Regardless of what POTUS said, it wasn't a muslim ban. There are plenty of countries where the religion is dominant that were not placed on the list. POTUS has the right by law to stop people from entering the country if there's reasonable belief that they intend to do harm. Why is it that it was okay when Obama did it, but not with the new guy? Hmm?
Investigate it to what end? If Russian hackers did get into anything, those systems need to be secured. We can't have the Secretary of State hiding an email server in her bathroom. Are you planning on taking Russia to court? It'll never happen. Are we going to hold the Dems who used weakly secured servers responsible, or the ones that fell prey to obvious social engineering? Nope. That will never happen either. Find where we're exposed, secure it, move on. Anything else is pointless.
There's zero evidence because we don't ask for IDs, so we can't know if it's actually happening. It's not just impersonation either. If you register voters without asking for a legit ID, you have no idea if they're even a citizen let alone if they actually live in the district. Anyone can come up with a telephone bill with their name on it. Government issued IDs are much harder to get, and I know my state has been arresting a lot of people trying to get one with fraudulent papers. It has nothing to do with poor people, unless you're suggesting they're too moronic to figure out how to get an ID.
I'm not proposing we disband the feds, I'm proposing that we restrict them to the powers granted by the Constitution and stop them from always doing an end-run around those limits by taxing us and only giving some of the money back to our states if they comply to demands that the feds have no authority to demand. The minimum drinking age being tied to highway funds is the first example that comes to mind. The feds have no authority to set a minimum drinking age, but they found a way. It's a perversion of the government we're supposed to have.
As for "exactly what I want", the problem is that the feds are into so much, you're going to have to prioritize your vote based on a small number of issues. That's not great representation.
The stock market is doing great. Other NATO members are actually paying their share. We're out of the Paris accord which would cost us a fortune and had no enforcement mechanism for countries that would do nothing. He's pushing back on lawless sanctuary cities. We're out of the TPP. The pipelines were approved. And yes, he's trying to keep terrorists out, but the courts keep getting in the way.
Secure elections? Obama's administration did everything possible to stop states from requiring an ID to vote. Let's fix the simple things first and worry about these mythical Russian influences some other day.
And Romney was supposed to win easily over McCain. This stuff happens, especially if you rely on phone polling. Only certain types of people will even bother answering those calls. It's going to heavily bias the results.
My state has paper ballots that are machine scanned, but we retain the paper ballots in case of funny business. Any states not doing the same should reconsider their methods.
We're at the point where the government is so involved in everything that elections are nearly pointless. A lot of us will never find a candidate that truly represents us, or even comes close. There are huge divides within the existing two parties for that reason. Bringing more parties in the fold just makes it more challenging to find the least repugnant choice. We need to decrease the amount of federal government and return to the union of states that we're supposed to have. Government works best when it's local.
Trump is doing a fine job, it's the media that should be ashamed of themselves. The whole Paris accord thing was no surprise, he said during the campaign that we'd ditch it. People are upset because he's actually doing some of the things he said he'd do, which never happens in politics.
Yes, we don't want barbarian invaders destroying our communities. Shocking. If you want to live with endless terror attacks, head over to London or Paris.
A greater number of the homeless are people who don't want to go to a shelter or use transitional housing because they don't allow drinking or drugging in those places.
I doubt that @realDonaldTrump or @POTUS are banning because they don't like what's being said. It's more likely they're banning people that spam ever tweet with harassing or pornographic material. Twitter bans very selectively. That comedian that posted herself with a depiction of Trump's head is allowed to post, but others that reversed the faces were either banned or suspended. It's a rabbit hole. If we were to treat those accounts as government channels, you would want some blocking to remove things that weren't work or family safe, right?
Not every member of the press gets invited to the press conferences. Similar to Twitter, if you are in one of those press conferences and you abuse the privilege, you probably will be blocked from attending future press conferences. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's just a new medium.
Tangent: If someone posts something so offensive in a reply to @POTUS and Twitter bans the user, is Twitter now in violation of the law because it was a reply to @POTUS? And if not, how is that different from the administrators of @POTUS banning someone?
I'd care a lot more about this if they were banning based on party affiliation or some such, but it looks like they're just banning abusive users, unlike what Twitter itself is doing. I could care less, but not a lot less.
