Slashdot Mirror

Asexual species are hyperevolutionary because they only need ONE individual with ONE genetic mutation to colonize a whole new ecosystem.

Almost all complex organisms reproduce sexually (some of them also reproduce asexually) , because it increases variability by mixing and matching and by harboring recessive genes. Sexual species have been observed to evolve faster than asexual ones.

Seriously. Our expanding government is a direct result of allowing public employees both to unionize, and then allowing such unions to donate to political campaigns.

Public-employee unions dominate the top political spenders in the US.

And what's in the interest of public employee unions? More government! Government by the government for the government.

All other political donors outside of public employee unions have a vested interest in the overall success of society - they can't just donate to politicians who'll use the powers of government to funnel more resources to them like public employee unions do.

And who are public employee unions organizing against anyway?

No less a progressive than Franklin D. Roosevelt said this:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government.

Public employee unions distort the policy-making of government.

Just look at the pensions retired government employees get in places like New York, Chicago, and many California cites - the places where public employee unions are strongest. Look at the tax rates in those places. Look at the numbers of people actively fleeing those locations.

The studies showing this aren't controversial.

Yes, not only are these studies not controversial, they don't exist at all!

Try this one: http://www.cits.ucsb.edu/fake-...

https://www.pthorticulture.com...
http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/ge...

Do yourself a favour and get an education sometime.

From TFA, quoted from the original release:

The transmitter sends a wireless signal whose received signal strength (RSSI) is measured by the receiver.

The original release says:

In the team’s experiments, one WiFi transmitter and one WiFi receiver are behind walls, outside a room in which a number of people are present.

In fact, why not just read the paper itself?

our experimental setup consists of a
pair of WiFi nodes for transmission and reception of wireless
signals. One of the WiFi nodes is configured as a Tx, which
constantly transmits wireless signals. The other WiFi node,
which acts as a Rx, measures the signals that are emitted from
the Tx node and records the corresponding signal strength

It would've taken much longer to write out your rant above than to spend two minutes locating the paper and bypass all the misinterpretation.

From TFA, quoted from the original release:

The transmitter sends a wireless signal whose received signal strength (RSSI) is measured by the receiver.

The original release says:

In the team’s experiments, one WiFi transmitter and one WiFi receiver are behind walls, outside a room in which a number of people are present.

In fact, why not just read the paper itself?

our experimental setup consists of a
pair of WiFi nodes for transmission and reception of wireless
signals. One of the WiFi nodes is configured as a Tx, which
constantly transmits wireless signals. The other WiFi node,
which acts as a Rx, measures the signals that are emitted from
the Tx node and records the corresponding signal strength

It would've taken much longer to write out your rant above than to spend two minutes locating the paper and bypass all the misinterpretation.

> Step 2: consider getting a life, going outside and maybe smelling flowers, or read a book or a
> newspaper if you can still find one anywhere, or maybe even help another person with something.

Forget newspapers entirely. They're mostly lib-left MSM. E.g. in 2016 in the USA, editorial endorsements were as follows http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

* Hillary Clinton 57
* Gary Johnson 4
* ABT, i.e. "Anybody But Trump" 3
* Donald Trump 2
* None of the above 5

Guess who won?

> While I appreciate your ability to bend things to fit your ideas

First, I'll respond with a link:
http://constitution.org/cons/w...

Showing uses of "regulated", in natural language, in historical context.

Ok, here's another link. This one is more wordy, on account of it being the Virginia ratification of the constitution.
https://www.usconstitution.net...

One of the biggest pieces of drama was the lack of a bill of rights; drafting one up was of utmost important. George Mason, who is the coauthor of the bill of rights, spoke during this (relevant quotes on topic: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." and "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."). The ratification linked includes the demand:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

So plenty of the founders in Virginia, at least, including the coauthor of the bill of rights, were absolutely clear on what they meant about "the people have a right to keep and bear arms". Remember, the second amendment wasn't just dropped on everyone's heads apropos of nothing: it was well understood that keeping and bearing arms was necessary to resist tyranny, because *they had just done exactly that*. Certainly, no one reading at the time was confused about a fucking comma (that confusion is a 20th century construct manufactured by gun control advocates; one with no historical basis).

