A 300 Watt solar panel (whose dimensions would allow you to strap one directly to a Model S roof and still keep the sun roof) would take about 300 hours to charge a 90kW battery from 0 to 100%. 90kW comes out to ~403 miles, at 50 miles per hour, with no air conditioning, according to Tesla. Or about 4.47 miles per kW. So... charging with a single 300 W panel strapped to the roof, for 12 hours of sunlight, it comes out to about 3.6 kW or about 53.64 miles. Meaning that if your daily commute is around one hour - you'll never need to connect the charger. Just leave the car parked outside. If you don't mind the heat of a car sitting in the sun the whole day.
Though, if they were going to put solar panels on the car, useful surface could easily be tripled, compared to just attaching a panel to the roof. Thus making it closer to 160 miles per 12 hours of sunlight - which is about the daily average, taken across the entire year, almost everywhere on the planet.
But I doubt that Tesla will implement something like that any time soon. The fact they changed the supercharger "free with purchase" scheme to "free 4 1st 1000 miles" indicates that they don't want to give up the profits from the electricity distribution network - not just yet. Musk wants to sell people on fully solar powered homes. He wants to get everyone to quit all forms of fossil fuels for all their energy needs - from heating/cooling homes to cooking/storing food. Not just for driving around in expensive toys.
By their very nature, solar panels are plates of laminated glass or plastic reinforced with wires running through them.
I.e. It's reinforced the same way bulletproof glass is. Where conventional tiles shatter into pieces, these tiles merely crack and dent. And the best part is, each solar plate being an array of parallelly connected cells - it will still function both as a roof tile and as a solar cell. Whereas a conventional tile would at that point be useful only as gravel substitute.
Guy runs a company which puts rockets into space. Let's give him SOME benefit of the doubt on account of the engineering skills of his employees. You know... let's assume that they are not exactly TOTAL fuckups.
The mainstream media is at least as bad as the supposed "fake" news sources.
This analysis by BuzzFeed pretty much proves the exact opposite. They took ~1000 POSTS from 3 specific large hyperpartisan right-wing Facebook pages (Eagle Rising, Freedom Daily, Right Wing News), 3 specific hyperpartisan large left-wing Facebook pages (Addicting Info, Occupy Democrats, The Other 98%) and 3 specific large mainstream media Facebook pages (ABC News Politics, CNN Politics, Politico).
Rigth-wing pages made 666 posts combined, out of which 82 (12.3%) were "mostly false" while another 169 (25.4%) were "a mixture of true and false" - while another 14.4% were "no factual content" posts. I.e. "Like if you...", "We rule they suck" and similar partisan memes. Left-wing pages made 471 posts combined, during that same period, 22 (4.6%) being "mostly false", 68 (14%) "mixed" and 24.6% of "no factual content" memes. With individual pages posting between 12.3% and 23.6% false and mixed stories on the left - and between 29.4% and 46.4% on the right.
I.e. While one in eight to one in four stories on 3 hyperleft pages can be bogus - on 3 hyperright pages it's between one in three and up to one half that are bullshit. Mainstream media was 0.0% "mostly false" and 0.4-1.0% "somewhat false".
In other words, even disregarding "fake for profit" sites, while "somewhat false" news IS a possibility for mainstream media - fake news ranges from being symptomatic to an absolutely necessity for fake news sites. When only about 40% of posts are actually true and actually news... that's not a question of being a credible news source or not. That's being a gossip site.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Many parents of miscarried fetuses do benefit from counseling. This is obviously more common with later-term miscarriages, because the parents have had more time to build expectations about their coming child, but there's really no "line"; different people react in different ways.
Clearly, as your comment there points out - it is not common for a procedure where a woman simply wants to have, what is at that point nothing but a cyst, removed from her body. Nor is it common to treat it as a "DEATH". Nothing died cause nothing was alive. No more than a tumor might be alive, yet there is no counseling on the death of a tumor.
That bit is there to guilt women and to put psychological pressure on people who are running abortion clinics. Just like the rest of the law is there for those same reasons - plus the monetary burden.
