I've gotta ask, were you eight twits (3 commenters and at least 5 moderators) too stupid to go to his website and read his policy positions? Or too smug, thinking he'd never win?
After Brexit, racist and xenophobic attacks went up dramatically. I've had them myself, after more than a decade of nothing.
According to the psychiatric literature, it is normal to have some relapses. If you keep having these attacks of xenophobia, or if you feel compelled to act on your racism, talk to your doctor. And good luck with your recovery. I can't imagine that it is easy to live as a racist or xenophobe these days.
In case you missed it, Trump supporters defeated the neo-Jacobin faction of the Republican party last summer, and then defeated the war-for-personal-profit-and-glory Democrat candidate last night.
While Trump isn't an isolationist by any means, he appears to be the most non-interventionist candidate to win election in many decades.
P.S. As dumb as Bush 43's invasion of Iraq was, Bush 43 didn't start either of the wars he is famous for. (Bush 41 deserves at least partial blame for at least one of them, maybe both, and Bill Clinton sure as hell didn't help things any.)
If you promised to move to Canada if Trump won, please post contact information and an army of volunteers will reach out to you shortly to schedule a date to help you pack.
If you promised to move to Mexico to protest Trump's plan to halt illegal immigration, please... Just kidding, we know none of you are willing to live in Mexico.
I hate to quibble, but I think you have cause and effect reversed. The left accuses the right of doing all the shit they do. This is a classic tactic of Marxism, dating back to Lenin, at least.
"I just sued two Virginia counties this week for concealing alien voting records, the list of foreigners who are on the voter rolls," said J. Christian Adams on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM. "In Virginia alone, our litigation found a thousand aliens in just eight counties. These are the only eight counties that complied with our document requests. And they were voting! So if you take a thousand aliens who were accidentally caught in eight Virginia counties, and there's 135 Virginia counties, that tells you that the number of aliens on the voter rolls in just this swing state is in the five figures."
"The same is true in Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Arizona," he continued. "More so in Texas, Pennsylvania. These are places where alien voting will make a difference. And it made a difference in California. California became the deepest shade of blue, in part, because of problems with the voter rolls, with illegal alien voting."
"We have a blind spot," Adams added. "I don't think Republicans are aware of this problem to the degree they need to be. Some of them are. Most aren't. There are very few tools, and the Obama administration has been blocking the use of those tools. For example, there is a federal database called SAVE. It is a list of aliens, all the aliens who are in the federal system. Under federal law, that data has to be made available to the states. Well, when Florida asked for that data to clean their voter rolls, the Obama administration refused to give it. So Florida had to sue in federal court to get it. They got it. The DHS is throttling it. They're making it very hard to use the data."
We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).
We have other 155mm artillery, such as the M284 (commonly mounted on a M109 Paladin chassis). Current versions of the Paladin have capabilities eerily similar to the desired capabilities of the Zumwalt's guns.
So, how exactly did these geniuses develop what appears to be the same gun, with the same capabilities, but somehow make it incompatibly different?
Your links are all innuendo and speculation. Not one links to an actual investigation showing proof that even a single citizen was unable to vote because of voter ID laws.
How many times do you think this is repeated across the country by people who do NOT invite the full autism of/pol/ to their public records history?
Brace yourself for voter ID laws in all 50 states. It is coming, and all your whining can't stop it. Something like 80% of citizens want it, and the Supreme Court is about to take a big turn towards law and order.
I'm a bit shaken still, but I wanted to get this out there: the crazy guy had a REPUBLICANS AGAINST TRUMP sign. He started shoving his way towards the front of the crowd. I was 3 people back from the front row and about 6 feet from this guy. He started to jump up and down and almost acting like a mosh pit.
He was pushing and shoving people. He knocked people over, including elderly. Children were right there, too. You see trump shade his eyes twice as he watches what is happening and doesn't acknowledge it until the guy gets so violent that some men tackle him.