> I don't think that they intended everyone to be running around with weapons all the time

They literally fucking did. Not to belabor the point, but that exact thing was how they just won a revolutionary war.

Here's the first ever state of the union:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

"To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies."

So the people should have a "uniform and well-digested plan". They should be "not only armed, but disciplined". And of course they should be "independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies". If his paramount concern- or really, any fucking concern at all- was in controlling or laying laws down upon the "free people", then maybe he would have brought that up, instead of exhorting all Americans to be able to take up arms, ideally without relying on any others for military supplies.

> I think they meant that each city, county, state, etc should be able to defend itself with a recognized designated fighting force that is actually regulated

That's all your revisionism. Read their words.

This says Mr Trump is averaging more than every prez back to Carter. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

An insightful discussion of that question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/3hi61p/the_fascists_didnt_want_to_overthrow_fdr_because

And a statement about fascism from the horse's mouth (FDR himself):

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=15637

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

So no, I don't think that FDR was a fan of fascism as you seem to be suggesting. Yes, in 1933 he expressed interest in what Mussolini was doing in Italy.

You can read Trump's executive order or Obama's executive order yourself, but basically it boils down to human rights abuses, muzzling the press, violently suppressing your political opponents, etc. Not necessarily a threat, just "quit being such a dictatorship!"

Was there ever a time in history when two idiot presidents openly boasted about the "size" of their launch buttons or how readily available the buttons are? Nope.

Thank Bill Clinton for that:

“North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program. South Korea and our other allies will be better protected. The entire world will be safer as we slow the spread of nuclear weapons.”

Excellent idea. I suggest using these maps to define the split:

https://www.vividmaps.com/2016...

Lot of Hong Kongs there, but hey, HK was successful enough...

Perhaps rather more telling:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

I was in the first grade in California when they started teaching us the metric system. That went on for a couple of years, but we returned to "English Measure" after Nixon left office. I didn't see Metrics again until I took trig.

Here's a paragraph from Nixon's letter to Congress:

5) An important step which could be of great significance in fostering technological innovations and enhancing our position in world trade is that of changing to the metric system of measurement. The Secretary of Commerce has submitted to the Congress legislation which would allow us to begin to develop a carefully coordinated national plan to bring about this change. The proposed legislation would bring together a broadly representative board of private citizens who would work with all sectors of our society in planning for such a transition. Should such a change be decided on, it would be implemented on a cooperative, voluntary basis.

Source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it.

I'd argue that she was right... maybe not on the percentage, but certainly on the characterization. She defined who those she thought were deplorable by their traits... which is why it's funny, in a sad, stupid way, that people wear these t-shits with "deplorable" written on it. I'd normally at least give them props for honesty, but i doubt any of them even know what Hillary said... they just think it's because they're Trump supporters, instead of someone having some of the worst traits of the human species. Kinda like these dipshits wearing Gadsen Flag t-shirts with the Jefferson quote... they don't even know what the quote was about, but they twist it to something simplistic that they don't have to bother thinking about; if they only had a clue... which they obviously don't.

Now, i understand.. you're probably like a lot of conservatives. You've been lied to by snake oil salesmen that want you to elect them, and you've been gullible enough to do just that. The problem is, these people only give a damn about themselves... not you, not me, not anyone that they can't get something from. They've brainwashed you into thinking completely backwards and ign

So dying with 30-35 is perfectly fine. You'd procreate before (at about 14-16 years of age, maybe have 2-3 more kids and die when they in turn reach the ripe age of 14-16), so the species is fine

The shorter lifespans of early humans had more to do with high infant mortality, and inability to fend for oneself after physical injury than it did malnutrition. Think about it. If you live to be 70, and have a couple of children, 50% of whom make it to 15 years old, that brings the average age down considerably.

