search results matching tag: reformed
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.003 seconds
Videos (419) | Sift Talk (17) | Blogs (20) | Comments (1000) |
Videos (419) | Sift Talk (17) | Blogs (20) | Comments (1000) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
How Peter Braxton defeated a patent troll and still lost
Thank goodness TechDirt and the NYT continued to follow this story and outed the troll: Smart Options (in context even the name is f'ed up). It's a good read and even has cringingly terrible troll on troll fighting: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150510/07083630948/patent-trolls-frivolous-attack-startup-forces-startup-to-sell-out-to-another-patent-troll.shtml
Stories like this simply crush my desire to strike out on my own in software development. We seriously need patent reform!
Thanks for summing up the thoughts from the angry-human perspective that I share so much.
In seriousness, the guy is probably being the more respectable individual by not drawing attention to the offending party's identity. What you propose could easily happen today. (Though I've mixed feelings about it, generally trending toward the more vengeful, sadly).
Come Visit Australia
I'm glad we didn't make the same mistake the kind countries of Europe did, and instead we have a vetting process to help ensure that only genuine refugees are coming in. I'm not saying the approach is necessarily the best one, but what can you do when so many economic migrants are clogging the system (on purpose) for people in genuine need of help. (I'm a refugee myself btw).
If it was up to me I'd add some additional tests to ensure that these people are fit for a modern society too, you know, to make sure my daughter/wife/mother/sister etc can go outside on their own, unlike some cities in Europe now.
But then again if it was up to me, neither of the 3 major political parties would be in charge since they're all useless. Liberals are just a mouth piece for big business (literally, that's why they were formed). And they all also look like the bad guys from any 80s and 90s kids cartoon. The Labour party is well meaning, but ultimately as lame, pathetic and gut-less as their "leader", they simply don't stand for anything and all of their policies boil down the lowest common denominator. The Greens driven by emotion not facts, and now they don't even seem to care about the environment very much.
There needs to be some kind of progressive party that is capable of driving humanity forward into the future, instead of weighing it down with traditions of the past. The whole system needs a huge reform.
For any non-Australian viewers, the poisonous insect is our minister for border protection, who's ultimately in charge of the offshore Gulags mentioned.
Why Obama is one of the most consequential presidents ever
I doubt he'll be remembered as anything other than a massive disappointment
Edit: Re-reading that, it came across harsher than I had intended. I think Obama was a good guy with mostly good intentions (still not keen on his policy of murdering brown people in other countries without due process).
But his healthcare was half-assed, he did nothing about gun control, and he STILL hasn't closed Guantanamo. Meanwhile, privacy rights have further eroded under his watch, and whatever legislation he apparently put in place around Wall Street is clearly not working. I'm not sure he's even looked at campaign finance reform.
Granted, a lot of that is down to an increasingly intractable (read: borderline retarded) republican congress, but the fact remains, he didn't achieve nearly as much as was hoped for.
John Oliver: Primaries and Caucuses
Yes, we clearly disagree about independent voters' responsibilities. That's fine. Just know that when you assign blame, many won't accept it.
Yes, I also hope current poll numbers and trends reverse....unless Sanders IS the nominee, in which case I hope current poll numbers remain the same.
What? What argument? Instead of answering? I discussed your two suggestions, and offered two of my own, one being (I think) a more palatable alternative to your tax proposal for steadying markets, the other being campaign reform. To quote myself...
"Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests. A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between."
Is that an argument? It certainly wasn't meant as one.
It was meant as simple and fairly civil (if slightly snarky) answers to your question (answers that I guess you missed), with a note that IMO, my (and likely your) preferred planks are not going to be addressed acceptably by Clinton, and clear reasons why I think that. That was not meant to start an argument, I'm sorry you take it that way.
@newtboy
We'll have to agree to disagree about your responsibility for not stopping Trump from being elected. A lot of words there, a whole bunch. But what is true is -- if people, all sorts of people, don't go to the polls in November to stop him, then Trump has a good chance of being President the way it looks currently. That is just a simple fact, and all the words you type don't change that simple fact.
