, so we no longer need to appease slave states
Ah, there's the "it's racist". Thanks for conceding the argument.
Ah, I see what you did there by failing to quote the second half of my point (where I acknowledged it "was racist" when used to that purpose, but isn't anymore now that it isn't.)
Racism/slavery wasn't the only reason the electoral college was instituted... It absolutely was racist when instituted, but since the "3/5" part of it was struck down by the 14th amendment, it's now just a pointlessly old fashioned contrivance to "protect us" from the tyranny of ill-informed rural voters, rather than racist.
A much better argument than racism for eliminating it is in the inequality of value assigned to votes. For example, it takes four times as many votes in Michigan to gain the vote of an elector as it does in Wyoming--which is complete bullshit which allows a state with barely any people a much louder voice for each of its citizens than far more populous Michigan. And it really sucks when you look at how many votes you need in California to get an electoral vote vs. one of the bullshit states.
Yes, I do think of small states as "bullshit." Having lived in Indiana lo these past 15 years I feel I can speak from a place of some authority when I say that.
It's working exactly as designed, striking a balance of power between the states. It's a concept we have in the congress, population based representation in one house and equal state based representation in the other. Without the electoral college the president would effectively be chosen by only a handful of states. The college ensures that all of the states have at least some effective say in the matter.
Even with the electoral college, the President is being chosen by a "handful of states." Specifically, the three "Swing" states which put Trump over the top. Even worse, the outcome of the entire country's future leadership is based on less than 10,000 people in one state, less that 20,000 in another, and less than 35,000 in a third--a total of far under 100,000 votes in a nation where more than 120 million votes were cast. This is, more or less... a rounding error... A number of votes that could be cast (or not cast) if it rains on election day.
And second of all, the original "Balance of power" the electoral college was created to preserve was between free and slave states. Specifically, southerners would not have adopted the constitution if they thought that higher population northern states would have been able to control the congress, and the presidency, by virtue of their greater numbers. So they came up with the 3/5 compromise (that allowed slave states to count 60% of their slaves for the purpose of calculating their congressional representation, and by proxy, their electoral college representation,) and kludged it onto the electoral college to "protect" their interests in the Presidency.
Setting aside whether or not the electoral college is, in and of itself "racist," (I don't think it is anymore, although it was conceived as such) the real issue I have with it is that it's an anachronism that isn't necessary. Because the other justification for it is that rural areas in 1797 didn't have very good communications with the outside world, and might be enticed to accidentally vote for a dangerous tyrant that they were unaware was a dangerous tyrant.
So bottom line, slavery is defunct, so we no longer need to appease slave states, and today, rural states have access to the Internet and full communications parity with the rest of the world. Which means there's no more justification for the continued existence of the Electoral College.
Restricting free speech is what the "hate speech" designation is all about.
Whose speech was "restricted"? This particular advertising network simply decided they no longer wish to sponsor this specific speech given the possibility that other advertisers would refuse to purchase ads through their network so as to avoid being associated with this sort of filth.
Yet if you load up Breitbart.com tonight, their hate speech is still blaring away, going strong. So no speech has, in fact, been restricted--someone just told a group of obnoxious braying jackasses they're no longer willing to sponsor their braying.
Seems fine to me.
They can't provide any examples and they aren't banning 5000 other websites that post comparable or more hateful articles.
I'm sure they "can" provide examples, they just choose not to.
Since they acted after receiving a complaint about Breitbart and conducted an audit, how about you report some of those 5000 other hate web-sites you believe they're running advertisements on. See what happens.
So they're lying, they're pushing a hidden agenda
You have zero evidence to support those conclusions.
For example, maybe they just aren't interested in having a never ending debate with the alt-right nutter brigade about what constitutes hate speech, and simply wish to disassociate themselves from a group of people promoting hate, bigotry, and misogyny to avoid potential backlashes from advertisers who don't want to be associated with that sort of filth.
Paranoid much? No part of their statement says what you claim it is. None.
Ultimate example of closing the barn door after the horse has run away.
I sure was, and still am! Texas wants to secede? I'll count my blessings--one fewer red state mooching off the productive blue ones.