Do you realize how often Trump has been in lawsuits? How often he's stiffed someone in a contract and told them to sue? Have you noticed many businessmen going to prison? Trump should be up on fraud charges, not just a lawsuit.
Assange didn't have Trump docs because his puppetmasters didn't want him to have them. No other reason.
There were two sources of doubtful votes. With or without them, Franken won. You have no idea what you're talking about, and so you (or someone else) is making crap up.
Americans had Obamacare inflicted on them as due to election fraud resulting in the "election" of Senator Al Franken:
Nope. That was a very clean tabulation. The only thing that made it remarkable was that it was so close. There's normally a difference of a thousand votes or so between the initially announced totals and the final totals. In most cases, this doesn't matter a bit. In that case, it did. Since Minnesota has automatic recounts for elections that close, and Coleman was unwilling to concede defeat, the legal battles went on for months. If you're interested, the recount was supervised by three Minnesota judges and approved (after about a month) by the five Supreme Court justices, making up a total of eight judges who all agreed on this. Four of those judges had been appointed by Republicans, two by Democrats, and two by Jesse Ventura, and the state's Republican governor signed off on it.
It did point out some problems, such as instructions on absentee ballots, that were corrected in time for the similarly close gubernatorial election two years later.
That's how it works for statewide elections like those for Senators and Governors. Inside states, gerrymandering (currently mostly Republican) is used to design Congressional and legislative districts to favor the gerrymandering party. Gerrymandering is what makes it so hard for the Democrats to take the House.
Just how do you think elections really get rigged anyway?
Mostly by suppressing voting among groups that lean Democrat, nowadays. I'm not speaking for all periods of history, just this one. This includes requiring voter ID (not a bad idea in itself) and deliberately making it harder for voters in predominantly Democratic areas to get one. This goes along with the old trick of having fewer polling places in Democratic areas, and insufficient voting machines. Obviously, none of these are going to stop a sufficiently determined individual from voting (although that patriot might lose his or her job), but it adds a lot of friction and discourages Democrats.
Wrong. A "I didn't really write that" would not have been believed. The Clinton campaign did not want to make a big deal about the leaks, apparently being aware of the Streisand effect. There was nothing they could have said that would have convinced anyone of any lack of authenticity. If they had, you'd be claiming that they tried to do a coverup.
You don't know what was on the RNC or Trump campaign servers. Until you do, you don't know whether it would have been considered better or worse. You don't know that all of the released emails were authentic. Until you do, you don't know whether the worst things were real or faked. What I do know is that someone committed felonies to smear Clinton, and Putin won the election.
If you think it's a far right viewpoint to see the media as a pack of liars and shills, you need to re-evaluate your own biases.
FTFY
The media was, as usual irresponsible, but it reported on whatever was likely to get eyeballs. They didn't in general call Trump out on his lies. They dished out baseless innuendo on both candidates.
So, you're saying that movement that is bent on domination by a minority is a good idea? Clinton appears to have won the popular vote by a good margin. Instead, a system that crashed and burned less than fifteen years after it was introduced, and whose continuation seems to have been based on a desire to give slave states more representation than free, tells us that the majority gets ignored.
I"m not against voter ID. I am against voter ID programs that try to make it difficult for some group of people to vote. The Minnesota voter ID amendment would have made absentee voting really difficult. Other voter ID proposals have come along with closing state offices in areas that tend to vote Democrat, to make it more difficult for them to get an ID. Show me one that goes along with a bona fide effort to help all citizens get an ID if they don't already have one, and I'll support it.
I'm getting really sick and tired of people considering Mussolini and other right-wing dictators leftists. The only reason for doing that I've been able to see is that the idiot expressing that opinion labels everything he or she disagrees with as left-wing.
Fascism was heavily based in capitalism. It was right-wing.
