The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison.
People will believe anything to reduce their cognitive dissonance, I guess.
I'm *definitely* not defending Catholic dogma.
And I don't disagree with you.
We just can't use the No True Scotsman to claim the largest plurality of Christians are in fact Catholic Christians, while smaller pluralities are the real ones.
The "right to vote" in the constitution is taken as implicit in the guarantee of a Republican form of government.
The constitution acknowledges the State's right to choose who was eligible to vote.
Amendments were then passed to limit the limitations the state was allowed to impose.
In short, it's more than "assumed"- it is guaranteed. If the state has not (or can not) restrict your eligibility, the Constitution guarantees you the right to vote for the people who represent you. What exactly that means, is largely left up to interpretation. That interpretation has come to mean via case law, that the state cannot cannot limit your eligibility unless it can show a great need.
No, you don't.
You have a right to bear arms, whatever that means.
Not a single one of those laws implies that we have to allow people to sell them to you.
A whole shit ton of federal law is based upon that fact.
If by "tons", your device autocorrected from "none", then yes. The so-called evidence that has been "presented" is so bad it's dispositive. Like less than $5000 in Google ads definitively changing the the result of a $9 billion election. Or pointing to a Twitter troll farm that posted pro-Trump tweets - along with anti-Trump tweets, puppy tweets, tweets selling Obama fan merchandise, or even tweets posted after the election. A Trump tower meeting where even die hard Russiagaters admit Trump Junior walked away from empty-handed.
Ok, your numbers are hilariously misleading, but that's not the point. I said, tons of evidence of Russia attempting to alter the election, and attempting to coordinate with Trump's team.
Thank you for confirming that, even if your conclusion was dead wrong.
It means the whole thing was a McCarthyite witch hunt. That's what it means. And stupid for two reasons:
Conflating this with McCarthyism is disgusting, and you know it.
How many people went down for lying about talking to the Russians?
1) All this time and political capital could have been focused on Trump violating the Emoluments Clause, which he has brazenly violated.
Huh? The Special Investigation was launched a long time ago due to an undeniable act of obstruction of justice.
Breach of the emoluments clause is going to require the third branch of government to do something about.
2) This has greatly helped Trump's re-election chances for 2020. Because people don't like it when other people are attacked for bullshit reasons, and because of the Boy who Cried Wolf. Future accusations against Trump, even if totally legit, will gain less traction because Russiagate was nothing more than a lie to excuse Hillary Clinton being an atrocious candidate.
You're probably not wrong.
Your projection is noted. Russia is the same country it was in 2012, when the establishment mocked Mitt Romney [youtu.be] for saying Russia was a threat to the United States. The same 2012 where Putin stated a preference for the candidate not looking to escalate tensions with his country, but before a large number of Americans allowed them to be propagandized by the same people [youtu.be] that lied you into Iraq.
You're well aware that Mitt was talking about militarily. He was right to be laughed at.
It's called having a bullshit detector. Check your local Home Depot to see if they have one for sale?
No, I think you're just a fucking incapable of letting logic seep into that echo chamber between your ears.
The federal goverment's power in the federal election of states is very limited. Even the Voting Rights Act was a stretch, and only allowed because they were enforcing the enfranchisement of African Americans, which was allowed by the 15th amendment.
Ultimately, a state doesn't have to have a federal presidential election at all. They are technically free to select its electors as it sees fit. By straw poll, if they like.
The wisdom of the electoral college was keeping the slave-holding states in the Union by granting the state the suffrage it would have if all its residents could vote.
It was created for that reason, and for that reason alone. It's well documented, no matter what bizarre contrived theories you guys peddle around for its existence.
Ultimately, though, that wisdom no longer applies in today's world.
They would go a long way to preventing fraud. They're no more unconstitutional than requiring an ID to purchase guns or beer.
Currently, this is true. I suspect it won't be forever, though.
Voting is a right the state cannot restrict without proving an urgent need.