This is when Trump made the comment about him being paid and to get him out. Many people fell over in the process. About 6 or more men restrained him, and in the process, one of those men got up and yelled that he had a gun. It took about 5 or 6 shouts before secret service heard and reacted.
...
For those of you making light of the fact there was no gun -- hindsight is 20/20, but I[n] that insane moment things went in slow motion and dozens if not hundreds of us were in fear.
I applaud you sir! You have, in your mind, defined the problem so narrowly that you are only willing to see evidence that cannot possibly exist. You must've been paying attention in Gaslighting 101.
I assure you that only diehard fanatics like yourself obsess over whatever activity you specifically define as "voter fraud". Most of us humans, however, are gravely concerned about honest and fair elections, and the threats are many, including voter fraud, election fraud, and whatever other forms of fraud could possibly interfere.
Anyone that cares to spend a little time searching can probably find similar stories from nearly any state. Oh, and of course the Project Veritas Action videos show people discussing the mechanics of successful fraud, clearly from a position of personal knowledge.
Keep in mind that a lot of this fraud is very hard to prove. In nearly every story, the people involved protest their innocence. Bank robbers caught in the act tend to do that too, of course, as do innocent people. A year from now, we'll know the extent of the fraud that was caught and prosecuted, and maybe have an idea of the fraud that was caught, but not prosecuted, and absolutely no idea how much fraud was not caught.
I'd also restrict the CFR to no more than 3 pages (ordinary font, ordinary margins) per day, which can be banked for up to 1 year, and each page expires X years after it was earned. (6 is a good number for X, but anything from about 4 to 10 would work.) Congress should need to affirmatively approve each page (roll call vote in a committee is fine) after it has been publicly posted for 30 days, and if they don't within 30 days of availability, the regulation fails but the President is still charged half of the pages. After congressional approval, the states would have a 60 day window to reject the regulation if more than 50% of the states pass state legislation that explicitly and solely rejects the exact same page number, or list or range of pages. Pages rejected by the states are not counted at all against the page total, but neither do they pause any date calculations. All currently existing pages at the time of passing expire X+1 years after ratification.
Note that I think this system is inferior to the constitutional system where the legislature legislates and the executive branch does not. But we don't seem to be capable of finding 5 guys that have read the constitution, and it seems lame to pass an amendment that says "Dear SCOTUS, we were serious about the separation of duties specified in articles 1 and 2, and for that matter in the 10th amendment. Please start acting like you've read them, or our next message won't be a polite note."
The youtube clip is 8 years old, and has approximately the same borders as the new October map. This has been simmering for 98 years, and seems to be gathering steam in recent years. Note that Turkey is following the long established practice of demanding territory where ethnic Turks live while refusing to give up territory where non-Turks live.
So, you think that laws against murder only protect citizens? Do you warn illegal immigrants and those here on student or tourist visas before you murder them? Or do you prefer surprise?
I'm also curious what church you are referring to. This is literally the first time in my entire life that I'm hearing about a religion that has strong beliefs, nay, convictions!, on citizenship requirements.
Personally, I prefer my religion - it keeps my relationship with God just between the two of us. My religion and I both think that citizenship is a question for the political process. While my religion and I both believe that humans have souls, and that those souls are made in God's image, we are both pretty happy leaving the question of humanity up to the scientific process.
First of all the law, in general, does not recognize a fetus as a person. Some localities my differ on that but they are the exception.
Ahh, but you are wrong. Virtually all jurisdictions in the western world recognize the baby as a person when it dies as the result of the actions of anyone not wearing a lab coat.
Shoot a pregnant woman through the womb? Murder + attempted murder.
Toss her off the roof of a tall building? Double homicide.
Dilation and curettage? Win awards, buy a Lamborghini.
Secondly, as I said you can't force one person to undergo medical treatment and procedures to preserve the life of another and claim to support self determination. A Fetus, even if it were afforded all the rights of a citizen can't legally demand that another person accept potentially life threatening risks to preserve its own life.
You are overlooking something really important here. The baby is in a condition of total dependence as the result not of choices he has made, but because of choices that other people have made. Overwhelmingly, those other people are both the mother and the father together, though occasionally it is only one of them.
