LOL.. You mean when the ACA spent a trillion over 10 years without so much as a single republican vote?
It's really strange that you decided to bring up the ACA to refute the claim that Republicans are not spending money wisely on the wall. Almost like you're desperately using a flamethrower on a strawman.....
So, if you are afraid of getting rolled again, just give him the $105.7 Billion and ask for a DACA fix in return.
That was offered by Pelosi and Schumer in 2017. Trump didn't take it. Since Democrats gained a ton of power in the 2018 elections, Trump would now have to make a better deal than that. (Also, it's pretty odd that someone who is supposed to be good at making deals can not make one when a great deal falls into his lap. He already couldn't do anything to the DACA kids because of court orders, and he gets his wall? Sign that you orange idiot)
It's almost like you aren't paying attention beyond the soundbites you're being fed.
If you just set the precedent that you will give him what he wants in return for stuff you want, how's that bad for your cause?
You're mistaking Trump for a rational actor. He already agreed to fund the government without the wall. That's why the Republican House and Republican Senate passed bills to do so in December.
Then Ann Coulter said bad things about Trump, and Trump suddenly insisted his wall must be funded RIGHT NOW. Nevermind the 2 years of Republican majorities where this emergency didn't even come up for a vote....
And before you wander off into "60 votes!!!" land, 1) he had an offer on the table for Democratic votes in exchange for permanent residency for DACA kids, and 2) spending bills, such as one that funds the construction of the wall, can be passed via reconciliation and thus only require a simple majority.
Why else are your leaders not even talking to him when he's trying to make deals?
He was trying to make a deal when he stormed out of the meeting?
Or was he trying to make a deal when he offered to follow the court orders forbidding the deportation of DACA kids?
Or was he trying to negotiate when he sent Pence to talk, and then immediately tore into Pence for talking?
Making a deal requires more than "gimme wall!!!!!" followed by "Ok, I won't break the law, and in return gimme wall!!!!". He'd have to actually offer a concession.
However, we know he can not make a deal. Ann Coulter vetoed his offer to follow court orders as "amnesty" and unacceptable. Since Ann's rant was a major factor in Trump starting this crisis, her approval is required. Or Trump has to find his balls, but apparently Ann's got them in a jar somewhere.
So this is going to go on until McConnell can't keep his caucus together anymore.
The thing you fail to realize is these regulations did not appear out of nowhere. They were all put in place to stop some bad acts that were causing people to be harmed, up to and including death.
For example, having food inspected might be a wee bit important so you don't die. Or having the repairs inspected on the airplane you are sitting in might be a little important to you. And keep in mind the laws greatly limit the liability of the airlines and food producers because the laws presume inspections are actually occurring. Those limitations were not removed when the inspections stopped.
There's also the little deal of breaking your promise to 800,000 people, but hey you Randians are really not big on keeping your word.
but will be paid for doing nothing anyhow, once the shutdown is over?
Btw, that's not guaranteed. Back pay would have to be explicitly authorized by Congress and signed by Trump. The only people who can count on getting paid are the ones who are currently working unpaid.
Also, you seem to have forgotten that those folks can't just postpone their expenses until they are getting paid again. For some reason, they keep on insisting on eating despite not getting paid.
It should be noted that the bill passed by the House in January passed the Senate 93-6 in December. Pelosi chose it because it passed the Senate by a massive majority already.
(The bill passed the house in December, went to the Senate where it was amended and passed 93-6 and Trump said he'd sign it. It needed to go back to the House because of the amendments, but Trump "changed his mind" and Paul Ryan had one last "fuck you" to deliver to the country and did not bring it up for a vote. Since there is a new Congress, the old vote in the Senate does not advance the bill.)
A third of the Senate was up for re-election, and a number of Republicans opted to retire, rather than run for re-election, and STILL the Republicans picked up seats in the Senate - increased their majority.
...by 4. The forecast before the election was they would pick up 6. Those 4 were also much closer than predicted. It was quite far from "unabashed success".
