Whatever your thoughts on the matter is, voting is a right, and therefore cannot be constrained without due process, which basically means you have to commit a crime of some severity before that right can be constrained. What you want is utterly irrelevant to the situation that actually is.
The constitution does specifically protect the right to vote, and I can't imagine any court upholding a law that saw the right to vote made contingent on whether you state benefits or not. Beyond which, the idea is immoral, and yet another example of how LIbertarianism is little more than autocracy dressed up in frilly clothes.
It would be completely unconstitutional, and it would be unnecessary. The whole point of UBI is that the use of AI and robotics would make most workers' jobs redundant. Why penalize them for what business is doing. Just tax the business to pay for it. After all, they are realizing much greater profits due to automation, and since they will ultimately see at least some small portion of the taxes they fork out to fund UBI back in the form of sales, it will balance out.
Or we ban automation. It's your choice. But no one is going to live in some bizarre dystopia where they surrender their rights unless they become a taxpayer, by some definition of taxpayer (since everyone is a taxpayer, when fees, sales taxes and the like are factored in). Put down your copy of Starship Troopers, you really aren't some elite.
Racism in jest is still racism. It's not like phrasing it as a joke somehow makes it less demeaning. There are ways to show racism ironically (the Monty Python gameshow skit Prejudice shows how satirical racism can be used effectively), but whatever 4chan's basement dwellers are doing, it isn't satire, and it most certainly isn't ironic. Perhaps it is the verbal equivalent of farting in a small room, but just because you laugh afterwards doesn't mean it smells any sweeter.
Because, of course, they shouldn't be safe, and they should have to be subjected to hate filled tirades and be turned back into scapegoats by the likes of you.
And lo and behold, evidence mounts that Russia has been using Assange and Wikileaks to do just thata, which is why even Ecuador has finally decided that it can no longer tolerate its embassy's resources being used as a conduit between Russia and Assange, and between Assange and everyone else. I doubt Ecuador is that much fonder of the US than it was before, but I doubt it also wants to become a Kremlin stooge.
As it is, it doesn't matter. The odds of Trump pulling off a turnaround with three weeks to go is well below 20%, and by some estimates probably less than 10% (depending on how you weight certain polls).
Can you describe "technically legal but shady as fuck" "rigging"? If people are not constrained or otherwise inhibited in their use of their constitutional right to vote, and if those ballots are not fabricated or otherwise mishandled in a way to commit an act of electoral fraud, then what exactly goes through a voter's head as they mark their ballot is their concern alone, and the idea that somehow their vote is worth less because they don't happen to agree with you, or they don't choose to assess the best candidate with the resources you feel they should is, well, to be perfectly blunt, none of your fucking business.
It's too bad the Republicans picked a candidate so awful that he's turning even some die-hard Republican groups, so awful that there is at least some evidence now that he's going to start hurting downticket races (we'll see how bad that is likely within a week). But to somehow assert that someone's vote is worth less because they don't exclusively read Breitbart and go around shouting "Jail Clinton", well, that is anti-democratic.
The use of Federal hate crime legislation was the only way the stranglehold of White Supremacist Jim Crow laws were finally loosed in the former slave states, a hundred years after the Thirteenth Amendment was supposed to have guaranteed freedom for African Americans. You may dislike them, and in some ways I might even agree that they have been a blunt instrument, but the fact remains that if Congress had not passed the Civil Rights acts, and the Executive had not been willing to use them to target the purveyors of systemic inequity in the South, it's almost certain that it would have been decades longer before something approaching equal rights would have been achieved.
And no one is getting arrested for this appropriation of a damned frog symbol, but the creator and others are trying to "de-meme" it. Isn't that what a free society does? Where a group believes there is some injustice, it puts for the argument, perhaps even vigorously, that the injustice needs to be righted? It almost seems to me that some peoples' ideal free society is where certain people can literally say anything they want, and no one is ever allowed to call what they say into question. Again and again, what I see from the Trump camp and the Alt-right isn't the notion of freedom of speech, but rather freedom from consequences. Whether it's Milos concocting fake tweets to go after a black actress because he didn't like the movie she was in, or guys running around spouting thinly veiled (or sometimes not even veiled) racism, and the expectation always is "If you try to shame me, you're a fascist!"
This is when Libertarianism just turns into Fascism, where certain types of Libertarians actually show themselves to be wannabe autocrats who want to create a tiered society where, presumably, they're at the top, in possession of special privileges like voting.
Sure. The Embassy could refuse to accept delivery. He is at the embassy as Ecuador's guest, and if they're going to cut off his Internet access, they sure the hell aren't going to allow him to put a bloody dish up.
So what, is your little Trump Squad going to go around hunting anyone who supports Clinton? Is this what the Brown Shirts would have done if Hitler hadn't become Chancellor?