The purchase of guns and beer are not subject to that requirement.
There's also this small fact, right here.
The DNC is a 527 organization (IRC s.527)
It is free to do what it will within that organization. It's free to select the candidates it puts on its tickets however it sees fit.
Is what they did hypocritical, since they seem to support universal suffrage? Yes.
But it's not even the same ballpark is changing laws in ways that are proven to disenfranchise legal voters.
/me rolls eyes.
The US is a constitutional representative democratic republic.
It is a democracy. It is a republic. If you don't know that, you should have been doing something more constructive during social studies.
Whenever the Republicans are concerned and want to do something as simple as require an ID to vote, people call them racist.
That may, in fact, have something to do with the fact that their voter ID push was precipitated after paying to have studies done examining which part of the populace would vote less if an ID was required. Hint: it wasn't non-citizens.
I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. The court records are there. That's pretty fucking undemocratic.
If you don't need to ID to vote, you shouldn't need an ID to buy beer or guns.
You have an enshrined right to vote. You do not have one to purchase beer or guns.
I'm ok with voter ID, as long as the state makes sure all eligible voters are able to obtain one.
Funny enough, the voter ID pushers aren't ok with that. Which would make sense if they were in fact simply trying to disenfranchise people.
Except you don't have any evidence for this. Equivocating natural sunlight for artificial/synthetic lighting seems like propaganda.
Not all synthetic lighting. Not one bit.
I'm simply saying that LED lighting is mankind's closest mimicry of natural sunlight.
Not all LED lighting of course, but the ones that are designed to mimic sunlight are in-fact quite good at it.
The only thing that can be said for incandescent bulbs is they've been around longer.
Which should not be considered evidence of their safety in any way, shape, or form.
Mankind used objectively harmful methods to treat diseases with zero efficacy for much longer than they used scientifically sound methods.
I'm just raising the question.
You did more than that, though. You implied that they were unsafe because they were unnatural, equated them with the cheap RGB-white lighting of portable LCD electronics, and quite literally said "defaulting to nature may be the best bet".
In that instance, that means high-D65 CRI LED lighting.
No. That's simply patently wrong.
Birds did evolve beaks, and lost their teeth. That's hardly a large-scale morphological difference.
Some "dinosaurs" (vernacular, not scientific) aren't very closely related to birds at all. Some, like the Dromaeosauridae would be identified as a flightless bird, if you ignore the teeth. Some later ones weren't even flightless.
Beyond that, the divergence between avians and theropods happened during the time when theropods were still extant. So morphologically modern birds coexisted with dinosaurs. Including the beaks.
Inaccurate.
Birds are dinosaurs in exactly the same way that rats are small rodents.
Bird-like dinosaurs existed in the Cretaceous.
Humans did not.
Small rodents did.
Then you weren't raised Christian. You were raised "Catholic Christian."
I definitely appreciate this distinction.
However, you have to accept that until the Reformation, Catholic Christian was the de facto Christian.
The fact that the religion has evolved over time to be something far more egalitarian doesn't speak to its roots.
The point I'm making, is that you're essentially saying Protestantism is Christianity, while Catholicism is Catholic Christianity.
That's fucking absurd.
Someone is copying and pasting things without understanding the subject material. That's cute.
Incandescent bulbs can only have a high CRI at around 2800K of CCT. This being, of course, because the CRI for that temp uses an incandescent as its reference.
D65 CRI (daylight) incandescents are below 90. LED products hit 98-99.
Now as to what has a *smoother* spectrum? Incandescents, absolutely. Superior to daylight in most instances, in fact.
What exactly were you trying to prove, again? Are you trying to move the goalposts? I've seen better attempts.
In what universe is incandescent light not artificial?
I'll give you a hint- incandescent lamps are the *least* like daylight over their spectrum of any artificial light source.
Tuned white LED bulbs can mimic daylight spectrum very close (minus a significant narrow-band blue peak), while an incandescent with equivalent luminosity dumps out heaps of blue in the standard black body curve.
