IN the past, the US used to be "the great melting pot".....today, however, well.....I"m starting to feel great pressure to start learning Spanish out of necessity.
Because in the past cities did not have areas with names like "Chinatown" or "Little Italy".
Oh wait....they did.
Well then, clearly English in the US is dead and we're all speaking Chinese or Italian now.
Oh wait....that didn't happen either.
Damn, it's almost like your complaints aren't based on reality.
You're attempting to write a post from the 1986 Republican party.
It is no longer 1986. This:
The red states don't oppose things the left favors per se
is absolutely not true. "Owning the libtards" is now the primary motivating factor for the Republican base. The libertarian-ish Republicans became a minority around 2010..
So using your example of incandescent light bulbs, the red states would've preferred CFLs and LEDs compete with incandescents based solely on price.
The only reason they can compete on price is the R&D spent by manufacturers. That R&D was only spent on CFLs and LEDs because of the government mandate. Bulb manufacturers were spending almost nothing on it, and then suddenly started spending a lot more because they had a deadline.
Same with fuel efficiency on cars. The R&D was not spent until CAFE standards gave car makers incentive to do so.
Same with virtually every efficiency law - the deadline of the mandate makes companies actually spend the money to figure out out to do it. Without that deadline, companies happily continue with the status quo.
"But there could have been some super-efficient startup!!!!" No, there could not have been. The money was not available. Startup costs were far, far to high to create it from scratch, especially with the existing manufacturers being able to destroy any small company financially. The technology has long passed the point where you could invent a better LED in your garage.
(cable and phone monopolies are granted by the government in exchange for things like guarantees to cover low-income areas - arguably the harm of those monopolies far outweighs the good of covering the low income area)
Telephone monopolies weren't granted by the government. In fact, the government had to break up AT&T to force the issue.
The cable monopolies that were granted had expiration dates. They all expired by 2000-ish.
The current cable and telephone monopolies are natural monopolies, created by the expense of rolling out new networks.
or don't adequately search the solution space before mandating a single solution (GSM
GSM was created by the telecoms, not the government. Also, GSM was never a government-enforced standard in the US. AT&T and Sprint used it. Verizon and T-Mobile used CDMA. Since they're not all using GSM, that's a bit of a hint that it was not a government-enforced standard.
LTE is also not a government-created or enforced standard. It was created by the telecoms.
Your post is an excellent speech inside your ivory tower. Unfortunately, inside that tower does not accurately reflect what's going on out here.
The limitation of impeachment is explicit which makes a claim of any other limit weak
You realize we're talking about prosecution, not pardons, right?
Also, to be pardoned you have to be convicted.
Further just like congress, prosecutors, and even foreign dignitaries he is immune while in office
Um....you do realize there are congressmen currently in prison, right? They left office after they were indicted. According to you, this is impossible, yet it has happened many times.
At this point it's obvious you're vomiting forth impressive-sounding words in an attempt to create your own reality.
So, are you utterly illiterate, or did you just forget the bit where you can still get a paper receipt? All you have to do is answer "yes" when the clerk asks if you'd like one.
Ultimately, a state doesn't have to have a federal presidential election at all
Because presidential elections are the only elections.
Also, the way this works is the Feds offer money and one of the strings attached to the money is the state must agree to the minimum standards. States are free to refuse, but since there's cash on the line and the minimum standards make sense, they accept the money.
You realize that space suits designed in the 1980s and built around 2000 have existed for more than one president's tax cuts, right?
Also:
Those rich people with 8 mansions will now be required to pay MORE Federal taxes, because of Trump.
Only if they're morons. Or more precisely, their accountants are morons.
One of the benefits of having 9+ mansions is you essentially get to pick which state you "live" in for tax purposes. So you can pick a state with low/no income tax in which you receive your income.
The people fucked by removing the deduction for state and local taxes is the middle class. The rich, as usual, have a work-around.
That would require Republicans to vote for those laws. And Republicans, despite all their "concerns" about election integrity when it comes to in-person impersonation voter fraud, just can't quite get concerned about all the various kinds of election fraud.
Yes, elections are the domain of the States, not the Federal government.
The Feds can still set minimum standards, such as requiring a paper trail.
Can't be pardoned without being convicted. Can't be convicted if you can't be prosecuted.
As such the President is empowered with the ability to prevent the criminal punishment of anyone for virtually any reason, including himself, explicitly by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Again, that requires a conviction first, so that everyone knows what the person did before a pardon can be issued.
If you want to require all prosecution to happen after the President is out of office, you need to pause all statute of limitations for the time they are in office.
no one saw fit to... well... to fit the suits appropriately.
People change size when exposed to a zero-G environment for a while. What fit on Earth is not fitting well in space. So instead of jeopardizing the mission for a political stunt, they're going to use another astronaut.
So, what's the problem here? They're doing exactly what you want them to do.
Does light leave your surface? 'Cause you're dense enough to not understand the difference between a spacewalk with one woman, and a spacewalk with only women.
What if there was an event on the station and some of the suits were damaged?
