Slashdot Mirror

DACA was initially rejected by POTUS as beyond his authority. But he saw the flagging numbers in the 2012 election and did it anyway, knowing that court challenges would be resolved after the election. There are already conditions for declaring asylum but hey, what are a few bribes to stand in the way of vote-seekers who try to ensure a permanent underclass?

You people are so pathetic, so much the true useful idiots Lenin needed to overthrow the west. Why aren't you worried about the fact that Trump's comment was made during the time period when Obama's Intel community was told to stand down about supposed Russian meddling?

Seems to me his comment was more about pointing out how our intelligence agencies were hiding her crimes and not doing their jobs, not being more flexible to aid the Russians.

I mean, after all, weren't we told during the debate on Oct 22, 2012 that The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years?

In other words ban the things that make money in the state, and therefore pay the taxes, and when the money runs out to pay for blah blah blah

Wrong wrong wrong wrong.

The entire agricultural output of California is only 2% of the state's GDP. Meaning that entire sector could disappear and the state wouldn't even notice, economically speaking. But I'm not speaking of banning agriculture, only the most wasteful aspects of it.

And you noted the part that residential water use is less than 15% of the state's water supply, yes? That means these gluttons of industry are first and foremost hurting other industry. A greedy rancher or almond farmer means there's less water for crops that you have a hard time growing outside of California, especially during certain times of the year. You can grow tomatoes just fine in Wisconsin, but not in January.

Build some water reservoirs, desalination plants

You mean spend fantastic sums of money just so said cattle ranchers and almond farmers can go on living beyond the water supply's means. How about....no.

I'm sorry she hurt your feefees, but your personal acquaintances are not the equivalent of conservative thought leaders. Nearly the entire conservative media has gone all in on trumpism. And it didn't happen over night, its the result of 40+ years of inching and then running towards that cliff.

Just today, Paul Ryan excused GOP Rep Jason Lewis calling people on welfare "parasites" and that black people on welfare had "traded one plantation for another." Ryan said Lewis had no reason to apologize because that it was just his job as a radio shock jock.

Stupid enough to get into an argument over a handicapped parking spot, then kill the person trying to get you to stop

The person who was killed was the poor bastard who had stopped with his family IN the handicapped spot. It was a Circle A regular who was pissed someone was using the handicap spot without using a tag and decided that warranted slaughtering a father in front of his kids, just because he was pushed to the ground while yelling at them.

No way was that a stand your ground situation. That was murder.

This is rubbish.There are plenty of democracies in Western Europe, and none of them are closer to tyranny than the USA.

Tell that to Tommy Robinson who was secretly jailed for protesting outside a courthouse.

Citation

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

"You would hope the cops arn't crazy enough to start arresting people based entirely on the matching system"

And you would be wrong, people are arrested all the time based simply on "the computer screen/paper told me to". There have literally been cases where people have pulled out multiple forms of ID proving they weren't the person detailed in the arrest warrant and they were arrested anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if facial recognition became our next "the K9 alerted" or "the field drug test came back positive" excuse, which are basically a catch all reason to arrest someone based on no real evidence (K9s can be easily induced to alert and field drug tests will hit on sugar, sage, flour, breath mints, air, etc).

Man arrested for dead brothers crime
Field Drug Test Kit False Positives

Apart from things like minor transportation delays, radiation monitors sounding, credit cards failing to work, some phones deleting new messages rather than old when running out of space, etc, probably the worst Y2K bug I heard of was a bunch of expectant mothers in the UK being falsely told that their children were at a high risk of Downs' Syndrome when they weren't, and vice versa, due to miscalculation of the mother's age. There were some abortions in the former group as a result of the email. Still, given all the hype, the actual effects were (as everyone here expected) quite small.

My favorite was when the government of Maine started issuing titles to peoples' new cars describing it as a "Horseless Carriage", as apparently that had been hard-coded as the terminology for vehicles from before 1916. ;)

Former head of the FBI for 12 years, appointed by the Trump DOJ, endorsed by Republicans [usatoday.com] back when this whole process started.

You say that like its supposed to mean something. It means nothing when the FBI has been a ratfucking outfit since its inception, and establishment Republicans (who tended to endorse Hillary if they weren't running themselves) hate Trump. And just as Flint still doesn't have clean water, Mueller still hasn't bothered to examine the DNC server, the alleged hacking of which he's now issuing indictments for. You simply cannot fit that square peg in a round hole.

Preach brother! You've disproven the indictment by timing and irrelevant hyperbole alone! All who disagree with you have less than a couple of functioning neurons!