From what I've seen, both accounts tend to tweet identical messages. I think they do it for those people that subscribe to one and not the other. I'm not against them blocking people, I'm not going to be let into any White House press conferences, right? OMG, they're blocking me.
The Auvi-q has voice instructions when you need it. Seems like a bad idea to me because that means there has to be a battery in there that's going to wear out at some point. Seems like a clever ruse to make sure people get new ones when they expire. Personally, I'd use a syringe if I had to, but the autoinjectors are more compact to carry around and a bit faster to use.
Is that new in the current gen of epipens? I used one of the previous generation, it did not retract the needle. There's not really any reason for it to do so, other than protecting against someone else getting nicked after it's been used. But that's applicable to anything dispensed by needle.
To me, evil and callous are those that want to federalize everything. They want to make that choice on behalf of everyone else. This chairperson is a dick, but that's his job. He doesn't owe us anything, we can buy his goods or not. It's up to the other pharmas to create alternatives, there's obviously a market for them. The drug in the injectors is not under patent, the opportunity is there.
They can't for epipens. The problem is that their autoinjector is unique, therefore the pharmacies cannot substitute on their own even though the drug itself could have been. The doctor has to write the prescription properly for a generic. I waged this battle for months, it was an absolute shit-show.
Single payer will give patients less choice. The former governor (D) of Massachusetts said as much. He didn't want average Joe going to Mass General Hospital because there were cheaper, local hospitals. He totally dismissed the fact that people can have issues more complicated than what the lesser cost facilities can handle. Places like MGH would be set aside for the elites only. Meanwhile, my mediocre insurance covers it. Even Obama said as much when he was campaigning. He did a town hall in NH saying that instead of having surgery, you could take a pain pill instead.. and no surprise that we now have an opiod epidemic going on. Single payer is not the answer, the federal government is never the answer. Obamacare is a disaster, the solution doesn't involve giving the federal government absolute control.
Slashdot Mirror
Regardless of what POTUS said, it wasn't a muslim ban. There are plenty of countries where the religion is dominant that were not placed on the list. POTUS has the right by law to stop people from entering the country if there's reasonable belief that they intend to do harm. Why is it that it was okay when Obama did it, but not with the new guy? Hmm?
Investigate it to what end? If Russian hackers did get into anything, those systems need to be secured. We can't have the Secretary of State hiding an email server in her bathroom. Are you planning on taking Russia to court? It'll never happen. Are we going to hold the Dems who used weakly secured servers responsible, or the ones that fell prey to obvious social engineering? Nope. That will never happen either. Find where we're exposed, secure it, move on. Anything else is pointless.
There's zero evidence because we don't ask for IDs, so we can't know if it's actually happening. It's not just impersonation either. If you register voters without asking for a legit ID, you have no idea if they're even a citizen let alone if they actually live in the district. Anyone can come up with a telephone bill with their name on it. Government issued IDs are much harder to get, and I know my state has been arresting a lot of people trying to get one with fraudulent papers. It has nothing to do with poor people, unless you're suggesting they're too moronic to figure out how to get an ID.
I'm not proposing we disband the feds, I'm proposing that we restrict them to the powers granted by the Constitution and stop them from always doing an end-run around those limits by taxing us and only giving some of the money back to our states if they comply to demands that the feds have no authority to demand. The minimum drinking age being tied to highway funds is the first example that comes to mind. The feds have no authority to set a minimum drinking age, but they found a way. It's a perversion of the government we're supposed to have.
As for "exactly what I want", the problem is that the feds are into so much, you're going to have to prioritize your vote based on a small number of issues. That's not great representation.
The stock market is doing great. Other NATO members are actually paying their share. We're out of the Paris accord which would cost us a fortune and had no enforcement mechanism for countries that would do nothing. He's pushing back on lawless sanctuary cities. We're out of the TPP. The pipelines were approved. And yes, he's trying to keep terrorists out, but the courts keep getting in the way.
Secure elections? Obama's administration did everything possible to stop states from requiring an ID to vote. Let's fix the simple things first and worry about these mythical Russian influences some other day.
And Romney was supposed to win easily over McCain. This stuff happens, especially if you rely on phone polling. Only certain types of people will even bother answering those calls. It's going to heavily bias the results.
