You're just buttmad about Trump. Assange didn't have anything on the RNC so he didn't release anything on the RNC. Or, perhaps the RNC is not nearly as corrupt as the DNC.
But even on DS9 you still had Sisko's dad's restaurant. With wait staff. How did Sisko's dad get the property for the restaurant? Why is anyone "doing what they love" busing tables? And on a daily basis to have a functioning restaurant? Again, people acting like they're participating in an economy. I don't know what a post scarcity society would look like, but it wouldn't look like Star Trek.
Getting to near light speed is probably feasible even with current technology. It doesn't need a lot of acceleration, just a constant one and you'll get there in a few years. It would take a lot of energy - but if you're fleeing for your species, who cares ? Use up all the stored energy earth has, why not - it will be worthless after you're gone.
Not a chance. Remember you don't just need energy you need reaction mass. Stuff to throw out the back of the ship (usually violently) in order to make it go forward. And when you're just starting out pushing the ship you have to accelerate all the reaction mass you'll need to get near light speed and then turn around and decelerate. The only hope for anything like what you're describing would be that EM drive thing, which is reactionless. Just add electricity and you apparently get thrust. We'll see if it works in a vacuum. I'm still thinking it's having a very, very tiny reaction with the earth's magnetic field and will not work in space away from a magnetic field, but we'll see. If that works, then yeah. Mine the moon for He3 for easier fusion reactors and you can carry all the energy you need to zip around the solar system and maybe even beyond without having to carry reaction mass.
But no, with today's proven, working technology any significant fraction of light speed is impossible. You can't carry enough reaction mass to accelerate and decelerate all your reaction mass.
I guess really, I'm asking, do partial pardons exist?
Yes. The pardon powers granted to the president are very broad. Also they're rarely challenged because presidents are usually very careful about wielding the power, and it's not often in anyone's interest to challenge the pardon. What the president's constitutional powers really are is whatever the Supreme Court says they are, but whenever the president pardons someone, they just let the person go and that's the end of it. No prosecutor is going to appeal the pardon to even get the case in front of the Supreme Court, anyway.
But the biological distinction is about hormones. And hormones definitely change mood and behavior. So therefore the expectations comes from the typical behaviors resulting from hormones, no? I'm not macho because I'm expected to be macho, I'm macho because I have lots of testosterone because my gender (male) matches my junk (male). If my hormones were female (estrogen), regardless of my junk, I'd be prancing around in a dress because I want to feel pretty, no?
You realize you're also engaged in the partisan bullshit right now, right? You're condemning Trump for what he might do. How about you wait until he writes himself that billion dollar check before you convict him for crimes he's only committed in your mind? I'm sure if he does anything like that CNN will let you know ASAP. And if he doesn't I'm sure they'll make something up to confirm your prejudices, so you win either way.
There is a whole web of ways this can go wrong for us (not for him, for us).
Why do I care if Trump gets a deal for his scottish golf course? How is that wrong for me? It's right for him, but so long as he does the rest of the running of the country stuff and does the things I want, why do I care if his family gets richer? Didn't the Clintons get about $100M richer through "public service?" How did he do that? Isn't every congressman engaged in insider trading? How else do they go in worth $1 million and come out with $10M? Paul Ryan is worth $8M after 17 years in Congress. How does that happen?
Trump is the only one even trying to avoid conflicts of interest with regards to personal profit in office. Everyone else is doing it gleefully and you give zero credit to the one guy who even so much as pays lip service to not profiting off his office. Which tells me you don't actually give a shit about any of that, you just hate Trump and are looking for a way to undermine him. If Hillary had got in you wouldn't give two shits about the Saudis and Qatar giving her Foundation millions of dollars to overthrow Assad so they can have their pipeline.