Your attempt to substitute lazy hand waving and sarcasm for an actual response is noted.

Because the tale is that Putin offered to allow Mueller to observe interviews conducted by Russian officials in Russia

Yes, interrogate the accused Russians with other Russians present.

If the Special Counsel really wants to get to the bottom of this, Putin went on, he should team up with Russian law enforcement to catch these hypothetical meddlers.

Roh roh.

if the Russians could question "U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul and 10 other 'U.S. officials and intelligence agents

That's how quid pro quos work - all the while calling out Mueller's bluff and pointing out how hypocritical the US is in "meddling" with other countries. Now, if you want to go on kicking the football for the same people that lied you into the Iraq war, now with even less evidence (and by less I mean zero), go ahead - but try not to drag the rest of the world into nuclear war while you're at it, mmmkay?

Crimea actually, part of Russia proper until 1954, 60-80% Russian-speaking (depending on who's counting), annexed after a (granted,questionable) referendum after successful US-sponsored coup in Ukraine. Sounds much less villainous after you know some facts. Also a great loss of resources that were supposed to be made available to US interests after the successful coup. Oops.

There was no "coup" unless you rely on Russian sources. It was the majority of Ukrainians who VOTED to join the EU. Russia views the EU as the gateway to NATO and of course Putin would have none of that, so he decided to invade the east and annex Crimea with soldiers without insigna, all the while putting up smokescreens denying any involvement. All of which is obviously illegal under international law.

Support for a Russian-allied tyrant is different from US supporting its Allied Tyrants (say the House of Saud) by how many levels of Hell exactly? Oh, I see, the same action's evil depends of who is doing it! Also known as Hypocrisy. And no, "whataboutism" is an Orwellian NewSpeak term, a logical fallacy in itself designed to deflect from exposing actions Hypocritical. Don't even bother.

The Syrians were protesting on the streets for more freedoms and democracy as part of the Arab spring. Assad decided not to chat and gun them down instead. You can bet your ass the US or any Western country would never be able or willing to uphold support for a regime that guns down their own citizens. Putin has no problem with that, obviously.

You should read stuff by Seymour Hersh (one of those old school war journalists no longer popular for their knack of telling inconvenient truths - oh, hey this sounds familiar!) and his on-site investigations of the Great Chlorine Fabrication. There are many others. For further reference check out a girl named Nayirah and incubator babies but then again it will probably bounce off your uncritical self-smug world-view like a water off a duck.

International inspectors have performed their investigations and it is clear that the Syrian regime bears responsibility for the chemical attacks. But you might prefer to believe Putin and Assad's version, since they are clearly more trustworthy than any international organization.

Hang them now! How dare they have a preference! Wait, isn't this exactly what US is doing? Wasn't Obama actually co-campaigning in Britain against Brexit even...

Voicing support for one party or the other is one thing. A foreign state actor providing material support and finances to a party and agenda of a foreign nation is another thing altogether.

The ongoing murders of opposition figures and journalists in Russia

Having been fed a steady diet of bullshit of such high purity you probably also think that Putin is not having popularity ratings in 80% range

Putin's rating haven't been in the 80's for a while now. Not that it matters. Of course a strong leader in a police state where the media is controlled by the government will have high ratings. How high do you think Hitler's rating where?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.bbc.com/news/world...
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...
The list goes on...
Business as usual in Putin's Russia.

It's pretty hard to speak of reputable journalism these days. There is very little in the way of big media that is interested in letting people reach their own conclusions.

Seeing as you brought up game companies, lets not forget how gamergate happened, you had a female developer that was sleeping around with game journalists to get good reviews.

Funny enough the game journalists actually are taking their cues from the "professionals"

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

You have reporters at the times and the washington post sleeping with sources to get stories. Does this make them reputable pimps ?

Actually not true, Trump put together a panel to review voting irregularities but most Democrat States refused to participate. What were they trying to hide?

Please STOP talking about Hilary and the DNC. It's past, gone, they lost.

We would be happy to stop bringing it up if you will please tell them to remember the former President's words I won, Deal with it. As long as the left and the media keep this crap going, this will keep coming up. Would be great if we could focus more attention on continuing the tremendous successes for the country that Trump is having even with this b***s*** crap going.

Last week WaPo reported that Trump appointed Roseinstein to the DOJ. An outright lie.

Presidents do not appoint Attorney Generals (nor Deputies), they nominate them. That's a technical inaccuracy, but not a lie.

Trump did nominate Rosenstein — and the Senate confirmed him.

