SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Democratic National Committee is hiring IT people for these positions:
- Chief Security Officer
- Data Science Lead
- Full-stack Engineer
- IT Help Desk Manager
- IT Systems Administrator
- Product Designer
- Product Director
- Product Manager
The Daily Wire, a conservative blog, posted an e-mail purportedly from Madeleine Leader, the DNC's Data Services Manager, showing her announcing the openings and writing
I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight while males, since they're already in the majority.
The Daily Wire blogger posted a different screenshot of the e-mail on Twitter.
Also at The Hill
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The DNC is Hiring IT Staff. Allegedly, Cisgendered Straight White Males Need Not Apply.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 189 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
2
(1)
2
The Official Colorado State Vegetable is now the "state legislator".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:36PM (116 children)
Really, did you need yet another reason NOT to vote Democrat? I can think of plenty of reasons to vote for neither a democrat or a republican.
When the hell are some third parties going to get their act together? Seriously, neither Johnson or Stein were on the ball, or they could have stolen a march or two on the Two Big Parties.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:44PM (21 children)
Not really. Neither Johnson nor Stein had any charisma to speak of. Plus neither was goofy-looking enough to be a serious presidential contender. Seriously, think about the past half-dozen Presidents. You know I'm right.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:50PM (2 children)
Then an oompaloompa.
The only way they can top the last 4 presidents is to find an Ewok to be president. Or a Gorilla.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:31AM (1 child)
We just had 8 years of a gorilla.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:52PM
It was at least a change from the previous 8 years of a monkey.
My only problem is that we have the wrong orangutan. Dr. Zaius 2020!
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:50PM
I like Daryl Perry personally
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:42PM (7 children)
I was considering voting for Johnson, but in the end decided not to. It wasn't lack of charisma that turned me off. It was that he was so blitheringly pig-ignorant about any issues beyond marijuana legalization. "What's Aleppo?" Honestly, if you know less about foreign affairs than I do then you are just not fit to be Commander in Chief. Listen up, Libertarians! (And all you other third parties, too!) You still have three years to get yourself up to speed for 2020. I really suggest you use your time wisely.
As is your usual habit, you once again miss the mark. By quite a fair bit. Why am I not surprised?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:24PM (3 children)
neither had a chance to win anyways so you should have voted for the party you wanted to see field a candidate in the future instead of voting for known scum in the uniparty. maybe you're just too dumb to be voting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @03:08AM (1 child)
And if you think that Presidents actually have any real power then maybe you're too ignorant to be telling people they shouldn't be voting?
WTF is the President supposed to do? He's the head of the Armed Forces. So fucking what. Zaphod Beeblebrox was elected president of the Galaxy to distract the idiots from how the government actually works. Go back to school, try again. Your geek education didn't take.
Protip: Donald Trump was a registered Democrat. His establishment is still covertly harassing right wingers under COINTELPRO II. If you give a fuck about presidents then why do you care what banner they run under? Don't you know that ALL of the parties, even the Pirate Party and Greens are just platforms that differ only slightly on a few key issues?
Let me know when a candidate mentions theft via inflation or CELLDAR. Until then your votes are meaningless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:27AM
> Donald Trump was a registered Democrat.
One writer called Trump's party registration "fungible." [thesmokinggun.com] He says he's "evolved." [politifact.com]
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Friday November 03 2017, @05:32PM
A - "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. "
B - "Mos Eisley spaceport?"
A - No, Washington DC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:05PM
Because Trump knows so much about foreign policy. At least Johnson knew enough to stay out of the affairs of others countries and to stop wasting money and lives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:30AM (1 child)
The Aleppo question was asked immediately following a back-and-forth regarding the two-party US election system [time.com]. There was no indication that the interviewer had changed the subject, and no additional context was given before asking the question:
Competent interviewers generally provide some lead-in to changes in subject, for the benefit both of the interviewee and of the audience. Unless, that is, the actual intent of the interview is to trick the interviewee and make them appear foolish.
Good job the US media remain resolutely politically neutral.
So I contend that Johnson did not actually ask "what is Aleppo?", but "what is a leppo?".
Something to do with particle physics, isn't it?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 03 2017, @07:01AM
Which is why Johnson's response should have been "kill every single one", or "nuke them from orbit, it's the only way to be sure". That would have given him half of the Republicannon and Democrater vote immediately.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:50PM (1 child)
What do they need charisma for?
The important questions are: Are they competent? Are their goals good for the country? Are they honest about their goals?
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:52PM
You must be new here.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:55PM
Goddammit, I am still mad that we never got to see the campaign John McAfee would have run in the general. How he placed behind Petersen is mindnumbing.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:54PM (5 children)
I find it sad and troubling that charisma is a highly valued leadership quality. Some of the most evil people in history had great charisma. It would be amazing if our education system would teach and encourage children to look for and vote for good qualities and character. I can't help but wonder how much better we all would live, and how much more social progress would be made if we voted based on intelligence, honor, dedication, unity, fairness, honesty, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:41PM
If schools taught those things, education would be forbidden.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:59PM (3 children)
You're asking humans to be angels instead of the talking animals they are.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:08PM
I think he's asking humans to not be absolutely retarded, which is still too much to ask for.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:34AM (1 child)
He's not wanting people to be angels, just that they be able to distinguish angels from devils.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @03:16AM
Alright, but we know who the devils are.
