wachtwoord

The "T" is a capital letter, but only because he wrote it in all caps and there is no apostrophe before the "s", so I doubt he means "I love Trump's hate". He shouldn't have wrote it in all caps. Capitalization is important and all caps is unclear. It is the difference between "I helped my Uncle Jack off a horse." and "I HELPED MY UNCLE JACK OFF A HORSE". I mean love love Trumps hate seems to imply that choosing love over hate is what Trump is proposing while the protesters are claiming the opposite.

Love Trumps hate sounds like a pro Trump slogan doesn't it?

I agree.

Living in a country that forces you to buy insurance is a voluntary act also. Your country will also force you not to rape and murder people. Welcome to being a human in the civilized world. You can't do everything you like if a majority disagrees with it. (Well, not without being killed or imprisoned.) Tell me where I can go? Also instead, don't the people that want the mandatory insurance have the same option?

That is basically the definition of insurance (P&C, health etc). I wouldn't want to live in a pre-insured world, where it wasn't invented yet. All members of a specific group (villages, cities, countries, traders, car owners etc) are as a whole better off with this kind of risk-sharing on their hands. I argue it increases the overall fairness by insulating fellow humans from bad luck / acts of god. The question is how to design such a system efficiently with what parameters/incentives etc. Insuring something (or not) is a voluntary act. Mandated insurance is not (we have it with our crappy care health system)

If we consider we don't have a working model it should not affect our decision either way. I mean extra CO2 (or any of the other "poluting" substances) is just as likely to be beneficial as detrimental to human life on this planet. Not increasing it might cause global warming or a global ice age. Same goes for increasing it. We just don't know. We lack any evidence. So we should just do whatever we'd do if we knew for certain it had no effect as any actions we take cost wealth (renewables are more expensive) and don't bring value (detrimental effects are as likely as beneficial ones).

But the good news is war criminal Clinton won't!

Exactly. It's my main problem with it. On the one hand I don't believe lowering the standard deviation of net worth reduces the impact of bad luck significantly. It mostly reduces the positive influence pof the individual for making choices that add value to the world. Secondly, even if I would accept that the premise, I don't think lowering the impact of bad luck increases fairness in the world as you're basically stealing people's good luck against their will. It's their good fortune to do with as they please. Be nice and deserving and they might share it voluntarily. The second one if purely subjective and we can talk for centuries and not agree :)

So much for that: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491 I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass. And KKK members have been racist since way longer than Trump has been, or will be president. Just ignore them, they don't matter.

Nice call :)

Who cares about popular votes? Look at this map: If you go popular vote, you don't want to know how many states will secede to the US (I'm not saying that is necessarily bad), smaller nations are far more effective.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change Courage to change the things I can and wisdom to know the difference.

Taxation and regulation obviously do destroy wealth. And inequality is one fantastic aspect of a free society. People are different and they deserve different amounts of wealth. Exactly, word for word. Inequality is a feature not a bug.

Thanks for the read: http://sanjaymeena.io/books/book_notes_how_to_be_lucky/ many of these I have already learned on some level or another. I have found 11. Accepting an unfair Universe most helpful :)

Would you mind explaining your rationale? If "human induced" is the sticking point than it seems moot. We could argue about the % of human contribution but if one accepts the evidence of climate change and the science behind the various mechanisms, it's a minor detail. If you ascribe to the Breitbart article then I wonder why you think the US and UK would purposefully destroy their manufacturing bases to help the Chinese and hurt themselves? Where's the incentive? US manufacturing was in severe decline before the late 80's and early 90's when climate change science was in its infancy. What's the evidence, how sure are you, and why? I'm saying humans have no signficant influence either way. The climate goes through cycles induced by many subcycles such as many cycles of the sun, cycles of the liquid core of the earth etc many of which we haven't discovered as the cycles have periods of millenia. The periodic changes of climate are natural and we can't even predict them yet, let alone influence them. Have you read the scientific papers behind the "climate change mantra"? They are based on extrapolations which are not statistically valid. They are only out there because academic institutions get subsidies and monetary gifts if the produce papers claiming climate change is real. Institutions who claim the opposite see their incone streams dry up. There's a lot of people who are making a shit ton of money of off the climate change lie and all the retards in the world are eating it up. Sorry for the language but it's really frustrating to see everyone be manipulated this easily. And yes I have an academic background (phd). Not that that's an argument but nowadays people don't believe you're competent unless you show a certificate given out by the politically corrupted and scientifically hollowed out institutions known as universities. EDIT: I attached a more detailed rationale with sources (not written by me) ClimateChangeComment.docx

Yeah, unfortunately Paris climate agreement promises are likely dead. Human induced climate change is a complete lie. Great that he's revoking that. More evidence he's not a puppet of the elite (who invested so much in the world wide climate change scam and getting everyone to buy it). The social "progress" over the last 8 years was a great mistake. It's the road to turn into Euro, a nigh communistic state where laziness is rewarded and hard work is punished. Europe will slowly collapse ascthe late Roman empire did.