I do have hopes that his lead will disappear. Sarah Palin started out strong, too. Surely the moderates will save us and we won't need the independents who are so upset.
And lastly -- I asked a simple and civil question -- what planks would you like to see in the platform. Instead of answering, that too was turned into an argument.
So I have come to the end for me.
Feel free to have the last word. I'm content with that.
Thanks for engaging with me.
John Oliver: Primaries and Caucuses
No, I don't think I said that. Again, it would be nice, but if she locks it up (not counting super delegates) then Bernie's run as a Democrat is over, as is all hope. I don't hold onto even a shred of hope that he'll sway her policy, no matter what he gets her to say during the election.
She's already been incredibly inconsistent on the minimum wage thing, actually taking 3 positions in one sentence in one debate. Can't trust her.
Tax on investment transactions...you've GOT to be kidding, she'll never consider any such thing, it goes against her own, and her donors interests.
A speed limit on trading info so everyone has an equal chance would work better.
The one you didn't mention is the MOST important in my eyes, and also a non starter from her or them....campaign reform...both finance AND how elections operate from districts to electronic voting machines and everything in between. Without that, we'll never get candidates that will work for us OR fix the system that supports them, or even be able to trust our elections. As I see it, Sanders is our one and only hope of fixing the system, so the only hope of saving the union.
^
What gave the impression that you think Hillary should drop out is because you are calling for a "debate" at the convention EVEN IF she has it locked up.....
Progressive Dems To Clinton: This Race isn't Over
Interesting. In that scenario, after I regain consciousness and pick my jaw up off the floor, I would both support the only decision that I think might save the party (one I don't belong to, BTW) and the reform movement and I would support Clinton supporters in their complaints that it was totally unfair. (EDIT: To that end, fixing the system should be job 1 to return 'fairness' to the process)
What I think we need most of all is campaign reform, not just finance reform but complete election rules reform from redrawing district boundaries on up. Sanders is the only one with a dog in that fight...or at least with a dog on the right side of that fight, so if using the current unfair rules to that end is the only option, I would forgive it just this once, but I would expect it to be fixed so it won't happen again.
Yes, in a way it's lucky my vote 'doesn't count'. In another, it's incredibly disheartening. This primary vote may be the first vote in a presidential campaign I will have ever cast that might make a difference, and also may be the last.
Actually, I've ignored the superdelegates in my math because I've basically assumed that they will go with whoever has the popular vote at the convention, but since you brought them up....
There's one scenario no-one has considered yet; probably because it's extremely unlikely, but just for fun, let's say Bernie continues as projected and arrives at the convention trailing Hillary by about 200 delegates. Meanwhile, Trump has been attacking the ever-loving hell out of Hillary and her poll numbers in the general election are starting to look REALLY bad, as in Trump might/could/probably will/almost certainly will win.
So far, this is all pretty much what's going to happen.
But in this strange alternate dimension, the DNC pulls its head out of its collective arse and realises "holy shit, we could lose the white house! Hang on, Bernie polls much better against Trump!". Unable to convince Hillary to drop out, the superdelegates swing en masse to Bernie handing him the nomination AGAINST the popular vote.
How do you feel about this? On one hand, yay, #FeelTheBern, #FuckYouTrump and on to the white house and potentially the most significant change in US politics in decades (or not, who knows how much one president can actually do).
On the other hand.... there's no way around the fact that the DNC will have subverted the will of the people. If the situation was reversed, and the superdelegates gave the nomination to Hillary where Bernie (hypothetically) had more pledged delegates, well, there would be riots.
Interested to hear your thoughts on this scenario (unlikely as it is).
BTW, the fact that your vote is essentially meaningless (luckily for you, it happens to be meaningless in your favour) in your state is yet another symptom of just how very fucked the electoral college is.
Progressive Dems To Clinton: This Race isn't Over
That video explains exactly why in the end, voting for the lesser of two evils leads to the greater. Without a third party popping up from time to time forcing parties to realign nothing will ever change. The same two parties keep swapping power. The spoiler effect is a necessary sacrifice, required to effect change in a first past the post system.