What are you limp-wristed keyboard warriors going to do about it?
Fucking Nothing. So it doesn't matter.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:47PM (48 children)
Pretty sure Stein offered him her Green ticket with her as VP to compete, but instead he threw his supporters under the bus and told them to vote Hillary.
The bigger issue though is nobody willing to sacrifice 4 years of a shitty president in order to get a party up to the 5-10 percent for federal campaign funds and so they can push them into the national debates.
If that happened with 2-3 new parties getting on the ticket, we could finally have some real competition for the while house, although we'd need to knock off the electoral college and move to a wholly popular vote to have an real change (and unless we wanted a tyranny of the largest minority, a more to a non-FPTP voting system, so a candidate needed at least 51 percent of the TOTAL popular vote to win, not just a majority of votes over the other candidates. Not enough votes? Hold another election.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:50PM (27 children)
I don't know about "willing", but if Trump's presidency doesn't change voting patterns at least somewhat, it's completely hopeless. That man is a bloody disaster.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:40PM (20 children)
I like him more than I did when I voted for him. I didn't really believe he'd take his campaign promises so seriously. Sure, I can gripe:
* I don't like the situation with the FCC and net neutrality.
* She isn't locked up yet. Neither is Obama.
* There are still Muslims sneaking into our country. The numbers are reduced, but they need to be negative. We need action that will ultimately reduce the infestation to zero.
* The DACA people are still here, mostly.
* I'm really impatient about the wall. At least we have prototypes and a budget. I'm not satisfied with anything less imposing than the Korean DMZ.
Thing is though, Hillary would have done better on at most 1 of those. We're making progress. You could even say we have hope and change, finally fulfilling Obama's empty promise.
You're out of touch with mainstream America if you don't feel the love for President Trump. Probably you hate America. If I could physically do it, I'd have a huge silly grin 24x7. President Trump has done so many wonderful things for our country.
(Score: 3, Touché) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:46PM
Oh really, you don't think Hillary would have done better than Trump at fulfilling Trump's campaign promises? Shock!
That one she would've done is jailing herself, right?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:46PM (17 children)
How much is Russia paying you to post this drivel? Just asking.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Sulla on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:20PM (1 child)
Not as much as Correct the Record or Share Blue is paying you.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Friday November 03 2017, @09:54AM
Am I the only one here who isn't a psychic?
The existence of genuine Trump fans is not some fiction propagated by RT.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:22PM (14 children)
I got paid a half million less than the $500,000 which Bill Clinton got from Russians as a "speaking fee" (bribe) while Hillary Clinton was our secretary of state.
Outside your bubble, there were Trump signs everywhere and giant rallies. Yes, really, a large part of America loves President Trump. The vast majority of the counties voted for him. If you aren't seeing that, you aren't seeing America. We love our president, and you should too. (an exception: feel free to hate him if you are not a citizen)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:13PM (3 children)
Translation: Trump won the rural vote.
Why?
I didn't love Obama, Bush, or Clinton. Do you have a politician fetish?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:28PM
That's what all good little fascists do right?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:44PM (1 child)
Take a big drive. Loop around the country by car, avoiding interstates and the stuff within a couple dozen miles of the coast. America is rural.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:12PM
Translation: When planning a road trip through rural parts of the country, avoid population dense areas.
This is getting pretty funny. I don't even know what point you're trying to make besides finding different ways to describe rural areas.
What's next, "randomly throw a dart at the map of the US - it will most likely land in a rural area"?
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:28PM (9 children)
I got paid a half million less than the $500,000 which Bill Clinton got from Russians as a "speaking fee" (bribe) while Hillary Clinton was our secretary of state.
Donald Trump Jr. is getting $100,000 for university speech sponsored by GOP donor’s company [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:43PM (8 children)
That isn't even remotely similar aside from being a paid speech.
There is a group that sponsors events to fund National Merit Scholarships for UNT students. It's funded by various corporations, probably as a mix of good PR, trying to win favor with employable students, and CEOs having a personal desire to help the university. Being in Texas, obviously the companies and the speakers and the students are all generally conservative Americans.
There is a legit purpose here, that being the scholarships. There isn't a foreign connection. There isn't even really a business connection; all you have is that companies which donate to the GOP also happen to donate for National Merit Scholarships at a school in Texas.
This is yet another nothingburger.
Bill Clinton on the other hand, didn't have any good purpose for giving a speech in Russia. It's hard to imagine any non-corrupt reason that Russians would pay him.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:55PM (7 children)
That isn't even remotely similar....
You're right, they're very dissimilar.
Bill Clinton's $500k Russia speech is an unproven allegation. [snopes.com]
Whereas my Trump Jr article includes the actual contract.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Sulla on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:27PM (2 children)
I'm at a loss, did I miss a news article about Trump giving that company our nuclear stockpile for pennies on the dollar?
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:46PM (1 child)
Deflections work better when the topic you're deflecting to actually happened.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Friday November 03 2017, @04:39AM
I am at a loss as to what "didn't happen"
Selling the Russian's Uranium? Or the Clintons receiving money from several people closely associated with Uranium One and Bill receiving speaking fees?
