Slashdot Mirror

"I find it funny you only mention Fox news as if the outlets you like are paragons of truth and fact." - Comparatively, that's a fact, faggot.

Just another INCEL Republican faggot losing his Trump wig.

That is exactly why you fail - you are debunked by the facts within that link, which isn't to a politifact source but to a Comedy show that happens to be spot on 100% verifiable fact checked info, and you HIDE LIKE A BITCH FROM IT lol.
Allow me to pull your head out of your ass and teach you how to read, traitor! From TFA you're so afraid of, you pansy ass bitch :

- The fact-checks behind 'The Daily Show's' 50 Fox news 'lies'
By Lauren Carroll, Aaron Sharockman on Thursday, February 26th, 2015 at 3:00 p.m.
The Daily Show posted a Vine Wednesday titled, "50 Fox News lies in 6 seconds."
We’ve fact-checked almost all of the statements they cited. For the record, we originally counted 49 claims, not 50. The Daily Show said No. 50 was left off due to a technical error. They've updated their Vine, which we've included here.
* * *
1. "In July 2010 the government said small businesses -- 60 percent -- will lose their health care, 45 percent of big business and a large percentage of individual health." Sean Hannity, Nov. 11, 2013 False
* * *
2. "And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture out of his own pocket, yet it's the Republican National Committee who's paying for this." Anna Kooiman, Oct. 5, 2013 https://bit.ly/2W1wHzv
* * *
3. Labor union president Andy Stern is "the most frequent visitor" at the White House. Glenn Beck, Dec. 3, 2009 False
* * *
4. "Far more children died last year drowning in their bathtubs than were killed accidentally by guns." Tucker Carlson, Aug. 9, 2014 Pants on Fire
* * *
5. White House Political Director Patrick Gaspard once served as the "right-hand man" for Bertha Lewis, who heads up ACORN. Steve Doocy, Sept. 29, 2009 False
* * *
6. "Look at the debt that has been accumulated in the last two years. It's more debt under this president than all those other presidents combined."
Sarah Palin, May 31, 2011 False
* * *
7. "There is no good data showing secondhand smoke kills people." John Stossel, Dec. 4, 2014 False
* * *
8. "Democrats are poised now to cause this largest tax increase in U.S. history." Sarah Palin, Aug. 1, 2010 Pants on Fire
* * *
9. "The insurance industry is actually run by mostly Democrats." Dana Perino, Oct. 31, 2013 False
* * *
10. The Obama administration "manipulated deportation data to make it appear that the Border Patrol was deporting more illegal immigrants than the Bush administration." Lou Dobbs, July 1, 2014 False
* * *
11. Some doctors say Ebola can be transmitted through the air by "a sneeze or some cough." George Will, Oct. 19, 2014 False
* * *
12. Says the Texas State Board of Education is considering eliminating references to Christmas and the Constitution in textbooks. Gretchen Carlson, March 10, 2010 Pants on Fire
* * *
13. Because of President Barack Obama’s failure to "push job creation," the black unemployment rate in Ferguson, Mo., is three times higher than the white unemployment rate. Lou Dobbs, Aug. 19, 2014 False
* * *
14. When White House communications director Anita Dunn said that Mao Tse-tung was "one of her favorite philosophers, only Fox News picked that up."
Bill O’Reilly, Oct. 23, 2009 False
* * *
15. "The president of the United States will be taking a trip over to India that is expected to cost the taxpayers $200 million a day." Michele Bachmann, Nov. 3, 2010 False (Note: Bachmann’s claim was made on CNN, not Fox News but Glenn Beck made a similar claim on Fox)
* * *
16. "We researched to find out if anybody on Fox News had ever said you're going to jail if you don't buy health insurance. Nobody's ev

Guess what, it hasn't had a noticeable effect on unemployment rates, rather it leads to increased wages over time as increased productivity as a result of more capital (automation) being able to be used by people to accomplish more.