Ideally our senators would implement voting reform and end first past the post. Not likely to happen if they are all benefiting from the current system.
...
Now in a sane political system, I would absolutely advocate voting for your favourite candidate, but the US election system is so fundamentally broken that voting for Bernie would hand Trump the election. That's the reality.
@Baristan
"Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. "
No, that doesn't happen. *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained
A third party rises up, splits the vote of it's nearest rival and then disappears over the next couple of election cycles.
...
Progressive Dems To Clinton: This Race isn't Over
@newtboy and @ForgedReality
First up, I'm not saying I like Hillary, but let's be real here; Trump is much, much worse.
Hillary's a liar and a felon (citation needed, btw)?
Trump wants to bring back torture, to close the country to Muslims and deliberately bomb people's families. Yeah, he might not get to do any of that, but the fact that he WANTS to is fucking terrifying.
So, yes, she's undoubtedly the lesser of two evils.
As for voting for someone other than Hillary or Trump, as far as I'm aware, right now, there aren't any other candidates announced (assuming Hillary gets the Dem nomination, which she will, as I already explained because numbers).
A quick google doesn't show any other third party candidates (although it did reveal that Roseanne Barr once ran!) for this year. Bernie has said nothing about running as an independent, so right now your options are almost certainly Trump or Clinton.
But let's say for the sake of argument that Hillary gets the dem nod and Bernie decides to run as an independent.
Now in a sane political system, I would absolutely advocate voting for your favourite candidate, but the US election system is so fundamentally broken that voting for Bernie would hand Trump the election. That's the reality.
@Baristan
"Voting your conscience and losing to Trump is far better!!! Eventually a third party can form and whittle away at the two sided party. "
No, that doesn't happen. *related=http://videosift.com/video/The-Problems-with-First-Past-the-Post-Voting-Explained
A third party rises up, splits the vote of it's nearest rival and then disappears over the next couple of election cycles.
Your voice is already inconsequential. The US badly needs election reform.
It SUCKS, and by FSM, I really hope I'm wrong. Maybe Bernie will somehow snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, but it's just really unlikely.
But above all, you cannot elect Trump. If you really think he wouldn't be worse than Hillary, then I'm sorry, but you're fucking delusional.
Look, I REALLY wanted Bernie to win. I even checked if there was some way I could donate to his campaign as a non-US citizen. But it didn't happen. You (plural, US voters, especially democrats) had your chance and y'all done fucked it up and now you have to live with the choices you've made.
Progressive Dems To Clinton: This Race isn't Over
I fear you are making the same mistake the Clinton campaign makes. You think that if the candidate of choice for so many, Bernie, is no longer an option, his supporters will vote for the other Democrat....but Bernie's supporters are largely independents that don't support him because he's the Democratic candidate of choice, they support him DESPITE the fact that he's running as a Democrat.
Bernie is supported because of his perceived honesty and the documented stances he takes on various issues, mostly finance reform but many, many others. It is not the kind of support you can hand off to someone else, particularly not to someone that is the antithesis of the stances and values that garnered the support in the first place. Even if Sanders does endorse Clinton (I think he will, he said he would and he's seemingly a man of his word), I'm guessing a large part, likely the majority of his supporters still won't vote for Clinton, most of the young ones will just not vote at all, and some will vote for Trump out of spite or anger. That may hand the house and senate to the Republican's as well....so it's even worse than you think.
Not to mention the likely indictment(s) a few weeks before the election with no time or opportunity for her to defend herself against the charges. The Republicans control that process, it's insanity to think they won't abuse it.
She doesn't just need Bernie, she needs the independents that want Bernie's policies. I fear she will NEVER get them, they mostly despise her and distrust her immensely, which is one more reason the DNC pushing so hard for her makes no sense to me, it's a game they can only lose, even if they win.
Quote hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)
I'm with you.