Instructing someone to violate the law is a crime, yes, but nobody's demonstrated that that's what she did. She ordered personal emails to be deleted, and the people she hired for that purpose did not do a good job of sorting. Nobody ever brought up good evidence that she willfully mishandled classified material. She is obviously guilty of being negligent with it, but that's never been criminally prosecuted.
If I were looking for a lawbreaker, I'd suggest looking at Trump University. You do realize, don't you, that he bought off one investigation with a $25K campaign contribution?
I don't use those words on everyone who disagrees with me. I claim they're a good description of Donald Trump in particular, and I'd use other unkind words as well. Now, as far as Trump supporters go, the ones who voted for him because they expected him to do something for them are stupid, but that's certainly not all of them.
Hillary lost because she is a corrupted liar that only have disdain for the American public.
Assuming your characterization of Clinton is correct (and I'm not saying it is), you fail to tell us what differentiated her from Trump.
Trump lied a lot more than Clinton, and a man who boasts of being able to commit sexual assault with impunity has to be considered corrupt. Trump has never demonstrated respect for the US people. He's notorious for going back on deals, He's well known for screwing the little guy over.
What he did was lie his head off, and people lapped up the lies and ignored the man behind the curtain.
We keep track of really big things that cross our orbit. If one approached Earth, it would be spotted. Exactly what we could do about it is unclear, but we'd know what was going to hit us. Not to mention that, since this hasn't happened in billions of years, and there's no reason to expect it to be increasing in likelihood, the Sun will probably boil all the water off Earth before that happens.
Personally, I'm predicting that we'll slowly build up an industrial base around Earth, at which point we can move things around using very efficient but low-thrust propulsion systems. This means it will be practical to expand human industry. There are planets where we can get some resources without going all that deep into a gravity well, and plenty of dwarf planets beyond Mars. I'm predicting a few centuries for this to happen, but that could be way off in either direction.
We also know that, assuming Special Relativity holds, FTL travel is the same as time travel. If Special Relativity doesn't hold, we have a whole lot of science to rebuild from the ground up.
Before, the story was "adapt or die". Currently, it's "adapt real fast or die". Humans are really, really good at adapting, but that isn't true of all the species we really want to keep around.
We haven't had all life wiped out on Earth for several hundred million years. The chance is really small that some natural event will get us in the next thousand.
For most disasters, Earth is going to remain the most habitable place in the Solar System, and it isn't close. For gamma ray bursters, Wikipedia is a lot more optimistic than you are. If these are things that can occur in our galaxy, it's probably no more often than once in a hundred thousand years, and almost all of those will miss us, since most of them are fairly tight-beam. The Wikipedia article says that the atmosphere would protect us from the radiation, although there would be other unpleasant effects. In any case, we can expect a beam no narrower than 2 degrees, apparently, which means that if it hits Earth it almost certainly hits the entire Solar System, and very likely a lot of nearby stars.
In the next thousand years, I predict the start of interstellar colonization, provided civilization lasts that long, but due to the sheer distances involved it will not progress much in that time.
the logistics of shipping a variety of components (that were natively available in China) can't be cheap.
Why not? You load them into containers and ship them across the Pacific. The logistics get less immediately flexible, because it does take time to cross the Pacific, but it isn't expensive.
Assimilation has not normally meant giving up your religion. Religious freedom is part of US society (with dissidents, of course; my sister-in-law thought I shouldn't have voted for a Muslim for Congress). You do have to be accepting of other religions to be assimilated.
The melting pot isn't immediate. We don't take immigrants right off the boat or plane and melt them down. It can take generations. It seems to work in the long run, though, and I like the culture it produces.
I'd say it's both. They tend to coincide, with tolerant people tending socialist and bigots tending libertarian, but, for example, a classic libertarian is tolerant libertarian.