The reason for this should be immediately obvious. Our eyes are tuned for emission through a hundred miles of rayleigh scattering. It's not black body, down here.
Incandescents emit *most* of their energy as very long wavelength red light, which means we have to crank their output quite high to get the equivalent lighting of actual daylight, which also cranks their total amount of blue light quite fucking high. They'll never appear blue, of course, because their emission spectra will always be highly red.
But just because you can't see it does not mean it is not there.
An attempt to dodge criticism with humor instead of addressing it? So clever!
Yes, we know that blue light has a biological effect.
We also know that incandescent light is a stronger source of blue light than both CCFL and modern white LED lights for any given luminosity.
You think I have a misplaced sense of loyalty to... what, blue light? The companies that manufacture devices that emit it?
Or do you think the concept that the burden of proof lies upon the one who accuses someone else of not being innocent constitutes Stockholm syndrome?
No, you're right! Fox News causes cancer. They should prove me wrong if I'm not right.
I've found my preference evolved over time. Being I completely replaced my house with Hue bulbs, I had the luxury of being able to learn what I really liked.
Initially, I thought I liked ~3500K best. Over time, I realized ~2500-2700K significanty relaxed me, and I leave them there, now.
I think this is a "you get what you pay for" thing, maybe?
I've got about 2 dozen LED bulbs in my home (it was a long, drawn-out upgrade)
They've been installed over the course of about 5 years.
Not one failure. All philips though.
I have to pay for the 40% of Trump voters who are obese diabetic shitbags who can't stop eating, you can pay for us while we're between jobs that pay enough to continue paying your health care costs.
Slashdot Mirror
The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
James Madison.
People will believe anything to reduce their cognitive dissonance, I guess.
I'm *definitely* not defending Catholic dogma.
And I don't disagree with you.
We just can't use the No True Scotsman to claim the largest plurality of Christians are in fact Catholic Christians, while smaller pluralities are the real ones.
The "right to vote" in the constitution is taken as implicit in the guarantee of a Republican form of government.
The constitution acknowledges the State's right to choose who was eligible to vote.
Amendments were then passed to limit the limitations the state was allowed to impose.
In short, it's more than "assumed"- it is guaranteed. If the state has not (or can not) restrict your eligibility, the Constitution guarantees you the right to vote for the people who represent you. What exactly that means, is largely left up to interpretation. That interpretation has come to mean via case law, that the state cannot cannot limit your eligibility unless it can show a great need.
No, you don't.
You have a right to bear arms, whatever that means.
Not a single one of those laws implies that we have to allow people to sell them to you.
A whole shit ton of federal law is based upon that fact.
If by "tons", your device autocorrected from "none", then yes. The so-called evidence that has been "presented" is so bad it's dispositive. Like less than $5000 in Google ads definitively changing the the result of a $9 billion election. Or pointing to a Twitter troll farm that posted pro-Trump tweets - along with anti-Trump tweets, puppy tweets, tweets selling Obama fan merchandise, or even tweets posted after the election. A Trump tower meeting where even die hard Russiagaters admit Trump Junior walked away from empty-handed.
Ok, your numbers are hilariously misleading, but that's not the point. I said, tons of evidence of Russia attempting to alter the election, and attempting to coordinate with Trump's team.
Thank you for confirming that, even if your conclusion was dead wrong.
It means the whole thing was a McCarthyite witch hunt. That's what it means. And stupid for two reasons:
Conflating this with McCarthyism is disgusting, and you know it.
How many people went down for lying about talking to the Russians?
1) All this time and political capital could have been focused on Trump violating the Emoluments Clause, which he has brazenly violated.
Huh? The Special Investigation was launched a long time ago due to an undeniable act of obstruction of justice.
Breach of the emoluments clause is going to require the third branch of government to do something about.