From the cited paper above:

life expectancy at age 15 is 48 years for Aborigines, 52 and 51 for settled Ache and !Kung, yet 31 and 36 for peasant and transitional Agta. Survival to age 45 varies between 19 and 54 percent, and those aged 45 live an average of 12–24 additional years

and

nfant mortality is over 30 times greater among hunter-gatherers, and early child mortality is over 100 times greater than encountered in the United States. We see that on average 57 percent, 64 percent, and 67 percent of children born survive to age 15 years among hunter-gatherers, forager-horticulturalists, and acculturated hunter-gatherers./quote?

... doesn't mean it hasn't been altered. Like that time Bert appeared on an osama bin laden poster.

BootStomp's code:
https://github.com/ucsb-seclab...

UCSB's team site:
https://seclab.cs.ucsb.edu/aca...

Bill Clinton made a deal with the NorKs back in the nineties that he said would keep Korea nuclear-free. He was so successful that Obama used the same team to negotiate his nuke deal with Iran, and we can all sleep easily in the certainty that Iran will never be able to launch a missile or detonate a nuke.

We are fyrther guaranteed safety by president Obama's 8 years of "strategic patience" which further esatblished a guarantee that neither Iran nor North Korea will ever get ICBMs or nukes.

Who you gonna believe, some Democrat politicians, or your lying eyes?

Oh well, the stupid young idiots who rabidly supported Obama and the Cintons will be the generation that pays the price.

Somalia's drought doesn't seem unusual: http://blog.chg.ucsb.edu/?p=14...

Here ya go.

Carter's ban specifically didn't apply to refugees. The wording was: "We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires."

Trump's order makes no such exceptions.

too many mosquitos, ticks, flies, jellyfish, rats, roaches, spiders!!

Don't forget when St Patrick drove all the snakes out of Ireland, they moved to Australia.

Also, we should convince the Chinese that jellyfish are an aphrodisiac. Probably starfish, too.

"It offers $20 billion a year in hard Federal dollars every year for the next four years, to build an economy for the 21st century, to invest in new roads and bridges, and streets and rail systems, to develop high-speed rail and a national fiber optic network, to develop new environmental technologies to clean our waters and our air, and to recycle more of our solid wastes. In short, to do those things which we are not doing today."
Bill Clinton June 22, 1992 Campaign Speech

I remember hearing about possibly laying fiber as part of an interstate highway bill. But the plan was way too ambitious since it morphed into maintaining the equipment and doing the last mile connections, etc.. It would have put the Fed as a telecom competitor (and who would want the govt running telecom?).

Pres. Clinton created the National Information Infrastructure Initiative by Executive Order 12864. It was spurred on by then Sen. Gore in his High Performance Computing Act of 1991.

Kent Law Review
The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s

RRK

See here.

Ding Q, J. M. Wallace, D. S. Battisti, E. J. Steig, A. J. E. Gallant, H. J. Ki, L Geng: Tropical forcing of the recent rapid Arctic warming in northeastern Canada and Greenland, [PDF] Nature, 509, 209-212, (2014)

So, what are you trying to prove? That they are getting spectacularly bad ROI?

Nope - GP complained about "companies".

It isn't "companies" that are the biggest threat to US democracy - it's government employee unions. Look at those big donors - they're public employee unions, and they OWN the Democratic Party.

Democrats are basically "government by the government for the government." It's hard to be more fundamentally corrupt than that.

There's a reason why someone as progressive as FDR warned about public employee unions:

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.

Don't forget Tufte's Challenger graph, which provides really the best visualization of the data. He's a master of visual communication.

If the information was presented in his fashion, a no-launch decision would have clearly been a no-brainer. This is why the soft arts are essential for engineers too.

https://groups.nceas.ucsb.edu/...

Obama signed less executive orders than Bush Jr, Clinton or Reagan. You can see the counts here. Of course, I don't expect Trumptards living in Alternative Fact Land to pay attention to reality.

They are protesting something that will never be created, because when the rhetoric was translated into reality, it was a proposal to reestablish the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS)[1], which was in force through half of President Obama's presidency, and which tracks certain individuals who enter the United States based on country/region of origin and other factors. Useless publicity stunt with commensurate absolutely abysmal coverage by The Intercept.