FWIW, my wife had an early second-trimester (~16 weeks) miscarriage many years ago.
That is not the same thing as a voluntary abortion. I'm guessing your wife wasn't impregnated by a boyfriend who just shrugged it off and left her hanging there, married man who was cheating on his wife with her, nor was she raped, perhaps by a family member, nor was she in any other situation, social, economic, health or otherwise which precluded her from the luxury of pregnancy. In all those cases, even at 1 week, a woman who is already emotionally burdened is forced to hear a lecture about a how she killed a baby. I'm guessing that your wife didn't have to hear that either. That it's her fault and that she's a baby murderer. Which is something most women who come to abortion clinics are treated to. First outside the clinic by the pals of the newly elected vice president, then by the clinic staff, based on the laws he enacted.
As for your wife and her unhealthy fixation on a symbolic product of a miscarriage... well... clearly neither of you thinks that she needs treatment though she STILL mourns a fist-sized lump of tissue. Why have closure about mental and physical trauma, when you can shape it into a "tiny gold ring", symbolically hang that psychological burden around your neck and revisit that pain every year. That's gotta be healthy. Mentally and all. Nursing psychological pain usually is. Fuck those people who'd call that a trauma. What do they know, right?
Hmm... sounds like you're saying in some cases it's okay to lump a person's circumstances together with how they behave.
Which, by the way, is the underlying problem with racism.
Racism is treating people detrimentally based on the biological markers they are born with, which are treated as racial according to local cultural norms and customs.
Besides that... what I said "sounds" nothing like what you describe. Unless you are arguing that being beaten up is "behaving". Which would again not be racism by the victim of the beating - even if one was being beaten because of one's race.
But the person doing the beating WOULD be a racist cunt.
The law in case requires treatment of what is nothing but medical waste as if it were a dead body.
Throughout the law in case, legislators explicitly removed ANY limitation of gestation time or any choice from the pregnant women on the matter - making it a law that 1-week, 2-week or 20-week abortion MUST be treated the same as a body of a grown human being. It MUST be issued a burial transit permit and it MUST be either buried in a graveyard (i.e. interred) or cremated - at the expense of the clinic or the parent(s). It cannot be disposed of as what it is - medical waste. As was the case prior to that law.
Furthermore, law requires informing the parent(s) of the "fetus" about "counseling that may be available concerning the death of the miscarried fetus". Which is treating a removed cyst as if it is a dead human. And if the human is dead due to a surgery, that means someone killed it. I.e. Abortion is murder.
Also, parent(s) are required to sign off on the "final disposition of the miscarried fetus" - i.e. the burial. Thus, the law DOES require families to hold funerals (as only licensed funeral facilities may conduct burials of human bodies) - if they chose not to have the burial of the "fetus" taken care of by the clinic. In which case, the clinic must bare the costs of the procedure - IF they can even find someone willing to do the "interment or cremation". Cause while on one side there is an active campaign against anything abortion related in that state, on the other there is no money in it for the funeral homes. For either of those reasons, they tend to refuse to provide burial services to clinics.
"We're all figuring it out," said Patti Stauffer, the vice president of policy at Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. So far, she hasn't had much luck finding potential funeral homes and cemeteries - a lot of the businesses she's called have told her no. "It's not like we have hundreds of people that are interested in working with us," she said.
That doesn't mean implementing the law won't be logistically challenging, though. "There's going to be a lot of man hours involved," said Curtis Rostad, the executive director of the Indiana Funeral Directors Association. "I think a lot of funeral homes are going to be doing a lot of man hours to do this, for not a lot of income."
Which in practice leaves clinics with a single solution - to shift the burden of the burial of the "fetus" onto the patient. "Fetus" must be treated as a dead body... Clinics can't find a business partner to do it for them... But a patient can simply walk into a funeral home with their burial transit permit and their bag of medical waste and have the "fetus" interred or cremated. Yay!
