I should have also said: I've known only a few truly lazy stoners.
My point is, from my perspective, your idea of the typical "lazy stoner" is not representative of the pot-smoking public. Not hardly. It's in fact insulting, to a lot of fully productive members of society.
I'm pretty sure what evidence we have on this also shows this stereotype is not merited.
If the US were more of a republic, it wouldn't bother me because in a more republican state these people (and many of their supporters) could not even vote. However, if we do go full on legalization we will need to veer strongly toward the more pure republic model from the trend toward more "democracy" in order to keep legalization from becoming a crippling effect on our system.
Really... you're going with "drug users should not be allowed to vote"... jeezus it really is the 1980s all over again.
The point being that there clearly isn't enough credible research into this market
There have been way more studies on Cannabis than any FDA-approved drug. Every few years there's a new spurt of concern trolling, followed by a return to the consensus that most problems observed with recreational users were there before they started using, and its benefits as medicine far outweigh its drawbacks (though there is room for improvement in this area through study of individual cannabinoids.)
I've known some pretty smart and energetic stoners, to be honest.
It's people who try to get other people to do their work for them by pretending to be morally or meritoriously superior that I have more of a problem with.
While for personal reasons I am all for higher bond rates, higher bond rates due to concerns over the country's credit rating are not a good thing. It's better if the rates are high because private bond interest rates are also high and providing competition.
Anyway, any work done to reduce the country's carbon footprint will be undone by Trump simply because he sets so many pairs of his own pants on fire.
If you change the rules of the election because you don't like the result per the existing rules
...well, the rules... otherwise known as the law... say electors get to vote as their conscience dictates. In some states, the law requires a pledge be made, and the laws in states try to remove an elector or punish them after the vote should they break that pledge, the constitutionality of those laws would be up for a ruling before SCOTUS.
Those were the rules going into the election, and are the rules now.
This is delusional thinking... first, because if the electors acted this way, the law would be on their side, and so would the army be. Second, because the electoral college is not what protects state's power, the Senate does that. Third, because it is the state legislatures that would be deprived of the power to gerrymander the national election... this would actually be giving power back to red voters in blue states and blue voters in red states. In effect what has happened is that state legislatures have all, for partisan reasons, raised a middle finger to voters of the minority party in their states and said "f-you, you do not count." So while legislatures of flyover states could try to start a civil war, they would not have the support of all their population.
This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized.
No, that's what the Senate was specifically designed for. The electoral college was specifically designed for dealing with the possibility of incredibly stupid voters... it was put there to put a stopgap of intelligentsia between the mob and the presidency... but one not made up of the current office holders in the congress.
If reforms to it come via the state pact route, the electors still exists and this function can be performed while switching to a national popular vote. If reform comes by amendment, then not so much. Regardless how one feels about this, supporting the state pact does not prevent further action by amendment.
If I had to pay "who's the shill" here it would be you. No power system is entirely clean but coal is well recognized as having higher external costs than almost everything else, even if you exclude carbine dioxide (which you should not.) And its operational costs are nothing to write home about either. Inertia is the only thing keeping the industry going.
Also, JFYI #4 is particularly wrong given most geothermal plants are closed loop, #2 WRT to birds is a solvable problem that is being addressed already (and there is fake news in google results still that lies about the numbers, the numbers are less), and #3 computer models only show this for much more wind power than we require, though localized effects are probable... which is just another reason not to have all your wind turbines in one place, and we don't. Also #1 is hypocritical given what mines do to the environment.
Sure the MSM will pile onto this, but it's no surprise that people are interested in the topic. After all, we got really interested in hurricanes and FEMA after katrina, real interested in terrorism after 911, and this disaster of an election, too, has focused the interest of the pubic. Telling people to ignore it is futile.
Slashdot Mirror
I should have also said: I've known only a few truly lazy stoners.
My point is, from my perspective, your idea of the typical "lazy stoner" is not representative of the pot-smoking public. Not hardly. It's in fact insulting, to a lot of fully productive members of society.
I'm pretty sure what evidence we have on this also shows this stereotype is not merited.
Humor, Mindy, Ar! Ar!
If the US were more of a republic, it wouldn't bother me because in a more republican state these people (and many of their supporters) could not even vote. However, if we do go full on legalization we will need to veer strongly toward the more pure republic model from the trend toward more "democracy" in order to keep legalization from becoming a crippling effect on our system.
Really... you're going with "drug users should not be allowed to vote"... jeezus it really is the 1980s all over again.
The point being that there clearly isn't enough credible research into this market
There have been way more studies on Cannabis than any FDA-approved drug. Every few years there's a new spurt of concern trolling, followed by a return to the consensus that most problems observed with recreational users were there before they started using, and its benefits as medicine far outweigh its drawbacks (though there is room for improvement in this area through study of individual cannabinoids.)