See also:

8 U.S. Code  1182 - Inadmissible aliens[2]

"Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Flashback:

"The Secretary of State and the Attorney General will invalidate all visas issued to Iranian citizens for future entry into the United States, effective today. We will not reissue visas, nor will we issue new visas, except for compelling and proven humanitarian reasons or where the national interest of our own country requires. This directive will be interpreted very strictly."[3] -- President Jimmy Carter, April 7, 1980

[1] https://www.ice.gov/nseers
[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
[3] http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Between 2012 and 2015, the US population went up ~10 million. Yet the total number of ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election is about 6 million fewer than the total cast in 2012. Where did these voters go? Why didn't they vote? The margin between Trump and Clinton was around 200,000 votes nationally, or about 1/30th of the difference between 2012 and 2016.

The number of voters for the Republican candidate hasn't grown since 2004. Only about 60-62 million people voted for the Republican candidate each election year since 2004, while the Democratic candidate's numbers have varied from 59-69 million. This year, the number of voters for the Democratic candidate was just barely 60 million and just slightly more than the voters for Republican candidate. So the question to ask is not just why didn't they vote, but why is the Democratic candidate's vote count trending down since 2008. (Obvious answers....)

I collected the data from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/showelection.php

Year Democratic Republican Other
1900 6,357,698 7,219,193
1904 5,083,501 7,625,599
1908 6,406,874 7,676,598
1912 6,294,327 3,486,343 5,020,577
1916 9,126,063 8,547,030
1920 9,134,074 16,151,916
1924 8,386,532 15,724,310 4,827,184
1928 15,004,336 21,432,823
1932 22,818,740 15,760,425
1936 27,750,866 16,679,683
1940 27,243,218 22,334,940
1944 25,612,610 22,014,160
1948 24,105,810 21,970,064 1,169,114
1952 27,314,992 33,777,945
1956 26,022,752 35,590,472
1960 34,226,731 34,108,157
1964 43,129,566 27,178,188
1968 31,275,166 31,785,480 9,906,473
1972 29,170,383 47,169,911
1976 40,830,763 39,147,793
1980 35,483,883 43,904,153 5,720,060
1984 37,577,185 54,455,075
1988 41,809,074 48,886,097
1992 44,909,326 39,103,882 19,741,657
1996 47,402,357 39,198,755 8,085,402
2000 50,992,335 50,455,156 2,882,738
2004 59,028,444 62,040,610
2008 69,456,897 59,934,814
2012 65,899,660 60,932,152
2016 60,071,781 59,791,135 // nytimes.com numbers

Since Trump has never articulated a comprehensive science/tech platform, the most we can hope for right now is that the Democrats will finally be shocked into ditching the anti-science left and reaching back to its great days of popularity under Roosevelt to rebuild its base.

Franklin Roosevelt summoned oil pipelines into being when the country needed them: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Today's Democrats look for fake religious reasons - not even scientifically testable environmental arguments - why pipelines should not be built.

1. Eh? You're delusional.

2. He used executive orders at a lower rate than any president since Woodrow Wilson.

3. We just elected corruption personified. You really think he's going to clean up DC? Yeah, I guess if you tear everything down you will take down the bad things too...

4. I do agree that the Wall Street bankers, etc. are probably freaking out.

Well, these guys (http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/projects/directed-energy-interstellar-precursors) seem to think it may work, at least for small packages.

"As an example, on the eventual upper end, a full scale DE-STAR 4 (50-70 GW) will propel a wafer scale spacecraft with a 1 m laser sail to about 26% the speed of light in about 10 minutes (20 kgo accel), reach Mars (1 AU) in 30 minutes, pass Voyager I in less than 3 days, pass 1,000 AU in 12 days and reach Alpha Centauri in about 20 years. "

Apart from Mars being 0.52 AU away right now, it would take 15 minutes to pass Mars. Unfortunately, if you want to stop you need to put on the brakes after a few minutes. But still. That said, having an orbiting 50GW laser array over our head might make some nations a tad nervous.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/pa...

Here's the calculator: http://www.deepspace.ucsb.edu/...

A russian billionaire is funding this: http://www.sciencemag.org/news...

I've a picture of him at the press conference here: http://i33.photobucket.com/alb...