The baby did not sneak in. It was not deposited by random chance and bad luck. It was invited, and the people doing the inviting knew full well that their actions could create a life that would be totally dependent on the mother for at least several months.
In libertarian terms, non-aggression/non-coercion means that you can't force someone to save someone else. But creating the circumstances where another person will necessarily die is the very definition of murder.
Yes, there are exceptions in the circumstances, and there should be exceptions in the law to meet them. But first you need to get the baseline right.
Meh. I heard it on the radio a while back. It quite possibly was a proposal from Italians (aka Catholics), rather than a proposal for Italy. I also cannot find the specifics on this one, so it may not even have been a new proposal, though it was the first time I'd heard of it. I can find references to the general idea going back to at least 2006 without trying very hard. Does it really matter where the proposal came from or when? You can see that at least a couple of people here, including you, are having the exact reaction that I described.
I disagree. High populations do not create the need for centralized power. Diversity does that, which you recognize without acknowledging in your comment about the power-hungry playing the different groups against each other. In a high trust society, intelligence, power and responsibility can be placed where they can do the most good and the least harm: at the edges.
Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder. And the pro-abortion position is not about freedom for the bodies of women, it is about murder too.
See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption. I'll give you a hint, the pro-abortion camp was absolutely fucking outraged that anyone would suggest that we try to end a pregnancy (freedom for the mother's body) without killing the baby.
If you don't believe me, find one of your pro-abortion friends and ask them what they think of the idea. If they haven't heard of it before, you'll get to enjoy several seconds of stunned silence while their brains reboot, followed by angry sputtering (from most of them; a few think it is a great idea).
And you are absolutely right about conservativism. It is dead, though the corpse hasn't stopped twitching yet. Reagan's amnesty was the fatal blow, though Kennedy's immigration reform in 1965 was already festering badly by then and would certainly have finished the job unaided, eventually, and if left untreated. Amnesty '86 all but assured that whites would, within a generation, start to develop racial awareness and then a national identity in the generation that followed. (Note: The generations in question are roughly, Gen-X and Millennial. Also note that nation is not a synonym of country.) Once upon a time, it was possible to view libertarianism as the destination that conservatism wanted to take us towards. Now both the road and the end are closed, and a new right is forming, one that the left will find much less easy to push around.
We truly are blessed to live in such amazing times.
Let me start by saying that I'm very eager for this sort of thing. But not yet, economically. Bless you early adopters, keep it up.
Musk says there are four to five million new roofs built each year in the US, and the solar roof product will be price competitive with more traditional roofs with solar added to it. However, existing roofs which do not need to be replaced will be better candidates for more traditional roof-mounted solar solutions.
Slashdot Mirror
I've gotta ask, were you eight twits (3 commenters and at least 5 moderators) too stupid to go to his website and read his policy positions? Or too smug, thinking he'd never win?
According to the psychiatric literature, it is normal to have some relapses. If you keep having these attacks of xenophobia, or if you feel compelled to act on your racism, talk to your doctor. And good luck with your recovery. I can't imagine that it is easy to live as a racist or xenophobe these days.
Moar tears plz!
In case you missed it, Trump supporters defeated the neo-Jacobin faction of the Republican party last summer, and then defeated the war-for-personal-profit-and-glory Democrat candidate last night.
While Trump isn't an isolationist by any means, he appears to be the most non-interventionist candidate to win election in many decades.
P.S. As dumb as Bush 43's invasion of Iraq was, Bush 43 didn't start either of the wars he is famous for. (Bush 41 deserves at least partial blame for at least one of them, maybe both, and Bill Clinton sure as hell didn't help things any.)
If you promised to move to Canada if Trump won, please post contact information and an army of volunteers will reach out to you shortly to schedule a date to help you pack.
If you promised to move to Mexico to protest Trump's plan to halt illegal immigration, please... Just kidding, we know none of you are willing to live in Mexico.
