They thought more about the money they took in and they did what their donors wanted them to do to keep that faucet going.
To be fair though, the Dems allowed Google and Yahoo this access before. Those two are major contributors to the Democratic Party. Thus the animosity from the Republicans.
Oh really.....who could have guessed?? This calls into question the validity of everything Wikileaks released in the 2016 election. As I've said numerous times, if you are willing to steal and hack someone's information, there is absolutely no reason in the world you wouldn't also fabricate parts of that information to make if fit the narrative you are trying to accomplish by engaging in the hack in the first place.
What? The Internet might have fake news? Wow, that's unheard of!
Seriously people, if you're really worried about this then maybe we should think long and hard about who is allowed to vote. I'm not being facetious here. Is democracy the best way or not?
What? The Internet might have fake news? Wow, that's unheard of!
Seriously people, if you're really worried about this then maybe we should think long and hard about who is allowed to vote. I'm not being facetious here. Is democracy the best way or not?
that's a tough question. I don't know what's better. Certainly not a dictatorship like Russia where supposedly people are starving in the streets and the rich are swimming in gold.
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" -Winston Churchill
What? The Internet might have fake news? Wow, that's unheard of!
Seriously people, if you're really worried about this then maybe we should think long and hard about who is allowed to vote. I'm not being facetious here. Is democracy the best way or not?
Impossible and futile to argue that everyone shouldn't be. Don't know where this argument would really go. Historically, in the United States, only one group of people have ALWAYS had the right to vote, and that is white, male property owners. Took til the mid-1870s for every state to give all white men the right to vote regardless of property ownership. Native Americans were treated as 2/3 of a citizen and didn't get their rights til 1924. Women in 1920. African-Americans didn't actually secure this right without fear of being lynched til the mid-60s. Our history on this issue is so heinous that I can't possibly argue that there should be any other way. That said, our votes aren't equal. You live in Michigan, and your vote matters far more than mine in North Dakota or anyone living in California, because we are not a true democracy, but a democratic republic. Only a handful of States have had any real say in who is elected President for the last 20 years. It's flawed. It's flaws are more apparent every election cycle.
I don't disagree but sometimes I wonder about a form of government where a meth addict's vote counts the same as a B.S. Chemist (me). Most Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if you gave them an open-book test, and that's including Google Maps. Pretty sad if you ask me...
What? The Internet might have fake news? Wow, that's unheard of!
Seriously people, if you're really worried about this then maybe we should think long and hard about who is allowed to vote. I'm not being facetious here. Is democracy the best way or not?
Impossible and futile to argue that everyone shouldn't be. Don't know where this argument would really go. Historically, in the United States, only one group of people have ALWAYS had the right to vote, and that is white, male property owners. Took til the mid-1870s for every state to give all white men the right to vote regardless of property ownership. Native Americans were treated as 2/3 of a citizen and didn't get their rights til 1924. Women in 1920. African-Americans didn't actually secure this right without fear of being lynched til the mid-60s. Our history on this issue is so heinous that I can't possibly argue that there should be any other way. That said, our votes aren't equal. You live in Michigan, and your vote matters far more than mine in North Dakota or anyone living in California, because we are not a true democracy, but a democratic republic. Only a handful of States have had any real say in who is elected President for the last 20 years. It's flawed. It's flaws are more apparent every election cycle.
If North Dakota was a battleground state then your vote would count more. It's more a consequence of statistics than anything. I did actually feel like my vote counted more since it was so close in my state but still around 20,000 or so votes made the difference so my influence wasn't paramount...
I don't disagree but sometimes I wonder about a form of government where a meth addict's vote counts the same as a B.S. Chemist (me). Most Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if you gave them an open-book test, and that's including Google Maps. Pretty sad if you ask me...
@Balrog99 Hehheh, I recently heard a lady call in to a talk radio station asking how close N. Korea was to S.Korea.