Just writing TRUMP on the sidewalk is a microaggression and wearing a Trump shirt can get you booted from class. So we're not too far off of when you need to rise and shine!

I generally hate it, when people claim, the US "is just as bad" as some totalitarian shithole and openly compare McCarthy with the likes of Beria. But American colleges are already in the world of next Tuesday, where the "progressives" want the rest of the country to be. Ruining one's "social score" can already cost one a college-admission.

Routinely, getting into a good college in the US today — especially for some racial minorities — requires some combination of:

• volunteer work;
• sports participation;
• other "extra-curricular" activities, such as, for example, ballroom dancing;
• demonstrated leadership abilities — my personal favorite.

These colleges are ostensibly private, so they should be able to do whatever they please... But the same freedom is not afforded to other businesses, and, when politically expedient, even these private colleges have been arm-twisted into compliance with the government's demands.

no, the blunders are consistent and form a larger pattern.

Just as the Hillary investigation not following protocol either.

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

Why would they be light on the Hillary investigation and then throw out all these baseless accusations that they can't defend in a court of law in the Trump investigation?

Is it a coincidence that they gave Hillary a pass and are exceeding their mandate with Trump?

Fairly consistent coincidence. Just keeps happening. Almost as if it isn't a coincidence.

And the foaming tribal political partisanship of those that want him to burn WITHOUT evidence of anything taints the credibility of those people to claim they are seeking justice.

That the FBI is not following protocol is something that has been remarked upon both by independent councils and by many FBI agents within the FBI that have expressed disgust at the situation. If you want to deny the obvious, then I don't really know what that accomplishes. It convinces no one and ultimately we are headed to a game of chicken here if people like you don't stop. You can't just change the rules whenever it is convenient for you. That might have worked when you were 4 and your mom didn't want to hear you cry when you lost at shoots and ladders... I'm not your mom... you're not four... and I really don't care if you cry. When you clearly apply two different standards based on whether it is in your political interest, your integrity regarding these matters is forfeit.

Apply a consistent standard. The "Russians colluded with Trump on the election" argument is stupid.

1. The allegation ultimately boils down to some facebook targeted marketing was placed. Literally.
2. Some facebook targeted marketing didn't move the needle remarkably.
3. Every american media source is saturated with political propaganda prior to elections further rendering the relevance of a few posts from the Russians that much more laughable.
4. There are a million NGOs engaging in political activism in elections and many of them are super national NGOs... that is non-domestic. They frequently draw funding from outside the country. Which means if you problem is external funding, you could show some interest in shutting down any of those. Ultimately any argument against the irrelevant contribution of the Russians would be one of paper work. If the activist group cited themselves as an NGO then you'd either have to ban Green Peace from participating as well let it happen.
5. Foreign government involve themselves in US elections all the time. The EU and China are doing as is Canada and Mexico. In fact, its quite a bit easier to find their involvement in that election than it is the Russians.
6. There's literally no evidence that there was collusion and the only source of that story is the Hillary Clinton campaign which is a very biased source of information regarding anything she's salty about.
7. A dirty tricks group that was placing violent protesters at BERNIE SANDERS and Trump rallies was unmasked towards the end of the campaign. That group's job was to create problems for rival campaigns. Frankly this Russia story reads as the last dumb gasp of a sad little smear campaign that got out of control.

And if you think I'm wrong... then why after TWO YEARS do you have NOTHING. You do realize it has been two whole fucking years right? And nothing.

The process is playing out. Its like watching a marathon between two runners... and one of them is slowly bleeding to death.

Your position has become a joke. Even SNL is laughing at you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

How's the weather in St. Petersburg today?

• 2009 — opponents of Obama are all racists.
• 2016 — opponents of Hillary are sexist
• 2017- — supporters of Trump are Russians (and racists too).

At least, dissent is patriotic again now...

Better question: Why so much grief, hatred, and outrage over a relative non-issue?

Yeah, the MSM says that so it must be true. Then why are human trafficking arrests at an all time high? Do you support human trafficking and child prostitution? Do you realize that gangs use unrelated adults to pose as parents to smuggle children across the border for the sex trade or slave labour? They are called coyotes.

Better question: Why so much grief, hatred, and outrage over a relative non-issue?

Oh, wait--this is not a deterrent. This is part of legitimate law enforcement and won't be abused.
Certainly not an intimidation tactic to get the "undesirable" element off of Irvine Company's properties.

BTW, didja hear Trump's answer to the federal kidnapping program?
“Tell people not to come to our country illegally,” Trump told reporters. “That’s the solution.

But, again, it's not a deterrent. Believe me.