The crew would flee to the docked Soyuz capsule and abandon the station.
What if there was an emergency evacuation where the station was depressurized
The suits take about 30 minutes to put on, and require the help of another astronaut. So, they're not what would be used in a depressurization scenario. Instead, the crew would flee to the docked Soyuz capsule and abandon the station.
or have an environmental control failure resulting in the need for all astronauts to be in suits?
Then the crew would flee to the docked Soyuz capsule and abandon the station.
(Have you noticed a trend yet?)
The space program is supposed to be all about safety and redundancy and yet the bread and butter of the astronaut's garb isn't even available in DUPLICATE onboard?
Have you enjoyed your tax cuts? 'Cause not building new space suits since the 1980s is one of the effects of those tax cuts.
But stepping outside that intent of the Constitution is actually pretty straightforward with regard to the President, he or she isn't supposed to be vulnerable to legal attack short of impeachment proceedings
[Citation Required]
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from being charged with a criminal offense while in office. The existence of an additional mechanism for accountability (impeachment) does not mean it is the only method for accountability.
There is a DoJ policy that the President can't be charged, mostly because of a belief that this is a conflict of interest. Since the President is the boss of the DoJ, prosecutors might botch the job, thus protecting the President via double jeopardy. But that policy isn't in the Constitution.
And although Trump may have been left unscathed by Mueller's probe
All we've seen so far is a summary written by the guy who literally covered up Iran-Contra. And even that summary explicitly states the report did not exonerate Trump:
While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
Btw, one of Barr's "interesting" legal positions is that you can not be charged with obstructing justice unless you can be charged with the crime you obstructed justice to hide. Which would seem to fit extremely well with that quote. It's also an insane opinion that isn't backed by anything other than convenience to the powerful.
Slashdot Mirror
Norway gets its electricity from hydro plants.
I eagerly await your design for a pollution scrubber for a hydro plant.
IN the past, the US used to be "the great melting pot".....today, however, well.....I"m starting to feel great pressure to start learning Spanish out of necessity.
Because in the past cities did not have areas with names like "Chinatown" or "Little Italy".
Oh wait....they did.
Well then, clearly English in the US is dead and we're all speaking Chinese or Italian now.
Oh wait....that didn't happen either.
Damn, it's almost like your complaints aren't based on reality.
You're attempting to write a post from the 1986 Republican party.
It is no longer 1986. This:
The red states don't oppose things the left favors per se
is absolutely not true. "Owning the libtards" is now the primary motivating factor for the Republican base. The libertarian-ish Republicans became a minority around 2010..
So using your example of incandescent light bulbs, the red states would've preferred CFLs and LEDs compete with incandescents based solely on price.
The only reason they can compete on price is the R&D spent by manufacturers. That R&D was only spent on CFLs and LEDs because of the government mandate. Bulb manufacturers were spending almost nothing on it, and then suddenly started spending a lot more because they had a deadline.
Same with fuel efficiency on cars. The R&D was not spent until CAFE standards gave car makers incentive to do so.
Same with virtually every efficiency law - the deadline of the mandate makes companies actually spend the money to figure out out to do it. Without that deadline, companies happily continue with the status quo.
"But there could have been some super-efficient startup!!!!" No, there could not have been. The money was not available. Startup costs were far, far to high to create it from scratch, especially with the existing manufacturers being able to destroy any small company financially. The technology has long passed the point where you could invent a better LED in your garage.
(cable and phone monopolies are granted by the government in exchange for things like guarantees to cover low-income areas - arguably the harm of those monopolies far outweighs the good of covering the low income area)
Telephone monopolies weren't granted by the government. In fact, the government had to break up AT&T to force the issue.
The cable monopolies that were granted had expiration dates. They all expired by 2000-ish.
The current cable and telephone monopolies are natural monopolies, created by the expense of rolling out new networks.
or don't adequately search the solution space before mandating a single solution (GSM
GSM was created by the telecoms, not the government. Also, GSM was never a government-enforced standard in the US. AT&T and Sprint used it. Verizon and T-Mobile used CDMA. Since they're not all using GSM, that's a bit of a hint that it was not a government-enforced standard.
LTE is also not a government-created or enforced standard. It was created by the telecoms.
Your post is an excellent speech inside your ivory tower. Unfortunately, inside that tower does not accurately reflect what's going on out here.
No, that's when single companies are laying off 3000+ people at a time.
No, they do that after the recession starts. It's one of the flags used to indicate "hey, there's a recession going on".
Recession start dates are always set after-the-fact. We don't know we're actually in one until we look back on the data months later.
The limitation of impeachment is explicit which makes a claim of any other limit weak
You realize we're talking about prosecution, not pardons, right?
Also, to be pardoned you have to be convicted.
Further just like congress, prosecutors, and even foreign dignitaries he is immune while in office
Um....you do realize there are congressmen currently in prison, right? They left office after they were indicted. According to you, this is impossible, yet it has happened many times.
At this point it's obvious you're vomiting forth impressive-sounding words in an attempt to create your own reality.
It's 2019. Most people understand that hauling a bunch of paper to a landfill is not a terribly good idea. Most.