But the Democrats were defending a far larger number of seats in 2016 than the Republicans, so the Democrats lost some. Guess what happens in 2020? Republicans are defending far more seats than Democrats.
Pelosi's passed a bill that passed the Senate 93-6, so "we don't like that bill" isn't going to fly. If it was good enough for 93 "yea" votes in December, it's good enough for at least 51 in January.
You're following the "master negotiator" over a cliff. We are, unfortunately, strapped to you. But negotiating with hostage-takers is not a viable long-term solution, so "Geronimo!!"
This shutdown has almost no impact on our daily lives and will have no long term impact on anything.
That's a bet you're going to lose. Layoffs in the tens-of-thousands range have an effect on the overall economy. 800,000 effective layoffs is gonna be bad.
Democrats don't want give in because they will lose face, but eventually they will have to
Why? The public blames Trump. Trump's approval rating is dropping. Declaring that he "owns the shutdown" was a really bad political move. Also his "offer" to not deport the DACA kids after the courts forbade him from deporting the DACA kids isn't changing that dynamic.
It turns out, the public does not like negotiating with people who take hostages.
The House has passed multiple spending bills to end this. Pelosi explicitly chose the spending resolution that passed the Senate 93-6 in December, so "we don't like that bill" isn't gonna fly. The 2020 election features way more Republican Senators up for re-election than Democrats. Their inability to do the most basic part of their job is not going unnoticed. This situation needs to end soon for the Republicans, so that the public can "move on" and forget about it during those 2020 Senate elections.
The incentives do not line up with a Democratic capitulation.
ATC also controls the skies between the airports. A plane is only talking to an airport ATC at the beginning or end of the flight. The rest of the time it's talking to an ATC that covers a large chunk of the US, or the oceans surrounding it.
Might wanna consider aircraft are no longer being inspected. We'd kinda like those to stay in the sky.
Also, all the "little guys" getting hurt are the businesses that are not receiving money from federal workers. Not going out to lunch if you're not getting paid. Which means they aren't big enough for headlines, at least until the mass bankruptcies and business failures start rolling in.
and about a dozen states were lining up to challenge DACA with the same argument, and there was every indication it too would be found unconstitutional.
Actually, the Trump administration was sued over their attempts to end DACA, and lost. Basically, they're so incompetent they can't follow the necessary regulatory legislation to end it. The Trump administration's justification was "It's illegal". Courts decide what's illegal (as in interpreting the legislation passed by Congress), and already decided it wasn't illegal during the Obama administration.
So, Trump and company need to come up with a regulatory reason for end it. Not all that hard to make up some justification, but since their real reason is unconstitutional (EEEEWW!!! BROWN PEOPLE!!!!), they haven't managed to come up with a fig leaf and instead tried to go to the SCOTUS with "It's illegal". And were turned away.
You may recall the President offered protection to 1.7 million DACA enrollees and future enrollees, but Democrats refused to accept that offer.
If you're talking about his offer this weekend, it's not much of an offer to not do what the courts have already ordered you to not do.
If you're talking about Pelosi and Shumer's offer in 2017 to fund the entire $27B price tag for the wall in return for permanent residency for the DACA kids, well, Trump didn't take that. And then an election happened, which changed the power dynamics in Congress and that offer is no longer available.
You'd think a "master negotiator" would have recognized a good deal when it was in his lap.....
Democrats have been demanding "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" for the past twenty years, using that as an excuse to refuse any incremental improvement to our current immigration policy, yet they never put forth their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill, under either Republican/Democrat administrations.
Actually, Democrats have put forth many bills over those decades. Republicans in the Senate filibustered them. That's why Obama resorted to DACA.
Considering you got every fact wrong in your post, it's almost like you're being massively misinformed by your media choices. Might wanna consider doing something about that.
Trump can declare a national emergency at the border and direct the Pentagon to redirect funds to wall construction - and with that Trump gets to build the wall, as promised.
