As I recall the Democrats have already shown they can change the Senate rules with a simple majority vote at any time. Are you suggesting Democrats resort to what have historically been considered extreme measures because someone blew what may be hot air? No actual conduct? You might recall that McCain isn't in the conference leadership. The Democrats might come to regret that standard. Do you think they should apply it to "best" Korea? Start slinging a few real nukes around? You know some people (non-Republicans) claim that Hillary Clinton will bring about WWW3?
Facebook is well known for being influenced by and acting in accordance with SJW values. Now they are caught in fratricide, much like is occurring on campuses now. It probably is a lot more fun dishing it out than receiving.
The democrats will use the nuclear option because they are weak, not because of anything the Republicans do. You've already stipulated that it won't be based on actual Republican behavior, just on statements by somebody or another - in other words, a fig leaf.
Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.
You should think about it - LBJ got the Civil Right Act passed with the help of the people that had passed the previous ones - the Republicans. The people that tried to block it were Democrats. What sense would it make for racists Democrats to bolt for the party that had been mainly responsible for passing civil rights legislation for a century? You've fallen for a narrative, not history.
No. Over 30 years ago the Supreme Court held that jurisdictions are free to draw majority-minority election districts that follow traditional, non-racial districting considerations, such as geographic compactness and keeping communities of interest together. Later Supreme Court decisions have held that drawing majority-minority districts may be required to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
In a closely divided nation it doesn't have to be common to be effective. At the right place and right time a few hundred votes out of millions can tip the fate of an election, create a majority, and suddenly 16% of your economy is under government control, along with major taxes and the result is the big problems now seen in the US.
The current poll on the front page has a pretty solid 8% lead for Clinton. I think it's just that the Trump supporters are better organised, modding each other up and doing a good job of reposting the current set of taking points.
Does that "pretty solid 8% lead for Clinton" include Slashdot posters outside the US and who are not US citizens? You know, people like you? If so it doesn't mean much, especially since it isn't a scientifically valid random poll of likely voters.
No. Clinton directed her maid to print unclassified emails that were retroactively classified years later.
Removing the classified markings from a classified document doesn't make it unclassified. Classified information is classified regardless of whether it is marked or not. Hillary had protective markings removed from some documents - see above. Your claim is basically rubbish.
Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.
The Virginia scandal comes close on the heels of the voter fraud trials in upstate New York, where Democratic county elections officers and city councilmen from the town of Troy stand trial for absentee-ballot fraud. Four Democrats have already pleaded guilty in a case that highlights who the real victims of election fraud usually are: the poor, minorities, the sick, the old, and other vulnerable members of society.
Democratic Committeeman Anthony DeFiglio pleaded guilty to falsifying business records in the case, and he told investigators that "The people who are targeted [in voter fraud cases] live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions." Even more disturbing was his admission that "What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic."4
Another Troy Committeeman, Anthony Renna, admitted to forging absentee ballot applications and explained that handing in forged ballots and fake votes ensures that "ballots are voted correctly."
"I knew that the actual voters had not voted the ballots or signed the envelopes, but that did not concern me. I am not the ballot police," Renna told police. "I have been present when 'ballots were voted correctly' by party operatives."5 "Voted correctly" is fraud-speak for a forged application or ballot and it has nothing to do with the intentions of the lawful voter and everything to do with the interests of criminals who flagrantly violate election laws.
And who were the victims of this crime against the public? According to the Times Union, those disenfranchised Troy voters who had their ballots voted for them "correctly" included "public housing residents, college students, the semi-literate, a deaf man, the chronically ill and non-English speakers."6
Lest we think that this sort of thing only happens on the east coast, we should remember the illegal ballots cast by an estimated 5,000 non-citizens in Colorado's elections in 2010. Colorado's Secretary of State reported that a state study found nearly 12,000 people registered to vote in Colorado who were not citizens and were therefore not legally eligible to vote. Of those, the state believes that perhaps as many as 5,000 voted in the 2010 general election.7
People in the US have a constitutional right to travel, but you can't board an aircraft and even buses without an ID. You can't enter many government buildings without and ID. You can't open a bank account or cash a check of any real size without an ID. You may not be able to buy alcohol without an ID. What are the activists doing there? Nothing. Why do you think they only care about voting? Here's a hint:
And that will work just fine.... as long as all of the election judges, monitors, people watching video cameras, and people in line are upstanding citizens. Of course I hear that in some locales the supply of the upright is not completely adequate for the needs of the republic.
If I was gay I might be a little scared of Trump, but I'd be fucking terrified of Mike Pence.