I don't disagree but sometimes I wonder about a form of government where a meth addict's vote counts the same as a B.S. Chemist (me). Most Americans couldn't find Afghanistan on a map if you gave them an open-book test, and that's including Google Maps. Pretty sad if you ask me...
@Balrog99 Hehheh, I recently heard a lady call in to a talk radio station asking how close N. Korea was to S.Korea.
I hope the answer was < 1 meter, but that's probably a pipe dream.
My biggest problem with big government is that Socialism is basically buying votes with social programs. Nobody is going to vote for getting rid of money out of their pockets.The people paying for these programs will ultimately be outvoted by the people benefitting from them. No liberal has ever been able to refute that to me satisfactorily. I'm willing to hear the other side though...
Not sure if it came up in the whole planned parenthood funding debate or not, but I don't think directly.
For you Pepsi drinkers out there, do you now how they have developed and researched some of their artificial flavoring agents?
Cloned now, but from one aborted fetus kidney (or SOME kind of human cell line from years ago, 70's I believe). Now I don't believe that aborted babies stuff is used now of course (not NOW anyway, but some pro-lifers sure do push it), but apparently it helps with taste receptors in testing. I did not know that until a couple years ago. My chemist friend(PhD) wrote them and congress trying to detail this out but they are pretty closed mouth about changing it the process. They did give a little info though, at least. Well, I guess if it 'cells' that's good enough for the bottom line.
Still, I would like the FDA to require better info as to what is in our foods (fat chance though, with the way they run that through the 'good ol boy' network.
Was news to me anyway at the time, interesting, but new.
Now, do something decent, like clone me a new pancreas (and more from the stem cells in my nose or something. I'd buy THAT for a $1 (heck with Pepsi's taste, whatever floats their boat as far as I am concerned). Now if we have plenty of dead folk, of all ages, and at least some of them consent to be used for testing, MAKE THIS HAPPEN. Pa-Lease. I think those with chronic diseases have put up with them or long enough.
With drug companies more interested(or at least it seems) in coming up with a lifelong drug for someone to use, I know it is an uphill battle. T2 diabetes has a market riddled with crap to keep them using) T1, the REAL diabetus, we've got what, only insulin ffrom back in the 20's) (off my soapbox now, hehheh)
As long as the gov'ment keeps ignoring drug and medical service pricing, I reckon ANY healthcare bill isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program
My biggest problem with big government is that Socialism is basically buying votes with social programs. Nobody is going to vote for getting rid of money out of their pockets.The people paying for these programs will ultimately be outvoted by the people benefitting from them. No liberal has ever been able to refute that to me satisfactorily. I'm willing to hear the other side though...
Shouldn't the highest goal of government be to most ably help the most people?
This calls into question the validity of everything Wikileaks released in the 2016 election.
Well, let's look into that.
How have the Democratic Party behaved in light of the revelations? They had Debbie step down due to the content. The CEO of the DNC had to step down. The Democratic Party did not deny the veracity of the content. (Donna Brazile denied it, only to come clean and admit it months later.) Indeed, their response was to start shrieking about Russian hacking, which seems to be a tacit admission of their truth. They wouldn't have gotten fake information from a real hack.
Wikileaks has a great track record and is not known to publish false information, despite how much NYT and CNN might not like them these days, that remains clear and they had no issue in using their material in anti-Iraq War cases and to also for their right to exist. Also, the tweet is simply the claims of the Macron campaign, who i'm sure we can take 100% at face value, but it doesn't specify who is trying to mix in fake stuff. Why is wikileaks immediately implicated?
As has been stated, the Electoral College isn't going away and isn't broken, if democrats can't represent the concerns of a vast number of states they should do so instead of trying to rig the system in their favor and disenfranchise communities and whole states all across the country in doing so, leading to mass destabilization and fragmentation. The Democrats had everything, *everything*, going for them this time, from every celebrity to every major news outlet including FOX to everything in popular culture. The voting system isn't the problem, the problem is the ideology.