I.e. Either the parent(s) must take the "body" to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense - OR the clinics will be forced to have parents take the body to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense. Or clinics can simply close. That's an option too. Just like coat hangers and falling off a stool are an option.
Sorry... but that's like replying to a story about someone being beaten up on account of their race with "Fists are not racist... What you do with them might be racist."
Wait... were you trying to insult me by having no argument?
Resorting instead to pitiful ad hominem attacks, insinuating stuck up elitism - for calling out racism? It is elitist to be anti-racist now? Really? That's your "argument"? You hear someone call a racist a racist and your reaction is to accuse them of being a "so much smarter" elitist?
To put it in a less elitist parlance - do you even brain, bro?
While being paranoid about farts. Everywhere! Farts as far as the eye can see! Did you know that people fart 8-20 times per day? EVERYONE! Farts are EVERYWHERE!!!
I mean... either those laws WERE voter repression... or it's a secret conspiracy buy judges in various US states against the Republican party's attempts to... hmm... Wait... hold on... there must be a way to paint this as a conspiracy against old white conservatives instead of the people they are actively trying to keep from voting.
But why even bother with that... when "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT" puts it so much more succinctly:
After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force. But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an âoeomnibusâ election law. Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices. Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans. In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications. Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
Oh... and by the way... while you're cherry picking through wikipedia... You do know that other people can read that and point out that your worm is showing?
I mean... I'm not even talking about you quoting THIS as a proof.
Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and "claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy."[43]
Which IS proof, but only for the paranoid conspiracy theory bias among Republicans.
I'm talking about you failing to read the full section. Like this part.
In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win). More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid. Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precinctsâ"40% in Nixon's caseâ"showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either
1) Reality called. You're way overdue for a checkup.
Cause back in reality, arguing "You can't call me racist - that's passe." is so stupid, it's hard to even joke about it. But thanks for providing an alternative. Someone we can all point to and laugh.
2) IQ doesn't work like that. In SO MANY WAYS. From the fact that the IQ is not an absolute measure of individual intelligence - but a normalized representation how one measures up against the population. I.e. You take 3 mouth breathers and elect them to parliament - and the middle one will have an IQ of 100, while the other two will be the IQ 180 genius and the IQ 70 idiot of that population. Also, you've clearly never heard of the Flynn effect.
The rest of you comment is just unarguable nonsensical fuming. Might as well try to argue with a child who hates orange jello and yells at passing people "You're stupid for not hating orange jello! Because gender studies mouth breathers have indoctrinated you with leftist ideology so they're stuck in a bubble! Of jello!"
you are fearful of unchecked immigration as it affects you and your family directly.
Which is why they voted for declared racists... you know... cause racism is fine compared to a theoretic possibility of economic discomfort - regardless of the facts.
Oh... wait... no it isn't. That's using fear and selfishness as an EXCUSE for racism.
Most people will actually go "What the fuck? You want me to go join the racists because THEY say I'll be doomed if I don't? Fuck those cunts! I'd rather go poor and hungry than join them." The only reason Brexitters "won" (then promptly regretted it and wanted a re-vote) is the fact that while intelligence is equally distributed around the average - stupidity isn't. Stupidity is a function of intelligence and applied education.
So when Hillary does well in a debate, and her numbers shoot up by 5%, journalists report that her support has surged. Professional pollsters understand that what is really happening is that her supporters feel upbeat, and are more likely to participate in surveys, while Donald's supporters feel demoralized, and hang up the phone. So underlying support for the candidates barely budged, it is just that the sampling bias shifted.
If there only were a way to control for that... like asking upfront "Are you an X supporter, and if so, how long have you been one?", before asking about the debate results - and then excluding those "upbeat supporters" from the comparison.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you are not a "professional pollster" either. Among other things... Like the way you're also probably not a professional fox. Though you did an AMAZING job there, arguing that there is actually no correlation between "doing well" in an event designed to convince people to vote for you and actually convincing voters. WHILE AT THE SAME TIME arguing that doing poorly in that same event would ONLY affect people who were supporting the "poorly" candidate AAAAAAND that it would demoralize them to the point that they'd be slamming down phones on "professional pollsters" - but not enough to drop their support.