What exactly do you think Mike Pence could or would do that would be reasonable grounds to be "terrified"?
Do you think he might do something as outrageous as George W. Bush? You know, the US President that spent billions of dollars fighting AIDs in Africa? (As opposed to Bill Clinton that signed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.)
Unless you have something quite specific that seems to be at best a highly exaggerated response to any policy he would be likely to support let alone get through Congress. At worst it is a groundless smear.
I think it goes without saying that Ecuador controls their own embassy. The question is, why such a major change in direction RIGHT NOW, essentially "turning on a dime."
I head speculation that someone was threatening to either call in some big loans to Ecuador, or call their bonds unless they unplugged Assange. That sort of raw political pressure might explain the sudden turn by Ecuador. Hillary has some very rich friends and backers.
So what does defending bragging about sexual assault say about the Trump campaign?
Good question. I've got a better one: What does actually raping women, silencing them through intimidation, plotting with campaign staff to attack them in the media, and coordinating with members of the media to silence, harass, and discredit those rape victims say about the Clintons and their campaign? (And that was going on for decades.) And what about Bill's many trips to pedophile island?
As bad as Trump is, the Clintons are worse. Of course the Clintons are "Progressives" so it's all good, right?
That "material support" argument was made at Bradly Manning's trial and was not allowed, so legally that isn't going to cut it. I'm not sure that is or should be the final word, but there it is.
As to that "making videos and speeches" line.... I assume you're referring to Anwar al-Awlaki? If so you considerably understate his role. Were the propagandists of the Soviet Communists, Italian Fascists, and German National Socialists unconnected to their crimes and aggression? al-Awlaki was more than just a propagandist, he was a recruiter, operational planner, and more.
Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down . ..
Not going to happen. The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members or affiliates of terrorist groups like al Qaida and ISIS. For all of his faults, Assange isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists.
No, Ecuador could do it. It might look something like this:
Assange: Hello Mr. Ambassador, a pleasure to see you again. Amb Ortiz: Hello Julian, let me come straight to the point - you can no longer use the internet connection in the embassy. The Foreign Minister has made this decision under difficult circumstances. We are doing this so that we can continue to provide you asylum from Sweden and Britain. Assange: But Mr. Ambassador! Amb Ortiz: No buts, Julian. No more use of the embassy internet or we will show you the door, and put you outside. Assange: I understand Mr. Ambassador. What if I can make other arrangements? Amb Ortiz: That is your affair, as long as it does not make use of the embassy facilities. Assange: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador for your continued hospitality.
I wonder who had enough "juice" to make this happen?
Ecuador has been very willing to poke Sweden, Europe, and the US in the eye over Assange for years. So, why now?
Did Wallstreet firms make some threats about investment? Did the Clinton campaign threaten vengeance when Hillary is selected as president? Did the US State Department make some threats to cover for Hillary? Did the CIA threaten tit for tat against Ecuador as part of rumored actions against Russia? Are foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation leaning on Ecuador to stop Assange from exposing them? Is the Obama administration threatening military action over the claimed interference in the US election? Is the media threatening reports on Ecuador? Or is someone threatening to leak to the media about them? Are there some lucrative deals Ecuador's elites have going that are in danger?
The possibilities seem almost endless. Whoever it was must have the ability to make a substantial threat, big enough for Ecuador to fold like a cheap deck chair.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall the Democrats have already shown they can change the Senate rules with a simple majority vote at any time. Are you suggesting Democrats resort to what have historically been considered extreme measures because someone blew what may be hot air? No actual conduct? You might recall that McCain isn't in the conference leadership. The Democrats might come to regret that standard. Do you think they should apply it to "best" Korea? Start slinging a few real nukes around? You know some people (non-Republicans) claim that Hillary Clinton will bring about WWW3?
Facebook is well known for being influenced by and acting in accordance with SJW values. Now they are caught in fratricide, much like is occurring on campuses now. It probably is a lot more fun dishing it out than receiving.
The Left Realizes Too Late that Political Correctness Is a Virus
The democrats will use the nuclear option because they are weak, not because of anything the Republicans do. You've already stipulated that it won't be based on actual Republican behavior, just on statements by somebody or another - in other words, a fig leaf.
I expect the Republicans will be happy to return the favor to howls of outrage.
Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.
False.
The “Southern Strategy” Debunked Again
You should think about it - LBJ got the Civil Right Act passed with the help of the people that had passed the previous ones - the Republicans. The people that tried to block it were Democrats. What sense would it make for racists Democrats to bolt for the party that had been mainly responsible for passing civil rights legislation for a century? You've fallen for a narrative, not history.