This is true for some, but not nearly all, workers. The fields directly related to automation such as programming are in high.demand and have seen wages grow, but this is not the case for jobs requiring less education. As automation becomes more and more commonplace, it means there's fewer and fewer jobs available for those doing manual tasks. In fact, if you look at OECD statistics such as labor compensation per hours worked, you'll note that the rate of increase in wages is in fact dropping. In the case of the US for example, the rate of growth has dropped from 6.53 % annually in 2000 to just 1,32 % in 2016. It's since come up a little bit from there to 2,7 % but when you combine this with inflation and a rising cost of living, real wages are actually falling now in the US (and many other western countries) because the rather modest wage growth is not matching these. The same trend can be observed elsewhere in the developing countries, including the euro area.

This shouldn't be that hard to understand in practice. Take something like invoicing, or any other job that doesn't require a high amount of skill but has been critical in employing many, many people on the office side of things. While I was studying I used to work such a job during the summers especially. Back then the office side team consisted of nearly 30 people as the job involved a lot of manual tasks, including scanning paper invoices, manually entering information about what's being paid so that the books are in order, matching the invoice with its existing purchase order etc... With electronic invoicing increasing at a rapid pace, these tasks are quickly becoming more and more automated as the systems learn to pre-fill this information and you can use less and less people in the process. Now, as this happens and companies cut the number of workers in these tasks, productivity per person indeed goes up. One person can easily do what in the past took 5, as the most time consuming parts of the process have been cut out. But do you think this means the companies end up increasing the wages of the remaining staff? Because that is not happening. There's simply no need to do that. The tasks themselves have in fact gotten easier to do, as now all the guys overseeing electronic invoicing have to do is check that the software hasn't missed anything. Since the goal of implementing these systems is to cut costs by cutting labor costs by reducing staff, it makes no sense for companies to then eat up their savings by bumping the salaries of the remaining workforce. It's not like the requirements of the job have gotten any more difficult. With less and less of such jobs available, the competition for the remaining spots will become fiercer and fiercer as automation proceeds to become more commonplace. With many more people wanting to do these jobs than there are jobs, oversupply means the wages will not grow and may even fall. Why pay more when so many people are willing to do it for slightly less?

No, this time won't be different. The luddite fallacy remains a fallacy.

The end-point of this development is cutting humans off the loop entirely. In 20 years, most data entry jobs will be gone, autonomous vehicles will make a lot of drivers unemployed. Manufacturing and logistics are already being automated at a high pace both in the West and in Asia. And so on. The more advanced automation and AI becomes, the less need there will be for humans across the board. The luddite fallacy rests on the notion that companies will forever pre

She's acting like a statesman (stateswoman, actually).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/24/there-is-only-one-way-break-trumps-pathology-pelosi-has-found-it/

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

One of Newt Gingrich's core strategies for creating a Congress which couldn't work together was to discourage GOP members from fraternizing with the opposition.

This is pretty easy to disprove. The Washington Post used to keep a database of every Congresscritter's vote. You could then sort each member by how likely they were to vote with their own party. The general trend is for the party in power to have more members vote with their party, so looking at those who were most likely to vote with their party doesn't tell you much. But if you look at how often they voted against their own party:

• 102nd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Democrats
  35 voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 16 of them Democrats .
• 103rd House - Speaker Tim Foley (D).
  9 members voted agianst their party a third of the time or more, 6 of them Democrats.
  22 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 14 of them Democrats
• 104th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  23 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 5 of them Republicans
  43 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 7 of them Republicans
• 105th House - Speaker Newt Gingrich (R)
  6 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  13 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
• 106th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 4 of them Republicans
  14 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 of them Republicans
• 107th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  8 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
• 108th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  3 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 2 of them Republicans
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 3 of them Republicans
• 109th House - Speaker Dennis Hastert (R)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  Same two members voted against their party a third of the time, 1 of them Republicans
• 110th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  No members voted against their party a third of the time or more
  2 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, none of the Democrats
• 111th House - Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D)
  2 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Democrats
  5 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 4 of them Democrats
• 112th House - Speaker John Boehner (R)
  8 members voted against their party a third of the time or more, 1 of them Republicans
  19 members voted against their party a quarter of the time or more, 6 o

So long as Yelp must remove reviews that were ruled to be defamatory. If they don't, then S230 needs to be reformed because no platform should have a right to keep defamatory reviews up after they've been ruled as such in court.