I hate to quibble, but I think you have cause and effect reversed. The left accuses the right of doing all the shit they do. This is a classic tactic of Marxism, dating back to Lenin, at least.
I think we've found an even worse candidate than Trump. Or do you think he cheated?
Source
We were so much better off when all of our fake stories were carefully handcrafted by the propaganda wing of the Democrat party (CNN, MSN, CBS, FNC, etc.).
We have other 155mm artillery, such as the M284 (commonly mounted on a M109 Paladin chassis). Current versions of the Paladin have capabilities eerily similar to the desired capabilities of the Zumwalt's guns.
So, how exactly did these geniuses develop what appears to be the same gun, with the same capabilities, but somehow make it incompatibly different?
Speaking of voter fraud, Obama tells illegal invaders that it is safe to vote.
paraphrased question: "I'm illegal. If I vote, will they come for my family and deport us?"
Actual quote from his response: "When you vote, you are a citizen yourself"
Your links are all innuendo and speculation. Not one links to an actual investigation showing proof that even a single citizen was unable to vote because of voter ID laws.
And just yesterday, two guys decided to announce their own personal voter fraud to the world.
How many times do you think this is repeated across the country by people who do NOT invite the full autism of /pol/ to their public records history?
Brace yourself for voter ID laws in all 50 states. It is coming, and all your whining can't stop it. Something like 80% of citizens want it, and the Supreme Court is about to take a big turn towards law and order.
I applaud you sir! You have, in your mind, defined the problem so narrowly that you are only willing to see evidence that cannot possibly exist. You must've been paying attention in Gaslighting 101.
I assure you that only diehard fanatics like yourself obsess over whatever activity you specifically define as "voter fraud". Most of us humans, however, are gravely concerned about honest and fair elections, and the threats are many, including voter fraud, election fraud, and whatever other forms of fraud could possibly interfere.
Indiana
California
Florida (Note that the response to this was to send out 173,000 more blank ballots.
More Florida
Anyone that cares to spend a little time searching can probably find similar stories from nearly any state. Oh, and of course the Project Veritas Action videos show people discussing the mechanics of successful fraud, clearly from a position of personal knowledge.
Keep in mind that a lot of this fraud is very hard to prove. In nearly every story, the people involved protest their innocence. Bank robbers caught in the act tend to do that too, of course, as do innocent people. A year from now, we'll know the extent of the fraud that was caught and prosecuted, and maybe have an idea of the fraud that was caught, but not prosecuted, and absolutely no idea how much fraud was not caught.
Further info:
Racist India
Racist Mexico
I'd also restrict the CFR to no more than 3 pages (ordinary font, ordinary margins) per day, which can be banked for up to 1 year, and each page expires X years after it was earned. (6 is a good number for X, but anything from about 4 to 10 would work.) Congress should need to affirmatively approve each page (roll call vote in a committee is fine) after it has been publicly posted for 30 days, and if they don't within 30 days of availability, the regulation fails but the President is still charged half of the pages. After congressional approval, the states would have a 60 day window to reject the regulation if more than 50% of the states pass state legislation that explicitly and solely rejects the exact same page number, or list or range of pages. Pages rejected by the states are not counted at all against the page total, but neither do they pause any date calculations. All currently existing pages at the time of passing expire X+1 years after ratification.
Note that I think this system is inferior to the constitutional system where the legislature legislates and the executive branch does not. But we don't seem to be capable of finding 5 guys that have read the constitution, and it seems lame to pass an amendment that says "Dear SCOTUS, we were serious about the separation of duties specified in articles 1 and 2, and for that matter in the 10th amendment. Please start acting like you've read them, or our next message won't be a polite note."
Here are a couple of links that I hope are not in any way connected to this:
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The youtube clip is 8 years old, and has approximately the same borders as the new October map. This has been simmering for 98 years, and seems to be gathering steam in recent years. Note that Turkey is following the long established practice of demanding territory where ethnic Turks live while refusing to give up territory where non-Turks live.