It was mentioned previously (by, I think, Zaghoul) that the internet is leading to even more bias and partisanship, and I think that's absolutely right. When it is easier than ever before to constantly have your own views validated by only investigating ideologically-friendly sources, having both sides of any story is an active choice. There's always a more pleasing narrative. I could probably name more left wing or center left people that I listen to more than right wing, actually.
Regarding healthcare, i'm apathetic. The enormous cost of health care in this country is the root problem. Obama's signature bill penalized poor people big time and didn't bring down the cost significantly. I have little hope for anything different happening now. Trump didn't get elected on repeal and replace and I have no interest in what is sure to be another failure to substantially bring down costs.
The goal of government should be to preserve the liberty and security of the people. Those are concrete goals. Helping the most people is not a concrete goal and is subject to all sorts of interpretation. Help who? Our citizens or the world? Other countries have competing interests and aren't going to stop competing on the world stage because we do.
The Preamble to the Constitution isn't legally binding according to Supreme Court precedent, but it does say part of its purpose is to "promote the general welfare" of the country.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And the general welfare clause itself, which is legally binding, does give the U.S. government the power to use taxes for that particular purpose.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The general welfare clause has been debated, but the debate has NOT centered on whether the government should "promote the general welfare" or not. The debate is whether the government can use powers BESIDES taxation to promote it. James Madison, the primary father of the Constitution, felt that only taxes could be used for that purpose; the Constitution did not give the government any other powers to do so.
But the notion that the government should promote the general welfare is in the original text of the United States Constitution.
You can say this welfare program is bad or this welfare program is unconstitutional because X, Y, and Z, but you can't very well say the government isn't supposed to provide for the general welfare, because the Preamble says the exact opposite in completely explicit terms. And you can't very well say the federal government doesn't have the power to provide for the general welfare when the general welfare clause says it has at least one power--taxation--which it can use for that explicit purpose.
If you're looking for an original interpretation of the United States Constitution, the words are right there. There's no modern ideological over-interpretation here--that's what the Constitution literally says.
Promote is not the same as provide. Both are used in the preamble. PROMOTE the general welfare but PROVIDE for the common defense. I'm quite sure the writers of the Constitution knew the difference between those words.
On an unrelated topic I wonder if the Feds reduce taxes and allocate more of their services to the states, doesn't that kind of mean that the states will have to RAISE their taxes?
Promote is not the same as provide. Both are used in the preamble. PROMOTE the general welfare but PROVIDE for the common defense. I'm quite sure the writers of the Constitution knew the difference between those words.
@Balrog99: You're forgetting the general welfare clause. It says promote the general welfare in the Preamble, but in the general welfare clause, it says provide for the general welfare.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The final thing to consider about "discrimination" is this: do we want to look for any instance of discrimination or only certain kinds? Let's say you are at a public concert and someone near you says something clearly racist towards someone else. Are you going to ignore that person completely or are you going to move away from them? Either way, you have concluded that this is a person whom you do not wish to know or with whom you choose not to associate. In other words, you are choosing to discriminate against that person. The fact that most people would view this as a positive form of discrimination--the act of being choosy or making value judgements--is irrelevant because it is still discrimination. This is why people need to be careful with blanket statements such as "we need to end discrimination" because if you pick any random person you can find instances in their life where they discriminate against others.
What you fail to understand is that when people talk about finding ways to limit or at least hold people accountable for discrimination, they're talking about racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and other similar forms of discrimination. They're not talking about freedom of association, which you're mixing up with discrimination. I and everyone else has the right to choose not to associate with racists, and this is not discrimination.
Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
Mathsorcerer makes a good point here, it isn't logically consistent to be against discrimination in general and then claim that it's okay to, say, discriminate against racists or someone who doesn't like gay people. Either one's personal beliefs and actions within the bounds of the law are valid reasons for discrimination or they are not. If there are "special cases" where discrimination is okay, we need an objective criteria for when that is. Otherwise, we're simply selectively morality policing and not standing up for actual principles like being against discrimination.