What criminal history? Every time some crime is laid at her feet, it always ends up being the fantasies of the far right of the Republican Party. You'd think she was a gangster who'd made her bones in the early 90s and now drank blood for breakfast the way people like you talk.,
Your buying into the nonsense being repeated in your echo chamber. No one else is buying it. You're just another hyperbolic crazy on the Internet foaming at the mouth with yet another tired conspiracy theory. These attacks against the Clintons have been going on for a quarter century, and they were absurd then, now they just seem to represent some pathological psychological condition on the part of those who keep repeating it.
What are you going to be like on November 9th? Is this your way of coping?
Yes, which is why it was never a serious proposition. But the Trumpites need any ammunition they can get, and no wonder, with the early voting and the strong indications that Trump is going to lose badly.
Of course Ecuador could do something about it. They could escort him out of the embassy, or ask British police to come in and take him away. They may not do that yet, but the writing is on the wall. Cutting off his Internet is the first step towards Assange being handed over to British authorities.
By all accounts, the political situation in Ecuador itself is changing, so it is very likely that the government has decided that it is no longer going to offer Assange blanket protection. That's their right, it is their embassy. In fact, Ecuador is within the rights to evict Assange if they want to. He's there at their sufferance, and if they decide he's becoming an irritant and damaging their international relations, then they have a duty to the Ecuadorian people to limit his ability to create such disturbances.
An alternative explanation is that the US showed Ecuador that Assange, and thus their British Embassy, were being used by Russia as a means to tamper with the US election and in general as a conduit to release information gained through cyber-espionage. Whatever Ecuador's feelings on Assange, the Clintons, Trump, or the price of tea in China, the fact remains that they cannot simply sit by and let someone who is a guest at their embassy, and who is on the lamb from British courts, undermine the embassy by using it in this way.
It demonstrates the extent of Assange's arrogance, and his complete detachment from reality that he would abuse his hosts in this fashion. Did he imagine that his defacto asylum granted him unlimited rights to use Embassy resources in any way he pleased?
I suspect British police are just waiting for the invite so they can grab him.
That may be, but whatever you think of what's happening, if the US is behind this (and not just Ecuador tiring of Assange's presence and the strain it has put on relations with the UK, not to mention the likelihood that they're being used by Russia as a conduit for cyberattacks on the US), then the message being sent to those tasked with enacting Assange's contingency plans is pretty clear.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is shady, but how exactly does that constitute electoral fraud?
Whatever your thoughts on the matter is, voting is a right, and therefore cannot be constrained without due process, which basically means you have to commit a crime of some severity before that right can be constrained. What you want is utterly irrelevant to the situation that actually is.
Translation: They don't vote the way I want, therefore I don't think they should vote.
The constitution does specifically protect the right to vote, and I can't imagine any court upholding a law that saw the right to vote made contingent on whether you state benefits or not. Beyond which, the idea is immoral, and yet another example of how LIbertarianism is little more than autocracy dressed up in frilly clothes.
Communism is the state controlling the means of production. How is UBI the state controlling the means of production?
It would be completely unconstitutional, and it would be unnecessary. The whole point of UBI is that the use of AI and robotics would make most workers' jobs redundant. Why penalize them for what business is doing. Just tax the business to pay for it. After all, they are realizing much greater profits due to automation, and since they will ultimately see at least some small portion of the taxes they fork out to fund UBI back in the form of sales, it will balance out.
Or we ban automation. It's your choice. But no one is going to live in some bizarre dystopia where they surrender their rights unless they become a taxpayer, by some definition of taxpayer (since everyone is a taxpayer, when fees, sales taxes and the like are factored in). Put down your copy of Starship Troopers, you really aren't some elite.
Racism in jest is still racism. It's not like phrasing it as a joke somehow makes it less demeaning. There are ways to show racism ironically (the Monty Python gameshow skit Prejudice shows how satirical racism can be used effectively), but whatever 4chan's basement dwellers are doing, it isn't satire, and it most certainly isn't ironic. Perhaps it is the verbal equivalent of farting in a small room, but just because you laugh afterwards doesn't mean it smells any sweeter.
Because, of course, they shouldn't be safe, and they should have to be subjected to hate filled tirades and be turned back into scapegoats by the likes of you.
And lo and behold, evidence mounts that Russia has been using Assange and Wikileaks to do just thata, which is why even Ecuador has finally decided that it can no longer tolerate its embassy's resources being used as a conduit between Russia and Assange, and between Assange and everyone else. I doubt Ecuador is that much fonder of the US than it was before, but I doubt it also wants to become a Kremlin stooge.
As it is, it doesn't matter. The odds of Trump pulling off a turnaround with three weeks to go is well below 20%, and by some estimates probably less than 10% (depending on how you weight certain polls).
Can you describe "technically legal but shady as fuck" "rigging"? If people are not constrained or otherwise inhibited in their use of their constitutional right to vote, and if those ballots are not fabricated or otherwise mishandled in a way to commit an act of electoral fraud, then what exactly goes through a voter's head as they mark their ballot is their concern alone, and the idea that somehow their vote is worth less because they don't happen to agree with you, or they don't choose to assess the best candidate with the resources you feel they should is, well, to be perfectly blunt, none of your fucking business.