Erdogan has been consolidating power since the failed plot to remove him, which was about 4 months ago now. (Also see Sledgehammer.)
Current iPhones can already fold in half, if you push hard enough. Wake me up when we can unfold them back into a functional state.
"Impending" death? Is this a story about the mafia fixing matches?
So, you think that laws against murder only protect citizens? Do you warn illegal immigrants and those here on student or tourist visas before you murder them? Or do you prefer surprise?
I'm also curious what church you are referring to. This is literally the first time in my entire life that I'm hearing about a religion that has strong beliefs, nay, convictions!, on citizenship requirements.
Personally, I prefer my religion - it keeps my relationship with God just between the two of us. My religion and I both think that citizenship is a question for the political process. While my religion and I both believe that humans have souls, and that those souls are made in God's image, we are both pretty happy leaving the question of humanity up to the scientific process.
Thank you for illustrating my point. I couldn't possibly have said it any better than you just did.
To answer your three questions, in order: Mu. I'm against all murder. No (and/or Mu).
Ahh, but you are wrong. Virtually all jurisdictions in the western world recognize the baby as a person when it dies as the result of the actions of anyone not wearing a lab coat.
Shoot a pregnant woman through the womb? Murder + attempted murder.
Toss her off the roof of a tall building? Double homicide.
Dilation and curettage? Win awards, buy a Lamborghini.
You are overlooking something really important here. The baby is in a condition of total dependence as the result not of choices he has made, but because of choices that other people have made. Overwhelmingly, those other people are both the mother and the father together, though occasionally it is only one of them.
The baby did not sneak in. It was not deposited by random chance and bad luck. It was invited, and the people doing the inviting knew full well that their actions could create a life that would be totally dependent on the mother for at least several months.
In libertarian terms, non-aggression/non-coercion means that you can't force someone to save someone else. But creating the circumstances where another person will necessarily die is the very definition of murder.
Yes, there are exceptions in the circumstances, and there should be exceptions in the law to meet them. But first you need to get the baseline right.
Meh. I heard it on the radio a while back. It quite possibly was a proposal from Italians (aka Catholics), rather than a proposal for Italy. I also cannot find the specifics on this one, so it may not even have been a new proposal, though it was the first time I'd heard of it. I can find references to the general idea going back to at least 2006 without trying very hard. Does it really matter where the proposal came from or when? You can see that at least a couple of people here, including you, are having the exact reaction that I described.
I disagree. High populations do not create the need for centralized power. Diversity does that, which you recognize without acknowledging in your comment about the power-hungry playing the different groups against each other. In a high trust society, intelligence, power and responsibility can be placed where they can do the most good and the least harm: at the edges.
Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder. And the pro-abortion position is not about freedom for the bodies of women, it is about murder too.
See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption. I'll give you a hint, the pro-abortion camp was absolutely fucking outraged that anyone would suggest that we try to end a pregnancy (freedom for the mother's body) without killing the baby.
If you don't believe me, find one of your pro-abortion friends and ask them what they think of the idea. If they haven't heard of it before, you'll get to enjoy several seconds of stunned silence while their brains reboot, followed by angry sputtering (from most of them; a few think it is a great idea).
And you are absolutely right about conservativism. It is dead, though the corpse hasn't stopped twitching yet. Reagan's amnesty was the fatal blow, though Kennedy's immigration reform in 1965 was already festering badly by then and would certainly have finished the job unaided, eventually, and if left untreated. Amnesty '86 all but assured that whites would, within a generation, start to develop racial awareness and then a national identity in the generation that followed. (Note: The generations in question are roughly, Gen-X and Millennial. Also note that nation is not a synonym of country.) Once upon a time, it was possible to view libertarianism as the destination that conservatism wanted to take us towards. Now both the road and the end are closed, and a new right is forming, one that the left will find much less easy to push around.
We truly are blessed to live in such amazing times.
Let me start by saying that I'm very eager for this sort of thing. But not yet, economically. Bless you early adopters, keep it up.
Translation: 137 year ROI.