Apparently, debate results are both such a strong influencing factor on supporters that some get too depressed to talk about it (but still not give up their support) - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME having absolutely no effect on undecided voters. Debates are apparently SO immensely convincing and influential - except they're not. Also, no one ever thought of actually controlling for old and new supporters after a debate and the existence of undecided voters.
That's not cognitive dissonance. That's way past the point of delusion.
And I guess the less said about media hiring "professional pollsters" the better.
By their very nature, solar panels are plates of laminated glass or plastic reinforced with wires running through them.
I.e. It's reinforced the same way bulletproof glass is. Where conventional tiles shatter into pieces, these tiles merely crack and dent. And the best part is, each solar plate being an array of parallelly connected cells - it will still function both as a roof tile and as a solar cell. Whereas a conventional tile would at that point be useful only as gravel substitute.
Guy runs a company which puts rockets into space. Let's give him SOME benefit of the doubt on account of the engineering skills of his employees. You know... let's assume that they are not exactly TOTAL fuckups.
We know who's been busy grabbing them cats of all them ladies. Maybe FBI should look into that too? Seeing as they are willing to waste time and money chasing one party's conspiracy theories... might as well do something useful and look for those cats.
BTW, I only keep hearing about "rigged" elections, fraud, stealing votes etc. from two kinds of people. Political dilettantes and Republicans.
Only difference being that as far as I can tell, while political dilettantes have always been partial to conspiracy theories because they are... well...dilettantes... Republicans seem to have built their myth of "being cheated" around that time JFK beat their "not a crook" sweatball Tricky Dick. Who just happened to be running multiple schemes to rig elections just as his party was busy implementing the "Southern strategy" in order to woo southern whites. Who were at the time all hot and bothered about losing their "legitimate" ways of rigging elections against black voters, they went around dressed in nothing but dresses made out of bed linen. Sorta like what ISIS folk do.
The fact that you can choose what to buy from a preselected and limited set of items, whose every single element is being actively PUSHED at you doesn't mean that EVERY... SINGLE... ONE of those items is actively being designed, packaged, promoted, priced... etc. etc.in order to SELL IT to people.
Should say: "The fact that you can choose what to buy from a preselected and limited set of items, whose every single element is being actively PUSHED at you doesn't mean that EVERY... SINGLE... ONE of those items wasn't actively designed, packaged, promoted, priced... etc. etc. in order to SELL IT to people."
Serves me right for watching a quiz show while slashdotting.
Slashdot Mirror
It went from one in about 9 to one in about 11 old people having dementia.
Plus, they didn't bother with checking if there's any correlation between dementia and hand size.
Or logic... How did I get those 53 miles is beyond me...
It's ~16 miles. So... Still just about worth it AT triple the surface, more if driving 45 mph.
I should really get some sleep. XD
A 300 Watt solar panel (whose dimensions would allow you to strap one directly to a Model S roof and still keep the sun roof) would take about 300 hours to charge a 90kW battery from 0 to 100%.
90kW comes out to ~403 miles, at 50 miles per hour, with no air conditioning, according to Tesla.
Or about 4.47 miles per kW.
So... charging with a single 300 W panel strapped to the roof, for 12 hours of sunlight, it comes out to about 3.6 kW or about 53.64 miles.
Meaning that if your daily commute is around one hour - you'll never need to connect the charger. Just leave the car parked outside.
If you don't mind the heat of a car sitting in the sun the whole day.
Though, if they were going to put solar panels on the car, useful surface could easily be tripled, compared to just attaching a panel to the roof.
Thus making it closer to 160 miles per 12 hours of sunlight - which is about the daily average, taken across the entire year, almost everywhere on the planet.
But I doubt that Tesla will implement something like that any time soon.
The fact they changed the supercharger "free with purchase" scheme to "free 4 1st 1000 miles" indicates that they don't want to give up the profits from the electricity distribution network - not just yet.