Progressive does NOT automatically equal Democrat. I'm am so sick and tired of everyone only seeing two sides, turning everything into a razor thin monolith with D on one side and R on the other. Perhaps you've heard of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who said "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative." Once upon a time there was a movement of Progressive Republicans.

"To destroy this invisible government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." This was back in 1912. plus ça change, plus c'est la.

Who do I stand with? Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and other like them. Both "parties" are morally corrupt, and under the control of the planet-spanning corpocracy. We had a chance with Sanders, but we squandered it. Johnson is a joke. Trump is only in this for Trump, Inc. Hillary is inherently unlikable, and is a corporate puppet who only changed her tune at all because of Sanders. Neither should be President.

However, given the "choice" we've been presented, I still would rather have a corrupt, mean politician as opposed to a megalomaniac who is intent on building an oligarchy like his buddy Putin.

Bill Clinton promised he had ended "the threat of nuclear proliferation on the Korean Peninsula" with his deal. He had social worker and Democrat activist Wendy Sherman lead the negotiations. President Obama used the same woman to negotiate a similar "deal" with Iran. Note: here resume LOOKS good now at first glance because she was involved in this stuff, but she had no credentials for any of this before Bill used her for it.

Compare the Clinton statement re North Korea with Barack Obama's statement re his Iran deal and you will see that we should have ZERO confidence the same team of idiots got better results from Iran. Iran will be detonating bombs within a decade, and MAY have been involved in this Korean detonation (Iran and N.K. have been caught cooperating in the past).

Prepare for a nuclear war, possibly within the next 10 to 20 years, thanks to the social workers and community organizers of the DNC.

Oh, and Democrats have a "talking point" for the stupid to use on this: "Bush screwed it up!". They cannot however back this up with any actual action by Bush that breached the Clinton "deal", nor can they point to ANY action Obama has take in the past 7.5 years to repair it.

Hope you all like yer gay this, and gay that, and unlimited immigration, and global warming fixes, 'cause the price tag is going to be VERY steep. It's a bad idea to vote for foolish globalist morons (in EITHER party) in order to get the "right" to publicly celebrate activities you could have always done privately, or to "save the planet" from a degreee of temperature in a century, or prove that you are not a racist - - - particularly when it means you might not be alive to participate in those activities, might be accellerating a much more severe global threat, and the immigrants you invited in are no more bomb-proof than you are.

Tuition for public universities are no where near 100k in California.
For undergraduate non resident students is somewhere between 35k-40k. It's actually cheaper for non-resident grad students at ucsb.

http://www.finaid.ucsb.edu/cos...

UCSF is also significantly cheager than you're suggesting.

https://finaid.ucsf.edu/newly-...

I love the whole "it's only 20 years if you travel at 20% of the speed of light!" part. It makes it sound so close. But you're not going to snap your fingers and jump right to 20% of the speed of light from one second to the next. That's 6,114,064.6 standard Earth g-forces! You'd be much better off having a slow, steady acceleration all the way there and a slow, steady acceleration all the way back. Unless I did the math wrong, you'd need to maintain about 0.38 m/s^2 (yeah, I rounded - I'm not the one sending the craft) the entire trip. ...

The interstellar space probe concept mission they are referencing is this one by Philip Lubin. The scheme has the 70 gigawatt launching lasers accelerating a tiny wafer thin probe to 20% c in 10 minutes, which is about 10,000 gees. A tiny wafer thin structure can handle that. And no, there is no slowing down. These things fly through the target system at 0.20 c, and keep on going.

A case in point is computer science in Malaysia and the U.S. While American computer scientists are depicted as male hackers and geeks, computer science in Malaysia is deemed well-suited for women because it’s seen as theoretical (not physical) and it takes place almost exclusively in offices (thought to be woman-friendly spaces). In interviews with sociologist Vivian Lagesen, female computer science students in Malaysia reported taking up computing because they like computers and because they and their parents think the field has good job prospects. The students also referenced government efforts to promote economic development by training workers, both male and female, for the expanding information technology field. About half of Malaysian computer science degrees go to women.

