Exactly what I was thinking.
Their image search is amazing, it even does terrific OCR.
In general though over the past few weeks, I've noticed results from Google, DDG, and Bing were being censored because pages I knew existed weren't being returned. I tested Yandex for the heck of it, and low and behold, it's returning everything.
If you think you're being censored, try Yandex.
If they think the Presidency is more important than the house, they're not going to back down, even if it means they might lose the house. As it's looking right now, they might lose the house either way, or have such a thin majority, it won't really mean much.
If you want to avoid censorship, use Yandex.
Russia is kind enough to not censor us.
That's not enough for me. I want to know what the short term effects are, say a week or two later, and what the long term effects are say 10-20 years later.
Kings I 11:3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart.
1000 total, not 3000.
Nothing you wrote here explains why monolithic parties should exist.
I also did not answer my own question, because the our current impossible situation is not partyless.
I've seen Volvos for years, but I can tell you that I never saw the arrow prior to last year.
No building between twin towers? Then you'll enjoy this:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/Marriott_World_Trade_Center.jpg https://www.travelweekly.com/uploadedImages/All_TW_News/Hotels_and_Resorts/2011_photos/marriottworldtrade.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ac/WTC-towers_and_hotel.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/FGtQNYpgd7OIMKT18FxFVO0KFQJz0zPWP10zI1H2DrYlTSPX62NGUeb0LIu8qIRLn9LA-HAPz8FBN7zfLkBP_9d9 https://placesnomore.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/mar.jpg
From my point of view, some things also changed recently.
I take walks around my block every day. As I walk down the block, I look at the parked cars and the various logos. Last year, I noticed the Volvo logo was different on a new car I haven't seen before parked there, as it's now the male symbol, and figured they decided to update it on their new cars. I thought it was stupid of them, because why weaken your well known brand and imply your cars are only for men? Then while speaking to someone recently, I'm told this is a Mandela effect, and this "new" logo has always been this way. I find it impossible to accept, because I remember two versions of it, and noticed the change all on my own. I don't really see how this is supposed to be a mass hallucination, without an explanation as to how it is occurring in people independently of each other without any prompting.
It's nice that you're describing why the party system is broken and how it got that way, but it's still missing the point. There is nothing worthwhile about having an all encompassing party, it will always degrade into some disaster.
if one party is the Abolitionist Republican Party, it's not odd or treasonous as you say to vote party line.
There is nothing wrong if a state decided that Abolitionist was or wasn't right for them. The representatives voting along various laws in a pro or anti Abolitionist stance would be fine. It's a group representing a single facet of life that may or may not affect their states.
The problem would come in once it becomes a party which start adopting positions on completely unrelated matters. These monoliths have no inherent value to them. Nothing you have described offers a positive why monoliths should exist.
representatives should do nothing but represent.
This wasn't true in our Founders time, and can never be true due to human nature; you've created an impossible to achieve standard. The Constitution is a framework which understand human nature and put it into a working government. People are human beings, not robots or machines; including all the complexities and flaws of humans. People are going to go to cocktail parties, their going to have affairs, some are going to be drunks or addicts; some are going to be corrupt and greedy; etc. They are politicians being elected, not Saints for canonization.
You have taken what I said out of context and turned it into something else. Representatives are to represent their people, not vote on behalf of the party. I don't care what they do when they're go home for the night.
We are NOT a democracy; people do not vote on issues.
You're right, we vote on a representative who is supposed to represent their constituents. They should be thinking about what is good for their people or not. If unsure, they can ask their people what they think on certain matters, and weigh how to handle it. What some outside party thinks should not be part of that equation. The system we have right now, it's impossible to get real representation, and it's what a monolithic party will always devolve into.
This doesn't work
Forget monarchies, and parliamentaries and all that. Why does partyless not work? I've seen small local governments that are partyless, and they work just fine. What prevents it from working larger scale on the state or federal level?
That is definitely my hope as well. But I don't know how things are going to play out just yet.
In your timeline, was there a building between the twin towers in NYC?
Until January 20th 2021 at the very least.
I disagree with your take on matters of party. People are allowed to freely associate. On the other hand, representatives should do nothing but represent.
When there is a vote which is exactly along "party lines", it means congress has all just committed treason against their constituents. The only consideration they should have is whether this is good or not good for my people, not some "party".
There may be many matters of which different groups of people agree or disagree with. The representative should be choosing which group to vote along with on a topic by topic basis, inline with what their constituents want. The moment they start to vote in lockstep with a particular group on every single issue, that is no longer representation, that is treason.
Our current system even has these parties incentivize their members to vote in lockstep with them as often as possible, which is nothing but a betrayal of their constituents.
If there was merit to parties, then there would be dozens of them on a large variety of topics, and people would be members of multiple parties simultaneously. Representatives would then choose to go along with the the sets of parties that most closely matches the needs of their constituents. Many representatives would be in a unique combination of parties that no one else is a part of. Since this is not the case, parties do not represent some ideas, they represent control and subversion.
The constitution does not enshrine any of this, that there should be a majority and minority, and all these other concepts they use now in order to put a stranglehold on congress in order to prevent a different set of needs and values to flourish. It also creates a dichotomy of you're with me or against me, and there is absolutely nothing American about this process.
Political parties exist to subvert the will of the people. Having them destroys the rights and liberties of citizens.
The representative is there to act on behalf of their jurisdiction, not on the whims of some party which exists outside that jurisdiction.
His stance on abortion is that it's up to women to decide its legality, and as a man, he's staying out of it.
Immediately after talking to him, they leaked the nature of their conversation to the press, and got him put on leave. Probably did nothing to follow up on his story.
I support your effort to make propaganda for the brainwashed!
Just keep in mind others might see it too, so you want something which convinces everyone, the brainless and the not-so-brainless alike.
I'm sick of these people who do everything they can to not do their job and hurt their own constituents. They even take bribery from people and organizations outside their district/state/country, then call it "campaign contributions".
These people are scum and should be treated as such.
You mean Covid death rates, right?
Never ever ever give up. -DJT 2017
He is a liberal and also extremely pro-Trump. His book is excellent, you'll love it.
(Win Bigly is the book)
Maybe it had to do with how he was holding his phone.
Back in 2008, I saw him saying that because the resources on earth is constant, if we want to raise the number of goods and services available per person, we must lower the amount of people. The best way to do that is in developing nations in Africa where they're dying from various diseases/plagues like Malaria. What we can do is offer them a vaccine, but only if they also agree to get sterilized. Since their life prospects are so low, many of them will be willing to make that trade to live a better life.
I've been searching to re-find this clip for years, but cannot find it. It didn't get any more explicit than that as to what his intentions are, and it's clearer than the clip you just linked which nearly everyone points to.