Both happened. The best you can claim is that it was just coincidence. It all comes down to whether you think a woman who lied at being shot at in Kosovo, has promised on tape her funders different things than her voters, and was fired from her first law job for lying, is telling the truth about receiving a ton of money from Uranium One associates and then helping lubricate the wheels in getting a transfer approved.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:31PM (3 children)
Bill Clinton's $500k Russia speech is proven. The only thing unproven is pay-for-play, but... why exactly would Russians desire so strongly to hear Bill Clinton speak?
We have pictures of Bill Clinton in Russia for the speech:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/24/pictures-of-bill-clinton-giving-a-500k-speech-in-moscow/ [breitbart.com]
Got irrational hatred for Breitbart? Fine, you can "fact check" on ever-liberal politifact then:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/26/peter-schweizer/fact-checking-clinton-cash-author-claim-about-bill/ [politifact.com]
Fuck, that is a dozen foreign countries while his wife was secretary of state.
Trump Jr gave a speech in Texas. You might not have realized it, but Texas is within the United States of America. It's not foreign.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:27PM (1 child)
He was exporting "speech" (aka hot air) and bringing good money in USA, what's wrong with that?
That's still a job you won't see taken by robots any time soon, in fact I would suggest you open an university course for that.
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @06:16AM
I think Tay could replace Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos and Ricky Vaughn. I think Tay could have been elected President, if Microsoft hadn't shut her down.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @03:20AM
I see you don't know many Texans.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:30PM
I'm trying to figure if this is Poe's law or not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:33PM (5 children)
I love him, unlike the disaster of do-nothing Obama.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:49PM (4 children)
If Obama was a "do-nothing" why is Trump spending so much time, and having so much trouble, undoing what Obama did?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:43PM (2 children)
Obama did stuff. He just didn't do much that was good for America.
One of the really painful things for me is knowing that Obama got reelected. The other is knowing that Hillary got a non-zero number of votes. These are the votes of people who despise America, Americans, and American values. Such people are not deserving of the country they infest.
If you aren't on board with curing the sickness that ails America, you should leave. Move to Mexico, Greece, Cuba, Venezuela, or Sweden. Give up your US citizenship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:34PM
You first, you fascist scumbag who hates the real America!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @01:26PM
May I go to Germany, where my ancestors came from, instead? Sweden sounds like a swell country, and I'd gladly go there. It's just that I speak German, not Swedish.
Germany's already experienced this nationalism thing and grew up. I'm not excited about being in the USA as it goes through the same thing.
Also I would like to live somewhere where getting around on bikes is something that isn't just for children. My host family on the exchange trip I took there way back in high school used bikes, walking, or bus for everything unless they were leaving town.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @09:29AM
Starting out by re-opening Guantanamo?
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:56PM (18 children)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact [wikipedia.org]
It's a nice sentiment, but um...you're aware this is how the Nazis came to power, yes? They were the plurality party (33%) but nobody wanted to make a coalition with them so they kept holding votes without getting anywhere. Then they just sort of said "fuck it" and declared themselves in charge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932 [wikipedia.org]
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:23PM (5 children)
That sounds great in theory, but why would over-represented states like Wyoming and Rhode Island ever agree to that?
There have also been numerous efforts to have a single national primary day ... which Iowa and New Hampshire will never ever ever agree to, in part because it's just about the only time anybody who doesn't live there gives a damn about either Iowa or New Hampshire.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:43PM
Oh, they wouldn't. But the thing is, we don't really need them to, since California already joined and they just need 50%+1 electoral votes. Texas, Florida, Arizona, Indiana, and Michigan would get it to exactly the magic number right now.
And actually Rhode Island has already passed it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:21PM (3 children)
I'm from Iowa, and most people here don't like being the first caucus. Additionally, the ones that do are slowly aging out of the human race. Younger people are getting savvy to the fact that politicians show up get votes and then disappear for months, only to show up again because we are a swing state, and then disappear again until the next cycle. Plus, we also know that going early in the primary/caucus system wastes votes. Last cycle had 5 Dems and 17 GOPs on the slate, for goodness sake and many precincts were decided by 1 vote and a relatively large fraction had "nonviable" votes, which are symbolic on their face. No the only ones that want to be first in the state are the state parties, major TV stations and the Register; you really only get dissenting opinion in the media from independent pundits and IPTV political programs, probably because they aren't getting that sweet, corrupting cash.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:49PM
At least they show up. Here in solid blue country (CA), politicians only show up for fund raisers.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:37PM
I'm born and raised in New Hampshire, and I never minded the quadrennial circus coming to town. It boosts business for a lot of restaurants and such, and it gives 'em way more voting power than they really should have.
Also, New Hampshire has a fairly good track record of picking wisely, mostly in who we want to not win:
- In 1992, New Hampshire voted for Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton, mostly on the grounds that Clinton was a philandering scumbag. We were right.
- In 2000, had the rest of the country listened to New Hampshire, we would have had John McCain in charge in 2001 rather than George W Bush. Say what you will about John McCain, but he's consistently opposed torture (no surprise - he was tortured himself), and might not have been dumb enough to let Al Qaida hijack those planes in the first place.