2) This has greatly helped Trump's re-election chances for 2020. Because people don't like it when other people are attacked for bullshit reasons, and because of the Boy who Cried Wolf. Future accusations against Trump, even if totally legit, will gain less traction because Russiagate was nothing more than a lie to excuse Hillary Clinton being an atrocious candidate.
You're probably not wrong.
Your projection is noted. Russia is the same country it was in 2012, when the establishment mocked Mitt Romney [youtu.be] for saying Russia was a threat to the United States. The same 2012 where Putin stated a preference for the candidate not looking to escalate tensions with his country, but before a large number of Americans allowed them to be propagandized by the same people [youtu.be] that lied you into Iraq.
You're well aware that Mitt was talking about militarily. He was right to be laughed at.
It's called having a bullshit detector. Check your local Home Depot to see if they have one for sale?
No, I think you're just a fucking incapable of letting logic seep into that echo chamber between your ears.
The federal goverment's power in the federal election of states is very limited. Even the Voting Rights Act was a stretch, and only allowed because they were enforcing the enfranchisement of African Americans, which was allowed by the 15th amendment.
Ultimately, a state doesn't have to have a federal presidential election at all. They are technically free to select its electors as it sees fit. By straw poll, if they like.
The wisdom of the electoral college was keeping the slave-holding states in the Union by granting the state the suffrage it would have if all its residents could vote.
It was created for that reason, and for that reason alone. It's well documented, no matter what bizarre contrived theories you guys peddle around for its existence.
Ultimately, though, that wisdom no longer applies in today's world.
They would go a long way to preventing fraud. They're no more unconstitutional than requiring an ID to purchase guns or beer.
Currently, this is true. I suspect it won't be forever, though.
Voting is a right the state cannot restrict without proving an urgent need.
The purchase of guns and beer are not subject to that requirement.
There's also this small fact, right here.
The DNC is a 527 organization (IRC s.527)
It is free to do what it will within that organization. It's free to select the candidates it puts on its tickets however it sees fit.
Is what they did hypocritical, since they seem to support universal suffrage? Yes.
But it's not even the same ballpark is changing laws in ways that are proven to disenfranchise legal voters.
This isn't a democracy, by the way.
/me rolls eyes.
The US is a constitutional representative democratic republic.
It is a democracy. It is a republic. If you don't know that, you should have been doing something more constructive during social studies.
Whenever the Republicans are concerned and want to do something as simple as require an ID to vote, people call them racist.
That may, in fact, have something to do with the fact that their voter ID push was precipitated after paying to have studies done examining which part of the populace would vote less if an ID was required. Hint: it wasn't non-citizens.
I wish I were making this up, but I'm not. The court records are there. That's pretty fucking undemocratic.
If you don't need to ID to vote, you shouldn't need an ID to buy beer or guns.
You have an enshrined right to vote. You do not have one to purchase beer or guns.
I'm ok with voter ID, as long as the state makes sure all eligible voters are able to obtain one.
Funny enough, the voter ID pushers aren't ok with that. Which would make sense if they were in fact simply trying to disenfranchise people.
Just like people keep buying the new versions of Skyrim.
Guilty.
Except you don't have any evidence for this. Equivocating natural sunlight for artificial/synthetic lighting seems like propaganda.
Not all synthetic lighting. Not one bit.
I'm simply saying that LED lighting is mankind's closest mimicry of natural sunlight.
Not all LED lighting of course, but the ones that are designed to mimic sunlight are in-fact quite good at it.
The only thing that can be said for incandescent bulbs is they've been around longer.
Which should not be considered evidence of their safety in any way, shape, or form.
Mankind used objectively harmful methods to treat diseases with zero efficacy for much longer than they used scientifically sound methods.
I'm just raising the question.
You did more than that, though. You implied that they were unsafe because they were unnatural, equated them with the cheap RGB-white lighting of portable LCD electronics, and quite literally said "defaulting to nature may be the best bet".
In that instance, that means high-D65 CRI LED lighting.