It's too bad the Republicans picked a candidate so awful that he's turning even some die-hard Republican groups, so awful that there is at least some evidence now that he's going to start hurting downticket races (we'll see how bad that is likely within a week). But to somehow assert that someone's vote is worth less because they don't exclusively read Breitbart and go around shouting "Jail Clinton", well, that is anti-democratic.
The use of Federal hate crime legislation was the only way the stranglehold of White Supremacist Jim Crow laws were finally loosed in the former slave states, a hundred years after the Thirteenth Amendment was supposed to have guaranteed freedom for African Americans. You may dislike them, and in some ways I might even agree that they have been a blunt instrument, but the fact remains that if Congress had not passed the Civil Rights acts, and the Executive had not been willing to use them to target the purveyors of systemic inequity in the South, it's almost certain that it would have been decades longer before something approaching equal rights would have been achieved.
And no one is getting arrested for this appropriation of a damned frog symbol, but the creator and others are trying to "de-meme" it. Isn't that what a free society does? Where a group believes there is some injustice, it puts for the argument, perhaps even vigorously, that the injustice needs to be righted? It almost seems to me that some peoples' ideal free society is where certain people can literally say anything they want, and no one is ever allowed to call what they say into question. Again and again, what I see from the Trump camp and the Alt-right isn't the notion of freedom of speech, but rather freedom from consequences. Whether it's Milos concocting fake tweets to go after a black actress because he didn't like the movie she was in, or guys running around spouting thinly veiled (or sometimes not even veiled) racism, and the expectation always is "If you try to shame me, you're a fascist!"
Well that sure did convince me! Boy, who needs evidence when some Trumpeteer AC calls him a "stupid fucking douche" was all it took.
This is when Libertarianism just turns into Fascism, where certain types of Libertarians actually show themselves to be wannabe autocrats who want to create a tiered society where, presumably, they're at the top, in possession of special privileges like voting.
Sure. The Embassy could refuse to accept delivery. He is at the embassy as Ecuador's guest, and if they're going to cut off his Internet access, they sure the hell aren't going to allow him to put a bloody dish up.
So what, is your little Trump Squad going to go around hunting anyone who supports Clinton? Is this what the Brown Shirts would have done if Hitler hadn't become Chancellor?
What criminal history? Every time some crime is laid at her feet, it always ends up being the fantasies of the far right of the Republican Party. You'd think she was a gangster who'd made her bones in the early 90s and now drank blood for breakfast the way people like you talk.,
Your buying into the nonsense being repeated in your echo chamber. No one else is buying it. You're just another hyperbolic crazy on the Internet foaming at the mouth with yet another tired conspiracy theory. These attacks against the Clintons have been going on for a quarter century, and they were absurd then, now they just seem to represent some pathological psychological condition on the part of those who keep repeating it.
What are you going to be like on November 9th? Is this your way of coping?
So what does defending bragging about sexual assault say about the Trump campaign?
Yes, which is why it was never a serious proposition. But the Trumpites need any ammunition they can get, and no wonder, with the early voting and the strong indications that Trump is going to lose badly.
Of course Ecuador could do something about it. They could escort him out of the embassy, or ask British police to come in and take him away. They may not do that yet, but the writing is on the wall. Cutting off his Internet is the first step towards Assange being handed over to British authorities.
By all accounts, the political situation in Ecuador itself is changing, so it is very likely that the government has decided that it is no longer going to offer Assange blanket protection. That's their right, it is their embassy. In fact, Ecuador is within the rights to evict Assange if they want to. He's there at their sufferance, and if they decide he's becoming an irritant and damaging their international relations, then they have a duty to the Ecuadorian people to limit his ability to create such disturbances.
An alternative explanation is that the US showed Ecuador that Assange, and thus their British Embassy, were being used by Russia as a means to tamper with the US election and in general as a conduit to release information gained through cyber-espionage. Whatever Ecuador's feelings on Assange, the Clintons, Trump, or the price of tea in China, the fact remains that they cannot simply sit by and let someone who is a guest at their embassy, and who is on the lamb from British courts, undermine the embassy by using it in this way.
It demonstrates the extent of Assange's arrogance, and his complete detachment from reality that he would abuse his hosts in this fashion. Did he imagine that his defacto asylum granted him unlimited rights to use Embassy resources in any way he pleased?
I suspect British police are just waiting for the invite so they can grab him.
To be a master coverup artists, you first have to know how to shut your mouth.
That may be, but whatever you think of what's happening, if the US is behind this (and not just Ecuador tiring of Assange's presence and the strain it has put on relations with the UK, not to mention the likelihood that they're being used by Russia as a conduit for cyberattacks on the US), then the message being sent to those tasked with enacting Assange's contingency plans is pretty clear.
And Ecuador is not going to allow its relations with the US to be further degraded by the actual "state actor" here, namely Julian Assange.
How is it my job to disprove your claims?