Musk wants to sell people on fully solar powered homes. He wants to get everyone to quit all forms of fossil fuels for all their energy needs - from heating/cooling homes to cooking/storing food.
Not just for driving around in expensive toys.
Aunt that a shame.
...assuming anything that suggests you were wrong is a conspiracy.
...my earlier post.
By their very nature, solar panels are plates of laminated glass or plastic reinforced with wires running through them.
I.e. It's reinforced the same way bulletproof glass is.
Where conventional tiles shatter into pieces, these tiles merely crack and dent.
And the best part is, each solar plate being an array of parallelly connected cells - it will still function both as a roof tile and as a solar cell.
Whereas a conventional tile would at that point be useful only as gravel substitute.
Guy runs a company which puts rockets into space. Let's give him SOME benefit of the doubt on account of the engineering skills of his employees.
You know... let's assume that they are not exactly TOTAL fuckups.
The mainstream media is at least as bad as the supposed "fake" news sources.
This analysis by BuzzFeed pretty much proves the exact opposite.
They took ~1000 POSTS from 3 specific large hyperpartisan right-wing Facebook pages (Eagle Rising, Freedom Daily, Right Wing News), 3 specific hyperpartisan large left-wing Facebook pages (Addicting Info, Occupy Democrats, The Other 98%) and 3 specific large mainstream media Facebook pages (ABC News Politics, CNN Politics, Politico).
Rigth-wing pages made 666 posts combined, out of which 82 (12.3%) were "mostly false" while another 169 (25.4%) were "a mixture of true and false" - while another 14.4% were "no factual content" posts. I.e. "Like if you...", "We rule they suck" and similar partisan memes.
Left-wing pages made 471 posts combined, during that same period, 22 (4.6%) being "mostly false", 68 (14%) "mixed" and 24.6% of "no factual content" memes.
With individual pages posting between 12.3% and 23.6% false and mixed stories on the left - and between 29.4% and 46.4% on the right.
I.e. While one in eight to one in four stories on 3 hyperleft pages can be bogus - on 3 hyperright pages it's between one in three and up to one half that are bullshit.
Mainstream media was 0.0% "mostly false" and 0.4-1.0% "somewhat false".
In other words, even disregarding "fake for profit" sites, while "somewhat false" news IS a possibility for mainstream media - fake news ranges from being symptomatic to an absolutely necessity for fake news sites.
When only about 40% of posts are actually true and actually news... that's not a question of being a credible news source or not.
That's being a gossip site.
The recent Indiana abortion law that you refer to (HEA 1337) was halted by the Federal court in June:
This was:
This is a guy who signed a bill with a government mandate that families hold funerals for miscarried or aborted fetuses.
I don't see anything wrong with that. Many parents of miscarried fetuses do benefit from counseling. This is obviously more common with later-term miscarriages, because the parents have had more time to build expectations about their coming child, but there's really no "line"; different people react in different ways.
Clearly, as your comment there points out - it is not common for a procedure where a woman simply wants to have, what is at that point nothing but a cyst, removed from her body.
Nor is it common to treat it as a "DEATH". Nothing died cause nothing was alive.
No more than a tumor might be alive, yet there is no counseling on the death of a tumor.
That bit is there to guilt women and to put psychological pressure on people who are running abortion clinics.
Just like the rest of the law is there for those same reasons - plus the monetary burden.
FWIW, my wife had an early second-trimester (~16 weeks) miscarriage many years ago.
That is not the same thing as a voluntary abortion.
I'm guessing your wife wasn't impregnated by a boyfriend who just shrugged it off and left her hanging there, married man who was cheating on his wife with her, nor was she raped, perhaps by a family member, nor was she in any other situation, social, economic, health or otherwise which precluded her from the luxury of pregnancy.
In all those cases, even at 1 week, a woman who is already emotionally burdened is forced to hear a lecture about a how she killed a baby.
I'm guessing that your wife didn't have to hear that either. That it's her fault and that she's a baby murderer.
Which is something most women who come to abortion clinics are treated to. First outside the clinic by the pals of the newly elected vice president, then by the clinic staff, based on the laws he enacted.