"Socialist" and "Conservative" are not necessarily opposites (and both have a lot of different meanings).. I can think of two right-wing socialist movements, the US "Nationalism" kicked off by Bellamy's "Looking Backward", and the "Showa Restoration" in Japan between world wars (the Meiji Restoration was when power was returned to the emperor, and the Showa Restoration would be when all property was returned to the emperor). IIRC, after the fall of the Soviet Union it was the conservatives who wanted to restore Communism.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you realize how often Trump has been in lawsuits? How often he's stiffed someone in a contract and told them to sue? Have you noticed many businessmen going to prison? Trump should be up on fraud charges, not just a lawsuit.
Assange didn't have Trump docs because his puppetmasters didn't want him to have them. No other reason.
There were two sources of doubtful votes. With or without them, Franken won. You have no idea what you're talking about, and so you (or someone else) is making crap up.
Nope. That was a very clean tabulation. The only thing that made it remarkable was that it was so close. There's normally a difference of a thousand votes or so between the initially announced totals and the final totals. In most cases, this doesn't matter a bit. In that case, it did. Since Minnesota has automatic recounts for elections that close, and Coleman was unwilling to concede defeat, the legal battles went on for months. If you're interested, the recount was supervised by three Minnesota judges and approved (after about a month) by the five Supreme Court justices, making up a total of eight judges who all agreed on this. Four of those judges had been appointed by Republicans, two by Democrats, and two by Jesse Ventura, and the state's Republican governor signed off on it.
It did point out some problems, such as instructions on absentee ballots, that were corrected in time for the similarly close gubernatorial election two years later.
That's how it works for statewide elections like those for Senators and Governors. Inside states, gerrymandering (currently mostly Republican) is used to design Congressional and legislative districts to favor the gerrymandering party. Gerrymandering is what makes it so hard for the Democrats to take the House.
Mostly by suppressing voting among groups that lean Democrat, nowadays. I'm not speaking for all periods of history, just this one. This includes requiring voter ID (not a bad idea in itself) and deliberately making it harder for voters in predominantly Democratic areas to get one. This goes along with the old trick of having fewer polling places in Democratic areas, and insufficient voting machines. Obviously, none of these are going to stop a sufficiently determined individual from voting (although that patriot might lose his or her job), but it adds a lot of friction and discourages Democrats.
Wrong. A "I didn't really write that" would not have been believed. The Clinton campaign did not want to make a big deal about the leaks, apparently being aware of the Streisand effect. There was nothing they could have said that would have convinced anyone of any lack of authenticity. If they had, you'd be claiming that they tried to do a coverup.
You don't know what was on the RNC or Trump campaign servers. Until you do, you don't know whether it would have been considered better or worse. You don't know that all of the released emails were authentic. Until you do, you don't know whether the worst things were real or faked. What I do know is that someone committed felonies to smear Clinton, and Putin won the election.
FTFY
The media was, as usual irresponsible, but it reported on whatever was likely to get eyeballs. They didn't in general call Trump out on his lies. They dished out baseless innuendo on both candidates.
So, you're saying that movement that is bent on domination by a minority is a good idea? Clinton appears to have won the popular vote by a good margin. Instead, a system that crashed and burned less than fifteen years after it was introduced, and whose continuation seems to have been based on a desire to give slave states more representation than free, tells us that the majority gets ignored.
I"m not against voter ID. I am against voter ID programs that try to make it difficult for some group of people to vote. The Minnesota voter ID amendment would have made absentee voting really difficult. Other voter ID proposals have come along with closing state offices in areas that tend to vote Democrat, to make it more difficult for them to get an ID. Show me one that goes along with a bona fide effort to help all citizens get an ID if they don't already have one, and I'll support it.
I'm getting really sick and tired of people considering Mussolini and other right-wing dictators leftists. The only reason for doing that I've been able to see is that the idiot expressing that opinion labels everything he or she disagrees with as left-wing.
Fascism was heavily based in capitalism. It was right-wing.
Instructing someone to violate the law is a crime, yes, but nobody's demonstrated that that's what she did. She ordered personal emails to be deleted, and the people she hired for that purpose did not do a good job of sorting. Nobody ever brought up good evidence that she willfully mishandled classified material. She is obviously guilty of being negligent with it, but that's never been criminally prosecuted.