- In 2016, New Hampshire absolutely had the right idea about Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:12PM
Believe me, I love Iowa! I had a big rally in Cedar Rapids in June. To celebrate Karen Handel's huge victory. Amazing, amazing rally! youtu.be/H4ILRco6CNo [youtu.be] @VP Pence also paid you a visit in June. And I went to Iowa again two weeks ago. I reminded the Heritage Foundation about my commitment to Iowa's wonderful biofuel industry. To keeping the Renewable Fuel Standard exactly as it is, no changes at all. I kept my promise. Carl Icahn hates that! He could make a lot of money if I changed RFS. But Senator Grassley and Senator Ernst, who has a terrific smile, love what I did. Which was nothing at all. #TRUMP2020 🇺🇸
(Score: 3, Touché) by crafoo on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:24PM (7 children)
... and then they turned around the economy, kicked out non-native investment banking ruining their monetary system, and in general, got the place back on track after some grossly abusive agreements with the "winners" of WWI.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:51PM (1 child)
.... and then they turned around the economy, kicked out non-native investment banking ruining their monetary system, and in general, got the place back on track after some grossly abusive agreements with the "winners" of WWI.
And all it took was a smidge of genocide!
Glad you care more about money that being an actual evil human being.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:44AM
The genocides came later
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:43PM (4 children)
So you're literally cheering on the rise of the Nazis. Are you dumb? Trolling? Or actually a neo nazi?
YAY NATIONALISM! /sarcasm
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:46AM (2 children)
He's cheering the economic turnaround of a downtrodden and persecuted nation. Not everything is identity politics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @02:15AM
One thing I've been wondering about human sociology and psychology lately is whether such a miraculous recovery is possible without the genocide part.
My hypothesis is that it is not. People define themselves by what they hate. Without a common enemy, people find life lacking in meaning.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Saturday November 04 2017, @03:39AM
Thanks. I guess I'm old fashioned. I think civic pride and love for your countrymen is a good thing. So much could be accomplished if we worked together. It feels like there are forces that see that as a danger and constantly slam in wedges to prevent it. I think this latest round of identity politics is this method, fully weaponized. It's quite literately splitting people up based on race/gender/sex/whatever and assigning oppression points. Then pitting them against each other.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 03 2017, @07:25AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:02PM
The problem wasn't requiring 51% or the popular vote to take power, nor was it the lack of interest in forming a coalition. The problem was:
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 03 2017, @01:00AM
What happened is that they were able to game a vote [wikipedia.org] to give Hitler the power to make law. It took teaming up with the Centre Party, and excluding most of the people (all the Communists and some of the Social Democrats) that would vote against the measure - plus some good, old fashion thuggery to intimidate would be fence sitters and procedural shenanigans. Three months later, the Nazi Party was the only legal party in Germany. Hitler was astoundingly good at negotiating with others. He wasn't so good at keeping promises once he got what he wanted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @03:23AM (1 child)
What if one day all the rulers of the world woke up and realized that all they really care about is staying in power and that if they all collude with each other pretending to be at odds, then they can cement their rulership while all of us peons fight and die to subsidize their expensive fun?
What if that happened a long time ago, as evidenced by the fact that Hitler lived to a ripe old age and was partially funded by US banks?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday November 03 2017, @02:36PM
I wouldn't exactly call 56 "a ripe old age." It was kind of dumb luck he made it that far, considering there were several assassination attempts that almost got him.
Yeah, the current situation sucks too; I'm just saying careful what you wish for. The Weimar Republic sounded like a great idea on paper.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:01PM
Moving to something other than first-past-the-post would be a good move, and could even be done state-by-state rather than have to be done all in one go, making it more likely to actually happen.
Switching to a completely popular vote for President ignores the entire rationale for having a federal system in the first place, though. It's a really stupid idea, and it was a really stupid idea when we switch to it for Senators (and removing that particular check has indeed resulted in a major expansion of federal government over-reach). It is, however, a really popular idea to a certain class of people (not only Democrats by any means) who hate the idea of checks and balances (when it's their ideas being checked) and want to make things as easy for themselves as possible.
The delusion (again shared by both parties) that "this time it's forever" after a win doesn't help matters.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:47PM (7 children)
The reality is that by far the largest numbers of voters are going to vote R or D, and no argument anyone has put forward over many decades has even put a dent in that behavior. We can wish it otherwise, but that's all it is, a wish.
So we're stuck with "lesser evil." It's unfortunate, but it's not showing any sign at all of changing.
There's another problem, too – sometimes voting in ways that bump off both parties can leave us with by far the worst choice. Someone like Trump, for example.
Sometimes it's just better to just swallow the distaste and vote smart, if not well.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aclarke on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:02PM
And this is why you can't have nice things.
The whole system is rigged to prevent third party candidates. I know there are cries at the moment of "who said both parties were the same", but really they're more alike than different. Look at the breadth of political opportunity in the world, and then look where the Rs & Ds show up on the graph.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:30PM (4 children)
In other words, *Surrender, just give up*... Well, by the looks of things, it appears you already have. You are looking at the results of your "lesser evil" game, and the only ones to blame are those that play along.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Funny) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:51PM (3 children)
No. Not at all. Things are changing, albeit slowly. It's not a linear curve upwards - in fact we are experiencing a pretty radical slip back on several fronts right now - but there's no reason to expect a monotonic upward trend, and I don't. Sure, I regret the backsliding - but I've been around long enough to see progress on a lot of fronts. So there's no "giving up" implied.
No, I'm not. Really. The lesser evil was Clinton, and I voted for her. Along with the plurality of voters, in fact.
I am not to blame for the sniveling orange tweet-monster. That blame you can lay at the feet of those who voted for him for whatever reason they may have had, and the damaged operation of the electoral college, which did not do the job it was intended to do, which was protect us from unqualified bloviators like Trump.