Ownership of Gold was illegal in the US for a time period as well.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Section 2. All persons are hereby required to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, to a Federal Reserve Bank or a branch or agency thereof or to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System all gold coin, gold bullion and gold certificates now owned by them or coming into their ownership on or before April 28, 1933, except the following:

in 1994 President Bill Clinton signed a deal with North Korea which he bragged would prevent North Korea from going nuclear. He promised his deal would "does not rely on trust. Compliance will be certified by the International Atomic Energy Agency."

North Korea cannot possibly go nuclear. This Clinton deal to prevent it was made by the same Democrat party hack turned expert international negotiator who negotiated Obama's deal to guarantee Iran will not go nuclear.

The next thing you know, the Democrats will tell us that preventing these two countries from going nuclear is what qualifies Hillary Clinton to move back into the White House bringing Bill back as her first lady. After all, she was first lady when the Korea deal was done, so she's an expert on that one and she was appointed Sec State in time to be actually involved in the second, so we can be certain she's "well qualified" to negotiate a lot more like these. Or not.

"I really doubt that Trump would intentionally start WWIII. But he might insult someone else enough that it got started because of him."

You were a bit late to the party:

1. Hillary's husband Bill lit the fuse on WWIII when he appeased and ignored AQ as it arose under Bin Laden, and famously chose not to react to the bombing of the USS Cole, refused to kill Bin Laden, and bragged about his amazing agreement with North Korea that guaranteed North Korea would never get nuclear bombs.

2. George W Bush got into the office and infamously got all discombobulated and distracted from AQ in Afghanistan to run off and finish his daddy's unfinished business in Iraq. He did nothing about the already nuclear Pakistan (other than name them "evil"), left Bill Clinton's amazing act of gullibility in place in North Korea, and continues his daddy's policy of partnering with the evil Saudis who are half (the other half being Iran) of the evil intellectual and financial base of the militant Jihadi terrorism that now plagues the entire planet.

3. Obama got into office and, with Hillary Clinton as his SecState, celebrated the surrender of the few gains made in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hillary acted like a kindergarten teacher with a stupid prop "reset button" with Russia (with whom relations are now the worst since the Cold War) and she and Obama and their friends in airconditioned San Francisco "social media" companies lit the fuse on the "Arab Spring". They openly bragged that this embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood (which was the last fragment of Hitler's NAZI war machine) was a great thing. This action and the complete bumbling of Syria and Iraq have created and tolerated the rise of ISIS/ISIL, a modern terrorist state. You could some of Hillary's bragging about her role in all this here except that in this campaign year the Democrat-run State Department has scrubbed it from history.

Under Clinton/Bush/Obama China is rising to be a hostile global power, Russia is back to its old evil ways of arming bad guys around the planet and grabbing land from other countries, NATO has so degraded that it cannot currently defend or deter against anybody or anything. At worst a Trump presidency allowing it degrade further would have no actual impact because it's already so weak. At best, he might shock the allies enough to wake them up about their own needs for defense. Under the trifecta of bad presidents previously named, the US has been rapidly disarming, Russia and China are rapidly modernizing and arming, and every nasty theocrat and/or dictator is going nuclear and developing ballistic missiles.

In short: There's already a third war raging on this planet that is of global scope. Nobody now could possible accidentally trigger what is already underway. Obama has now given Iran (the planet's previously greatest sponsor of global Islamic terror) about a hundred billion dollars and a clear path to nukes. The fires are just kindling all about a significant part of the globe and all that's needed is for the mad mullahs of Tehran to get their nukes. I'd give it ten years before a Pearl Harbor-style day but on a massive scale.

Thus the quotes. It's not the general populace, but specific elected officials who advocate for war. Peter King, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, W. Bush, Rumsfeld, etc...the war hawks advocating for bigger bombing campaigns, direct troop involvement, larger Pentagon budgets, etc. If these people don't actually reflect conservatives, then perhaps conservatives should stop electing them? "Bomb Iran", "desert into glass", I'm sure you know the phrases better than me. And I agree, this is NOT a representation of the ideas of the actual Conservative platform; increased foreign military involvement against non-immediate threats are quite the opposite of a smaller government. I think if the actual conservatives made a list of the various voting records of the elected officials that claim to be conservative, it become quickly apparent that few actually are. IMHO, the only "true" conservative that was a POTUS contender was Rand Paul, but he's gone now.