Geez. From the limited exposure I've had to them I suspect I'm also intolerant to opiates.
But I'm also not so great with THC... makes me totally flip out.
So I guess I'm more or less screwed once I inevitably get some chronic condition.
I've known some pretty smart and energetic stoners, to be honest.
It's people who try to get other people to do their work for them by pretending to be morally or meritoriously superior that I have more of a problem with.
C'mon, a little puritanical superstition says that ANYTHING that alters consciousness likely isn't that good for the human body.
FTFY.
Though, in general, it's best to play it safe around such a substance at least until someone has fed it to a dog and the dog recovered.
Bond interest is already somewhat up this year
While for personal reasons I am all for higher bond rates, higher bond rates due to concerns over the country's credit rating are not a good thing. It's better if the rates are high because private bond interest rates are also high and providing competition.
Anyway, any work done to reduce the country's carbon footprint will be undone by Trump simply because he sets so many pairs of his own pants on fire.
As for the military - Where do you think the people in the military come from?
Doesn't matter.... what oath they swore is what matters. I don't think so low of our military to assume they would be into a junta.
Other than proving my point, what do you think the 17th amendment says?
But they did say please:
please, give it a try on Bash WSL
If you're going to solicit charity, IMO you should be a charity, not a for-profit company.
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/...
Also another note is there is some evidence that as much as 3 million illegal immigrants in CA voted
"some evidence" appears to be some guy saying so on twitter.
http://www.politifact.com/pund...
You can't change the rules for this election without putting the whole Constitution at risk.
Saying that electors cannot be faithless is changing the rules. That's what the rules are.
If you change the rules of the election because you don't like the result per the existing rules
...well, the rules... otherwise known as the law... say electors get to vote as their conscience dictates. In some states, the law requires a pledge be made, and the laws in states try to remove an elector or punish them after the vote should they break that pledge, the constitutionality of those laws would be up for a ruling before SCOTUS.
Those were the rules going into the election, and are the rules now.
This is delusional thinking... first, because if the electors acted this way, the law would be on their side, and so would the army be. Second, because the electoral college is not what protects state's power, the Senate does that. Third, because it is the state legislatures that would be deprived of the power to gerrymander the national election... this would actually be giving power back to red voters in blue states and blue voters in red states. In effect what has happened is that state legislatures have all, for partisan reasons, raised a middle finger to voters of the minority party in their states and said "f-you, you do not count." So while legislatures of flyover states could try to start a civil war, they would not have the support of all their population.
This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized.
No, that's what the Senate was specifically designed for. The electoral college was specifically designed for dealing with the possibility of incredibly stupid voters... it was put there to put a stopgap of intelligentsia between the mob and the presidency... but one not made up of the current office holders in the congress.
If reforms to it come via the state pact route, the electors still exists and this function can be performed while switching to a national popular vote. If reform comes by amendment, then not so much. Regardless how one feels about this, supporting the state pact does not prevent further action by amendment.
"carbine dioxide". Hehe. It is obviously time for me to go to bed.
If I had to pay "who's the shill" here it would be you. No power system is entirely clean but coal is well recognized as having higher external costs than almost everything else, even if you exclude carbine dioxide (which you should not.) And its operational costs are nothing to write home about either. Inertia is the only thing keeping the industry going.
Also, JFYI #4 is particularly wrong given most geothermal plants are closed loop, #2 WRT to birds is a solvable problem that is being addressed already (and there is fake news in google results still that lies about the numbers, the numbers are less), and #3 computer models only show this for much more wind power than we require, though localized effects are probable... which is just another reason not to have all your wind turbines in one place, and we don't. Also #1 is hypocritical given what mines do to the environment.
The amount of coal really has not been a problem. There's enough in the ground to kill us all.
It's actually more bad news for anyone who's livelihood depends on the coal industry.
Unless he waffles, it won't be building wind turbines so... I dunno.
The coal industry is unlikely to stop shrinking with natural gas prices where they are, especially with less export demand.
Details about this conjecture would be interesting to hear, indeed. I wonder how they handle cable TV feeds there.
But fundamentally Hillary lost because her boss Obama promised affordable health care and delivered 100% premium jumps in some cases, averaging 40%.
Those were coming anyway, and the people that got hit the worst have mostly the saboteurs in their statehouses to blame.
That and a lot of the rest of the garbage exaggerations you seem to believe in are symptomatic of reading too much fake news.
Sure the MSM will pile onto this, but it's no surprise that people are interested in the topic. After all, we got really interested in hurricanes and FEMA after katrina, real interested in terrorism after 911, and this disaster of an election, too, has focused the interest of the pubic. Telling people to ignore it is futile.