You think standing matters to ICE or Border Patrol?

How credulous can you be?

My apologies, the job numbers are not the best in history, just the best in nearly century.

Half-century. Look again.

Also, I notice that wage growth has slowed since Trump took office. More jobs were being created during Obama and wages were growing faster. In fact, since the passage of his highly-touted tax cut plan, wages for most US workers have actually shrunk.

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

https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

Black unemployment low a result of tax cuts from trump.
Pelosi running on repealing tax cuts.
DNC ran presidential candidate who claimed her mentor was a KKK leader, Robert Byrd.
DNC started civil war to keep slaves.
DNC filibustered civil rights act.

I'm not seeing the untruths.

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

Please cite a post he has made that and the particular term of service it violated.

You might be a Nazi... if you support Donald Trump. Or put another way, here's your sign.

I think it's crazy that some groups would rather spend their resources fighting a voter ID requirement than helping people who don't have an ID get one. In my opinion the only reason to do this is they know the ID requirement will reduce voter fraud.

I think it is crazy to think that in-person voter fraud is a problem we need to solve. What percent of non-citizens would be willing to risk a felony in order to cast 1 vote in an election? According to election officials pretty much everywhere, the answer is next to zero.

You think an illegal immigrant is going to risk going to jail by voting?

So, make it harder for millions of citizens to vote by requiring IDs that often cost money, in order to stop a TINY amount of in-person voter fraud.

I think it is crazy that people don't believe Republicans when the openly admit on camera that voter ID laws are going to help them win. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

It has nothing to do with stopping voter fraud, and everything to do with making a few percent of likely dem voters, not be able to vote. In tight races, closing a few voting stations making the lines longer, ID laws, keeping the day a Tuesday instead of a day off for most people, etc. All of this is designed to help Republicans win.

If you don't see that, you are willfully ignorant.

If you don't see that people need an official ID to function in society, you are willfully ignorant.

Your excellent thought mirrors that expressed in the penultimate paragraph here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pruitt-wont-be-needing-those-tactical-pants-anymore-but-trump-might/2018/07/05/13930b86-80a8-11e8-b0ef-fffcabeff946_story.html

But I think a third explanation may account for Pruitt’s longevity in the face of insurmountable scandal. While the media, and the Democrats, were getting all worked up about the mattress and the lotion and Chick-fil-A and Disneyland and the phone booth and the bulletproof seats and the rest of Pruitt’s penny-ante corruption, relatively little attention was going to the emoluments, which are of much greater value: Ivanka Trump’s trademarks and Jared Kushner’s investors and foreign governments pumping millions into Trump properties.

Fake news is not an imaginary thing.

When only 7% of journalists are Republicans in a country as evenly divided as ours, there is NO WAY the news is unbiased or biased in favor of the right.

When those almost totally left wing reporters then provide coverage of a Republican president that is more than 90% negative even as the economy is booming and consumer confidence is at an 18 year high it's a sign that something is off-balance in the newsrooms.

When those same left wing journalists (who insist they are "main stream" and unbiased) make error after error after error against that Republican president but somehow amazingly not in his favor, after spending 8 years performing virtual analingus on Obama, it's a sign of a problem.

You can whine and complain all you want that people to your political right believe that much of the "mainstream" news is actually just fake propaganda, but they have more ammunition for their beliefs than you have for yours.

Get back to me when the "journalists" currently panicking that ONE former Fox news reporter is a State Dept spokesperson and ONE former Fox News producer is about to take the White House communications director job decide to retroactively panic at the HUNDREDS of Google people who went back-and-forth between White House jobs under Obama and their Google jobs, or the numerous ties between Obama admin people and ALL the non-Fox news networks. Try looking up all those Obama-era media connections... if you have an honest bone in your body you'll be shocked.

Fake news is not an imaginary thing.

When only 7% of journalists are Republicans in a country as evenly divided as ours, there is NO WAY the news is unbiased or biased in favor of the right.

When those almost totally left wing reporters then provide coverage of a Republican president that is more than 90% negative even as the economy is booming and consumer confidence is at an 18 year high it's a sign that something is off-balance in the newsrooms.

When those same left wing journalists (who insist they are "main stream" and unbiased) make error after error after error against that Republican president but somehow amazingly not in his favor, after spending 8 years performing virtual analingus on Obama, it's a sign of a problem.

You can whine and complain all you want that people to your political right believe that much of the "mainstream" news is actually just fake propaganda, but they have more ammunition for their beliefs than you have for yours.