As for the R/D party thing, we're stuck with it, IMHO. If you think you can fix it, by all means, give it a try. Run for office, serve as a warm body in a political campaign, vote any way you like. Just keep in mind that if you vote 3rd party, when the election goes to the very worst candidate, as it did with Trump, your 3rd party vote, and all the people who voted 3rd party, might have been able to keep that from happening.
Me, I'll vote for the better candidate R/D. Because I am sure one of them is going to win. I'm in my 60's, and I haven't been wrong about that yet - and I've voted in every election I was allowed to. Ron Paul was the closest anyone came in my lifetime; and he wasn't all that close.
If you do manage to field a candidate that can beat the R/D monopoly and is actually the best candidate (just being able to beat them doesn't count, some winning candidates are idiots [cough, Trump]), I might well vote for them, contribute to the war chest, etc.
But that's the key, you see: no one has done so yet, so I'm not holding my breath.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Gaaark on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:17PM (2 children)
" The lesser evil was Clinton, and I voted for her."
Yet was she the lesser evil or the equal evil?
She was willing to do whatever it took to win: thoroughly screw Bernie even though HE WAS the better (and leading) candidate. Rewrite history with her book "Wha' happen?" and blame everyone but herself for the loss (certainly not herself, her husband or Wasserman-Schultz).
She is weak and lame: Bernie was the better candidate but she and the DNC STOLE the election from him.
She is not a lesser evil: Bernie was the lesser evil. Just think: you COULD have had a good President: instead you had to choose between devils.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fyngyrz on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:17PM (1 child)
Lesser. Far lesser. But still evil.
I would have preferred Bernie, personally (and he was still evil in my eyes.) But it really doesn't concern me much how she conducted her competition with Sanders as far as what I would expect from her in the presidency. In that role, I evaluate her as a business-as-usual Democrat, which means that in many way she would have carried on the status quo. That would have been far superior to Trump, not that he turned out to have the chops to get any of it done anyway, between that and the incompetent Republicans in congress, it's been even worse than I initially thought when considering Trump.
So yeah, I think Clinton would have been better. A lot better. Than Trump. Better than Sanders? No way. If Sanders had been the candidate, he definitely would have had my vote. I voted for him in the primary. I still nurse a vague hope he runs next time around, assuming his health holds up. Perhaps he can navigate the shoals of the oligarchy better on a second try.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday November 03 2017, @12:49AM
I'm Canadian and I wanted to vote for Bernie, lol.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:23PM
Do you honestly believe that voting for the 'lesser evil' - something every moronic low-information voter has thought of - counts as voting "smart"? There is nothing even remotely smart or strategic about that. I'd rather have the 'greater evil' if it wakes people up to the fact that we need to fundamentally reform our voting system ASAP. For instance, thanks to the whole Trump fiasco, we now have the Justice Democrats who are trying to get the corporatists out of the party. Whether they succeed or not, we have to try. There are times when you need to lose in the short-term before you can win in the long-term, so don't waste this opportunity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:48PM (28 children)
When the hell are some third parties going to get their act together? Seriously, neither Johnson or Stein were on the ball, or they could have stolen a march or two on the Two Big Parties.
This, and also the rest of the politics in this nation, are a great illustration of Lord Dark Helmet's quip, "Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." [wired.com]
Just look at how Trump won, despite being so disliked: the DNC lost because they were simply stupid, as an organization. They insisted on pushing a candidate even more disliked than Trump, a candidate with negative charisma, if that's even possible, instead of going with the guy that had young people turning out in droves for rallies the way Obama did in 2008. And you're right, the third parties were pretty awful too. Johnson in particular was an awful pick, because he was obviously a brain-dead pothead who knew nothing about global politics, as shown when he didn't even know what Aleppo was, even though it was all over the news at the time. I certainly knew what it was, and had some basic understanding of what was going on in Syria at the time and some very basic knowledge of the geography, and that's just from me reading the mainstream news, and this guy is supposedly a full-time politician and can't even be bothered to know that much and he wants to be President? Are you kidding?
The fundamental problem here is that our politicians and political parties are completely and utterly incompetent. We would do better grabbing some random people off the street to be our leaders. This latest leak from the DNC certainly doesn't help their cause, and again proves their incompetence; one big reason they lost last year is because they're seen as out-of-touch, and this just proves it even more to people who have that viewpoint.
Don't forget, another big reason the Dems lost is because of the massive email leak from DNC servers, showing all the dirty tricks they played in killing Bernie's campaign. So they're already proven they suck at IT and IT security; they think barring white guys (who are the vast, vast majority of IT workers and experts) is going to help them here?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:01PM (22 children)
"had young people turning out in droves for rallies"
There's something to that, if I can just articulate it. The DNC really really should have gone with Bernie, on that score alone. The future belongs to those kids, after all. Now, I'm not all crazy about putting kids in charge, or letting them express their contempt/disrespect toward the previous generation(s). There's some kind of balance that is appropriate here. The little fokkers who state plainly that they can't wait for the last of the Baby Boomers to die aren't fit to run anything at all. Still - they're all going to be in the future, and we aren't. Unless we shoot some of the mouthiest little bastards first.
Hmmmmm . . . a possible final service for humanity? Take out a couple of lowlifes as we exit ourselves? Alright, alright, I'm just kidding. Or mostly kidding. Or not . . .