There is zero evidence of Russia interfering in the election. There were only 3 intelligence agencies on the report (which offered no evidence and only speculation), not 17. These are the same intelligence agencies that lied about things like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Outside influence is inevitable in the age of TV and internet. The BBC was shilling for Hillary. There's a state media outlet influencing our elections. Are you "deeply concerned" about the influence of the British on our politics? Trudeau denounced Trump during the election. Are you deeply concerned about Canadian influence?
No, you just hate Trump and are looking for a way to undermine and attack him, so you've bought into paranoid delusions that the ebil Rooskies are out to get you. You are a political stooge.
Because if there's no direct control Trump seems to have some kind of weird hero-worship thing going on for Putin.
Trump will say nice things about anyone who says nice things about him, and will shit on anyone who shits on him. Putin says nice things about Trump, so Trump says nice things about Putin.
Also, Trump respects Putin because unlike most every other western world leader, Putin doesn't shit on his own people. Yes, Putin's first priority is Putin, but he at least tries to keep the Russian people from wanting to kill themselves. Russians want families and a future, so Putin promotes the Orthodox Church and Russians get married and make baby Russians. They don't want to get blown up by terrorists, so Putin slaughters any muslims who try to start shit in Russia, and doesn't take in "refugees." Compare to Merkel, who floods her country with violent savages who rape the German women and then persecutes anyone who says "maybe less violent savages?" for hate speech.
That is why Trump respects Putin, because under him Russia has a future, and western europe does not, and Trump believed under our old leadership America had no future, but under him it will. Oh, and I'm not trying to convince you America will have a better future under Trump, I'm telling you Trump believes America will have a future under him.
Yes, and the stupid analysis thing that "Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the inheritance in mutual funds" is not the article you posted, and the article you posted doesn't make any claim that Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the money. The "twice as rich" analysis assumes he took the $400 million he got in 1999 when Fred died, translated that into $400 million 1971 dollars and invested them with perfect market timing in 1971. Without a time machine, he would be unable to move the $400 million from 1999 to 1971.
Let me guess...Trump got a time machine from Putin, who can also hack time!
So if China says to Trump "if you support our claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan, we will invest $10 billion to build and develop several new Trump hotels in China", then not only are you saying that is OK, but you're also saying that the people who wrote the Constitution didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the clause.
And nothing like that is happening. Trump has given control of the company to his kids, and Trump has pledged no new foreign investments during his 8 years in office. Trump has also pledged to donate all foreign profits to the US Treasury.
Also that's not even the "emoluments clause" meme that's been floating around the leftist circlejerks. They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service. None of the presidents who owned plantations were required to give up their plantations and not sell their harvests during their term in office. The Founders believed the government should be run by regular citizens, and would never dream that business owners should have to sell off their businesses in order to serve as president.
If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now.
You're still repeating this crap? Fred Trump didn't die until 1999. The "analysis" you're talking about assumes Donald got Fred's 1999 fortune in the 1970s. Unless Trump also has a time machine, that doesn't work out.
You are delusional. You're the same nutjobs who were saying "Trump's going to quit any day now he just wanted more advertising for his TV show!!" for a year. You think he's going to quit now? Hell no.
And the "emoluments clause" is yet another pipe dream like "faithless electors" from people who don't understand the Constitution or the political system. Fees for service are not emoluments.
How could they "release it all in the beginning?" How are they supposed to release emails about how Hillary got the debate questions in advance from CNN in March 2016 when the primary season started in summer 2015? Did the Russians hack time, too? Why the fuck not apparently they've hacked everything else.
Well from the article, "they" being Republicans, don't give a shit. The article is about one fabricated online journalist from someone with a grudge against Musk, who appears to be trying to shill to get Republicans to oppose Musk, but I've seen no evidence it's worked. I am a Republican and general right-wing nutjob and on all my right wing blogs/sites/forums etc I don't think I've ever seen any significant negative sentiment towards Musk. If I had to gauge the general opinion of Musk among conservatives/Republicans, it would be "neutral to positive." The only negative things I've ever seen are some sidelong glances from staunch libertarians because subsidies, but since Elon has been so successful at making so many things profitable in the long run that argument has little traction.
