The current U.S. form of government doesn't work unless the vast majority of the people agree on its ideals.
Clearly the nation is divided on the role and scope of government, with many opposing some of the founder's ideas. Do you forgo the constitution in order to fight your opponents? Then what?
- Do you purge a large chunk of population who disagrees with you in order re-establish a representative government? How could such a government be considered legitimate?
- Or do you establish a dictatorship which silences the voice of your opposition - with force if necessary? You'll undermine freedom of speech, press, and assembly. Eventually the dictatorship becomes corrupt.
Both outcomes are akin to what the Democrats want - just with different ideas.
A well-founded fear of becoming that which you despise.
It's one of many plausible scenarios, but I feel it's an extreme and less likely scenario.
For example, MSM and tech will cover for the Dems trying to steal the election. But if the rioters destroy infrastructure, how can the propaganda be spread? I don't see the full scale rioting happening until one side attempts to cement its claim to victory and power, which will be several days after election.
The rioters lack strategic thinking and wouldn't specifically target infrastructure without orders from their masterminds and financiers. I would bet the Trump administration knows enough to quickly arrest them and break up the strategic level as soon as the riots start and the insurrection act is invoked.
The rioters quickly dwindle in numbers when met with consequences. They wouldn't have enough backing to sustain guerilla war, but their agitators may use terrorism to retard the govt from restoring order.
I have two big unknowns:
First, how do you win the information/ propaganda war? What do you do with all the media outlets and elected representatives who will have fomented insurrection?
Second, what do you do with the large chunk of the brainwashed population which refuses to acknowledge a legitimate government? If you don't deal with them while maintaining the constitution, they just vote for new radicals in 2 to 4 years and you're back where you started.
Dems did it with climate science. Why not COVID?
Was he recounting his "180 years" of service in the Senate?
No, that would mean admitting Trump was right about Ukraine interfering in our elections.
I like this idea. I doubt inmates will show the same "understanding" of their 27 genders. Consider it a learning experience.
Surely these are "fine people"...
From another thread on this clip, the thought that makes the most sense is that "John" is John McCain from the 2008 election.
Let's consult Marianne Williamson.
Shouldn't one more of those pictures be on the left side...cough Roberts
In a post about this several weeks ago, someone mentioned that the .win extension is often associated with gambling and scams, so it may be part of a blanket block - not specific censorship. I haven't looked into it further.
There's no reason to discriminate based on race. If you're worried about helping minorities, then help them because they're poor. Though welfare tends to perpetuate the problem rather than fix it.
People on both sides amplifying their feelings.
ACB has made a few questionable rulings. It's worth examining more closely. We don't want another John Roberts.
Hate to rain on the parade, but most of the free world uses a parliamentary democracy like those found in Europe. The US Constitution is still relatively unique - even the absoluteness of natural rights.
It's a balancing act. I can see up to a week before, but no more.
Early in-person voting allows flexibility for people who work or otherwise can't wait in line for hours. It also helps lessen the need for poll workers and reduces lines.
The only part of the poll I believe is that mail-in voters favor Biden. They're afraid of COVID and believe all the other garbage the media and Dems spew.
A federal law passed by Congress and signed by the president specifying what is legal self-defense would supersede any state law due to the supremacy clause of the constitution. That's the most direct approach.
Courts can only rule on law when there is standing, which means that someone has to have been harmed i.e. indicted or jailed, or in rare cases have imminent harm (unlikely for this topic) due to an overly burdensome restriction on self-defense. That case would have to begin in state court.
Given that, your best course of action is to write your state govt representative and ask for them to introduce a bill to change state law, or contact your federal representative and ask them for a bill outlining what is legal self-defense.
Right to self-defense is not directly part of the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment simply implies self-defense with weapons is no different from unarmed.
Like I said, many bits of information which need to be pieced together while eliminating misinformation. Without a more complete picture, parts of a lot of stories are questionable.
A. I heard that the boyfriend in the house was not involved in the drug ring - her other boyfriend was in the drug ring. The boyfriend in the house thought it was the drug boyfriend at the door.
I haven't seen anything to confirm though; having to piece together info because media doesn't report it is a pain in the ass.
So if CA can't provide electricity to customers, but also banned gasoline powered cars, what kind of car can you drive in CA?
That's about what I got from it. A platform has to define what is and is not allowed, then follow those guidelines. They also have to provide a reporting mechanism.
It's about as effective as a "strongly worded letter".
What I didn't like is the earlier sections which make it a crime to allow publishing of content you know is illegal. Normally that sounds good, but then you consider Wikileaks or Snowden. Now the Feds have a stronger case for going after platforms which publish classified information which details illegal govt activity.
Time is finite. More practical skills should take priority.
This is why schools should be private with school choice.
Alpaca News!