That advertising has opt-out options if you'd like to stop receiving it.
Also, that advertising can be printed on recycled paper. Receipts can't.
Also, that advertising can (usually) be recycled. Most receipts can't.
So, are you utterly illiterate, or did you just forget the bit where you can still get a paper receipt? All you have to do is answer "yes" when the clerk asks if you'd like one.
Then you ask for a receipt at purchase.
Us sane people will just say "bummer" and move on when that gum is only OK.
Ultimately, a state doesn't have to have a federal presidential election at all
Because presidential elections are the only elections.
Also, the way this works is the Feds offer money and one of the strings attached to the money is the state must agree to the minimum standards. States are free to refuse, but since there's cash on the line and the minimum standards make sense, they accept the money.
You realize that space suits designed in the 1980s and built around 2000 have existed for more than one president's tax cuts, right?
Also:
Those rich people with 8 mansions will now be required to pay MORE Federal taxes, because of Trump.
Only if they're morons. Or more precisely, their accountants are morons.
One of the benefits of having 9+ mansions is you essentially get to pick which state you "live" in for tax purposes. So you can pick a state with low/no income tax in which you receive your income.
The people fucked by removing the deduction for state and local taxes is the middle class. The rich, as usual, have a work-around.
Pass some fucking laws regulating elections!
That would require Republicans to vote for those laws. And Republicans, despite all their "concerns" about election integrity when it comes to in-person impersonation voter fraud, just can't quite get concerned about all the various kinds of election fraud.
Yes, elections are the domain of the States, not the Federal government.
The Feds can still set minimum standards, such as requiring a paper trail.
So do pardon.
Can't be pardoned without being convicted. Can't be convicted if you can't be prosecuted.
As such the President is empowered with the ability to prevent the criminal punishment of anyone for virtually any reason, including himself, explicitly by the Constitution of the United States of America.
Again, that requires a conviction first, so that everyone knows what the person did before a pardon can be issued.
Apollo: Three deaths (on the ground, during a test).
Shuttle: Fourteen deaths (seven on launch, seven on re-entry)
You forgot to divide by the number of astronauts sent on all missions on each platform.
This technology would be helpful in shooting down Pakistani ballistic payloads.
No, the US and Russia also did theirs in low enough orbit for the debris to re-enter fairly quickly.
Statute of limitations exist.
If you want to require all prosecution to happen after the President is out of office, you need to pause all statute of limitations for the time they are in office.
no one saw fit to ... well... to fit the suits appropriately.
People change size when exposed to a zero-G environment for a while. What fit on Earth is not fitting well in space. So instead of jeopardizing the mission for a political stunt, they're going to use another astronaut.
So, what's the problem here? They're doing exactly what you want them to do.
Does light leave your surface? 'Cause you're dense enough to not understand the difference between a spacewalk with one woman, and a spacewalk with only women.
What if there was an event on the station and some of the suits were damaged?
The crew would flee to the docked Soyuz capsule and abandon the station.
What if there was an emergency evacuation where the station was depressurized
The suits take about 30 minutes to put on, and require the help of another astronaut. So, they're not what would be used in a depressurization scenario. Instead, the crew would flee to the docked Soyuz capsule and abandon the station.
or have an environmental control failure resulting in the need for all astronauts to be in suits?
Then the crew would flee to the docked Soyuz capsule and abandon the station.
(Have you noticed a trend yet?)
The space program is supposed to be all about safety and redundancy and yet the bread and butter of the astronaut's garb isn't even available in DUPLICATE onboard?
Have you enjoyed your tax cuts? 'Cause not building new space suits since the 1980s is one of the effects of those tax cuts.
People change size after spending time in zero-G environments.
I suspect the suits are regularly swapped as components reach end-of-life.
You'd be wrong. Makeshift repairs are done on the suits.
Some rich folks only had 8 mansions, so we had to give them a tax cut. So, we had to break out the duct tape and bailing wire for the space suits.
But stepping outside that intent of the Constitution is actually pretty straightforward with regard to the President, he or she isn't supposed to be vulnerable to legal attack short of impeachment proceedings
[Citation Required]
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the President from being charged with a criminal offense while in office. The existence of an additional mechanism for accountability (impeachment) does not mean it is the only method for accountability.
There is a DoJ policy that the President can't be charged, mostly because of a belief that this is a conflict of interest. Since the President is the boss of the DoJ, prosecutors might botch the job, thus protecting the President via double jeopardy. But that policy isn't in the Constitution.
This argument might be persuasive if Trump hadn't just seized the power of the purse from Congress.
And although Trump may have been left unscathed by Mueller's probe
All we've seen so far is a summary written by the guy who literally covered up Iran-Contra. And even that summary explicitly states the report did not exonerate Trump:
While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him
Btw, one of Barr's "interesting" legal positions is that you can not be charged with obstructing justice unless you can be charged with the crime you obstructed justice to hide. Which would seem to fit extremely well with that quote. It's also an insane opinion that isn't backed by anything other than convenience to the powerful.