But this also brings up the issue of absolute polarities: we shouldn't be 100% conservative OR liberal. Neither path, carried out to it's finality, is really viable. Shrink the government too much and it collapses into anarchy; grow it too much and it expands into a nanny state. We should follow the advice of President Dwight D. Eisenhower: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative."

Humans are "on top" because we cooperate better than all other species. If we all became 100% "individualists" to each other, our society would collapse; the very definition of a society is "people living together" and implies a level of empathy and cooperation. The true battle is to find a workable middle ground; but I feel that the US's "majority/minority" system is becoming too polarized for this to be accomplished.

On a personal note; I actually identify with the Republican Progressive ideals mostly, but I don't think we need the over-arching religious aspects as the bedrock of human equality.

- GOP 2012 Platform

Ask and ye shall receive! From the 2008 Republican Party platform. Addressing Climate Change Responsibly

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.

Oh those terrible, terrible Republicans and their hatred towards renewable energy! Oh wait...

I'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaitingI'mWaiting , nah - no more.

Tell me, you really have to hate the Internet. It is most inconvenient for you. If you want to argue with me, I will give citations, and I check them out before I post, most of the time. Oh yeah, Here's the 2008 Republican party platform link http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

As far as your other strawmen, they're not even addressed in the 2012 platform. Don't know where you got the GOP position - for or against - on any of those.

ahem... this microphone on? You in the back I said the 2007 platform.

Tell me, it's gonna be Trump, or Dominionist Cruz as your chosen representative. Which one acknowledges AGW? or GW? Your Presidential Candidate Donald Trump says about Global warming

"“This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice”

"Antarctic ice shelf melt 'lowest EVER recorded, global warming is NOT eroding it'"

"It's really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!"

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

He's your presidential Candidate, and he wil control the party platfom

And dear reader, is a straw man when a person uses verifiable quotes? Take your stupid "left winger" pejoritives and spend spome time doing research instead of lockstepping.

The bubble and the echo chamber is your home, and no doubt.

Eliminating carbon as a fuel source world wide is not. There is nothing really different now about people in this regard.

Once upon a time, Republicans believed that CO2 was an energy retaining gas. Now? Denial of science is a party platform.

Just as a point of edification to whoever marked this post as "Troll".....

In 2008 The Republican Party platform listed global warming a a national problem, and cited Human activity among its causes.

citation: http://www.latimes.com/opinion...

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Now, here is the specific text HArd core Republicans might want to stop reading at this point, because this is going to get really uncomfortable instantly. From the 2008 platform

Addressing Climate Change Responsibly

The same human economic activity that has brought freedom and opportunity to billions has also increased the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. While the scope and long-term consequences of this are the subject of ongoing scientific research, common sense dictates that the United States should take measured and reasonable steps today to reduce any impact on the environment. Those steps, if consistent with our global competitiveness will also be good for our national security, our energy independence, and our economy. Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.

The Solution: Technology and the Market

As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.

To reduce emissions in the short run, we will rely upon the power of new technologies, as discussed above, especially zero-emission energy sources such as nuclear and other alternate power sources. But innovation must not be hamstrung by Washington bickering, regulatory briar patches, or obstructionist lawsuits. Empowering Washington will only lead to unintended consequences and unimagined economic and environmental pain; instead, we must unleash the power of scientific know-how and competitive markets.

Now let us fast forward to today, Here is your 2016 presidential candidate Donald trump on global warming

http://www.inquisitr.com/10836... specifically his tweet: “This very expensive GLOBAL WARMING bullshit has got to stop. Our planet is freezing, record low temps,and our GW scientists are stuck in ice”

https://twitter.com/realdonald...

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

More tweets

Any and all weather events are used by the GLOBAL WARMING HOAXSTERS to justify higher taxes to save our planet! They don't believe it $$$$!

It’s snowing & freezing in NYC. What the hell ever happened to global warming?

Ice storm rolls from Texas to Tennessee - I'm in Los Angeles and it's freezing. Global warming is a total, and very expensive, hoax!