Mathsorcerer makes a good point here, it isn't logically consistent to be against discrimination in general and then claim that it's okay to, say, discriminate against racists or someone who doesn't like gay people. Either one's personal beliefs and actions within the bounds of the law are valid reasons for discrimination or they are not. If there are "special cases" where discrimination is okay, we need an objective criteria for when that is. Otherwise, we're simply selectively morality policing and not standing up for actual principles like being against discrimination.
No, he doesn't. It is not logically inconsistent to be against discrimination while simultaneously choosing to not associate with people who have questionable or abhorrent beliefs. If I choose not to associate with a racist, I'm not causing him material harm. Discrimination, however, causes material harm in many demonstrable ways. Lack of reliable access to housing, employment, and services can, for example, cause significant material harm. If people are discriminated against because of age, gender, orientation, race, etc. and thus have a harder time finding work or a place to live, then they're suffering because of that discrimination.
The notional racist isn't harmed by the notional liberal refusing to associate with him. The racist is not entitled to associate with everyone he wants to associate with. No one is. Ever.
In other words, you can refuse to associate yourself with or be friends with somebody because of who they are; you just can't refuse to provide them with the same services you provide others.
Mathsorcerer makes a good point here, it isn't logically consistent to be against discrimination in general and then claim that it's okay to, say, discriminate against racists or someone who doesn't like gay people. Either one's personal beliefs and actions within the bounds of the law are valid reasons for discrimination or they are not. If there are "special cases" where discrimination is okay, we need an objective criteria for when that is. Otherwise, we're simply selectively morality policing and not standing up for actual principles like being against discrimination.
This is the kind of purposeful attitude that dismisses nearly all claims or charges of racism nowadays. Because it simply says "everyone is at fault". If a liberal calls out someone for being racist or being intolerant, they are being intolerant themselves. If this is the case, no one can criticize anyone for anything, which is the goal of this line of thinking. Much like "you can't take Trump literally", the idea that "you aren't tolerant of intolerance, therefore you lose all credibility" is a make-shift escape hatch to get out of discussing ANY issue regarding race or discrimination. The Paradox of Tolerance description provided by @BelleSorciere makes perfect sense.
And again, what is being taken away from these hypothetical people accused of intolerance by the left?? The company of people they probably have nothing in common with and don't like to begin with?? Why would they even care?? And has anyone making this argument looked at pictures of segregated lunch counters in the South?? Was this ok?? The ONLY reason I half support letting these hypothetical bakeries not bake the cake for a gay wedding is because I don't want them to be martyrs and I literally want their entire business to to be destroyed by boycotts. But as someone pointed out earlier, that rarely happens. But I got back and forth. Because it's crap. Every place that serves food needs a license from some government entity. You aren't owed that license. And once you take it, you have agreed to serve the public within bounds of reason. And if you don't do that, seriously, get another damn job.
I mean, there are pretty clear rules about this just from an HR standpoint in many states. The state I live in has a rule where you can be fired for any reason at any time regardless. Not all do. I mean, if you make your racism KNOWN in the workplace, you are likely violating company policy and if they DON'T fire you, they are opening themselves up to penalties. But, more important, from a practical standpoint, what idiot would make these views known at work and not expect consequences?? But trust me, I've worked plenty of places just within the last 5 years where racism, and even racial slurs, are commonplace. You can absolutely fire someone for this. But, especially in rural areas, people skate on this ALL the time. There are places near where I live where you'd be more likely fired for NOT espousing racist views or going along with the crowd.
Let me give an example. I was working on building a hotel a couple years ago for a construction company. Literally the only black guy on the job site on a daily basis was my direct supervisor. Not to get too risque, but he was carrying on a sexual relationship with a Hispanic woman who was hired on site to clean. This was fairly well-known. Most people just smiled and grinned about it when it came up. One guy could not resist throwing in racial stereotypes mixed with his sex jokes when it came up. Now....I am someone who enjoys fairly blue humor, but CONTEXT is what is important. What this guy was doing was tasteless and crass, because it was about actual people he basically knew nothing about. To him, these two people were skin colors to make jokes about when the opportunity arose. It's not funny, there is no punchline, it's just malice being projected outward. Nothing happened to him, because no one would even think to report such a thing on a construction site. This is just one of many examples I could point to. Make no mistake, these people are assholes. You've all known them your whole life.