Get back to me when the "journalists" currently panicking that ONE former Fox news reporter is a State Dept spokesperson and ONE former Fox News producer is about to take the White House communications director job decide to retroactively panic at the HUNDREDS of Google people who went back-and-forth between White House jobs under Obama and their Google jobs, or the numerous ties between Obama admin people and ALL the non-Fox news networks. Try looking up all those Obama-era media connections... if you have an honest bone in your body you'll be shocked.

You've got to be kidding me. Are you so disconnected from reality that you don't think the left was outraged by drone strikes under Obama?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfo...
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
http://www.newsweek.com/strike...

... the Netflix binge-ers.

So what if they use 37 percent of all the internet bandwidth? If you want to read your /., you're gonna just have to embrace Internet socialism and pay enough to ensure that the folks using 1000x the bandwidth you are can watch sequentially every episode of Criminal Minds without interruption.

We insist that only doctors can prescribe medication, although there are many, many countries that don't require doctor approval and do very well with that.

But our system prevents people from prescribing highly addictive painkillers willy-nilly!

What's that you say?

I'll agree with you on Fox. As for the others, including the BBC (which I also enjoy watching), you're viewing them through your liberal rose colored glasses...they're clearly not impartial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

"Pew has basically taken the average viewer/consumer of all of these media outlets and plotted them on a continuum, trying to ascertain which outlets are favored by which side of the political spectrum."

That's measuring audience (who watches) not how biased the media is. Those are two different things. I'm also not a "liberal", I'm a centrist, so no "liberal rose colored glasses" for me.

His name is Seth Rich.

He died to expose the depth of the DNC and Obama Administration's corruption.

That is complete fucking bullshit.

Just because Fox made up some bullshit, doesn't make it true.

I'll agree with you on Fox. As for the others, including the BBC (which I also enjoy watching), you're viewing them through your liberal rose colored glasses...they're clearly not impartial.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Maybe you failed to read this is an FBI investigation somehow, you poor accused rapist?

Oh yeah, like the history of FBI investigations isn't rife with failure?

Hell, just look at Robert Mueller's history:

$4.65 million paid to Steven Hatfill over Mueller's botched anthrax investigation

Putting innocent men on death row to cover up FBI involvement with Boston mobster Whitey Bulger:

FBI Must Pay $102 Million In Mob Case

A federal judge in Boston yesterday ordered the government to pay a record nearly $102 million for the FBI's role in the 1968 wrongful murder convictions of four men, and she powerfully condemned misconduct that she said ran "all the way up to the FBI director."

U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner's scathing ruling runs for more than 200 pages, calling the charges leveled against the nation's law enforcement agency "shocking" and the government's defense "absurd."

"Now is the time to say and say without equivocation: this 'cost' -- to the liberty of four men, to our system of justice -- is not remotely acceptable," Gertner wrote in explaining the award. "This case is about intentional misconduct, subornation of perjury, conspiracy, the framing of innocent men."

Gertner said the FBI knew that the star witness in a murder trial -- a "top echelon" informant in the agency's war against La Cosa Nostra, the Italian Mafia -- was lying when he identified the four wrongfully convicted men as responsible for a 1965 gangland slaying. But Gertner said agents vouched for the witness's credibility and for years covered up the lie as the men attempted to prove their innocence.

"The FBI's conduct was intentional, it was outrageous, it caused plaintiffs immeasurable and unbearable pain and the FBI must be held accountable," Gertner wrote.

Two of the men convicted, Louis Greco and Henry Tameleo, died behind bars. The others, Peter Limone, 73, and Joseph Salvati, 74, spent three decades in prison -- Limone, for a time, on death row -- before being freed when their convictions were overturned in the late 1990s. The civil lawsuit against the FBI was filed in 2002.

...

Robert Mueller was an assistant US attorney in Boston - and wrote multiple letters to the courts denying these four men parole that reiterated the known false charges against them:

One lingering question for FBI director Robert Mueller

... it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting US attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies.

Of course, Mueller was also in that position while Whitey Bulger was helping the FBI cart off his criminal competitors even as he buried bodies in shallow graves along the Neponset.

And that's just one person's history - a person lauded as so fucking wonderful.

So GFY with your "this is an FBI investigation"

You jest, but there have been cases where the teen gets charged under the child pornography laws for making it. There are some states that try to address this, but there are still quite a number of them that still prosecutes under child porn laws.

Because third-party claims were being applied, an entire industry sprung up about suing fake defendants, who never defended themselves (if they even existed) to get a court order to remove material from websites like Yelp.