No, he'd get taken to court, lose pretty easily (the statistics show there is not an emergency, and the relevant legislation requires that there be no possible way to fund the appropriation. There is a way to fund the appropriation, via negotiating with Congress.)
Now, it still is an "out" because Trump can use the emergency declaration as an excuse to sign the previously-passed continuing resolution, and then blame the Courts when they tell him no. And this would have been a feasible route a couple weeks ago.
But now that this has dragged on, there's a bigger problem. Trump did this now because of the ranting of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Ann will not be pleased if he tries to use the above gambit because it is so transparently going to fail, and he held out for 30 days so he should hold out for 30 more. Surely the Democrats will crack by then!!!
So either Trump has to find his big-boy pants and start behaving like an adult, or this is going to go on for a while.
Trump "compromised" by promising to not do what court orders forbid him to do. Can't deport the DACA kids when courts have already told him he can't deport the DACA kids.
I hereby compromise with you. I will not burn down your house. In return, I want $5.7 million dollars. Good deal, right?
I think I corrected you before, so doesn't that make you the dumbest person on the planet you cannot learn from corrections?
Here's a wonderful opportunity for you to learn. Spending bills can be passed via Reconciliation in the Senate. Where they only need a simple majority.
Also, the continuing resolution that passed the Senate in December passed by 93-6. This is a lovely opportunity for you to learn that 93 is just a teeny-tiny bit larger than 60. (It needed to go back to the House for another vote because of Senate amendments. It was set to pass in the House when Ann Counter overruled Trump's approval of the bill, and Ryan refused to bring up the bill.)
So far, the Democrats have refused to even consider writing a budget.
The FY 2019 budget was supposed to be written by the Republicans, before October 1st, 2018. They failed at their jobs, despite having absolute control of the entire budgeting process.
As for why not write a budget now, you can't do that when you can't talk to half of the government about their budget needs.
Once you find out that the Ebil Gubermint is easily over-ruled directly by the voters on a per-issue basis at the State level, and that license plates are done at the State level, then you can realize that it is stupid to think the State could mandate the use of something like this; or that they would even try.
"Why do you love child molesters and hate children?!!?! You want all children to be stolen in the middle of the night and raped to death!!!!"
And now your ballot measure doesn't quite pass.
If the basic purpose of the device is not clearly and entirely safety-related, then it isn't going to be mandated.
Please explain the vehicle safety provided by emissions control mandates.
That makes no sense -- if that have this remotely accessible device that they can set to flashing mode, why don't they just ask the device to report its location
Did you miss the part where the base model doesn't have GPS?
The Amber alert angle is designed to sell the plates to the state government, who would then mandate them on cars. Or as a reason for someone like GM to integrate them into the car for OnStar's "we stop the bad guys" angle.
If they were mandated, presumably the cost would be lower due to the large volume produced. For now, it's a very niche product so it's expensive.
The plate (as in the hunk of metal with numbers on it) you keep for years.
Some states consider the the plate to identify you, so you take it with you to a new car. Others consider it an identifier for you and the car, so you get a new plate when you get a new car.
"Renewals" are renewing the vehicle's registration. That's annual, and is a mechanism to collect property taxes and fees. In most states it's also a mechanism to force you to have a safety and/or emissions inspection done on your car every year. This manifests itself on the license plate as stickers that indicate the month and year when your registration expires. If your stickers are missing/out-of-date, the police can pull you over and check your registration, which then lets them write you a ticket if your registration is actually are out-of-date.
Not to seem callous but why would I pay (a lot) extra for the ability to display Amber alerts?
An Amber alert typically includes searching for a particular vehicle. So you wouldn't be displaying Amber alerts, the target of the Amber alert would be flashing or otherwise drawing attention to the vehicle.
This is unlikely to convince you to buy such a plate, especially at that high a price. It's aimed at selling that plate to the state government, which then mandates it on your car. Or possibly building the technology into the car at the factory, much like OnStar can turn off a car's engine when the police request it.