Yes, the answer to that question being: As safe as natural daylight.
The real question we should be asking, is are incandescents safe?
Na, nevermind. I refuse to apply your logic against you under a pretense of seriousness.
No. That's simply patently wrong.
Birds did evolve beaks, and lost their teeth. That's hardly a large-scale morphological difference.
Some "dinosaurs" (vernacular, not scientific) aren't very closely related to birds at all. Some, like the Dromaeosauridae would be identified as a flightless bird, if you ignore the teeth. Some later ones weren't even flightless.
Beyond that, the divergence between avians and theropods happened during the time when theropods were still extant. So morphologically modern birds coexisted with dinosaurs. Including the beaks.
Inaccurate.
Birds are dinosaurs in exactly the same way that rats are small rodents.
Bird-like dinosaurs existed in the Cretaceous.
Humans did not.
Small rodents did.
Then you weren't raised Christian. You were raised "Catholic Christian."
I definitely appreciate this distinction.
However, you have to accept that until the Reformation, Catholic Christian was the de facto Christian.
The fact that the religion has evolved over time to be something far more egalitarian doesn't speak to its roots.
The point I'm making, is that you're essentially saying Protestantism is Christianity, while Catholicism is Catholic Christianity.
That's fucking absurd.
Someone is copying and pasting things without understanding the subject material. That's cute.
Incandescent bulbs can only have a high CRI at around 2800K of CCT. This being, of course, because the CRI for that temp uses an incandescent as its reference.
D65 CRI (daylight) incandescents are below 90. LED products hit 98-99.
Now as to what has a *smoother* spectrum? Incandescents, absolutely. Superior to daylight in most instances, in fact.
What exactly were you trying to prove, again? Are you trying to move the goalposts? I've seen better attempts.
In what universe is incandescent light not artificial?
I'll give you a hint- incandescent lamps are the *least* like daylight over their spectrum of any artificial light source.
Tuned white LED bulbs can mimic daylight spectrum very close (minus a significant narrow-band blue peak), while an incandescent with equivalent luminosity dumps out heaps of blue in the standard black body curve.
The reason for this should be immediately obvious. Our eyes are tuned for emission through a hundred miles of rayleigh scattering. It's not black body, down here.
Incandescents emit *most* of their energy as very long wavelength red light, which means we have to crank their output quite high to get the equivalent lighting of actual daylight, which also cranks their total amount of blue light quite fucking high. They'll never appear blue, of course, because their emission spectra will always be highly red.
But just because you can't see it does not mean it is not there.
But you knew that, right?
An attempt to dodge criticism with humor instead of addressing it? So clever!
Yes, we know that blue light has a biological effect.
We also know that incandescent light is a stronger source of blue light than both CCFL and modern white LED lights for any given luminosity.
You think I have a misplaced sense of loyalty to... what, blue light? The companies that manufacture devices that emit it?
Or do you think the concept that the burden of proof lies upon the one who accuses someone else of not being innocent constitutes Stockholm syndrome?
No, you're right! Fox News causes cancer. They should prove me wrong if I'm not right.
You're an idiot.
I've found my preference evolved over time. Being I completely replaced my house with Hue bulbs, I had the luxury of being able to learn what I really liked.
Initially, I thought I liked ~3500K best. Over time, I realized ~2500-2700K significanty relaxed me, and I leave them there, now.
High color temp light is painful to look at, period. Get the lower temp bulbs. 2500K light is 2500K light.
Ah, yes. You're right. The burden of proof isn't on the accuser.
Wait... dumbshit.
I think this is a "you get what you pay for" thing, maybe?
I've got about 2 dozen LED bulbs in my home (it was a long, drawn-out upgrade)
They've been installed over the course of about 5 years.
Not one failure. All philips though.
I have to pay for the 40% of Trump voters who are obese diabetic shitbags who can't stop eating, you can pay for us while we're between jobs that pay enough to continue paying your health care costs.