Anytime is fine to change it for future elections. Obviously what is being said is that you shouldn't change it for this election, given those were the rules being followed which will have greatly effected the popular vote in the first place.
Consitutional amendments are too uncommon after all, though it has been 45 years since the last successful one was submitted. It's not like this one hasn't been being tried over and over: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
Someone has to have the worst winning margin in history. Someone has to have the third worst. Someone has to have the best.
Of course popular vote is irrelevant. The guy with the 4th best winning margin in history by that dumb metric is Nixon - who is always near the top of "best president ever" lists, right? But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a ranking to "know".
Not they hammered about how Trump wouldn't state that he would accept the results. You may notice that Hillary conceded and accepted the results.
What their supporters (and opponents in the case of Stein) do is irrelevant to the argument that was being made against the statements from a candidate. Well I guess is might support it by showing that people do dumb shit when they lose and the candidates shouldn't be fanning the flames ahead of time.
If that is true why on earth is the governing body for rugby in England named the Rugby Football Union?
It's almost like "football" is a term that covers a wide variety of sports and different locales use just plain old "football" to refer to whichever happens to be more popular there.
Because he thinks his campaigning to reduce CO2 emissions will be successful?
Because he is rich enough to accept the short term benefit over the long term loss?
Because he thinks he'll get fishing rights over the soon to be ocean and make bank?
It seems strange to require explanations from a random politician before answering a simple yes/no question. Especially given said politician has a 0% chance of seeing you question.
Everyone paying any attention saw the crash coming in 2005 - the unexpected part was that it took so long to finally pop. And while the things you mentioned were contributing factors the actual underlying cause was rampant monetary inflation by the fed. The stock market crash in 2000 and the housing crash in 2008 both were bubble pops due to inflationary monetary policies creating a need for somewhere for the money to go that wasn't consumer prices.
Do you think house prices are in a similar situation right now as they were in 2005?
That Time is a "mouthpeice for the liberal establishment" only makes it stranger that conservatives rely on it for determining what the scientific ideas were in the 70s.
I guess if you get all your science "knowledge" from crappy magazines you are going to believe in a lot of things that. Did you invest in housing real estate in 2005 since Time said it was going to be awesome (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101050613,00.html)?
Scientific papers were a tad different than your interpretation of them it would seem: http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classe... there are some charts 9 pages in if you prefer pictures to words.
* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama(*)
That is something the president can do on his own, without getting permission from congress. That alone is probably worth the price of admission.
He can fulfill that by doing literally nothing. He would be declaring them all to have been constitutional after all by that lack of action, but no one would be paying attention anyway.
It's email stored by stock email clients/stock backup of a data. If you are assuming that the messages have been obfuscated in some way then the whole thing is pretty pointless anyway unless you are going for recovering deleted data from a disk style madness.
In which case, check the Message-ID header, was it in the previous set. If so then it's a copy of an email you've already seen. You are not dealing with a tech-savy adversary trying to hide emails - you are dealing with someone who synced a phone to a computer.
You discard the bulk of the emails by looking at the Received headers and seeing that they didn't pass through Hillary's server (since they're probably mostly going to be Weiner in the first place given it was his computer and his mail would be there too).
but the obvious potential issue is that if changes to bills are relatively easy to make that will make for a great delaying tactic. Just change the wording on the bill you really don't want to see go to vote before the 72 hours is up on the last change...
Hopefully isn't as trivial as setting up an independent payment processing company to shift all such legal liabilities of the seller to an asset less company.
You honestly can't see the difference between campaigning against a law and just breaking the law?
And yes usually government policy is supposed to be to the benefit of the people and so arguments that a policy is harmful to some group is perfectly reasonable.
You would prefer the government just to make up policies and laws and if the people don't like it, tough?
That it was used to document a crime doesn't make it legal. It is illegal without a permit. Surveillance just happens to be the thing they'll grant a permit for.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people not old enough to buy a beer do you think would do so if ID wasn't required?
How many bank accounts to be used to illicit activities do you think would be opened if you didn't need ID to open one?
How many fraudulent votes do you think happen because you don't need ID?
Anytime is fine to change it for future elections. Obviously what is being said is that you shouldn't change it for this election, given those were the rules being followed which will have greatly effected the popular vote in the first place.
Consitutional amendments are too uncommon after all, though it has been 45 years since the last successful one was submitted. It's not like this one hasn't been being tried over and over: https://www.govtrack.us/congre...
You'd be pretty dumb not to.
Someone has to have the worst winning margin in history. Someone has to have the third worst. Someone has to have the best.