The Party of Civil Rights
Also, this makes for an interesting wild card:
Is it prohibited to draw majority-minority districts?
No. Over 30 years ago the Supreme Court held that jurisdictions are free to draw majority-minority election districts that follow traditional, non-racial districting considerations, such as geographic compactness and keeping communities of interest together. Later Supreme Court decisions have held that drawing majority-minority districts may be required to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.
In a closely divided nation it doesn't have to be common to be effective. At the right place and right time a few hundred votes out of millions can tip the fate of an election, create a majority, and suddenly 16% of your economy is under government control, along with major taxes and the result is the big problems now seen in the US.
Rampant Voter Fraud Alleged In Minnesota
Of course you stand with the faction engaging in fraud, and like the outcome, so we have that.
The current poll on the front page has a pretty solid 8% lead for Clinton. I think it's just that the Trump supporters are better organised, modding each other up and doing a good job of reposting the current set of taking points.
Does that "pretty solid 8% lead for Clinton" include Slashdot posters outside the US and who are not US citizens? You know, people like you? If so it doesn't mean much, especially since it isn't a scientifically valid random poll of likely voters.
No. Clinton directed her maid to print unclassified emails that were retroactively classified years later.
Removing the classified markings from a classified document doesn't make it unclassified.
Classified information is classified regardless of whether it is marked or not.
Hillary had protective markings removed from some documents - see above.
Your claim is basically rubbish.
, if the Dems win everything, then the troubles will go away
At that point Hillary's political troubles go away and the troubles for the country really begin.
Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials
The "proper" use of /dev/null speeds up lots of things, sometimes to an amazing degree.
echo $STATE_SECRET_MATCH > /dev/null
Of course the decision to charge is a static assignment of "NO CHARGE" so the entire process can be optimized away and faked with sleep statement.
Maybe you could get someone going on this then: Voter fraud cases (open in new window)
Voter fraud is extremely rare, and the courts are enforcing federal law that makes sure people like you can't use it for cover to disenfranchise minorities.
Election fraud is a continuing problem across the US.
And you seem to have the issue of disenfranchisement backwards:
Victims of Voter Fraud: Poor and Disadvantaged are Most Likely to Have Their Vote Stolen
The Virginia scandal comes close on the heels of the voter fraud trials in upstate New York, where Democratic county elections officers and city councilmen from the town of Troy stand trial for absentee-ballot fraud. Four Democrats have already pleaded guilty in a case that highlights who the real victims of election fraud usually are: the poor, minorities, the sick, the old, and other vulnerable members of society.
Democratic Committeeman Anthony DeFiglio pleaded guilty to falsifying business records in the case, and he told investigators that "The people who are targeted [in voter fraud cases] live in low-income housing and there is a sense that they are a lot less likely to ask any questions." Even more disturbing was his admission that "What appears as a huge conspiracy to nonpolitical persons is really a normal political tactic."4
Another Troy Committeeman, Anthony Renna, admitted to forging absentee ballot applications and explained that handing in forged ballots and fake votes ensures that "ballots are voted correctly."
"I knew that the actual voters had not voted the ballots or signed the envelopes, but that did not concern me. I am not the ballot police," Renna told police. "I have been present when 'ballots were voted correctly' by party operatives."5 "Voted correctly" is fraud-speak for a forged application or ballot and it has nothing to do with the intentions of the lawful voter and everything to do with the interests of criminals who flagrantly violate election laws.
And who were the victims of this crime against the public? According to the Times Union, those disenfranchised Troy voters who had their ballots voted for them "correctly" included "public housing residents, college students, the semi-literate, a deaf man, the chronically ill and non-English speakers."6
Lest we think that this sort of thing only happens on the east coast, we should remember the illegal ballots cast by an estimated 5,000 non-citizens in Colorado's elections in 2010. Colorado's Secretary of State reported that a state study found nearly 12,000 people registered to vote in Colorado who were not citizens and were therefore not legally eligible to vote. Of those, the state believes that perhaps as many as 5,000 voted in the 2010 general election.7
People in the US have a constitutional right to travel, but you can't board an aircraft and even buses without an ID. You can't enter many government buildings without and ID. You can't open a bank account or cash a check of any real size without an ID. You may not be able to buy alcohol without an ID. What are the activists doing there? Nothing. Why do you think they only care about voting? Here's a hint:
Project Veritas, part two: Dem activists discuss best practices in committing voter fraud without getting caught
"Rigging Elections For 50 Years" - Massive Voter Fraud Exposed By Project Veritas Part 2
The US has had the twin ravages of Obamacare and Senator Al Franken inflicted upon it due to election fraud.