If I were looking for a lawbreaker, I'd suggest looking at Trump University. You do realize, don't you, that he bought off one investigation with a $25K campaign contribution?
I don't use those words on everyone who disagrees with me. I claim they're a good description of Donald Trump in particular, and I'd use other unkind words as well. Now, as far as Trump supporters go, the ones who voted for him because they expected him to do something for them are stupid, but that's certainly not all of them.
Assuming your characterization of Clinton is correct (and I'm not saying it is), you fail to tell us what differentiated her from Trump.
Trump lied a lot more than Clinton, and a man who boasts of being able to commit sexual assault with impunity has to be considered corrupt. Trump has never demonstrated respect for the US people. He's notorious for going back on deals, He's well known for screwing the little guy over.
What he did was lie his head off, and people lapped up the lies and ignored the man behind the curtain.
We keep track of really big things that cross our orbit. If one approached Earth, it would be spotted. Exactly what we could do about it is unclear, but we'd know what was going to hit us. Not to mention that, since this hasn't happened in billions of years, and there's no reason to expect it to be increasing in likelihood, the Sun will probably boil all the water off Earth before that happens.
Personally, I'm predicting that we'll slowly build up an industrial base around Earth, at which point we can move things around using very efficient but low-thrust propulsion systems. This means it will be practical to expand human industry. There are planets where we can get some resources without going all that deep into a gravity well, and plenty of dwarf planets beyond Mars. I'm predicting a few centuries for this to happen, but that could be way off in either direction.
We also know that, assuming Special Relativity holds, FTL travel is the same as time travel. If Special Relativity doesn't hold, we have a whole lot of science to rebuild from the ground up.
Before, the story was "adapt or die". Currently, it's "adapt real fast or die". Humans are really, really good at adapting, but that isn't true of all the species we really want to keep around.
Enough, then, to supply current US needs for about three years.
We haven't had all life wiped out on Earth for several hundred million years. The chance is really small that some natural event will get us in the next thousand.
For most disasters, Earth is going to remain the most habitable place in the Solar System, and it isn't close. For gamma ray bursters, Wikipedia is a lot more optimistic than you are. If these are things that can occur in our galaxy, it's probably no more often than once in a hundred thousand years, and almost all of those will miss us, since most of them are fairly tight-beam. The Wikipedia article says that the atmosphere would protect us from the radiation, although there would be other unpleasant effects. In any case, we can expect a beam no narrower than 2 degrees, apparently, which means that if it hits Earth it almost certainly hits the entire Solar System, and very likely a lot of nearby stars.
In the next thousand years, I predict the start of interstellar colonization, provided civilization lasts that long, but due to the sheer distances involved it will not progress much in that time.
Why not? You load them into containers and ship them across the Pacific. The logistics get less immediately flexible, because it does take time to cross the Pacific, but it isn't expensive.
Assimilation has not normally meant giving up your religion. Religious freedom is part of US society (with dissidents, of course; my sister-in-law thought I shouldn't have voted for a Muslim for Congress). You do have to be accepting of other religions to be assimilated.
The melting pot isn't immediate. We don't take immigrants right off the boat or plane and melt them down. It can take generations. It seems to work in the long run, though, and I like the culture it produces.
I'd say it's both. They tend to coincide, with tolerant people tending socialist and bigots tending libertarian, but, for example, a classic libertarian is tolerant libertarian.
"Socialist" and "Conservative" are not necessarily opposites (and both have a lot of different meanings).. I can think of two right-wing socialist movements, the US "Nationalism" kicked off by Bellamy's "Looking Backward", and the "Showa Restoration" in Japan between world wars (the Meiji Restoration was when power was returned to the emperor, and the Showa Restoration would be when all property was returned to the emperor). IIRC, after the fall of the Soviet Union it was the conservatives who wanted to restore Communism.