They are totally WORTHLESS for displaying amber alerts.
Typically, the police are looking for a particular vehicle during an Amber alert.
They idea is not to show that Amber alert on other people's cars. It's to make the target vehicle's license plate blink/flash/otherwise draw attention to the vehicle.
If Verizon is going to lobby like hell to kill Net Neutrality, they get everything that comes with not having it. Not just the parts that make them money.
Yes, and poor helpless Verizon has no way to differentiate between any individual sender, and using that information to create a whitelist for who should not be subject to that fee.
...Oh wait! They can! They just want that several million dollars in sweet sweet cash, and are counting on rubes like you to excuse their behavior.
And Trump's campaign is obviously the inventor of such tactics?
Why is it Trump supporters are unable to discuss anything without inventing a new reality? Such as inserting a claim that this was only Trump into a post that is still sitting right there, with no such claim.
"Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Come on, everybody plays this game.
Then why'd you ask what the point of this story was? If you knew "everyone plays this game", then you'd be well aware of the point. It's almost like you're flailing about for excuses and justifications.
and BOTH campaigns clearly made similar claims based on the same kinds of evidence.
[Citation Required]
Since Clinton was leading in traditional polls, there was no need to game online polls to point to. They could just point to the "real" polls. Democrats aren't above using a similar tactic, but it was unnecessary in this particular case.
(And before you go off on those polls, the 2016 election result was within the MOE of those polls)
I'd kinda like to change ecosystems, especially with Apple going insane on prices. But one thing that's keeping me on iOS is Google seems to do a really shitty job curating the Play store.
Sure, Apple's store isn't perfect, but there seems to be a lot fewer things that are completely garbage or outright malware.
Slashdot Mirror
LOL.. You mean when the ACA spent a trillion over 10 years without so much as a single republican vote?
It's really strange that you decided to bring up the ACA to refute the claim that Republicans are not spending money wisely on the wall. Almost like you're desperately using a flamethrower on a strawman.....
So, if you are afraid of getting rolled again, just give him the $105.7 Billion and ask for a DACA fix in return.
That was offered by Pelosi and Schumer in 2017. Trump didn't take it. Since Democrats gained a ton of power in the 2018 elections, Trump would now have to make a better deal than that. (Also, it's pretty odd that someone who is supposed to be good at making deals can not make one when a great deal falls into his lap. He already couldn't do anything to the DACA kids because of court orders, and he gets his wall? Sign that you orange idiot)
It's almost like you aren't paying attention beyond the soundbites you're being fed.
If you just set the precedent that you will give him what he wants in return for stuff you want, how's that bad for your cause?
You're mistaking Trump for a rational actor. He already agreed to fund the government without the wall. That's why the Republican House and Republican Senate passed bills to do so in December.
Then Ann Coulter said bad things about Trump, and Trump suddenly insisted his wall must be funded RIGHT NOW. Nevermind the 2 years of Republican majorities where this emergency didn't even come up for a vote....
And before you wander off into "60 votes!!!" land, 1) he had an offer on the table for Democratic votes in exchange for permanent residency for DACA kids, and 2) spending bills, such as one that funds the construction of the wall, can be passed via reconciliation and thus only require a simple majority.
Why else are your leaders not even talking to him when he's trying to make deals?
He was trying to make a deal when he stormed out of the meeting?
Or was he trying to make a deal when he offered to follow the court orders forbidding the deportation of DACA kids?
Or was he trying to negotiate when he sent Pence to talk, and then immediately tore into Pence for talking?
Making a deal requires more than "gimme wall!!!!!" followed by "Ok, I won't break the law, and in return gimme wall!!!!". He'd have to actually offer a concession.
However, we know he can not make a deal. Ann Coulter vetoed his offer to follow court orders as "amnesty" and unacceptable. Since Ann's rant was a major factor in Trump starting this crisis, her approval is required. Or Trump has to find his balls, but apparently Ann's got them in a jar somewhere.