Another process was to take an existing court order, modify it for your purposes, then send it on to Google or Yelp or Amazon. Those companies never take the time to actually verify the order, so this was an effective way censor other people and prevent criticism from being made public.

Inciting Violence. I'm going to be completely blunt. The reason the right wing (I refuse to call people in favor of radical change "Conservative") get more bans is there's a lot of them hinting at violence. There's a good example right here. Jones backpedaled as best he could but the meaning was clear. It's so common there's a name for it: Dog Whistling

Alex Jones?? Alex Jones is your "example" of a " conservative "? Alex Jones is a nutter fringe conspiracy theorist. Trying to portray him as somehow representing conservatives in general is reasonably taken as one or more of: uninformed, blinded by ideology, dishonest, incompetent, membership in the nutter fringe at a another point.

The radical right has a lot of unhinged people than even the extreme left. There have been no cases of left wing terrorism since the 70s.

By that do you mean none that you are willing to mention? Like this mass political assassination attempt from last year?

Steve Scalise

Stephen Joseph Scalise (/sklis/; born October 6, 1965) is the current United States House of Representatives Majority Whip and representative for Louisiana's 1st congressional district . . . . . On June 14, 2017, Scalise was shot by a far left-wing activist[4][5] at a practice session for the congressional baseball team in Virginia, and was taken to the hospital in critical condition.

Oh, this explains it:

James T. Hodgkinson, Attempted Assassin Of Steve Scalise, Already Being Erased From History

. . . a Bernie Bro named James T. Hodgkinson shoots at a bunch of congressmen for the explicit reason that he hates Republicans and wants them dead? How do we fit that into the preferred narrative?

- - - - - -

You're entitled to your opinion right up until it becomes incitement to violence.

2016 was a deadly year for cops — and BLM may be to blame

The cop murders in Dallas were carried out on July 7 by an African-American ex-Army reservist who’d expressed his hatred of Caucasians, particularly Jews. He shot to death five white police officers and injured seven others and two civilians before being blown to bits by a police bomb-squad robot.

Ten days later in Baton Rouge, a Marine Corps veteran, described by an official as a “black separatist,” shot to death one black and two white law enforcement officers and injured three others as revenge for the shooting death of a black man by police, before being gunned down by cops.

Is that more of that "right wing violence" you're warning about?

and ask the black and LGBTQ communities about how they're treated down south some time.

It's surprising how much nuance can inject itself into that question.

Atima Omara

STOP THE PRESSES: Lupe Valdez, an LGBT Latina woman formerly Sheriff of Dallas just secured the Democratic nomination for Governor in Texas. Y’ALL. - 7:44 PM - 22 May 2018

Houston’s Annise Parker, a gay ma

Interesting that Gorsuch is complaining about the politicization of the Supreme Court. He couldn't have foreseen it at the time, but that's exactly why he's a part of it today.

And he points out* that Dems failed to win a majority of the popular vote in 9 out of 10 of the last presidential elections. (The article was written in 2005 - he could not have foreseen 2016 - Okay, not a majority either, but Trump did even worse). 1984 and 1988 were outliers. Discounting those two elections the GOP has hardly done better.

Starting with 1992, only ONE election has resulted in the winner having a majority of the popular vote. In 2004, Bush got 50.7%.

He then uses* election results for gay marriage as an example of Democrats litigating instead of legislating. I guess we'll just have to disagree on that because I believe they should have the right to marry and the Supreme Court eventually agreed. I wonder how Gorsuch would have voted in that case.

* - at this point I hadn't yet read von Drehle's article. Gorsuch is just raising points von Drehle did

And I haven't seen recent polling, but I'm under the impression that we're even more accepting of gay marriage today than we were 13 years ago. Would those measures pass today?

I believe sometimes courts are the right avenue.

But why link to Gorsuch's opinion on this? Why not go straight to the original opinion piece by the "self-identified liberal"?

Take the Issues to the People, Not to the Courts

For many Democrats, the worst thing about the election result is the prospect of President Bush's appointing a new generation of conservative justices to the Supreme Court.

That's interesting because I've seen many self-identified conservatives who say that despite all Trump's problems, at least he'll nominate judges who will serve for decades and that more than makes up for Trump's other faults. Many of these same people stand ready to bring litigation against any kind of gun control measure that may be passed into law. For others the issue is abortion or gay marriage or bathrooms. Often it is the main or only issue they care about.

Now that I've read both articles, I must admit von Drehle raises some good points.

Nothing riles up social conservatives like a stirring denunciation of the so-called "activist" courts.