Rampant Voter Fraud A
And that will work just fine .... as long as all of the election judges, monitors, people watching video cameras, and people in line are upstanding citizens. Of course I hear that in some locales the supply of the upright is not completely adequate for the needs of the republic.
Agreed. This is an appalling example of thoughtlessness and idiocy that endangers democracy and clean elections.
So basically he favors the state of law in the US more or less as it was circa 2005? . . . Wow,... that is "terrifying".
Hmmmm ..... Sexuality and Gender
If I was gay I might be a little scared of Trump, but I'd be fucking terrified of Mike Pence.
What exactly do you think Mike Pence could or would do that would be reasonable grounds to be "terrified"?
Do you think he might do something as outrageous as George W. Bush? You know, the US President that spent billions of dollars fighting AIDs in Africa? (As opposed to Bill Clinton that signed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.)
Unless you have something quite specific that seems to be at best a highly exaggerated response to any policy he would be likely to support let alone get through Congress. At worst it is a groundless smear.
I think it goes without saying that Ecuador controls their own embassy. The question is, why such a major change in direction RIGHT NOW, essentially "turning on a dime."
I head speculation that someone was threatening to either call in some big loans to Ecuador, or call their bonds unless they unplugged Assange. That sort of raw political pressure might explain the sudden turn by Ecuador. Hillary has some very rich friends and backers.
Where Has Hillary Clinton Been? Ask the Ultrarich
So what does defending bragging about sexual assault say about the Trump campaign?
Good question. I've got a better one: What does actually raping women, silencing them through intimidation, plotting with campaign staff to attack them in the media, and coordinating with members of the media to silence, harass, and discredit those rape victims say about the Clintons and their campaign? (And that was going on for decades.) And what about Bill's many trips to pedophile island?
As bad as Trump is, the Clintons are worse. Of course the Clintons are "Progressives" so it's all good, right?
That "material support" argument was made at Bradly Manning's trial and was not allowed, so legally that isn't going to cut it. I'm not sure that is or should be the final word, but there it is.
As to that "making videos and speeches" line .... I assume you're referring to Anwar al-Awlaki? If so you considerably understate his role. Were the propagandists of the Soviet Communists, Italian Fascists, and German National Socialists unconnected to their crimes and aggression? al-Awlaki was more than just a propagandist, he was a recruiter, operational planner, and more.
Anwar al-Awlaki: Drone kills US-born preacher who inspired lone wolf terrorists
One official said Awlaki was involved in the printer bomb packages found at East Midlands airport last year.
The Yemeni outfit had developed bombs that contained no metal and were so hard to detect that police missed the material on first inspection.
To distract police, Awlaki put a copy of Great Expectations in the packages. His finger prints were found on the book.
I don't know why you would think there is a joke, Assange's position is no laughing matter. It is quite serious.
Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down . . .
Not going to happen. The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members or affiliates of terrorist groups like al Qaida and ISIS. For all of his faults, Assange isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists.
No, Ecuador could do it. It might look something like this:
Assange: Hello Mr. Ambassador, a pleasure to see you again.
Amb Ortiz: Hello Julian, let me come straight to the point - you can no longer use the internet connection in the embassy. The Foreign Minister has made this decision under difficult circumstances. We are doing this so that we can continue to provide you asylum from Sweden and Britain.
Assange: But Mr. Ambassador!
Amb Ortiz: No buts, Julian. No more use of the embassy internet or we will show you the door, and put you outside.
Assange: I understand Mr. Ambassador. What if I can make other arrangements?
Amb Ortiz: That is your affair, as long as it does not make use of the embassy facilities.
Assange: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador for your continued hospitality.
I wonder who had enough "juice" to make this happen?
Ecuador has been very willing to poke Sweden, Europe, and the US in the eye over Assange for years. So, why now?
Did Wallstreet firms make some threats about investment?
Did the Clinton campaign threaten vengeance when Hillary is selected as president?
Did the US State Department make some threats to cover for Hillary?
Did the CIA threaten tit for tat against Ecuador as part of rumored actions against Russia?
Are foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation leaning on Ecuador to stop Assange from exposing them?
Is the Obama administration threatening military action over the claimed interference in the US election?
Is the media threatening reports on Ecuador? Or is someone threatening to leak to the media about them?
Are there some lucrative deals Ecuador's elites have going that are in danger?
The possibilities seem almost endless. Whoever it was must have the ability to make a substantial threat, big enough for Ecuador to fold like a cheap deck chair.
But who was it?
Why would Trump wish to repeat Obama's work/program? Makes no sense.