So this is going to go on until McConnell can't keep his caucus together anymore.
That said, 1/3 is nothing to scoff at and should still be a no-brainer.
That assumes that 1/3rd are incapable of finding a ladder. Or an abrasive cut-off saw. Or a boat.
The thing you fail to realize is these regulations did not appear out of nowhere. They were all put in place to stop some bad acts that were causing people to be harmed, up to and including death.
For example, having food inspected might be a wee bit important so you don't die. Or having the repairs inspected on the airplane you are sitting in might be a little important to you. And keep in mind the laws greatly limit the liability of the airlines and food producers because the laws presume inspections are actually occurring. Those limitations were not removed when the inspections stopped.
There's also the little deal of breaking your promise to 800,000 people, but hey you Randians are really not big on keeping your word.
but will be paid for doing nothing anyhow, once the shutdown is over?
Btw, that's not guaranteed. Back pay would have to be explicitly authorized by Congress and signed by Trump. The only people who can count on getting paid are the ones who are currently working unpaid.
Also, you seem to have forgotten that those folks can't just postpone their expenses until they are getting paid again. For some reason, they keep on insisting on eating despite not getting paid.
It's far more fireball-ish than that. Aircraft are not being inspected.
It should be noted that the bill passed by the House in January passed the Senate 93-6 in December. Pelosi chose it because it passed the Senate by a massive majority already.
(The bill passed the house in December, went to the Senate where it was amended and passed 93-6 and Trump said he'd sign it. It needed to go back to the House because of the amendments, but Trump "changed his mind" and Paul Ryan had one last "fuck you" to deliver to the country and did not bring it up for a vote. Since there is a new Congress, the old vote in the Senate does not advance the bill.)
A third of the Senate was up for re-election, and a number of Republicans opted to retire, rather than run for re-election, and STILL the Republicans picked up seats in the Senate - increased their majority.
...by 4. The forecast before the election was they would pick up 6. Those 4 were also much closer than predicted. It was quite far from "unabashed success".
But the Democrats were defending a far larger number of seats in 2016 than the Republicans, so the Democrats lost some. Guess what happens in 2020? Republicans are defending far more seats than Democrats.
Pelosi's passed a bill that passed the Senate 93-6, so "we don't like that bill" isn't going to fly. If it was good enough for 93 "yea" votes in December, it's good enough for at least 51 in January.
You're following the "master negotiator" over a cliff. We are, unfortunately, strapped to you. But negotiating with hostage-takers is not a viable long-term solution, so "Geronimo!!"
This shutdown has almost no impact on our daily lives and will have no long term impact on anything.
That's a bet you're going to lose. Layoffs in the tens-of-thousands range have an effect on the overall economy. 800,000 effective layoffs is gonna be bad.
Democrats don't want give in because they will lose face, but eventually they will have to
Why? The public blames Trump. Trump's approval rating is dropping. Declaring that he "owns the shutdown" was a really bad political move. Also his "offer" to not deport the DACA kids after the courts forbade him from deporting the DACA kids isn't changing that dynamic.
It turns out, the public does not like negotiating with people who take hostages.
The House has passed multiple spending bills to end this. Pelosi explicitly chose the spending resolution that passed the Senate 93-6 in December, so "we don't like that bill" isn't gonna fly. The 2020 election features way more Republican Senators up for re-election than Democrats. Their inability to do the most basic part of their job is not going unnoticed. This situation needs to end soon for the Republicans, so that the public can "move on" and forget about it during those 2020 Senate elections.
The incentives do not line up with a Democratic capitulation.
ATC should be airport employees
ATC also controls the skies between the airports. A plane is only talking to an airport ATC at the beginning or end of the flight. The rest of the time it's talking to an ATC that covers a large chunk of the US, or the oceans surrounding it.
Might wanna consider aircraft are no longer being inspected. We'd kinda like those to stay in the sky.