Civil rights lawyers of 50 years ago filed lawsuits as part of a well-planned strategy. Equal or even greater energy was put into political organizing and public persuasion. The individuals and groups bringing gay-marriage lawsuits did so, in many cases, without the backing of leading gay rights organizations. Little was done to cultivate support even among liberals. Essentially nothing was done to persuade moderates.

This is interesting because 50 years ago I was not in favor of gay marriage. Even 30 years ago I wasn't but somehow I've completely reversed positions. Part of what convinced me was absurd rhetoric from self-identified conservatives who said it would lead to people marrying children and animals as well as hateful rhetoric and acts towards gay people.

I didn't need liberals to convince me that Lawrence v. Texas overturning anti-sodomy laws was the right decision and I saw lawsuits fighting for gay marriage as a means of the courts being used as they were designed - as a check and balance against the other branches of government.

All this talk of "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" struck me as bitterness that the Constitution was for the most part being upheld. Of course I sometimes disagree with the courts, but not to the point of wanting to stack them with partisan judges.

There is even talk of overturning Roe v. Wade although I think that's just wishful thinking or perhaps outright trolling. They're often hard to distinguish

And since he

Wat? Trump ran on this, and pretty much everything else that he's done.

Trump has followed through more campaign promises than any president in 40 years.

Let's just watch this page.

I'll bring the popcorn.

So far, the petition has signatures from 172 representatives, all Democrats.

Best believe a reckoning is coming. I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans thought they had a "permanent majority" They were swept out thanks to their own overreach.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

A shift is due, and it's going to be a big one.

Got any documentation for either of those claims? From what I can see, President Dingbat has roughly the same management skills as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Pretty much none whatsoever.

Six major bankruptcies in his projects plus the Trump Shuttle which defaulted on its debts in 1990 but was dismembered by his bankers and sold without declaring bankruptcy.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

As to nuclear weapons not being an issue with nuclear... I don't see how you're coming to that conclusion.

First, only some countries are permitted to have nuclear power for geopolitical reasons.

On that point alone the argument fails.

Second, most of the opposition to nuclear power comes from the same political camp that wants total denuclearization of weapons. Are we to pretend that 1:1 correlation is a coincidence?

As to three mile island, it was a scare with no real material consequence. What is more, just because something is dangerous does not mean it should not be used. By that logic we shouldn't use fire because you can burn yourself if you don't respect it. Everything is as dangerous as it is useful in equal measure. And that is because danger and utility correlate. Edison cautioned people to not use AC because it could electrocute people.

All one must do is be careful with its use. Our technology with nuclear has evolved dramatically since its first introduction. The reactors that have had issues were all early generation reactors and on top of that those specific reactors were subjected to dramatic human error. Chernobyl for example had its safeties deliberately disabled. Three mile island had a design flaw that had been identified multiple times and not been fixed. Fukushima involved fraud on the part of the power company where they lied about doing basic maintenance.

Regardless, modern reactor designs include fail safe designs that cannot melt down and have a much more secure coolant cycle.

As to "growth" the overwhelming majority of power that will be installed in China in the coming future will be non-renewable. Nuclear, Coal, etc makes up the vast majority not just of existing power but of planned installations.

As to most of the growth in renewables happening in the US and Europe... I already said that. And the reason is that we have enough money that efficiency doesn't matter to us too much and we have serious political pressure to install these technologies indifferent to practicality.

Added to this you have to watch out for people playing "carbon accounting" tricks. Just like bank fraud, carbon credits can be moved around such that they can be used by the multiple people over and over again. When you do this with money, it is eventually caught because there is an outstanding bill that gets built up by double counting money... especially if you follow it to its logical conclusion. However, with carbon credits there is no fail safe in the auditing. You can inflate them infinitely. A given power plant that sells renewable power will charge a premium and basically sell a little sticker that says "you use 100 percent renewable" or something... but who is to stop a 5 megawatt power plant from selling 200 megawatts worth of carbon credits?

You also have pollution outsourcing. States like California or countries like Germany import electricity form other places that generate the power via coal and natural gas. California is getting power from Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and in some cases as far away as New Mexico. When the power enters california, its generation technology is not cited and thus is effectively carbon neutral on California's carbon balance sheet the way they calculate it. Germany does the same thing with power it imports from Poland and France. The french power is largely nuclear and the polish power is largely coal. Germany doesn't count the coal carbon debt against its own balance sheet when it imports polish power. And it does not cite energy as nuclear when it comes from France.

There are politics, gimmicks, greed, and fraud.

Do not take any reports out of these people seriously unless you've gone through their information with a fine toothed comb... and about a ten pound bag of salt.