As for your wife and her unhealthy fixation on a symbolic product of a miscarriage... well... clearly neither of you thinks that she needs treatment though she STILL mourns a fist-sized lump of tissue.
Why have closure about mental and physical trauma, when you can shape it into a "tiny gold ring", symbolically hang that psychological burden around your neck and revisit that pain every year.
That's gotta be healthy. Mentally and all. Nursing psychological pain usually is.
Fuck those people who'd call that a trauma. What do they know, right?
Hmm ... sounds like you're saying in some cases it's okay to lump a person's circumstances together with how they behave.
Which, by the way, is the underlying problem with racism.
Racism is treating people detrimentally based on the biological markers they are born with, which are treated as racial according to local cultural norms and customs.
Besides that... what I said "sounds" nothing like what you describe.
Unless you are arguing that being beaten up is "behaving".
Which would again not be racism by the victim of the beating - even if one was being beaten because of one's race.
But the person doing the beating WOULD be a racist cunt.
The law in case requires treatment of what is nothing but medical waste as if it were a dead body.
Throughout the law in case, legislators explicitly removed ANY limitation of gestation time or any choice from the pregnant women on the matter - making it a law that 1-week, 2-week or 20-week abortion MUST be treated the same as a body of a grown human being.
It MUST be issued a burial transit permit and it MUST be either buried in a graveyard (i.e. interred) or cremated - at the expense of the clinic or the parent(s).
It cannot be disposed of as what it is - medical waste. As was the case prior to that law.
Furthermore, law requires informing the parent(s) of the "fetus" about "counseling that may be available concerning the death of the miscarried fetus".
Which is treating a removed cyst as if it is a dead human. And if the human is dead due to a surgery, that means someone killed it.
I.e. Abortion is murder.
Also, parent(s) are required to sign off on the "final disposition of the miscarried fetus" - i.e. the burial.
Thus, the law DOES require families to hold funerals (as only licensed funeral facilities may conduct burials of human bodies) - if they chose not to have the burial of the "fetus" taken care of by the clinic.
In which case, the clinic must bare the costs of the procedure - IF they can even find someone willing to do the "interment or cremation".
Cause while on one side there is an active campaign against anything abortion related in that state, on the other there is no money in it for the funeral homes.
For either of those reasons, they tend to refuse to provide burial services to clinics.
"We're all figuring it out," said Patti Stauffer, the vice president of policy at Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky. So far, she hasn't had much luck finding potential funeral homes and cemeteries - a lot of the businesses she's called have told her no. "It's not like we have hundreds of people that are interested in working with us," she said.
That doesn't mean implementing the law won't be logistically challenging, though. "There's going to be a lot of man hours involved," said Curtis Rostad, the executive director of the Indiana Funeral Directors Association. "I think a lot of funeral homes are going to be doing a lot of man hours to do this, for not a lot of income."
Which in practice leaves clinics with a single solution - to shift the burden of the burial of the "fetus" onto the patient.
"Fetus" must be treated as a dead body...
Clinics can't find a business partner to do it for them...
But a patient can simply walk into a funeral home with their burial transit permit and their bag of medical waste and have the "fetus" interred or cremated. Yay!
I.e. Either the parent(s) must take the "body" to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense - OR the clinics will be forced to have parents take the body to a funeral home and have it buried at their own expense.
Or clinics can simply close. That's an option too.
Just like coat hangers and falling off a stool are an option.
Sorry... but that's like replying to a story about someone being beaten up on account of their race with "Fists are not racist... What you do with them might be racist."
Wait... were you trying to insult me by having no argument?
Resorting instead to pitiful ad hominem attacks, insinuating stuck up elitism - for calling out racism?
It is elitist to be anti-racist now? Really? That's your "argument"?
You hear someone call a racist a racist and your reaction is to accuse them of being a "so much smarter" elitist?
To put it in a less elitist parlance - do you even brain, bro?
I wasn't saying there isn't fraud.