Also, all the "little guys" getting hurt are the businesses that are not receiving money from federal workers. Not going out to lunch if you're not getting paid. Which means they aren't big enough for headlines, at least until the mass bankruptcies and business failures start rolling in.
and about a dozen states were lining up to challenge DACA with the same argument, and there was every indication it too would be found unconstitutional.
Actually, the Trump administration was sued over their attempts to end DACA, and lost. Basically, they're so incompetent they can't follow the necessary regulatory legislation to end it. The Trump administration's justification was "It's illegal". Courts decide what's illegal (as in interpreting the legislation passed by Congress), and already decided it wasn't illegal during the Obama administration.
So, Trump and company need to come up with a regulatory reason for end it. Not all that hard to make up some justification, but since their real reason is unconstitutional (EEEEWW!!! BROWN PEOPLE!!!!), they haven't managed to come up with a fig leaf and instead tried to go to the SCOTUS with "It's illegal". And were turned away.
You may recall the President offered protection to 1.7 million DACA enrollees and future enrollees, but Democrats refused to accept that offer.
If you're talking about his offer this weekend, it's not much of an offer to not do what the courts have already ordered you to not do.
If you're talking about Pelosi and Shumer's offer in 2017 to fund the entire $27B price tag for the wall in return for permanent residency for the DACA kids, well, Trump didn't take that. And then an election happened, which changed the power dynamics in Congress and that offer is no longer available.
You'd think a "master negotiator" would have recognized a good deal when it was in his lap.....
Democrats have been demanding "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" for the past twenty years, using that as an excuse to refuse any incremental improvement to our current immigration policy, yet they never put forth their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill, under either Republican/Democrat administrations.
Actually, Democrats have put forth many bills over those decades. Republicans in the Senate filibustered them. That's why Obama resorted to DACA.
Considering you got every fact wrong in your post, it's almost like you're being massively misinformed by your media choices. Might wanna consider doing something about that.
Trump can declare a national emergency at the border and direct the Pentagon to redirect funds to wall construction - and with that Trump gets to build the wall, as promised.
No, he'd get taken to court, lose pretty easily (the statistics show there is not an emergency, and the relevant legislation requires that there be no possible way to fund the appropriation. There is a way to fund the appropriation, via negotiating with Congress.)
Now, it still is an "out" because Trump can use the emergency declaration as an excuse to sign the previously-passed continuing resolution, and then blame the Courts when they tell him no. And this would have been a feasible route a couple weeks ago.
But now that this has dragged on, there's a bigger problem. Trump did this now because of the ranting of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. Ann will not be pleased if he tries to use the above gambit because it is so transparently going to fail, and he held out for 30 days so he should hold out for 30 more. Surely the Democrats will crack by then!!!
So either Trump has to find his big-boy pants and start behaving like an adult, or this is going to go on for a while.
Seriously? Give the guy his $100 Billion and be done with him...
And when he wants another $100B? He now knows how to get it.....
Remember back when Republicans thought spending money responsibly was a good thing?
Trump then also proposed a compromise
Trump "compromised" by promising to not do what court orders forbid him to do. Can't deport the DACA kids when courts have already told him he can't deport the DACA kids.
I hereby compromise with you. I will not burn down your house. In return, I want $5.7 million dollars. Good deal, right?
I think I corrected you before, so doesn't that make you the dumbest person on the planet you cannot learn from corrections?
Here's a wonderful opportunity for you to learn. Spending bills can be passed via Reconciliation in the Senate. Where they only need a simple majority.
Also, the continuing resolution that passed the Senate in December passed by 93-6. This is a lovely opportunity for you to learn that 93 is just a teeny-tiny bit larger than 60. (It needed to go back to the House for another vote because of Senate amendments. It was set to pass in the House when Ann Counter overruled Trump's approval of the bill, and Ryan refused to bring up the bill.)
So far, the Democrats have refused to even consider writing a budget.