So I would say the idea that Musk is a "target of the Republican party" is pretty much false.
Snowden was very careful about how he released material not to get people hurt, the information he released was relevant and sincere whistle-blowing, not just random data dumps from sensitive sources.
Not all of it, though. I appreciated the stuff about the government illegally spying on US citizens. But Snowden also revealed stuff about spying on foreign citizens and governments that's perfectly within the purview of our intelligence agencies.
Also we have no idea what else he gave Greenwald. For all we know you pardon Snowden today and then tomorrow Glen says "oh by the way here's the US nuclear launch codes Ed gave me." (obvious hyperbole but you get the idea).
Manning is similar. You say "no greater purpose in mind." Not true. He (don't give me any shit about pronouns, I'm playing by the right snowflake rules, referring to Manning as "he" for actions done when he was Bradley, not Chelsea) was very upset by stuff he was seeing that he thought we were war crimes. If you read the chat logs between him and Assange his thought process was basically "I'm really bothered by a lot of this stuff and the public should know also look what I can do pay attention to meeeeeeeeee!"
I expected Putin to hand Snowden over to Trump, who has only ever called Snowden a traitor. "As a sign of improving relations between our two great nations we return this criminal to you that you may serve justice." Putin only ever kept Snowden to embarrass Obama. I find this recent turn of events confusing. But as I mostly support Snowden I'm not displeased.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just buttmad about Trump. Assange didn't have anything on the RNC so he didn't release anything on the RNC. Or, perhaps the RNC is not nearly as corrupt as the DNC.
But even on DS9 you still had Sisko's dad's restaurant. With wait staff. How did Sisko's dad get the property for the restaurant? Why is anyone "doing what they love" busing tables? And on a daily basis to have a functioning restaurant? Again, people acting like they're participating in an economy. I don't know what a post scarcity society would look like, but it wouldn't look like Star Trek.
Getting to near light speed is probably feasible even with current technology. It doesn't need a lot of acceleration, just a constant one and you'll get there in a few years. It would take a lot of energy - but if you're fleeing for your species, who cares ? Use up all the stored energy earth has, why not - it will be worthless after you're gone.
Not a chance. Remember you don't just need energy you need reaction mass. Stuff to throw out the back of the ship (usually violently) in order to make it go forward. And when you're just starting out pushing the ship you have to accelerate all the reaction mass you'll need to get near light speed and then turn around and decelerate. The only hope for anything like what you're describing would be that EM drive thing, which is reactionless. Just add electricity and you apparently get thrust. We'll see if it works in a vacuum. I'm still thinking it's having a very, very tiny reaction with the earth's magnetic field and will not work in space away from a magnetic field, but we'll see. If that works, then yeah. Mine the moon for He3 for easier fusion reactors and you can carry all the energy you need to zip around the solar system and maybe even beyond without having to carry reaction mass.
But no, with today's proven, working technology any significant fraction of light speed is impossible. You can't carry enough reaction mass to accelerate and decelerate all your reaction mass.
I guess really, I'm asking, do partial pardons exist?
Yes. The pardon powers granted to the president are very broad. Also they're rarely challenged because presidents are usually very careful about wielding the power, and it's not often in anyone's interest to challenge the pardon. What the president's constitutional powers really are is whatever the Supreme Court says they are, but whenever the president pardons someone, they just let the person go and that's the end of it. No prosecutor is going to appeal the pardon to even get the case in front of the Supreme Court, anyway.
But the biological distinction is about hormones. And hormones definitely change mood and behavior. So therefore the expectations comes from the typical behaviors resulting from hormones, no? I'm not macho because I'm expected to be macho, I'm macho because I have lots of testosterone because my gender (male) matches my junk (male). If my hormones were female (estrogen), regardless of my junk, I'd be prancing around in a dress because I want to feel pretty, no?
