So long as you are comfortable in your own skin.
So long as you are comfortable in your own skin.
I wonder if anyone has looked to see if Trump would have won without winner-take-all?
I think I saw some analysis that if *all* states split their electors proportional to the votes Clinton would have 262 electors, and Trump would have 258 electors, Gary Johnson would have 10 electors and Stein and McMullen would each have 1. Since no candidate would have the majority (270 required), the House of Representatives would consider the top 3 candidates from the Electoral College. Since the House is mostly Republican 247-188, even with a large number of defections, I suspect that Trump would still have won the election.
The scenario that some people are proposing to obsolete the Electoral College is that if a majority of electors were required to cast their vote for whoever got the majority of the popular vote throughout the US. This is similar but not the same as eliminating the overweight that small states have over the big states (because of the "bonus" senator electors) and marginalizes all the battleground states (as they would often simply just split +-1 electoral vote).
Without any type of winner take all complication, any strong 3rd party showing (like this latest 2016) election would likely mean no majority, so unless you want a president elected with a plurality, you probably will end up throwing the election to the House of Representatives.
However, if you read the Federalist papers, direct representation is clearly not what they intended for the office of the president. The complication of the Electoral College was taken because they wanted to make sure that candidates for president weren't just selected for their ability to be popular in a few states as they knew it would take completely different attributes/talents for a president to be successful and accepted by "a considerable a portion" of the whole country. They also wanted to minimize the ability of persons trying to corrupt the process or advancing "manchurian" candidates by distributing the power across all the states so that corrupting influence in one part of the country had a minimal effect on the process. Also, electors were to be chosen only for the task of electing a president and no other purpose and weren't allowed to be holding office in the House or Senate to minimize any institutional influence and corruption. Seems to me these are all worthy goals. Personally, I think more people should read the Federalist papers...
I now live near Oakland, CA, any my precinct had 142% turn out.
Greater than 100% turnout happened in every county I looked at here in CA. For Oakland County where I live:
My precinct had >160% turnout. There is massive fraud here in CA.
FYI Oakland, California is in *ALAMEDA COUNTY*.
Given that Hillary won in California by 2:1 over Donald, even if there were massive fraud in California, it had exactly zero bearing on the election. However, if you insist, here are the Oakland Alameda, California results. Out of 888709 registered, only 670245 total ballots were cast (~75%). In Alameda County in California, Hillary received 78.06% of votes cast and Donald only managed to receive 14.54% of the votes.
Your link is for the state of *MICHIGAN* (Oakland County). Fromyour link there are only two precincts that report > 100% Southfield Township precincts 8/9 which reported a total 4258 votes vs 2551 registered
And in other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead...
Soros spent about 2 billion dollars to get Hillary *votes*.
Trump spent only about 300 million to get *electors*.
FTFY. Both got what they paid for right?
Pretty impressive to be "years" behind schedule, 2 years after you founded the company. They should declare "time bankruptcy" and start from scratch.
Not that I'm defending them, but Magic leap gave their first technology demo in 2011, so it wasn't just 2 years ago the started...
It was 2 years ago they closed their "A" round of financing ($50M) which was technically when they started their "clock"
Google lead their "B" round of financing ($542M)
And earlier this year, Alibaba lead their "C" round of financing (~$800M at a $4.5B valuation),
So they've raised ~$1.4B to date, but I'm guessing the"C" round financiers are shortly about to take a bath...
FWIW, Magic Leap doesn't seem to be organized like a tech venture, but more like a entertainment studio. From all reports, the tech that they seem like they are developing is adapted from medical tech: a single fiber scanning endoscope technology worked on at University of Washington by Eric Seibel. The chief technical officer of Magic Leap is Brian Schowengerdt who was Mr. Seibel's research partner. Apparently, the idea is to reverse the endoscope from being a camera to being a projector. Of course there are issues involved in adapting any technology, so it's not unexpected that they have run into a boat load of trouble and are years behind. Such is the nature of high tech.
I've got to say, this seems creepy to me. It's not just spying on kids, it's spying on whoever is in range. It's basically an open mic in your home, transmitting to god knows who.