She cant run with a criminal record can she?

Yes I love this year. First Brexit now this. Next up Europe please? I'm hoping for the secession movements to really pick up some steam. The US: CA: http://www.yescalifornia.org/ NH: http://nhindependence.org/ TX: https://www.texassecede.com/ VT: http://vermontrepublic.org/ AK: http://www.akip.org/ Canada: Alberta: http://www.republicofalberta.com/ Quebec: http://www.mlnq.org/ Scotland and a bunch of other movements in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe If Texas goes independent that might be a place I end up living some day.

Yes I love this year. First Brexit now this. Next up Europe please?

+1 They are both populists but with a different target audience. Hillary is the populist of all the special little snowflakes in society that would never have gone to university if the value of academic diplomas had not inflated this much (I have a PhD btw so I know these people that think they are the elite very well. I call them high educated retards as they posses no common sense). Trump sadly is a populist for xenophobes and die-hard Christians.

I woke up with the biggest smile on my face. Seems like there is some hope for the US. They managed to not elect a mass murdering war criminal. Seriously I'd have been happy with any of the candidates over her.

This is an election where a surprising low amount of people like their candidate. People in favor of Trump think Clinton is one of the most terrible things ever (my camp) People in favor of Clinton think Trump is one of the most terrible things ever At least we can all agree that both independent candidates are better then both Trump and Hilary?

Started some wars ... And yes, the advantage of Trump he's not a standard politician. Standard politicians are crap and corrupt. Hillary is a prime example.

What I am surprised is how little it would take to move the needle to the other side. Imagine if we just had another meltdown similar to 2008. I can guarantee that Trump would have won handily no matter how racist,misogynist, dangerous tyrant he would sound. How are we any different than the authoritarian countries that we lecture every day about the wonders of democracy and open society ? They just happen to have shitty economy and bad neighbors.Doesn't make China look so bad does it when they clamp down on the free media? How about Venezuela or Iran who blame their neighbors for their problems? Or Russia who employs the draconian measure to save the republic? Or Israel who we lecture how to treat the muslims. This close race is what scares the hell out of me. I wore why I believe this is fascism. The thing is that compared to past fascists Trump is kind of incompetent and kind of an idiot. He ranks pretty low on the scale. What if we got a more competent one. Or what if he didn't pick on Mexicans but instead picked on the Chinese or something. He may very well have closed that small gap. We got luck this time (hopefully. don't count chickens and jinx it). Hopefully tomorrow is a wake up call and after the hangover clears America realizes it had a close call, does some serious introspection and cleans up its act. I won't hold my breath though. Me too but the other way around. I would vote for a randomly drawn individual over Hillary all day long as she's evil. The old Buffet quote applies: “Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire , you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy . And if you don’t have the first, the other two will kill you. You think about it; it’s true. If you hire somebody without [integrity], you really want them to be dumb and lazy.” –Warren Buffett I believe Clinton is likely to wage many wars while Trump will just be a protectionist bigot. Oh and if you don't lower taxes soon you will go the way of Europe. Everyone will turn lazy. It wil become part of the culture. But we have effective tax rates considerably north of yours. It's one of the main reasons I will not live here for many years to come. I don't like people leeching of me.

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business. Do you actually think that negotiating at the nation level, say for a cease fire or a peace deal is the same as negotiating a bulk purchase of mattresses? If I was hiring someone to negotiate a fancy renovation maybe I'd pick Trump but if I'm looking for a cease fire I'll take Clinton over Trump without thinking twice. Why are we still talking about this nonsense of how the economy would be so great under Romney because he was a businessman v.s that crappy Obama? We don't know because he didn't win. But remember Romney promised that at the end of his first term he would have achieved the heroic feat of bringing unemployment down to 6%. Barack H. Obama: 4.9%. I'd say some respect is warranted. But Clinton doesnt want a cease fire. She loves war.