Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:There's no requirement for a vote (Score 1) 345

I'm tired of hearing about the "popular vote" as well, but for different reasons. People don't vote for the candidate they want... They vote strategically. And the strategy is based on the electoral college vote. If the rules were based on popular vote, people would vote differently and you cannot say what the results would have been. The fact that she "won the popular vote" in an electoral contest is about as useful as a dragster beating a go kart in quarter mile times. Sure it's technically true but that wasn't a metric of victory as they were racing on a go kart course and the dragster did poorly... If they went to a drag strip, the results would be different and maybe the go kart wouldn't have even been in the final matchup.

You can't change the rules of the election without holding another round of voting where people are aware of the rules.

Comment Re:No, not fake news (Score 1) 232

Are there a lot of hate crimes? It's hard to distinguish between all the fake news, the biased "real" news, and shit that is shared on social media without any citation or evidence... If there are a lot of hate crimes, is it more than usual? Can it be attributed to Trump for the vitriol he spouted during the campaign? Is Hillary free from guilt despite inciting hate on the other side of the political aisle? I cannot blame Trump for what others do in response to his election. Nor can I blame those who voted for him.

The one that pisses me off the most is the bullshit about Trump being supported by the KKK. Umm, so? Support isn't a mutual exchange. I assume in EVERY election the KKK supports one of the major party candidates. Doesn't mean that one candidate is a white supremacist every election...

Comment Re:Lizards, lizards everywhere (Score 1) 2837

Obamacare was a fucking disaster. Not that there aren't good elements in it, but the premise is horribly flawed. They wanted to set up a competitive marketplace with rules that guaranteed the market would fall apart. You can't have a competitive marketplace when the most expensive people to insure were guaranteed coverage and the least expensive people were forced to participate. No surprise then that the best coverage options have disappeared and all rates have had huge increases to cover the requirements.

There were really no incentives to reduce costs, reduce ridiculous medical billing, or keep your doctor or your plan if you liked them.

Comment Re:One party rule (Score 1) 2837

Because Pence is so much better? That being said, I wouldn't be surprised with all of the violent hate out there if someone took a few shots at Trump before the inauguration... The Secret Service definitely has their work cut out for them.

Comment Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 1) 2837

I think that was much the fault of Democrats and the liberal media too. Everyone thought Hillary was going to win so people who wanted change and NOT Hillary voted for Trump and Republicans to congress to thwart Hillary if she won. If people weren't worried about Hillary having power, they might have voted out more incumbents.

Comment Re:And to think the DNC wanted to face Trump... (Score 1) 2837

Yep, I see the outcome of this election not as a huge outpouring of support for Trump as much as a giant fucking sign for Hillary and the Clintons to get out of politics. Hillary, the American people don't want you as President. Democrats chose Obama over you, and the voting base chose Trump over you. Go home to Arkansas and retire.

I'm all for a woman President and I will vote for one when there is a candidate for President that isn't part of a corrupt dynasty in politics.

Comment Re:And I keep coming back to my same question (Score 1) 693

Yes, regardless of anything we do to work around the traffic jam, it is still there. But it's a fucking traffic jam. Traffic jams generally don't kill everyone who gets stuck in them... They just are irritating, greatly slow progress, and waste resources. I believe a warmer climate is going to happen, but I believe it's not going to be catastrophic for all life on the planet as people insinuate to try to get their tax and spend projects funded.

If you want to use the tank tread analogy, tanks can pretty easily traverse terrain with no roads, just not as fast as on pavement. Your analogy is still falling apart faster than your pavement in the analogy.

Comment Re:Too many bad car analogies. Let me fix it. (Score 1) 693

No, getting off the road is analogous to moving to areas of the planet that will be habitable under a warmer climate that are not now. Or are you implying that the entirety of the surface of the planet will be uninhabitable by humans? The flying car comment was the relocating to another planet analogy... And yes, both are far fetched.

Comment Re:And I keep coming back to my same question (Score 4, Insightful) 693

To run your car analogy off the cliff...

Science is predicting a traffic jam on the highway, but it's over the horizon, so we can't see how bad it really is yet. We are in our car accelerating at the moment and we are debating whether to let off the gas or hit the brakes. Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it. There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip. We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.

The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.

Comment Re:But . . . (Score 1) 445

Voting for candidates that support changing the way we vote to eliminate the mathematical problems. I don't see any Republican or Democrat advocating for eliminating FPTP, gerrymandering, the electoral college, winner take all districts, or advocating for more term limits. We need to throw every established politician out and destroy the power of the two party system in order to fix the systemic problems with how we elect representatives.

Submission + - Pipeline Explosion in Alabama

Limburgher writes: The Weather Channel https://weather.com/news/news/... reports that a major natural gas pipeline has exploded in Shelby county. Early reports indicate 7 people injured, so far. This explosion is only miles from a separate gasoline leak, also from Columbia Pipeline. At least 10 acres have burned so far in the dought-ridden area. Updates from Columbia: https://helena.colonialrespons...

Comment Re:But . . . (Score 1) 445

AGAIN, I don't support Trump. For all your knowledge of statistics, you must have flunked reading...

I understand statistics better than you think I do. I understand polling is done with the bias of the pollster. And the results are highly influenced by the selection of the respondents and the ordering and phrasing of the questions. Do you really think a third party will poll well if they first ask "In a two way race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, who would you vote for?" Then they go on to give MAYBE an option for "undecided," "independent," or "other."

I want to see a poll based on a real sampling of the population across the country where the questions in the poll are worded and ordered exactly the same as the ballot. Anything else is just fabricated numbers to sell a story.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Working...