As one of the people in the 'rational' states, I'm far more scared of what the state and local government is doing than I am of what the President may do.
I'd kind of be in favor of a pardon for Assange, just because it would deprive him of the reason he allegedly doesn't want to face the charges currently against him.
Proportionally dividing the electors would work against the majority in the state, meaning it would be very unlikely to pass. It would also make the state a less valuable place to campaign, meaning fewer promises made to the benefit of the state.
If the declaration of an emergency doesn't cost the taxpayers (of that state) anything, they're unlikely to care that it isn't really an emergency. Currently the declaration is mainly to get federal money, which taxpayers in the state are likely to be in favor of.
There's also the possibility of people registering when they aren't eligible to vote. Additionally, if someone is registered but isn't voting, someone else could vote in their place.
I would have more confidence in those numbers if there were actually checks for voter fraud. In my state at least illegal immigrants and convicted felons can vote without consequences as long as they're willing to lie and say they're eligible.
Slashdot Mirror
The medicines you are talking about are not homeopathic, at least not by the definition used for this discussion.
Which is why the socialists and anarchists end up protesting together around here...
Two different definitions for the same word, one is derived from ancient herbal wisdom, one is pure idiocy.
My guess is that 120 people hit reply all before they were able to disable the group.
Not that surprising, the grid in my state is over 70% renewable and we produce more than we use.
Yay Sanders, he'll do for college what Obama did for healthcare.
There were more than 2 clowns on the ballot.
As one of the people in the 'rational' states, I'm far more scared of what the state and local government is doing than I am of what the President may do.
I'd kind of be in favor of a pardon for Assange, just because it would deprive him of the reason he allegedly doesn't want to face the charges currently against him.
Snowden blew the whistle on secret spying, Wikileaks is spying publicly.
Most of those are already public record, there's not a whole lot to leak.
I expect that Trump will if Obama doesn't, it would be far more effective than trying to push for more investigations.
Proportionally dividing the electors would work against the majority in the state, meaning it would be very unlikely to pass. It would also make the state a less valuable place to campaign, meaning fewer promises made to the benefit of the state.
We already have a tyranny of the urban majority in my state, I would rather not see it extended to the whole country.
Don't know about lynching people, but the left has already started assaulting people and dragging them with cars for allegedly voting for Trump.
If the declaration of an emergency doesn't cost the taxpayers (of that state) anything, they're unlikely to care that it isn't really an emergency. Currently the declaration is mainly to get federal money, which taxpayers in the state are likely to be in favor of.
There's also the possibility of people registering when they aren't eligible to vote. Additionally, if someone is registered but isn't voting, someone else could vote in their place.
I would have more confidence in those numbers if there were actually checks for voter fraud. In my state at least illegal immigrants and convicted felons can vote without consequences as long as they're willing to lie and say they're eligible.
They're at the top of the list already.
Or it could have been fine printed on a single oversized page.
The main change with regards to the recordings is that they would become available for use for political ads.
Of course, there isn't really any limitation on what the governor can declare to be an emergency, homelessness for example.
Not all of us live in states where recording that conversation is legal. Here it would be a felony and inadmissible at trial.
If you can choose to take it, you can be forced to "choose" to take it.
Flamebait is flamebait, no matter which side of the argument it is on.