The FY 2019 budget was supposed to be written by the Republicans, before October 1st, 2018. They failed at their jobs, despite having absolute control of the entire budgeting process.
As for why not write a budget now, you can't do that when you can't talk to half of the government about their budget needs.
Once you find out that the Ebil Gubermint is easily over-ruled directly by the voters on a per-issue basis at the State level, and that license plates are done at the State level, then you can realize that it is stupid to think the State could mandate the use of something like this; or that they would even try.
"Why do you love child molesters and hate children?!!?! You want all children to be stolen in the middle of the night and raped to death!!!!"
And now your ballot measure doesn't quite pass.
If the basic purpose of the device is not clearly and entirely safety-related, then it isn't going to be mandated.
Please explain the vehicle safety provided by emissions control mandates.
That makes no sense -- if that have this remotely accessible device that they can set to flashing mode, why don't they just ask the device to report its location
Did you miss the part where the base model doesn't have GPS?
The Amber alert angle is designed to sell the plates to the state government, who would then mandate them on cars. Or as a reason for someone like GM to integrate them into the car for OnStar's "we stop the bad guys" angle.
If they were mandated, presumably the cost would be lower due to the large volume produced. For now, it's a very niche product so it's expensive.
The plate (as in the hunk of metal with numbers on it) you keep for years.
Some states consider the the plate to identify you, so you take it with you to a new car. Others consider it an identifier for you and the car, so you get a new plate when you get a new car.
"Renewals" are renewing the vehicle's registration. That's annual, and is a mechanism to collect property taxes and fees. In most states it's also a mechanism to force you to have a safety and/or emissions inspection done on your car every year. This manifests itself on the license plate as stickers that indicate the month and year when your registration expires. If your stickers are missing/out-of-date, the police can pull you over and check your registration, which then lets them write you a ticket if your registration is actually are out-of-date.
Not to seem callous but why would I pay (a lot) extra for the ability to display Amber alerts?
An Amber alert typically includes searching for a particular vehicle. So you wouldn't be displaying Amber alerts, the target of the Amber alert would be flashing or otherwise drawing attention to the vehicle.
This is unlikely to convince you to buy such a plate, especially at that high a price. It's aimed at selling that plate to the state government, which then mandates it on your car. Or possibly building the technology into the car at the factory, much like OnStar can turn off a car's engine when the police request it.
They are totally WORTHLESS for displaying amber alerts.
Typically, the police are looking for a particular vehicle during an Amber alert.
They idea is not to show that Amber alert on other people's cars. It's to make the target vehicle's license plate blink/flash/otherwise draw attention to the vehicle.
If Verizon is going to lobby like hell to kill Net Neutrality, they get everything that comes with not having it. Not just the parts that make them money.
Yes, and poor helpless Verizon has no way to differentiate between any individual sender, and using that information to create a whitelist for who should not be subject to that fee.
...Oh wait! They can! They just want that several million dollars in sweet sweet cash, and are counting on rubes like you to excuse their behavior.
And Trump's campaign is obviously the inventor of such tactics?
Why is it Trump supporters are unable to discuss anything without inventing a new reality? Such as inserting a claim that this was only Trump into a post that is still sitting right there, with no such claim.
"Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Come on, everybody plays this game.
Then why'd you ask what the point of this story was? If you knew "everyone plays this game", then you'd be well aware of the point. It's almost like you're flailing about for excuses and justifications.
and BOTH campaigns clearly made similar claims based on the same kinds of evidence.
[Citation Required]
Since Clinton was leading in traditional polls, there was no need to game online polls to point to. They could just point to the "real" polls. Democrats aren't above using a similar tactic, but it was unnecessary in this particular case.
(And before you go off on those polls, the 2016 election result was within the MOE of those polls)
I'd kinda like to change ecosystems, especially with Apple going insane on prices. But one thing that's keeping me on iOS is Google seems to do a really shitty job curating the Play store.
Sure, Apple's store isn't perfect, but there seems to be a lot fewer things that are completely garbage or outright malware.