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:10PM (15 children)
There's something to that, if I can just articulate it. The DNC really really should have gone with Bernie, on that score alone.
Exactly, I agree 100%. Hillary should have stepped aside for him. I'm not even going to go into the rest of your comment about them, but recent history is clear: the Dems always lose when they nominate someone who has no charisma. Bernie had charisma, and Hillary did not. And Obama's election proved that when you have a popular, charismatic candidate who gets young people to actually show up at the polls, that's a recipe for success. The DNC didn't learn that obvious lesson, and instead decided to knife the campaign of that candidate and go with the highly unpopular, unlikeable, and uncharismatic candidate, and then were shocked, shocked!! when they lost.
(Score: 1) by Sourcery42 on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:20PM (1 child)
Maybe no charisma, but they thought she had Joementum.
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:43PM
Oh yeah, I wouldn't be surprised at all if they decided to run "Creepy Uncle Joe" next, Breitbart and the independent media would have a field-day repeatedly showing clips of Creepy Uncle Joe committing public frotteurism against uneasy women and young girls alike.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:35PM (2 children)
But it was her turn!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sure if you think Bernie could stop the Trump Train, but even if he won he would be murdered once he started his "Socialist Utopia" BS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:32PM
Can we put this guy into a REAL watchlist? Y'know, the kind where you can keep an eye on him and not worry about him moving farther than 10 feet in any direction?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:28PM
A few points about that:
1. Bernie Sanders still has about a 55% approval rating. That's about 15-20% higher than either the Democrats, the Republicans, or Donald Trump. He even has about 1/3 of people who usually vote Republican saying they like him. In his home state, he has an 85% approval rating, which is almost unheard of.
2. Bernie never tried to hide his socialist streak. That doesn't seem to have changed his poll numbers that much. Possibly because when younger people hear the word "socialism" they think "Denmark", not "hide under your desks, the commies are going to nuke us!"
3. The actual policies Bernie is advocating for are not out of line from when the Democrats were actually popular. Compare Bernie's rhetoric to Franklin Roosevelt's rhetoric, and you'll see some common threads.
4. Trump trying to do the "anti-establishment" thing against Bernie Sanders would have backfired. Pictures like this [mintpressnews.com] with the Trumps and Clintons being part of George Carlin's "big club" would have made the rounds.
So unless you're saying someone would have assassinated him, I'm not at all convinced that his chances would have been bad.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:19PM (8 children)
but you are missing the point
the DNC didn't want bernie to win. he was an irritatant that grew attention away from their annoited one who had already made the deals they needed to enrich themselves after she won.
he'd completely ruin everything for them and that wasn't going to happen because trump wasnt going to win anyway and they weren't just going to *hand* it over to bernie!
greed and corruption is a problem in both parties. it wasn't strategic stupidity, that they didn't see he was a winner -- indeed, that was the DNC's primary problem as they saw it. He was a threat, not a solution.
now look at them
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Oakenshield on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:44PM (7 children)
It's all over the news that Donna Brazile just turned traitor on the DNC and outed them for rigging the primaries. Hell, I even read it on Slate. The corruption is so bad that they're now eating each other.
But it's still the Russians that cost Hillary the Presidency. Or was it Comey? Or the Electoral College? Or Breitbart I can't keep it straight.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:09PM (6 children)
Didn't hear about it, made a journal on it. Thanks.
I still don't think Comey reopening and reclosing an investigation days before the election did Clinton any favors. And there was no comparable hack+leak on the RNC side (leaking sends people into a frenzy regardless of the contents).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:54PM (5 children)
Are you brain damaged or just shilling? October 7 ring any bells? Hint: pussy grab
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @12:43AM
That isn't even remotely comparable. The Russian collusion (The details of which did not come to light prior to election day) is comparable.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday November 03 2017, @12:43AM (3 children)
That video had nothing to do with the RNC, and it wasn't hacked as far as I know. Learn 2 read. ☪
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday November 03 2017, @01:33AM
Neither was the DNC's mail server. Both were leaks, one from inside NBC News / Access Hollywood and the other from within the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich. Hillary Clinton had him killed, we still do not know who leaked the Billy Bush & Donald Trump video but we can be pretty sure Trump wouldn't have killed whoever did leak it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @04:40PM (1 child)
Nope, that video was something the Democrats (and NBC) kept in their back pockets to release at a time when it would cause the most damage to Trump, or alternatively when they had some bad news they really wanted to bury. Which is of course why the video was released the same time as Wikileaks published a bunch of Podesta's emails showing what two-faced Clinton was telling her rich donors in private versus what she was telling everyone else in public, a month before election day.
That video was from 2005, and they could have released it anytime. If they released it a year prior it may have well buried Trump right then and one of the other dozen or so Republican candidates would likely be president today. But the whole plan was to rig things so that Clinton would run against a buffoon like Trump, so they could bury him and she'd be elected as the lessor evil. But it backfired, because Clinton was just that terrible. So the moral of the story is that DNC didn't just give us Clinton, they also gave us Trump.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday November 04 2017, @05:21PM
It's not uncommon to have a President from another party after 2 terms of Dem or Rep.
Although the loss of Supreme Court picks will be a huge disappointment for Democrats, they couldn't ask for a more dysfunctional and divided Republican party right now. Republicans in Congress can barely agree on anything and they are repeatedly undermined and disparaged by the President.