However. She may have the nomination but Bernie holds the power. He could scuttle her general election prospects by a lack of endorsement or 3rd party run. She needs Bernie.
Mordhaus (Member Profile)
Your video, Bernie Sanders On Campaign Finance Reform, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.
If Meat Eaters Acted Like Vegans
Let's be realistic, most of the work our war planes do has collateral damage. We don't simply use them on 'the bad guys', but again that is a simplification to allow you moral latitude.
Non-smokers are no better than smokers, I know since I used to be a smoker. Just because I decided that I no longer wanted to smoke doesn't mean I feel the need to go up to someone smoking and start telling them how much better I am that I quit. Again, I'm not any better of a person than they are, I just chose to do something different. That is one of the things you can't seem to grasp, because you continue to say that morally you are more good than someone who does not practice a vegan lifestyle. You aren't.
As far as the functional capacity for feelings, of course animals feel pain, it is a stimuli that helps in their survival instinct. That instinct is what drives them to avoid pain because it means they might not survive. It doesn't mean that they have the logical thought capacity to relate pain to more than an instinctual response. I am pretty sure that no pig ever felt pain and said to itself, I feel pain therefore I exist as a being, they felt the pain and instinct told them to get away from it. Plants even have stimuli that they will respond to in order to grow or try to avoid damaging forces, but they aren't self-aware. Neither are animals until you get to a certain level of intelligence, like dolphins or great apes.
I grew up in the country, I have seen first hand and used my hands in regards to the butchery you speak of. Never once have I had a pig who had seen another be slaughtered do anything that would give me the belief that they were responding in any other fashion than a "shit, flight time since I might be next" natural instinct that is in all prey animals. Factory farms may not be totally humane, and that should be reformed, but all they are doing in the end is killing prey animals on a much larger scale than I did growing up.
The warplane is designed to kill, but who is it killing - is it killing an evil dictator in order to save innocents? It might be on a peace keeping mission to discourage any killing. If it the warplane is killing only people who would otherwise be killing the innocent, then it's a tool used for good, it's saving more lives than it's taking, and more importantly it's saving lives that are more important to maintaining a civilized society.
I'd even say that it would be less moral to not build the warplane and let innocents die through inaction, when the consequences are well known.
Even further down the chain, killing isn't inherently bad, there are plenty justifiable reasons to kill someone.
It's the same with veganism -making choices which are less harmful, not necessarily perfect.
Non smokers are definitely way better people than smokers. Especially given that 2nd and even 3rd hand smoke causes cancer. Even if smoking only harmed the smoker, it's still a strange idea to be harming yourself. Perhaps they lack the appreciation of how lucky they are to be alive. I mean the odds of being born are like winning the lotto, let alone being born healthy, being born in this day and age, in a civilized country, being born to the dominate species, being born on the only planet that seems to have developed life. Some people have rough starts to life, but harming themselves isn't going to make it better, just shorter.
I agree that everyone is capable of making good moral stances, you've obviously drawn the line somewhere (otherwise you'd be going all Genghis Khan on everyone). But where the line is drawn is tends to be influenced a lot by misleading information and lack of information. And that makes it very hard to make logically sound choices. It's even harder when in order to understand the real impact means having to watch footage of animal cruelty. Most people find it confronting and uncomfortable at best, so it's easier to put it away, not think about it and continue consuming.
I know most people are moral, but if they don't act on it, it doesn't mean much to the puppies being strayed in the eyes with chemicals, or to the piglets being slammed into the concrete floor for the crime of being born male.
Regardless of how you categorize it, analyze it, or philosophize it, this always remains true: Animals feel and respond to pain, they will do their best to avoid suffering, and they have a will to live.
Bill O'Reilly enters The No Chill Zone
I was thinking much the same thing. I think he's hamming it up a bit to suit the show, but that was some pretty deep honest introspection there, along with an almighty well of angst.
I'm starting to get why people vote for Trump. To throw a radical in to the equation, for better or worse. It's a gamble, and it's likely going to turn out bad if he wins the presidency, but it's not like the establishment is going to magically reform itself...