Agreed in principle. That said, there is an interesting (read: sneaky) set of cases around this principle.

1. Plaintiff goes to "reputation management" company to remove bad reviews
2. Reputation management company recruits someone to be the defendant
3. RMC sues the 'defendant', which then admits to making the post (they didn't) and that it was defamatory (maybe it was) and settles for a small sum. This suit, however, isn't the point
4. RMC goes to Google/Bing/Yelp with the court order now that it has been "ruled defamatory". By policy, many will remove or de-index it.

For one, the human capacity for ingenuity is astounding. Using a straw defendant to get a court ruling to satisfy Google's policy of "we will remove anything a court has found defamatory" is pretty next-level thinking. The courts are happy to vacate those orders when someone shows up with proof of the fraud (and more, some of the companies were fined $100K or so), but that requires someone to notice and investigate. Prosecutors sometimes catch wind too and can bring charges, but again that requires it being brought to their attention. Legal gadflies might do this pro-bono (and to rightfully troll the RMCs), but that's hardly a foolproof system. Ultimately, I don't have much of a good answer. Yes, Google and Yelp should de-index material when it has been found defamatory in a fair court case. How Google and Yelp are supposed to assess whether the court order is the product of fraud or not, when they get thousands of them is beyond me . . .

Where will they read about the frustrated inbred Republican INCELs too incompetent to either get laid or kill themselves?

Major US cities are doing this for kids as well in subways. Why? Because 95% of the fare beaters in places like Washington DC are black. It's part of 'criminal justice reform' which is code for: we have too many black people in prisons, so we need to change the laws that black people keep breaking. https://www.washingtonpost.com... Hilarious under any other circumstance, but this is no joke. Despite making subways now a conduit for more black crime (it follows that if you're bold enough to beat the fare, that's the tip of the iceberg) and increasing the load directly and indirectly on taxpayers, the politicians in those cities now can pat themselves on the back on a job well done to help the blacks.

Ned Nikolov, Ph.D.

I looked up who this guy was and oh boy.

Scientists published climate research under fake names. Then they were caught.
Excerpt about the paper.

The withdrawn study “is just a curve-fitting exercise of five data points using four free parameters and as many functional forms as they could think of,” Schmidt, an expert in atmospheric climate modeling, said in an email. Like the previous pseudonymous research, “it too has nothing fundamental to add.”

He added, “The authors’ insistence that they are ‘contradicting mainstream theory’ is just delusional self-aggrandizement.”

One person's "getting it wrong" is another's profitable business venture.

say we make it permanent and fire all furloughed workers. We might actually be able to balance the budge,

All government salaries combined account for around $200 billion. We could literally fire every single federal employee and we still wouldn't have even covered half the federal deficit ($779 billion last year).

Who's with me on this....

Nobody with a brain in their skull.

The retard is demanding that all of the people now working without pay be dismissed? Or is the the new Republican plan to re-institute slavery?

say we make it permanent and fire all furloughed workers. We might actually be able to balance the budge,

All government salaries combined account for around $200 billion. We could literally fire every single federal employee and we still wouldn't have even covered half the federal deficit ($779 billion last year).

Who's with me on this....

Nobody with a brain in their skull.

I feel far more betrayed by the Clinton dealings with Russia than anything Trump may or may not have done with Russia. Even if the things people are accusing Trump of doing were true, it is practically nothing compared to the amount of money the Clintons received from Russia and the contempt for our country's security that Uranium One represents.

No Seriously! We know exactly where these hacks are coming from. A few well placed cruise missiles with conventional weapons should do the trick.

The idea that 'everyone thought that the earth was flat 500 years ago' is a myth. The ancient greeks knew that that the world is roughly round; Pythagoras wrote as much in 600 BC. Christopher Columbus was ridiculed because he believed that the world was half the size that most who had studied the subject believed. They were right, if he hadn't run into 'the west indies' rather than India as he planned, the famous explorer would be nothing more than a footnote at best. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

This type of bribe-laundering even works for modern presidents.

...And at the same moment, this news story comes out:

https://www.vox.com/2019/1/16/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Remove 2 billion people from the planet.