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

And for fun, tha

>unsupported by anything that resembles evidence

Evidence like it being widely reported in the press?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
http://fortune.com/2017/12/26/...
https://arstechnica.com/inform...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

What do you expect? We have all these school shootings. Nothing will ever be done about the guns in the "wrong" hands - although Connecticut has proven that restrictive gun laws reduce gun violence.

And with our gun worshiping culture, the only other thing that can be done is strip the rights of everyone away in another area.

And as more and more surveillance is added, folks who worship their guns can keep them and buy as many as they want, but they will be monitored 24/7.

Unintended consequences can be a bitch. Don't blame me, blame the NRA and all of the impotent old men who run and support it.

IIRC pumped hydro has a few drawbacks though.
It tends to require ideal geographical features: aka a steep hill with a large reservoir up top to pump the water to, and streams to replenish the water in the reservoirs that gets lost to evaporation.
It can cause impact on local wildlife (but, I suppose the same it true for most anything)
But it also has a lag in it's ability to provide power on demand. The big one in Bath County Virginia that gets mentioned when the subject comes up still has a five to ten minute lag time https://thinkprogress.org/the-...
This is still advantageous over traditional 20-30 minutes of coal/natural gas, but nothing compared to the Tesla Australia battery, which can respond is as little as 4 seconds. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

A mixing of the two solutions (when and where possible) might be the most ideal approach. Pumped Hydro for capacity and cost, with a large enough battery capacity that can respond to outages quickly and last long enough until the hydro manages to spin up.

There are many bases around the world where the military keeps weapons and people. The Air Force can bring long range bombers on target carrying conventional weapons. The Navy has carriers and submarines with conventional weapons positioned all around the world.

There are up to seven US carriers at sea at any given time, each carrying FA-18s with a combat radius of 380 miles. Some are enroute, some are near hot spots. That gives the US the ability to strike *those* few places quickly. At a top speed of around 35 mph, they don't go somewhere else very fast. http://www.businessinsider.com... Included in the carrier battle groups are those submarines you mentioned. There are more submarines, mostly Los Angeles class. They stay submerged for about seven weeks at a time, listening to low frequency command transmissions at a rate of twelve characters per hour. The Los Angeles class has a top speed of 23mph and carries carries Tomahawk cruise missiles with a range of 800-1500 miles. This covers a lot more area than the carrier groups. Air Expeditionary Groups can deploy with 48 hours.

Not exactly, but he did investigate sabotage when a SpaceX rocket blew up.

“We literally thought someone had shot the rocket,” Musk said in an interview last summer at SpaceX’s headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif. “We found things that looked like bullet holes, and we calculated that someone with a high-powered rifle, if they had shot the rocket in the right location, the exact same thing would have happened.”

Really? I don't even know where to start.

Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it - https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.

Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation? Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on.

So, what in the WashPo indicates anything was wrong, other than 1 $500K donation in 2010? And the only thing wrong there appears to be clerical. And you don't think the IRS audited them? I know they audited them again in 2016, at the behest of 64 Republicans. Where are those Republicans when it's time to audit the Trump Organization charities? As for them taking money - please provide proof. That they take money for speaking? Yes they do. As does every other single ex-president. Uranium One - again, provide proof. I've seen a lot of accusations, zero proof. And that's the problem.

Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.

https://www.investors.com/poli... https://www.theatlantic.com/po... http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

A reference to an editorial that links to another set of editorials? That's the best you can do? In fact, your second link proves that there was nothing untoward with the Uranium One deal. If anything, it shows extreme partisan bias being wielded to denigrate a potential candidate. (After all, where's the investigation of the other 8 departments that approved U-One, or even the assertion that Clinton swung the vote somehow, or influenced the other 8?)

How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...

Ah yeah, Gruber, the self-important self-grandizing model that Gulliani is out-grandizing.... Anyone that didn't get the message that the healthy would pay in to help lower (subsidize) the costs for the unhealthy should probably be in a mental ward. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it at least attempted to address the healthcare issues for the people, no matter how badly. The then existing system was setup to only support healthy people and maximize profits. Not really a healthcare solution.

The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.

The only argument I have with your statement is that Hillary was not disbarred. Facts are important. And FWIW, back in 2000 or so, when people said Hillary would make a run for president, I pointed to the TV and stated that the only way Hillary would be elected is if someone like Trump, standing next to Bill and Hillary, was her opponent. I really do wish I'd bet on her presidential run. Make no mistake about it, the only reason she lost to asshat Trump is because of large amounts of disinformation floating about the rather fertile minefie