Of course popular vote is irrelevant. The guy with the 4th best winning margin in history by that dumb metric is Nixon - who is always near the top of "best president ever" lists, right? But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist as a ranking to "know".
Not they hammered about how Trump wouldn't state that he would accept the results. You may notice that Hillary conceded and accepted the results.
What their supporters (and opponents in the case of Stein) do is irrelevant to the argument that was being made against the statements from a candidate. Well I guess is might support it by showing that people do dumb shit when they lose and the candidates shouldn't be fanning the flames ahead of time.
If that is true why on earth is the governing body for rugby in England named the Rugby Football Union?
It's almost like "football" is a term that covers a wide variety of sports and different locales use just plain old "football" to refer to whichever happens to be more popular there.
Because he thinks his campaigning to reduce CO2 emissions will be successful?
Because he is rich enough to accept the short term benefit over the long term loss?
Because he thinks he'll get fishing rights over the soon to be ocean and make bank?
It seems strange to require explanations from a random politician before answering a simple yes/no question. Especially given said politician has a 0% chance of seeing you question.
Everyone paying any attention saw the crash coming in 2005 - the unexpected part was that it took so long to finally pop. And while the things you mentioned were contributing factors the actual underlying cause was rampant monetary inflation by the fed. The stock market crash in 2000 and the housing crash in 2008 both were bubble pops due to inflationary monetary policies creating a need for somewhere for the money to go that wasn't consumer prices.
Do you think house prices are in a similar situation right now as they were in 2005?
That Time is a "mouthpeice for the liberal establishment" only makes it stranger that conservatives rely on it for determining what the scientific ideas were in the 70s.
I guess if you get all your science "knowledge" from crappy magazines you are going to believe in a lot of things that. Did you invest in housing real estate in 2005 since Time said it was going to be awesome (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101050613,00.html)?
Scientific papers were a tad different than your interpretation of them it would seem: http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classe... there are some charts 9 pages in if you prefer pictures to words.
What do you find unpredictable or erratic about the Electoral College, a system that seems well defined and completely predictable.
He can fulfill that by doing literally nothing. He would be declaring them all to have been constitutional after all by that lack of action, but no one would be paying attention anyway.
It's email stored by stock email clients/stock backup of a data. If you are assuming that the messages have been obfuscated in some way then the whole thing is pretty pointless anyway unless you are going for recovering deleted data from a disk style madness.
In which case, check the Message-ID header, was it in the previous set. If so then it's a copy of an email you've already seen. You are not dealing with a tech-savy adversary trying to hide emails - you are dealing with someone who synced a phone to a computer.
You discard the bulk of the emails by looking at the Received headers and seeing that they didn't pass through Hillary's server (since they're probably mostly going to be Weiner in the first place given it was his computer and his mail would be there too).
but the obvious potential issue is that if changes to bills are relatively easy to make that will make for a great delaying tactic. Just change the wording on the bill you really don't want to see go to vote before the 72 hours is up on the last change...
Yeah it's shocking that a year or two of good credit history with no negative factors would result in a good credit score.
Amazing!!!!
It's in between those two. But additional to, since you are going to be doing both of them as well...
Hopefully isn't as trivial as setting up an independent payment processing company to shift all such legal liabilities of the seller to an asset less company.
You would have to comply with whatever the conditions of the permit are. Otherwise you don't have a permit for what you are actually doing after all.
You can and then each is either illegal or legal depending on whether the permit is approved, again without a paradox.
You honestly can't see the difference between campaigning against a law and just breaking the law?
And yes usually government policy is supposed to be to the benefit of the people and so arguments that a policy is harmful to some group is perfectly reasonable.
You would prefer the government just to make up policies and laws and if the people don't like it, tough?
That it was used to document a crime doesn't make it legal. It is illegal without a permit. Surveillance just happens to be the thing they'll grant a permit for.
So sadly no, we don't get a paradox...
You expect him to not try for bail?
And the judge has apparently tossed that charge, I guess they actually have a better idea of the evidence than a random slashdot coward.
We have the fact that they dropped the trespassing charges, a good indication they knew they wouldn't stick.
We have the fact that the judge rejected the riot charge for lack of evidence.
I'm not sure what other facts you need to to determine that the prosecutor is just clutching at straws in order to harass a citizen.
Strange that they would drop that charge then - since that would usually mean they don't think they can prove she committed said crime.
Given she must have already been found guilty by a court of law right? Or does a presumption of innocence only apply to people who agree with you?
Alcohol and Firearms are not in anyway the same thing despite the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives existing.
Sure like trademarks and patents they go well together, but that doesn't make them the same :)
Except for the obvious fact that trademarks and patents are not the in anyway the same thing.