There is really no need for that. We have basically got population growth under control, with the fertility rate being around static (2.2) in most places. Yes, even third world countries.

The population is still growing because people are living longer. But it's levelling off, and at a level which is sustainable with modern farming methods and renewable energy.

In the longer term, past 2100, the population will probably fall as the fertility rate continues to decline

Modern farming techniques aren't sustainable. Modern farming relies on tapping fossil water (aquifers), mining phosphorus, and petro chemicals. All of these are exhaustible resources. And beyond that fertilizer runoff in waterways, excessive antibiotics used to raise livestock, and pesticides are all ecological disasters in their own right.

I'm not saying that we should just stop all those things now and let a bunch of people starve, but we need to realize we are drawing down resources in decades that were built up over millions of years. We should do our best to improve these practices, figure out how many people actually sustainable agriculture and industry can support, and work on getting our birthrate down below replacement until we hit that number.

And of course, we'd have to come up with an economic system that isn't predicated on constant growth. Right now several countries that have flat or negative growth rates are running PR campaigns and social programs to incentivize people to have more children to stave off economic repercussions of a shrinking population.

good reasons for the recent data exchange.

Reasons for the recent data exchange:
1. It serves the interests of all nations operating spacecraft within an area to exchange basic telemetry so they can, for example, avoid collisions.
2. In this case, it would serve the interests of China to have the US publicly admit and even photograph (if possible) one of their space successes - giving obviously solid proof of a far away event to a wold mostly unable to verify it for themselves, much as the Soviet confirmation of the American moon landings in the '60s and '70s did.

Reasons for the prohibitions:
1. The Chinese science and military space programs are one-and-the-same; they're completely unified - so there's no way any sympathetic politician in the west can offer political cover when encouraging supposedly peaceful cooperation.
2. The Chinese military has a long track record of thresatening to nuke the USA.
3. In the 1990s, several American companies (Loral, Hughes...) wanted their satellite customers to be able to use cheap Chinese launch vehicles (which were failing at an alarming rate) in place of American and European launch vehicles, so they illegally transferred a bunch of launch vehicle tech to China. This had two major effects: [a] it enabled the Chinese aerospace industry to damage the American and European launch vehicle industries, and [b] suddenly Chinese ICBMs became far more reliable and accurate.

An orbital launch vehicle is just a more capable ICBM. As anybody with an aerospace background knows, if you can accurately place a large payload into orbit, you can more easily place a nuclear warhead on a sub-orbital launcher and hit any city on Earth. What that transfer of tech did (in addition to making some executives and share holders of a couple of companies a bit richer) was to enable the Chinese military to more effectively threaten to kill all the American taxpayers who paid to develop the technology. As a military vet, I personally resent the fact that the executives involved were not tried for treason and executed by firing squad. The Chinese military, yet again, threatened to nuke the USA just within the past week - THANKS, Loral and Hughes!.

The Unites States and Russia do not, to this day, exchange complete information with each other. They cooperate with the tech data needed to make systems interoperable (like docking systems, atmosphere standards, and such) and if the cooperation with China could be limited to that then there'd be nothing big to worry about, however too many American scientists and businessmen have spent 20 years proving they will not self-limit their tech transfers to China (see: Apple, Google, IBM, Motorola, etc) Nearly every major American company has sold-out to China, as have most American universities.

All the "peaceful cooperation in space" drivel that is so often spread by idiots usually ignores the existence of nuclear warheads (which in the case of China are not constrained at all by ANY arms reduction or limitation treaties).

They fact checked his hosting a college basketball team yesterday.

Trump "We had hamburgers a mile high"
WaPo " At two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high"

Did I just make that up? or can I provide a Link to WaPo stating this?

Is that the kind of lies they fact check at WaPo? Thanks, I'll pass on fake news.

More about Trump hassles: In 710 days, President Trump has made 7,645 false or misleading claims

If the sun is doing skin damage, clearly we need a new sun!

And... Why do "white" people want to be black?

Or, maybe we need to find a new planet. I'm tired of all the news about Trump, such as: In 710 days, President Trump has made 7,645 false or misleading claims .