Make no mistake, these people are assholes. You've all known them your whole life.
This statement is part of the problem. I would say that most of them are ignorant, but only a small portion of them are actual assholes. They're not all right wingers either. I've known a fair amount of bigoted liberals.
I grew up in rural Michigan so I know the views you're talking about. For whatever reason, I didn't believe all the stereotypes myself but that didn't stop me from telling the same jokes as everybody else. The best way to combat this ignorance is exposure to other viewpoints. I got that from college and getting a job in the city with a multi-national corporation. Unfortunately, not everybody gets that opportunity.
My 9 year old daughter's best friend is a Muslim and she likes to play with the neighbor kids who happen to be black. I have no problem with it whatsoever and I'm actually quite pleased if truth be known. Things are changing, but maybe not as quickly as some people would like...
On the topic of intervention by the state vs. public opinion I find J.S. Mill (19th century philosopher) to be quite prescient, in that one can see the difficulty of drawing a line between private/ personal conduct and adversely affecting others' interests. His comments on the U.S. are also interesting in retrospect.
Comments
Oh really.....who could have guessed?? This calls into question the validity of everything Wikileaks released in the 2016 election. As I've said numerous times, if you are willing to steal and hack someone's information, there is absolutely no reason in the world you wouldn't also fabricate parts of that information to make if fit the narrative you are trying to accomplish by engaging in the hack in the first place.
Seriously people, if you're really worried about this then maybe we should think long and hard about who is allowed to vote. I'm not being facetious here. Is democracy the best way or not?
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
-Winston Churchill
Not sure if it came up in the whole planned parenthood funding debate or not, but I don't think directly.
For you Pepsi drinkers out there, do you now how they have developed and researched some of their artificial flavoring agents?
Cloned now, but from one aborted fetus kidney (or SOME kind of human cell line from years ago, 70's I believe). Now I don't believe that aborted babies stuff is used now of course (not NOW anyway, but some pro-lifers sure do push it), but apparently it helps with taste receptors in testing. I did not know that until a couple years ago. My chemist friend(PhD) wrote them and congress trying to detail this out but they are pretty closed mouth about changing it the process. They did give a little info though, at least. Well, I guess if it 'cells' that's good enough for the bottom line.
Still, I would like the FDA to require better info as to what is in our foods (fat chance though, with the way they run that through the 'good ol boy' network.
Was news to me anyway at the time, interesting, but new.
Now, do something decent, like clone me a new pancreas (and more
Now if we have plenty of dead folk, of all ages, and at least some of them consent to be used for testing, MAKE THIS HAPPEN. Pa-Lease. I think those with chronic diseases have put up with them or long enough.
With drug companies more interested(or at least it seems) in coming up with a lifelong drug for someone to use, I know it is an uphill battle. T2 diabetes has a market riddled with crap to keep them using) T1, the REAL diabetus, we've got what, only insulin ffrom back in the 20's)
(off my soapbox now, hehheh)
As long as the gov'ment keeps ignoring drug and medical service pricing, I reckon ANY healthcare bill isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled program
How have the Democratic Party behaved in light of the revelations? They had Debbie step down due to the content. The CEO of the DNC had to step down. The Democratic Party did not deny the veracity of the content. (Donna Brazile denied it, only to come clean and admit it months later.) Indeed, their response was to start shrieking about Russian hacking, which seems to be a tacit admission of their truth. They wouldn't have gotten fake information from a real hack.
Wikileaks has a great track record and is not known to publish false information, despite how much NYT and CNN might not like them these days, that remains clear and they had no issue in using their material in anti-Iraq War cases and to also for their right to exist. Also, the tweet is simply the claims of the Macron campaign, who i'm sure we can take 100% at face value, but it doesn't specify who is trying to mix in fake stuff. Why is wikileaks immediately implicated?