You realize you're also engaged in the partisan bullshit right now, right? You're condemning Trump for what he might do. How about you wait until he writes himself that billion dollar check before you convict him for crimes he's only committed in your mind? I'm sure if he does anything like that CNN will let you know ASAP. And if he doesn't I'm sure they'll make something up to confirm your prejudices, so you win either way.
There is a whole web of ways this can go wrong for us (not for him, for us).
Why do I care if Trump gets a deal for his scottish golf course? How is that wrong for me? It's right for him, but so long as he does the rest of the running of the country stuff and does the things I want, why do I care if his family gets richer? Didn't the Clintons get about $100M richer through "public service?" How did he do that? Isn't every congressman engaged in insider trading? How else do they go in worth $1 million and come out with $10M? Paul Ryan is worth $8M after 17 years in Congress. How does that happen?
Trump is the only one even trying to avoid conflicts of interest with regards to personal profit in office. Everyone else is doing it gleefully and you give zero credit to the one guy who even so much as pays lip service to not profiting off his office. Which tells me you don't actually give a shit about any of that, you just hate Trump and are looking for a way to undermine him. If Hillary had got in you wouldn't give two shits about the Saudis and Qatar giving her Foundation millions of dollars to overthrow Assad so they can have their pipeline.
There is zero evidence of Russia interfering in the election. There were only 3 intelligence agencies on the report (which offered no evidence and only speculation), not 17. These are the same intelligence agencies that lied about things like weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Outside influence is inevitable in the age of TV and internet. The BBC was shilling for Hillary. There's a state media outlet influencing our elections. Are you "deeply concerned" about the influence of the British on our politics? Trudeau denounced Trump during the election. Are you deeply concerned about Canadian influence?
No, you just hate Trump and are looking for a way to undermine and attack him, so you've bought into paranoid delusions that the ebil Rooskies are out to get you. You are a political stooge.
With an economy the size of Spain? You're swallowing too much western propaganda, friend.
No I agree it's politically motivated bullshit. I'm just saying you have the facts of the events wrong.
So do you have a reason to casually dismiss the previous speculation, either in the form of evidence or the form of a political agenda to push?
Because there is zero evidence of Russian involvement with Trump. The left sucks at conspiracy theories.
Because if there's no direct control Trump seems to have some kind of weird hero-worship thing going on for Putin.
Trump will say nice things about anyone who says nice things about him, and will shit on anyone who shits on him. Putin says nice things about Trump, so Trump says nice things about Putin.
Also, Trump respects Putin because unlike most every other western world leader, Putin doesn't shit on his own people. Yes, Putin's first priority is Putin, but he at least tries to keep the Russian people from wanting to kill themselves. Russians want families and a future, so Putin promotes the Orthodox Church and Russians get married and make baby Russians. They don't want to get blown up by terrorists, so Putin slaughters any muslims who try to start shit in Russia, and doesn't take in "refugees." Compare to Merkel, who floods her country with violent savages who rape the German women and then persecutes anyone who says "maybe less violent savages?" for hate speech.
That is why Trump respects Putin, because under him Russia has a future, and western europe does not, and Trump believed under our old leadership America had no future, but under him it will. Oh, and I'm not trying to convince you America will have a better future under Trump, I'm telling you Trump believes America will have a future under him.
Yes, and the stupid analysis thing that "Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the inheritance in mutual funds" is not the article you posted, and the article you posted doesn't make any claim that Trump would be twice as rich if he invested the money. The "twice as rich" analysis assumes he took the $400 million he got in 1999 when Fred died, translated that into $400 million 1971 dollars and invested them with perfect market timing in 1971. Without a time machine, he would be unable to move the $400 million from 1999 to 1971.
Let me guess...Trump got a time machine from Putin, who can also hack time!
Do you enjoy mental masturbation that much?
You new here, friend?
So if China says to Trump "if you support our claims in the South China Sea and Taiwan, we will invest $10 billion to build and develop several new Trump hotels in China", then not only are you saying that is OK, but you're also saying that the people who wrote the Constitution didn't have that kind of thing in mind when they wrote the clause.
