The above comment is an excellent example of political gaslighting, there is ample, undeniable evidence of some sort of GOP collision with Russia. No sane person looking at the evidence could come to any other conclusion, but by confidently stating the exact opposite of the truth the above commenter seeks to sow doubt in the mind of a potentially disinterested or confused audience. This is a an increasingly common tactic on these boards.
Please don't post like this to HN. It falls into the category of insinuating astroturfing/shillage by other users, which (unless you have evidence) is a breach of civility that is not allowed on HN. Someone holding an opposing opinion isn't evidence.
The "you must be a shill/troll/spy because of what you say" argument is common, toxic, and false. People need to abstain from it in this corner of the internet.
"Gaslighting" is certainly going both ways, but it's important to me that one side is horrifyingly eager for war with Russia and the other... isn't. I don't care what "the truth" is; I just don't want the current generation of humans to be the last. And for what? Politics? Truly, it's the mind-killer.
Because you're deflecting from the topic. If you can't discuss Trump without deflecting to Hillary, you're not acting in good faith and having a real discussion. Not to mention that you're repeating claims that's been disproved and cleared.
Former Acting CIA Director Michael Morell has stated that he has seen no evidence of collusions between Trump and the Kremlin. "On the question of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russians here, there is smoke, but there is no fire, at all," Morell said.[156]
James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence under President Obama, said there was no evidence of any collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives as of January 2017 when the intelligence community issued its report on the subject.[157]
Here are the facts of today:
Trump was elected President of the United States on November 9th, 2016
The Dow Jones is up 2800+, since Nov 9th.
Trump has issued 19 Executive Orders, 16 Presidential memoranda, 11 Presidential proclamations, and 1 Presidential notice.
None of those three facts are remotely relevant to whether or not Trump colluded with Russians, you are again being partisan and even mentioning those unrelated facts proves you're too partisan to have a real discussion. And smoke is more than enough to justify a proper investigation.
No, I implied that treason is a serious crime, nothing more. I do not know if he's guilty or not, that's why there's an investigation. There's enough shady shit clearly going on that the truth has to be found.
Obama lowered taxes, in fact no Democratic president has raised taxes during my lifetime (I'm 25). It's pretty strange people always claim this is a thing when it's just flat false.
Bill Clinton raised taxes early in his first term, 24 years ago in 1993. "He raised taxes on higher income taxpayers"[0]. Did you mean that no Democratic president raised taxes on your family in your lifetime?
This somewhat anecdotal, but the biggest issue I had when living in the suburbs was traffic. I'm someone who has driven hundreds of thousands miles and never been in an accident, but the extreme levels of fear and stress I got from going even short distances in the suburbs was just aweful.
I didn't always feel this way, but I think the use of cellphones has created and environment where even slow moving drivers are unpredictable. I now walk to work and frequently see people on their phones while driving, if a line of ten cars are stopped at a light at least three people are on their phones. The result isn't an extreme increase in accidents but a constricting deficit of attention which incrementally lengthens every encounter on the road. More short stopping, more people missing green lights or just driving super conservatively and not merging holding up traffic.
Also I never use my phone while driving, but the fact that I can't even look at it when I know someone is trying to contact me is incredibly frustrating and impacts my enjoyment of driving.
if a line of ten cars are stopped at a light at least three people are on their phones.
As a cyclist, I often check who is on their phone when I pull up to a light. My guess would be even higher - 50-75% of drivers are on their phones when stopped at a light.
Indeed. And in particular, consider the thesis of the argument:
> Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations.
Says who? The authors use these benchmarks to determine if life expectancy and infant mortality are valid units of measurement. Their actual claim, implicitly, is that life expectancy is unrelated or unaffected by quality of the health care system. And the infant mortality's numbers are biased against the US (here their argument is better but why would the UN knowingly include such biases?). The argument they present is weak...to put it charitably.
The thing is it's not even really an argument, it's a rationalization. It's so strange to me that someone would even try to argue that life expectancy doesn't reflect the quality of health care. what conceivably could be gained by attempting to prove such a counter-intuitive thing?
My reading between the lines is that the health care system is set up perfectly well to accommodate long lives, if and only if you can afford to access it. The authors actually controlled for GDP per capita, so they made their aims plain. Their explanations for poor health outcomes for disadvantaged minorities was also income related.
Not once did they ask the question "why are health outcomes so stratified by income and wealth in the U.S.?", because their ideology is that that is acceptable.
> Well that's not that exciting or even new. I don't know of other countries, but some of brazilian literature classics from the XIX century were originally published in small pieces at daily newspapers. With intense debate around the paths of the story.
Two questions:
1. What specifically are you referring to?
2. Why did you feel the neeed to express it in Roman numeral?
I don’t know what story the poster was referring to, but the use of Roman numerals for centuries is the standard in Spanish and I assume in Portuguese too. If the poster is Brazilian, then his use of Roman numerals is of no surprise.
Exactly, in Brazil is the norm. I didn't think it could not be in english. My only while writing was if it should be "XIX century" or "century XIX". Apparently, neither :)
It was typical for novels I'm the 19th century to be published first in papers, serialized into many installments over a period of time, giving readers an opportunity to talk about it, like episodes of a TV show, and perhaps steer the direction of the story.
I get this is a a technology forum a people generally shouldn't post politically charged stuff.
I am more then happy to never post any political crap here again, but I like to know why/how my recent post was flagged. I apologize, if I violated the etiquette or something.
As to how, it was flag-killed, which means enough users flagged it to trigger its removal.
As to why, I can only speculate, but it may have been a combination of things:
- invoking "moral obligation" and "dignity as human beings" implies that people who don't agree with you are somehow immoral, which they might react strongly to
- "any means necessary" can be interpreted to mean that anything goes, including violence, which is pretty strong language, and more of a call to arms than an invitation to civil discussion (which is the purpose of HN, in part)
Some of the child comments point to reasons it was flagged as well.
And things are pretty heated in general around HN right now.
I wouldn't take it personally. Move on, reflect, figure out ways to engage more constructively if you choose to.
Hope this helps. This isn't meant as a criticism, just trying to read it as I see it, since you asked.
"By any means necessary", was in retrospect an inflammatory statement, which I should not have used. I don't believe violence is necessary, or even helpful in achieving a moral society.
As for judgements about the morality of others, this is my opinion. I don't apologize for it. I know I'm unlikely to be directly persuasive using this moral judgement as an argumentative tactic, but to make people conscious of the intangible, quasi-spritual ramafications of their political beliefs does at least as much good as simply getting someone to believe what I believe.
>Yahoo’s diversity reports indicate that the percentage of women in leadership positions at the company rose slightly to 24 percent in 2015 from 23 percent in 2014.
This is buried in the very last line of the article.