My state has paper ballots that are machine scanned, but we retain the paper ballots in case of funny business. Any states not doing the same should reconsider their methods.
We're at the point where the government is so involved in everything that elections are nearly pointless. A lot of us will never find a candidate that truly represents us, or even comes close. There are huge divides within the existing two parties for that reason. Bringing more parties in the fold just makes it more challenging to find the least repugnant choice. We need to decrease the amount of federal government and return to the union of states that we're supposed to have. Government works best when it's local.
Trump is doing a fine job, it's the media that should be ashamed of themselves. The whole Paris accord thing was no surprise, he said during the campaign that we'd ditch it. People are upset because he's actually doing some of the things he said he'd do, which never happens in politics.
Letting people keep their own money is hardly a bribe.
Yes, we don't want barbarian invaders destroying our communities. Shocking. If you want to live with endless terror attacks, head over to London or Paris.
A greater number of the homeless are people who don't want to go to a shelter or use transitional housing because they don't allow drinking or drugging in those places.
Sign up for a new account and don't be stupid with it this time. Seems simple enough.
I doubt that @realDonaldTrump or @POTUS are banning because they don't like what's being said. It's more likely they're banning people that spam ever tweet with harassing or pornographic material. Twitter bans very selectively. That comedian that posted herself with a depiction of Trump's head is allowed to post, but others that reversed the faces were either banned or suspended. It's a rabbit hole. If we were to treat those accounts as government channels, you would want some blocking to remove things that weren't work or family safe, right?
Hotels do the same thing!
Not every member of the press gets invited to the press conferences. Similar to Twitter, if you are in one of those press conferences and you abuse the privilege, you probably will be blocked from attending future press conferences. This isn't a new phenomenon, it's just a new medium.
Tangent: If someone posts something so offensive in a reply to @POTUS and Twitter bans the user, is Twitter now in violation of the law because it was a reply to @POTUS? And if not, how is that different from the administrators of @POTUS banning someone?
I'd care a lot more about this if they were banning based on party affiliation or some such, but it looks like they're just banning abusive users, unlike what Twitter itself is doing. I could care less, but not a lot less.
We're talking about Trump, not Obama.
From what I've seen, both accounts tend to tweet identical messages. I think they do it for those people that subscribe to one and not the other. I'm not against them blocking people, I'm not going to be let into any White House press conferences, right? OMG, they're blocking me.
The Auvi-q has voice instructions when you need it. Seems like a bad idea to me because that means there has to be a battery in there that's going to wear out at some point. Seems like a clever ruse to make sure people get new ones when they expire. Personally, I'd use a syringe if I had to, but the autoinjectors are more compact to carry around and a bit faster to use.
Is that new in the current gen of epipens? I used one of the previous generation, it did not retract the needle. There's not really any reason for it to do so, other than protecting against someone else getting nicked after it's been used. But that's applicable to anything dispensed by needle.
To me, evil and callous are those that want to federalize everything. They want to make that choice on behalf of everyone else. This chairperson is a dick, but that's his job. He doesn't owe us anything, we can buy his goods or not. It's up to the other pharmas to create alternatives, there's obviously a market for them. The drug in the injectors is not under patent, the opportunity is there.
They can't for epipens. The problem is that their autoinjector is unique, therefore the pharmacies cannot substitute on their own even though the drug itself could have been. The doctor has to write the prescription properly for a generic. I waged this battle for months, it was an absolute shit-show.
Single payer will give patients less choice. The former governor (D) of Massachusetts said as much. He didn't want average Joe going to Mass General Hospital because there were cheaper, local hospitals. He totally dismissed the fact that people can have issues more complicated than what the lesser cost facilities can handle. Places like MGH would be set aside for the elites only. Meanwhile, my mediocre insurance covers it. Even Obama said as much when he was campaigning. He did a town hall in NH saying that instead of having surgery, you could take a pain pill instead.. and no surprise that we now have an opiod epidemic going on. Single payer is not the answer, the federal government is never the answer. Obamacare is a disaster, the solution doesn't involve giving the federal government absolute control.
People are looking to the government to take some sort of action, so it is political. I also carry an autoinjector, so save the self-righteousness.