And nothing like that is happening. Trump has given control of the company to his kids, and Trump has pledged no new foreign investments during his 8 years in office. Trump has also pledged to donate all foreign profits to the US Treasury.
Also that's not even the "emoluments clause" meme that's been floating around the leftist circlejerks. They've been saying foreigners staying at a Trump hotel are giving him emoluments, when no, that is a fee for service. None of the presidents who owned plantations were required to give up their plantations and not sell their harvests during their term in office. The Founders believed the government should be run by regular citizens, and would never dream that business owners should have to sell off their businesses in order to serve as president.
I love how Trump's election has turned the left into paranoid xenophobic conspiritards.
Tell me, is there anything Putin can't do? Can he hack all of time and space?
No, the electoral college protected huge swathes of the country from the tyranny of the majority.
You can't pardon future actions. A document that gives you immunity from prosecutions for future otherwise illegal actions is called a warrant.
If he had left his inheritance alone, he would be twice as wealthy as he claims to be now.
You're still repeating this crap? Fred Trump didn't die until 1999. The "analysis" you're talking about assumes Donald got Fred's 1999 fortune in the 1970s. Unless Trump also has a time machine, that doesn't work out.
You are delusional. You're the same nutjobs who were saying "Trump's going to quit any day now he just wanted more advertising for his TV show!!" for a year. You think he's going to quit now? Hell no.
And the "emoluments clause" is yet another pipe dream like "faithless electors" from people who don't understand the Constitution or the political system. Fees for service are not emoluments.
How could they "release it all in the beginning?" How are they supposed to release emails about how Hillary got the debate questions in advance from CNN in March 2016 when the primary season started in summer 2015? Did the Russians hack time, too? Why the fuck not apparently they've hacked everything else.
Well from the article, "they" being Republicans, don't give a shit. The article is about one fabricated online journalist from someone with a grudge against Musk, who appears to be trying to shill to get Republicans to oppose Musk, but I've seen no evidence it's worked. I am a Republican and general right-wing nutjob and on all my right wing blogs/sites/forums etc I don't think I've ever seen any significant negative sentiment towards Musk. If I had to gauge the general opinion of Musk among conservatives/Republicans, it would be "neutral to positive." The only negative things I've ever seen are some sidelong glances from staunch libertarians because subsidies, but since Elon has been so successful at making so many things profitable in the long run that argument has little traction.
So I would say the idea that Musk is a "target of the Republican party" is pretty much false.
How's that for timing.
Snowden was very careful about how he released material not to get people hurt, the information he released was relevant and sincere whistle-blowing, not just random data dumps from sensitive sources.
Not all of it, though. I appreciated the stuff about the government illegally spying on US citizens. But Snowden also revealed stuff about spying on foreign citizens and governments that's perfectly within the purview of our intelligence agencies.
Also we have no idea what else he gave Greenwald. For all we know you pardon Snowden today and then tomorrow Glen says "oh by the way here's the US nuclear launch codes Ed gave me." (obvious hyperbole but you get the idea).
Manning is similar. You say "no greater purpose in mind." Not true. He (don't give me any shit about pronouns, I'm playing by the right snowflake rules, referring to Manning as "he" for actions done when he was Bradley, not Chelsea) was very upset by stuff he was seeing that he thought we were war crimes. If you read the chat logs between him and Assange his thought process was basically "I'm really bothered by a lot of this stuff and the public should know also look what I can do pay attention to meeeeeeeeee!"
I expected Putin to hand Snowden over to Trump, who has only ever called Snowden a traitor. "As a sign of improving relations between our two great nations we return this criminal to you that you may serve justice." Putin only ever kept Snowden to embarrass Obama. I find this recent turn of events confusing. But as I mostly support Snowden I'm not displeased.
Ha! Looks like I already lost my bet. I will leave the fortune telling to the fortune tellers.