The real solution: Take vitamin pills every day? Vitamins A, D, E, and K are not soluble in water, so there is an upper limit to how much you should take.

I'll care the instant someone insists Bill Clinton get charged for RAPE. Story

You give yourself away by giving a pass to a rapist, add to that your lack of evidence of Trump actually doing something wrong and you sound like a lunatic.

The first time was in 2011

He wasn't waiting for the republicans to give in on something. He didn't want to sign a short-term measure because he wanted to pressure congress to come up with an actual spending bill instead of a long series of temporary ones that take the pressure off. It's called leadership.

The second time was in 2013 on ACA

This was over the republicans wanting to delay/defund obamacare (again). They tried to do this about a thousand times in various ways. Of course obama wasn't going to sign that.

The third time was in 2015 on spending again

Let's quote some less biased sources. This impasse was over the more conservative wing trying to defund planned parenthood.

Obama never refused to sign a spending bill because he wanted some wild pet project.

Funny, all the Border patrol agents say a wall would help.

No, Trump says all the Border patrol agents say that. But Trump has a very tenuous relationship with reality.

What CBP agents actually want depends on where they are stationed. Because each part of the border has its own problems. Some want more helicopters. Some need a road along the border. Almost all want more sensors and cameras.

And absolutely none want a massive concrete wall. Because that would mean they could not see through it to prepare for border crossings.

ot using a wall with everything else makes it harder to control illegal immigration

"Illegal Immigration" has not been this low since the 1970s. Without a wall. It's almost like someone is shoveling bullshit at you to get you scared so you vote for them.

We are reading you

Non-citizens cannot vote.

Wrong wrong wrong. They can and do vote where liberal governments allow it, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

I included a link to the Heritage foundation refuting your statements. In contrast, all you've provided is your own bare assertions.

Dr. Rand Paul (elected official), has proposed a specific alternative bill or two (which won the support of Trump and most GOP members of Congress) which was not "over 90% identical to the ACA". Just the provision of using State-level block grants alone instead of Federal mandates removed the vast majority of the rules, regulations and restrictions within the ACA, not to mention the rest of the replacement. In the meantime, after McCain's betrayal, they've done what they can via the portions determined by executive order, which alone make up more than 10% of the ACA's original effect under Obama.

Once you're ready to start citing some facts (how about a link to the Heritage Foundation "plan" you say the ACA was based on?), then maybe come back.

i can't speak to the murder statistics

The murder statistics are nonsense. Saying "Mexicans murder people in America, therefore we should have a wall", is as silly as saying "Californians murder people in Nevada, therefore we should have a wall".

Illegal immigration does not increase violent crime

Mexican immigrants are LESS likely to commit violent crimes than native born Americans

it's only because the GOP has been actively sabotaging the government that this is a problem. This entire shutdown mess is entirely a creation of the GOP.

And I see what you did there with your anecdote where you tell a story with the most obnoxious person anyone can imagine (Big SUV, detailing, of course a Lady because there's a meme for that). Let that rub off on anyone who complains about the shutdown.

I mean, if we're gonna talk about obnoxious folks in the shutdown there's this gem. But there's also a lot of folks trying to figure out how to afford gas. Real Wages are down yet like the article says the GOP base is thrilled. Meanwhile it's not free to go to work. That "hurting the people he's supposed to hurt" lady (meme intended) has a 7 hour commute. Some folks need money for daycare too. Screw this noise.

Never said? How about the memo from him on 2016-03-31,
"Make a one-time payment of $5-10 billon"
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

C'mon, everybody and their aunt have been pointing to instances where he said this, not commentary, or interpretation, he did say it.

Bullshit. The clean CR had already passed. All McConnel has to do is submit the same bill, and override the veto. You don't get to hold the Government hostage for a bill that can be debated and passed seperately.

Civics lessons failed for this AC. The CR (which only provided funding until February 8th), was NOT passed. It was never submitted.

Overriding a veto requires 2/3 of BOTH houses (civics isn't taught in school anymore?). McConnell could not make that happen, nor could the Republican whip. You need plenty of Republicans to agree to it, and too many of them won't. Besides, he already tried a compromise by asking for $1.6 billion, and that couldn't get through Democrats either.