I was saying that "He who smelt it - dealt it." Again and again and again...
https://www.thenation.com/arti...
http://www.redistrictingmajori...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While being paranoid about farts.
Everywhere! Farts as far as the eye can see!
Did you know that people fart 8-20 times per day? EVERYONE!
Farts are EVERYWHERE!!!
They just use different language. Instead of "rigged", use the words "voter suppression".
Except voter suppression IS are real thing - or there would be nothing for courts to overturn. Again and again and again...
http://www.democracynow.org/20...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.thenation.com/arti...
I mean... either those laws WERE voter repression... or it's a secret conspiracy buy judges in various US states against the Republican party's attempts to... hmm...
Wait... hold on... there must be a way to paint this as a conspiracy against old white conservatives instead of the people they are actively trying to keep from voting.
But why even bother with that... when "UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT" puts it so much more succinctly:
After years of preclearance and expansion of voting access, by 2013 African American registration and turnout rates had finally reached near-parity with white registration and turnout rates. African Americans were poised to act as a major electoral force.
But, on the day after the Supreme Court issued Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013), eliminating preclearance obligations, a leader of the party that newly dominated the legislature (and the party that rarely enjoyed African American support) announced an intention to enact what he characterized as an âoeomnibusâ election law.
Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices.
Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.
In response to claims that intentional racial discrimination animated its action, the State offered only meager justifications.
Although the new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision, they constitute inapt remedies for the problems assertedly justifying them and, in fact, impose cures for problems that did not exist.
Oh... and by the way... while you're cherry picking through wikipedia... You do know that other people can read that and point out that your worm is showing?
I mean... I'm not even talking about you quoting THIS as a proof.
Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and "claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy."[43]
Which IS proof, but only for the paranoid conspiracy theory bias among Republicans.
I'm talking about you failing to read the full section. Like this part.
In Illinois, Schlesinger and others have pointed out that, even if Nixon had carried Illinois, the state alone would not have given him the victory, as Kennedy would still have won 276 electoral votes to Nixon's 246 (with 269 needed to win).
More to the point, Illinois was the site of the most extensive challenge process, which fell short despite repeated efforts spearheaded by Cook County state's attorney, Benjamin Adamowski, a Republican, who also lost his re-election bid.
Despite demonstrating net errors favoring both Nixon and Adamowski (some precinctsâ"40% in Nixon's caseâ"showed errors favoring them, a factor suggesting error, rather than fraud), the totals found fell short of reversing the results for either
1) Reality called. You're way overdue for a checkup.
Cause back in reality, arguing "You can't call me racist - that's passe." is so stupid, it's hard to even joke about it.
But thanks for providing an alternative. Someone we can all point to and laugh.
2) IQ doesn't work like that. In SO MANY WAYS.
From the fact that the IQ is not an absolute measure of individual intelligence - but a normalized representation how one measures up against the population.
I.e. You take 3 mouth breathers and elect them to parliament - and the middle one will have an IQ of 100, while the other two will be the IQ 180 genius and the IQ 70 idiot of that population.
Also, you've clearly never heard of the Flynn effect.
The rest of you comment is just unarguable nonsensical fuming.
Might as well try to argue with a child who hates orange jello and yells at passing people "You're stupid for not hating orange jello! Because gender studies mouth breathers have indoctrinated you with leftist ideology so they're stuck in a bubble! Of jello!"
you are fearful of unchecked immigration as it affects you and your family directly.
Which is why they voted for declared racists... you know... cause racism is fine compared to a theoretic possibility of economic discomfort - regardless of the facts.
Oh... wait... no it isn't. That's using fear and selfishness as an EXCUSE for racism.
Most people will actually go "What the fuck? You want me to go join the racists because THEY say I'll be doomed if I don't? Fuck those cunts! I'd rather go poor and hungry than join them."
The only reason Brexitters "won" (then promptly regretted it and wanted a re-vote) is the fact that while intelligence is equally distributed around the average - stupidity isn't.
Stupidity is a function of intelligence and applied education.
It IS a legitimate concern for some people.