As has been stated, the Electoral College isn't going away and isn't broken, if democrats can't represent the concerns of a vast number of states they should do so instead of trying to rig the system in their favor and disenfranchise communities and whole states all across the country in doing so, leading to mass destabilization and fragmentation. The Democrats had everything, *everything*, going for them this time, from every celebrity to every major news outlet including FOX to everything in popular culture. The voting system isn't the problem, the problem is the ideology.
It was mentioned previously (by, I think, Zaghoul) that the internet is leading to even more bias and partisanship, and I think that's absolutely right. When it is easier than ever before to constantly have your own views validated by only investigating ideologically-friendly sources, having both sides of any story is an active choice. There's always a more pleasing narrative. I could probably name more left wing or center left people that I listen to more than right wing, actually.
Regarding healthcare, i'm apathetic. The enormous cost of health care in this country is the root problem. Obama's signature bill penalized poor people big time and didn't bring down the cost significantly. I have little hope for anything different happening now. Trump didn't get elected on repeal and replace and I have no interest in what is sure to be another failure to substantially bring down costs.
The goal of government should be to preserve the liberty and security of the people. Those are concrete goals. Helping the most people is not a concrete goal and is subject to all sorts of interpretation. Help who? Our citizens or the world? Other countries have competing interests and aren't going to stop competing on the world stage because we do.
But the notion that the government should promote the general welfare is in the original text of the United States Constitution.
If you're looking for an original interpretation of the United States Constitution, the words are right there. There's no modern ideological over-interpretation here--that's what the Constitution literally says.
Any thoughts?
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The notional racist isn't harmed by the notional liberal refusing to associate with him. The racist is not entitled to associate with everyone he wants to associate with. No one is. Ever.
And again, what is being taken away from these hypothetical people accused of intolerance by the left?? The company of people they probably have nothing in common with and don't like to begin with?? Why would they even care?? And has anyone making this argument looked at pictures of segregated lunch counters in the South?? Was this ok?? The ONLY reason I half support letting these hypothetical bakeries not bake the cake for a gay wedding is because I don't want them to be martyrs and I literally want their entire business to to be destroyed by boycotts. But as someone pointed out earlier, that rarely happens. But I got back and forth. Because it's crap. Every place that serves food needs a license from some government entity. You aren't owed that license. And once you take it, you have agreed to serve the public within bounds of reason. And if you don't do that, seriously, get another damn job.
Let me give an example. I was working on building a hotel a couple years ago for a construction company. Literally the only black guy on the job site on a daily basis was my direct supervisor. Not to get too risque, but he was carrying on a sexual relationship with a Hispanic woman who was hired on site to clean. This was fairly well-known. Most people just smiled and grinned about it when it came up. One guy could not resist throwing in racial stereotypes mixed with his sex jokes when it came up. Now....I am someone who enjoys fairly blue humor, but CONTEXT is what is important. What this guy was doing was tasteless and crass, because it was about actual people he basically knew nothing about. To him, these two people were skin colors to make jokes about when the opportunity arose. It's not funny, there is no punchline, it's just malice being projected outward. Nothing happened to him, because no one would even think to report such a thing on a construction site. This is just one of many examples I could point to. Make no mistake, these people are assholes. You've all known them your whole life.
I grew up in rural Michigan so I know the views you're talking about. For whatever reason, I didn't believe all the stereotypes myself but that didn't stop me from telling the same jokes as everybody else. The best way to combat this ignorance is exposure to other viewpoints. I got that from college and getting a job in the city with a multi-national corporation. Unfortunately, not everybody gets that opportunity.
My 9 year old daughter's best friend is a Muslim and she likes to play with the neighbor kids who happen to be black. I have no problem with it whatsoever and I'm actually quite pleased if truth be known. Things are changing, but maybe not as quickly as some people would like...
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlLbty4.html#Chapter 4
Nailed it on the lack of diversity