Your other possibility, another person who represents the soul of the republican party, Ted Cruz Has this to say about global warming:

“Today, the global warming alarmists are the equivalent of

I know how much you ACs love to hate on the president, but at least get your facts straight. The last time a president had as few executive orders per year (over the term of his presidency) as Obama was when Grover Cleveland was president. So if you're going to bitch and moan about Obama exercising his presidential authority, remember that presidents like Reagan did a lot more "ram rodding their way down everyone's throats" than Obama has (to the tune of 50% more). source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Content is as important as quantity. Forming a task force for the legal equality of women (EO 12336) is a lot different than the 2014 executive order (not even listed in the site you cited!) which offers amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

I know how much you ACs love to hate on the president, but at least get your facts straight. The last time a president had as few executive orders per year (over the term of his presidency) as Obama was when Grover Cleveland was president. So if you're going to bitch and moan about Obama exercising his presidential authority, remember that presidents like Reagan did a lot more "ram rodding their way down everyone's throats" than Obama has (to the tune of 50% more).

source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

I know how much you guys love trotting out statistics, but volume matters when it fucking applies.

A man shooting 1,000 rubber bands at me does not scare me. A man shooting a single bullet at me does. Understand the fucking difference

I know how much you ACs love to hate on the president, but at least get your facts straight. The last time a president had as few executive orders per year (over the term of his presidency) as Obama was when Grover Cleveland was president. So if you're going to bitch and moan about Obama exercising his presidential authority, remember that presidents like Reagan did a lot more "ram rodding their way down everyone's throats" than Obama has (to the tune of 50% more).
source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

OK, I'll bite:

But instead of just, "yuk yuk"-ing, I ask them what President Carter actually did wrong and nobody has ever (ever!!!) listed even a single thing that is true.

I nominate The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act of 1978, which included language to restrict Pu reprocessing with the goal of curtailing nuclear weapons proliferation through "leading by example". The origination of that part of the act was outlined in Carter's policy statement, which resulted from a review initiated by President Ford.

The entire concept of "setting an example" in this way was woefully misguided, particularly when the example was to be set by a nation having an advanced (at the time) nuclear triad with thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the Soviet Union, China, and undoubtedly a few other choice regions - all backed by an openly advertised MAD policy. It stopped nothing, which was a surprise to just about nobody except Carter. India and Pakistan still developed Pu reprocessing and nuclear arms. Even South Africa tested an atomic bomb. Plenty of other nations, including the UK, France, and Japan, have peaceful fuel reprocessing capability without enhancing proliferation risk. Regardless of what your opinions might be about the economic viability of nuclear power generation, this idea of Carter's was an unparalleled example of policy (and law) derived from pollyanna-ish misplaced optimism and a fundamentally flawed view of the role human nature plays in geopolitics.

Also, it strains credibility that "nobody has ever (ever!!!)" brought this up to you. Other defensible, strong critiques of the Carter administration have been brought forth by individuals with real facts and analysis to back them, and (of course) far more gravitas than some slashdot AC like myself. You cannot have missed every such analysis published over 35 years since Carter left office. I submit that either you automatically dismiss, or stubbornly refuse to accept, objectively valid criticisms of the Carter administration.

- T

Will Obama give her a blanket pardon? I'm not sure. Especially if there are no charges yet filed.

It's possible.

Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon *before* he was indicted over the Watergate scandal.

Reading the pardon, I can see it as a template for Hillary: it'll take too long for a trial to start, harms the "tranquility of the nation", "for all offenses ... committed or may have committed". The pardon does not even need to mention why it is being given (though Ford's does).

The best part about a preemptive pardon (before indictment) is that it stops the whole process cold. No need to further pursue an investigation if there will definitely be no charges filed? Stops the FBI investigation and saves the embarrassment of the spectacle of the DOJ ignoring the FBI report for political reasons. Kills any chance for a possible Republican administration to go after her too.

Hillary can go on proclaiming her innocence and no one can challenge her anymore.

The only problem with that is I (and probably you as well) do not see Obama willing to spend the political capital to do this, even if it is to save the election for his political party.