Mostly white racist... but it IS a legitimate concern for them.
Another good reason would be being stupid. Which is a FAR MORE legitimate concern for everyone.
So when Hillary does well in a debate, and her numbers shoot up by 5%, journalists report that her support has surged. Professional pollsters understand that what is really happening is that her supporters feel upbeat, and are more likely to participate in surveys, while Donald's supporters feel demoralized, and hang up the phone. So underlying support for the candidates barely budged, it is just that the sampling bias shifted.
If there only were a way to control for that... like asking upfront "Are you an X supporter, and if so, how long have you been one?", before asking about the debate results - and then excluding those "upbeat supporters" from the comparison.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you are not a "professional pollster" either.
Among other things... Like the way you're also probably not a professional fox.
Though you did an AMAZING job there, arguing that there is actually no correlation between "doing well" in an event designed to convince people to vote for you and actually convincing voters.
WHILE AT THE SAME TIME arguing that doing poorly in that same event would ONLY affect people who were supporting the "poorly" candidate AAAAAAND that it would demoralize them to the point that they'd be slamming down phones on "professional pollsters" - but not enough to drop their support.
Apparently, debate results are both such a strong influencing factor on supporters that some get too depressed to talk about it (but still not give up their support) - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME having absolutely no effect on undecided voters.
Debates are apparently SO immensely convincing and influential - except they're not.
Also, no one ever thought of actually controlling for old and new supporters after a debate and the existence of undecided voters.
That's not cognitive dissonance. That's way past the point of delusion.
And I guess the less said about media hiring "professional pollsters" the better.
By their very nature, solar panels are plates of laminated glass or plastic reinforced with wires running through them.
I.e. It's reinforced the same way bulletproof glass is.
Where conventional tiles shatter into pieces, these tiles merely crack and dent.
And the best part is, each solar plate being an array of parallelly connected cells - it will still function both as a roof tile and as a solar cell.
Whereas a conventional tile would at that point be useful only as gravel substitute.
Guy runs a company which puts rockets into space. Let's give him SOME benefit of the doubt on account of the engineering skills of his employees.
You know... let's assume that they are not exactly TOTAL fuckups.
Stein's the crazy old cat lady without any cats.
We know who's been busy grabbing them cats of all them ladies. Maybe FBI should look into that too?
Seeing as they are willing to waste time and money chasing one party's conspiracy theories... might as well do something useful and look for those cats.
http://www.twincities.com/2016...
http://www.mlive.com/news/ann-...
http://www.denverpost.com/2016...
http://www.azcentral.com/story...
BTW, I only keep hearing about "rigged" elections, fraud, stealing votes etc. from two kinds of people. Political dilettantes and Republicans.
Only difference being that as far as I can tell, while political dilettantes have always been partial to conspiracy theories because they are... well...dilettantes...
Republicans seem to have built their myth of "being cheated" around that time JFK beat their "not a crook" sweatball Tricky Dick.
Who just happened to be running multiple schemes to rig elections just as his party was busy implementing the "Southern strategy" in order to woo southern whites.
Who were at the time all hot and bothered about losing their "legitimate" ways of rigging elections against black voters, they went around dressed in nothing but dresses made out of bed linen.
Sorta like what ISIS folk do.
The reboot movies were marginal at best, and we cannot expect much better from the series.
The reboot movies were, at best, "movies". And we cannot expect much better from the series.
Maybe he just generally hates people with mental illnesses?
The fact that you can choose what to buy from a preselected and limited set of items, whose every single element is being actively PUSHED at you doesn't mean that EVERY... SINGLE... ONE of those items is actively being designed, packaged, promoted, priced... etc. etc.in order to SELL IT to people.
Should say:
"The fact that you can choose what to buy from a preselected and limited set of items, whose every single element is being actively PUSHED at you doesn't mean that EVERY... SINGLE... ONE of those items wasn't actively designed, packaged, promoted, priced... etc. etc. in order to SELL IT to people."
Serves me right for watching a quiz show while slashdotting.