So is a "smart" TV, a laptop computer, a tracker (a more appropriate name for a cell phone or mobile phone which recognizes the activity it does the most), and so many other voice-activated gadgets with network connectivity all running proprietary (read: untrustworthy by default) software. And a lot of these devices have cameras in them too, also under proprietary software control. And virtually all of them have been used by kids for years. Some of these devices have geolocation hardware in them too, that must make it easier to geotag the data the proprietors can acquire, keep, and share. I think it's great that people are finally getting around to thinking about the security and privacy implications when this is presented to them in the form of a toy but really this is far too late in coming.
Departing from the parent comment, situations like this are also a constant reminder of the profound inadequacies of modern-day IT experts who choose to surround themselves with these things, not in an experimental way to investigate them but as consumers who apparently value minor convenience more than their own privacy.
Only software freedom helps you enjoy all of these devices in a way where you, the user and owner of the device, can have a real say in what gets recorded, where that data is copied, and thus who gets access to that data. It's not about shutting these things out of your life entirely, it's about respecting who should control this data.
I carry a tool for dealing with these exact situations. Chances are good that you have one, too. I keep mine in between the ring and index fingers of my left hand, and use it to silently signify my disdain for the actions of those around me.
I'm confused, is this text from a Trump speech?
The Clintons stole nothing from the White House, and I'm sure you know that and the whole back story so I'm not going to repeat it here.
you can see the earnings breakdown at Forbes which indicates that it was all declared on their taxes.
Corruption requires a "this is for that" exchange where "this" or "that" is a government service. I have seen no indication that there was any actual evidence of any such behavior.
Don't forget the potential Secretary of State nominee who had to tell his parole officer that he was considering a new job (no joke).
I can also see the Dem's having a field day about Saudi money financing Trump's desires.
The Dems probably shouldn't be throwing such stones. Two reasons...
1. Apparently the Clinton Foundation has ingested quite a bit of Saudi money over the years...
2. SoftBank is a *Japanese* tech conglomerate, not a Saudi tech fund...
The other reason that China bought up a lot of US debt was to make sure there were no more property bubbles in the Far East funded by American money. They deliberately prevented Trump and people like him developing land over there, and aren't about to let them now.
It could get ugly if Trump and co. start using the US economy as leverage to get personal real-estate deals off the ground.
Hardly. There are property bubbles like you can't imagine all over the far east (including china in Shanghai and Shenzen). Are you trying to say that by buying US treasuries, they prevented the private US companies from borrowing money to invest in real-estate deals? Apparently the People's Bank of China didn't get the memo because they were basically funding both the bubble AND buying US treasuries. Of course now they have over the last couple years sold a big chunks of their US treasury holdings to address their own liquidity problems because of their slowing economy and the growing property bubbles.
If they were "smart" they would have let american companies take some of that risk, right?
Sounds to me that China bought up a lot of US debt as a safe place to park money that has the advantage of being pretty liquid (because there is a robust secondary market in US debt instruments)... Just like everyone else in the world does.
If you're offering a standard guaranteed job teaching, you'll soon find that you have far too many teachers, many of whom have no talent or fondness for the job and will do a bad job.
Having far too many teachers is better than the current situation where people that could teach, don't because it's more lucrative to do than to teach. If students (and I don't mean just K-12) have a great choice in their teachers because there is a surplus, I have a feeling that would work out better for everyone.
The Peace Corps idea has serious problems: will we be sending a hundred and fifty million people out of the country to tell other people how to run things? Do we want a permanent large diaspora? What happens when less developed countries start to catch up, and don't want two million Americans around?
National service ideas isn't like the peace corp. You don't go out of the country, you help out in your own community. You can read about what they have going now here. Although they serve as a clearinghouse for volunteers today, leveraging this for skilled volunteers that are renumerated based on their skills is certainly a possibility that shouldn't be overlooked when you have a 150million (your number) looking for something to occupy their time, and use their skills.
Certainly seems better than paying them to be stuffed in a free education classroom to me, but maybe that is just me.
Egotist: A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me. -- Ambrose Bierce