And though it's his show and he's trying to run it, I though Colbert was actually ruining it a little bit. It became apparently pretty early in that Bill was talking from the heart for a change (rather than shooting from the hip), it might be worthwhile listening.
I dunno... as much as I dislike Bill O'Reilly, that showed a pretty encouraging amount of self-awareness and savvy comprehension of some of the root issues that are tearing the Republican party apart.
Why You Should NEVER Fly American Airlines
Cenk WAS a denier of the Armenian genocide and wrote a paper back in his school days in which he put those beliefs to hard paper. Despite him having named his network after a group responsible in said genocide, he is quite adamant that he has changed his opinion and admits younger him was wrong.
I've not looked close enough to say if he's reformed or not, but the entirety of his personality and behaviour today is so jerkish I strongly dislike him regardless of if he's reformed from his 'worse' past.
...what?
Hillary Clinton Feels Sorry For Ignorant Young People
I would actually say that's what makes a personally successful politician, but not a professionally successful one, and as far from a perfect one as it's possible to be.
I think we need both election reform and finance reform to make a difference. Election reform to be able to actually hold politicians accountable to their voters at least once every few years, and finance reform to make them want to work for the voters rather than the donors.
A perfect politician would be fair minded, not greedy, not ego driven, not 'tribal', honest, willing to sacrifice for the greater good, thoughtful, consistent but willing to change in the face of new information, moral (not the kind of morality where you force your specific morals on others, but the kind of morality where you can be a role model for them), and still influential and successful at not only finding solutions to problems that are at least palatable to all, but also successful at getting them implemented. I'm not sure I've ever seen one of those...but as I see it, Sanders checks more boxes than most, far more than any other candidate.
My biggest issue is that she is the consummate politician. She will lie, cheat, steal, buy, borrow, and beg for anything and everything she needs to get into power.
Now you can say that is what a perfect politician is supposed to do and you would technically be correct. The problem is that career politicians don't care about voters and they end up owing a lot of rich private interests favors.
Sadly, until we change the system to allow the people to truly pick who we want via a popular vote, we will be stuck with politicians. People who actually give a damn will never make it past the system to the highest levels.
Bernie Sanders...The Revolution Has Just Begun
Better to blow up few abortion clinics than to murder 50 Million babies.. But hey who's counting. Hitler would be proud.
Bernie stands for unrealistic ideas. Nothing more.
Income inequality-- If you feel bad about that Take every dollar you make over the 15$/hr living wage and give it to someone.-- You can't -- You won't. You , like me are selfish pricks like everyone else. But you wont mind if it is done by force on you employer.
Free tuition? Bull -- nothing is free in life. If you pay for it It will have more value to you.
Getting big $ out of politics-- Agree but will never happen.. Sounds nice though.
Creating decent jobs. 8 Years of Democrat control and zero happened. You think a socialist can make a difference. .What is a decent job? I never had one. One you like or one that pays you more that you are worth? I think the unicorn would be discovered first.
A Living wage 15$/hr -- I feel that he is cheating people should be 35$/hr What is the right number-- Its what the market will bear.
Climate change this is BS but I'll go along-- Tax people and companies, which pass to consumers -- We are poor enough under the Obama economy ... Trying to get blood from a rock.
Humane Immigration-- Bernie is a son of an immigrant who came here legally. IF you want these illegals taking you son and daughters and your job buy all means vote for Bernie If your that stupid I suppose the illegal is smarter than you.
Family values. The best family value is for the family to stay together where there is 1 provider and the other provided love, support, encouragement anytime of day , not just after 7pm when both parents come home.. Progressive democrat policies has its price and destroyed the family unit. Bernie just wants more PTO.
Reforming wall street--Obama was the biggest giver of money to wall street in history---Under he and the democrats they created Quantitative easing -- This dumped trillions directly into big banks and wall street.. ..
Bernie stands for unrealistic ideas. Nothing more.
. So why don't you start judging Bernie by what he actually says.