Democrats would have to pull off a miracle to win the Senate in 2018 since more Democratic seats are up for election than Republican (23 D, 8 R, 2 I). Maybe Trump will be that miracle.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:22PM
It's sad that people see the election as a race to win more power for your side rather than an opportunity to pick the best person to lead the executive branch. Charisma > Skill
(Score: 4, Insightful) by crafoo on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:26PM (4 children)
"Now, I'm not all crazy about putting kids in charge, or letting them express their contempt/disrespect toward the previous generation(s)"
Why not? I don't think the previous generations have earned respect. They sold out future generations for their own benefit and then saddled them with an absurd mandatory health insurance system. Widespread and systematic disrespect is exactly what they deserve.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:33PM (3 children)
Is Obama a Baby Boomer?
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:58PM
The early baby boom was roughly 1944 through 1954, and the late baby boom (sometimes called Generation Jones) was 1955 through 1964. Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii in 1961.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:59PM (1 child)
Obama is late baby boom. The early baby boomer presidents were Bill Clinton and George W Bush, and as someone towards the elder end of what is called "millennial" I'm not impressed.
As for the earlier point, one of the things that's actually notable about the millennials is that they on average don't hate their elders much at all. They maybe should, for reasons mentioned up this thread, but they don't. I mean, how about the simple fact that their overwhelming support went to a guy in his 70's?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:49PM
Hating your elders' generations doesn't mean you can't see that one particular person is an exception to that generation.
I'm all about hating on the Boomers and also the Xers (which is funny because I'm an Xer, though one of the younger ones). These generations have done a terrible job in how they've run this country. But that doesn't mean that everyone in those generations is a bad person; it just means that overall, those generations of people have sucked at politics and management. There were great people in every generation.
Similarly, it's not irrational to hate politicians in general, while granting an exception to one or two of them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @05:47PM
I thought that was what the draft was meant to prevent.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:47PM
They hired a non-white to run IT for the House of Representatives. He was from Pakistan.
He spends 2/3 of his time in Pakistan. He or somebody else logs in from Pakistan. He starts blackmailing members of congress.
Think about that. Almost half of our House of Representatives was compromised. A whole political party was being blackmailed by Pakistan.
So, for the DNC... maybe do that again? Maybe this time go with India or China? More diversity!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Thursday November 02 2017, @04:45PM
The fundamental problem here is that our politicians and political parties are completely and utterly incompetent.
After all the bullshit, these people still have to win your vote. Where is the incompetence really?
We would do better grabbing some random people off the street to be our leaders.
Yes, congress should be more like jury duty than a career. They are supposed to be public servants. We still have to power to remind them every two years.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:01PM
I'm not so sure. They seemto do just fine for the people that fund them and also fund the people that lobby them constantly. If you assume that they serve extreme wealth and not the general population, I think they've been relatively competent.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:41PM
The DNC lost a lot more than a single election. The way they coronated Clinton revealed a lot about the workings of the party and none of it was good. They seemed to feel she was due and so had to be the one and only choice, constituents be damned. In the aftermath, I'm not hearing a lot of realization that nobody is OWED the presidency. That failure is why with the GOP running a slate of practically unelectable candidates the DNC managed to lose anyway.
The leak was part of the chain of events, but had they understood that nobody is DUE or at least recognized that democracy is the greater good, there would have been no dirty tricks and the leaked email would have been as interesting as paint drying.,
Trump is the president because the DNC scored an own goal.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Friday November 03 2017, @10:35AM
If he'd been a D or R they wouldn't have tried it. Well maybe if his name was Trump.
His foreign policy positions were far more knowledgeable than the others (well, you could call Hillary knowledgeable, just faithfully representing her constituency of Existential Evil, but you get the point.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:52PM
That most people vote Democrat for the same reason you and yours vote republican, right?
They are more concerned about what the OTHER guy is going to do with their 4-8 years than they are with what 'their guy' is going to do the next 4-8 years.
And y'know what? Both sides waste those 4-8 years bitching about the last guy while being apologists for their guy.
America is Old Yeller. Now who has the gun.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:20PM (1 child)
Did you fact check or do you normally jump to conclusions?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday November 02 2017, @03:26PM
I was waiting for you to come along and do the fact checking. If you can't do your job, we'll get someone else to do it. And, no overtime, either.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arcz on Thursday November 02 2017, @06:39PM (2 children)
The problem is that third party candidates are pretty wacky. While I'd love to run a politiical party myself, the outlook of it suceeding seems low enough due to election laws that I wont bother.
Laws that stop lobbying and limit donations and whatnot serve their intended purpose: Protecting big political parties at the expense of small ones. To be honest, the problems we face starting new parties are: Limits on who you can "endorse" for a political party. Limits on how much you can spend. Etc.
New political parties aren't started by masses. They are started by small groups who are very dedicated; funding limits basically make it illegal to start a new political party. If you think that politics can be run by the masses, you need a reality check. The masses can choose who to vote for, but strong leadership of mutiple paries is ideal. Only strong leadership can ensure that a party's values are preserved. Our election laws gut the power of political parties such that there can only ever be two.
And don't even get me started on laws on how parties must hold primary elections and party allegiance and whatnot. This results in what you'd call party hijacking, a compromise of the core party values which leads to a slew of useless parties.