I think the feedback loops for such projects are too large, and hence, prone to "pet projects" and corruption/theft. That said, I think the locals/immediate users should pay for their own stuff - if it's not worth it, then it's not worth it; why invest in waste? To that end, I think having most roads as (automatic, electronic) tolls roads is a good idea; it shrinks the money feedback loops even smaller.

And I respectfully disagree regarding the 1000+ who sneak across our border every day as not being the biggest of our problems.

Sorry, screwed up the video link: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The fence was a failure. People simply went around it or went over it. It was also breached 9,287 times in 5 years, resulting in repair costs.

People would climb it, tunnel under it, throw drugs over it... It even started a drug war that resulted in 2000 deaths.

It also had some pretty bad effects on the environment where it was built.

Okay, you say, Trump's wall will be better. Higher, stronger, cover the entire border. Here's a video of a couple of guys climbing the existing very similar existing wall, in broad daylight, with drugs strapped to their backs, using only ropes. Takes them less than a minute.

The problem needs to be tackled at source, not at the border.

• It's why we strive to further reduce airliner fatalities when it's already one or two orders of magnitudes safer than any other form of transport. The media gives plane accidents disproportionately more coverage than other transportation accidents, causing the public to demand planes be made safer than they already are.
• Same thing with child abductions. Abduction by a stranger is incredibly rare - only a few dozen cases happen each year. But because the media gives those cases wildly disproportionate coverage, every parent is scared to death to let their child out of their sight for 2 minutes.
• Shark attacks always seem to make the national news, even though on average only about 1 person is killed each year by sharks in the U.S. Meanwhile the approx 100 people killed each year by deer go unreported except maybe as a local news story.
• School shootings are another example - they've actually been decreasing over the last two decades. But because the media automatically splashes any school shooting on the national news, the public incorrectly thinks they're becoming more common. Statistically, more high school students are killed by complications from pregnancy (page 3) than from non-gang, non-suicide school shootings. But I've yet to see a news story take that angle against teen pregnancy.
• Terrorism. If you include all the 9/11 fatalities, you're roughly 4x as likely to die from terrorism than lightning. Exclude 9/11 and you're roughly 6x more likely to be killed by lightning. I think I've seen one news story in 40 years of someone being killed by lightning. Yet every terrorist incident, even the ones which fail and cause no damage or injury, seem to automatically make national news.
• Until the last couple years, the media basically ignored the decade-long rise in drug overdose deaths. It wasn't until it surpassed car accident deaths that they finally began taking it seriously. The day which crystallized this in my mind was the 2016 murder-suicide on the UCLA campus. That story immediately made national news with live coverage on all the major networks. On the very same day 2 people died and over 57 were hospitalized from drug overdoses at a music festival in Florida. But that story barely made it beyond the local papers, and I didn't see any coverage of it on TV. I only happened to see it because I clicked on a different story from a Florida newspaper in Google News.
• After overdoses and traffic accidents, suicide is the #3 cause of non-disease death. But it's extraordinarily rare to see a news story about a suicide unless it's a celebrity. Which is a real shame because this is probably the most preventable cause of death we have. And if more people knew how common it was, they probably wouldn't feel as alone with their problems to commit suicide.

And these are the

Both are/would be problems.

And it was 300,000+ who tried to enter in 2017 alone. That's millions over a few years, that we know about.

I haven't been able to find a video but I did find this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

That Sears guy is pretty smart.

Like election fraud: All the "There's little to no election fraud occurring." claims turn out to really be: "There's little to no PROSECUTION of election fraud."

The fact is that republicans shout voter fraud, and then when we go looking for it we only find republicans. This absurd myth of Democrats winning because of voter fraud is the last, desperate measure of the tiny little minds of anti-progressives who cannot conceive of the idea that the majority do not agree with them. They manipulate elections at every level in order to win, and can not only conceive of the idea that the opposition is not doing the same, but then go on to seemingly forget that they have done it and then be surprised when the majority doesn't feel it's represented by government.

806,300. It's not in any one area of the US either: https://www.washingtonpost.com...