The worst part is, the Supreme Court OK'd most of these, which means we're stuck with it until we get better judges because congress has zero incentive to make congressional elections more fair. Since judges are elected for life, and usually don't like overruling old precedents, even if they disagree with them, this fix could take a loooooong time.
So how can we fix our laws?
1. Remove spending limits. Money is speech. Why should a journalist get more speeh power than an engineer? The engineer need to be able to use his money to advertise because he doesn't have an audience otherwise. Liberal media bias is a direct result of spending limits. (Yes, citizens united exists, but it doesn't go far enough in what kind of speech it protects.)
2. Return to entrepenureral capitalism. Stakeholder capitalism just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. This change probably had the largest impact on people's well-being and ended America's golden age. But 99% of people don't understand the real difference, and there isn't much literature on it. So maybe I should write a book, but I don't have an audience, so no one would read it. In a nutshell there are two major problems with America's currect capitalism: a) companies can own other companies, and b) companies have a legal duty to make profit for the stakeholder(the rich), screwing over the customers(everyone else) in the process.
3. Add more force to our constitution. Judges somehow like to ignore bits they don't like or use sovereign immunity as a defense. Sovereign immunity to torts is understandable, constitutional claims not so much. Qualified immunity is rather unforgivable. (though perhaps some form of qualified immunity would be acceptable, it effectively creates nobles immune from prosecution under our current case law; clearly contradicting the spirit of our constitution.)
4. Update our constitution. We need an electronic access amendment to our constitution. Seriously, we need to be able to keep track, digitally, of laws and whatnot. A GIT-like system would be ideal here, so we can look at changes to statutes as they are passed, proposed, etc.
5. Have our Courts do their jobs. Not ignoring cases, reading all arguments. Including arguments by pro se parties. Our courts are bad at reading arguments by pro se parties (I have personal experience with the 11th circuit and I can say for a fact that they basically just gloss over the table of contents of the brief if you are pro se instead of reading it. Thank the "staff attorney" program.) The Courts should not know if the party is pro se. The staff attorney programs ought to be held unconstitutional as in practice they result in a denial of access to the courts.
6. Money money money. People need to stick their money where their mouth is. If you want political change you NEED to get a group together and FUND the movement. If it's not important enough to fund, you propably either a) are a college student short on funds, b) are disabled, c) are not competent enough to get a decent job, d) don't care enough to bother, e) just have too much expenses, or f) just not social enough to organize a group.
I could keep going. But 99% of people aren't educated and intelligent enough to understand why these problems are more important than immigration policy. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's hard. Some very intelligent people would need to work together to solve this problem. Some of them aren't in a position to both do this kind of public-good work and make ends meet. Can it be fixed? Yes. Is it easy to fix? No.
(Score: 5, Informative) by mechanicjay on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:13PM
No they do not. https://medium.com/bull-market/there-is-no-effective-fiduciary-duty-to-maximize-profits-939ae50d0572 [medium.com]
This is a myth propagated by stakeholders to justify screwing others over...but there is NO legal requirement.
My VMS box beat up your Windows box.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:36PM
Because money isn't speech. There's absolutely no political idea conveyed on a check or credit card. And why should a rich person get more speech power than a poor person? Some rich people inherited their money and have done nothing worth bragging about. Some rich people are very very good at one thing, but no good at anything else. And some poor people are extremely smart, they're just stuck toiling away in a post-doc fellowship somewhere for $12,000 a year.
You seem to be ignorant of history. The first joint-stock company in what would become the US landed on US soil in 1607 as the "Virginia Company" - Jamestown was being managed for the benefit of stockholders back in the UK. Ditto for Massachusetts Bay in 1620. 300 stakeholder companies existed by 1800. by 1840, anyone could create a stockholder corporation. The New York Stock Exchange was founded in 1792, and financial trading was always part of the US economy. Point being, no matter when you pick for your "golden age", what you're calling stakeholder capitalism was alive and well and had significant effects on the economy.
Generally with you, although I'm curious what decisions exactly you object to.
You mean like this [house.gov]? Or maybe you want to browse through the text of laws passed since 1973 [congress.gov]? Or Supreme Court decisions since 1991 [supremecourt.gov]? Or every bureaucratic rule change and notification since 1994 [federalregister.gov]? That took me about 10 minutes, no poking around law libraries necessary.
Have you read some of the arguments that come in from pro se parties? They get a fair number of cases by spectacularly dumb people all the time.
Also, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that if you want to unclog the court systems enough so that every judge can give each case full consideration, you should be advocating for more judges and more courts. That would mean splitting existing circuits, of course.
What about people with legitimate points to make but no money? For example, people whose point is "I'm going broke doing this job, and I shouldn't be"? If your criteria for a "decent job" is "making enough money to pay your bills and then some", then what you're actually saying is that you don't believe the majority of people in this country should have any say whatsoever in what happens politically. Which is identical to saying you don't believe in democracy as an organizing principle of government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @07:21PM
i think what she said was that she wanted to give someone else a chance without enforcing affirmative action?
it didnt say anything about not allowing people like you, so why don't you apply and help change them from the inside?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @11:24PM
C'mon, Runaway! Sounds like your kind of people! All ready majority "cisgender straight while males", just like you purport to be yourself! So come on, Runaway! Come back to the Democrat Party! They need you. (Well, not really you, just your vote, and any cash you may have laying about, but you already knew that.) Tell us more about what you think Runaway! It's endlessly fascinating!!