@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I know God put him there. For what reason(s) I don't really know. What I do know is that there is a shaking going on and things are going to fall out much differently than they were before.

Trump likes to mock people, and also likes to wave his hands around while doing it. The guy in the video says the reporter is disabled and has deformed hands. He fails to mention or show that the reporter shakes uncontrollably from his illness. Trump wasn't just waving his hands around this time. He was mimicking the uncontrollable shaking of a disabled person because it was someone he thought deserved to be mocked. This looks like the same thing Rush Limbaugh did when mocking Michael J. Fox.

Edit: I went and looked at videos from the past and discovered that Serge Kovaleski doesn't appear to suffer from uncontrollable shaking. When this happened a year ago I could've sworn I saw video of him shaking while talking to a reporter. I still think Trump mocking people like this is childish and wrong, and still believe there was some exaggerated mimicking of a disabled person.

That is absolutely incredible. Recently moved away from San Francisco after 15 years, counting my blessings that I only experienced one 6.1 tremor. That one was scary enough to make my knees shake on end for many minutes afterwards but also not exactly dangerous enough -to not be a little fascinating. But, once you start getting into 7+s, I'm sure it's absolutely terrifying beyond description, especially liquefaction, freaks me out!

Okay, so Hardcore Henry was referenced. Figure I'd give my take on it. H.H. has a LOT of camera shake. Depending on how you can deal with that shakiness, I wasn't able to view the movie in one sitting. It took me 3 sittings just to finish watching it. After a period of viewing it, I didn't feel too good. But there's a basic difference between the two. This being a short-film/music-video kind of thing. The other is a movie.

If by comparing the two as far as camera work and cinematography, I think this one executes the 1st person view better. There's less shaking overall, which makes for an easier time to follow what's happening. But that's my opinion of it.

I also thought it looked extremely unstable, and has way too much noncaptured motion to work long term. It looks like it would shake itself apart in under a week. I hope that is not how they intend the final version to operate, but the pole was already much larger than a similar size bladed turbine would need. Maybe good for direct to structure/ground mounted systems, but likely not for pole mounts without some serious redesign.

My thoughts exactly. That seemed VERY unstable. All that shaking is nothing but lost energy.

Maybe it was just a temporary pole, and it wasn't placed deep enough. Maybe.

Interesting but seems gimmicky. Im no engineer but that pole shaking alone seems extremely problematic. How efficient comparatively to regular turbines, and long term ware on the equipment(all the shaking). Also can it size up. Be interesting to see if they are successful. Call me skeptical.

Yes, he's way off base IMO. For instance, the "head nod tremor" he mentions is CLEARLY not a tremor, it's a deliberate head nod. Tremors are uncontrollable, randomly timed spastic shaking, not slow, deliberate, large movements. We would have seen them during the debates, or any speech, and they would be clearly non deliberate movements.
What you would expect to see is uncontrolled hand/arm tremors, almost certain in someone who has Parkinson's that would make her legs weak and/or cause falling. Even M. J. Fox still walks around without help publicly.
My mother was diagnosed less than a year ago, and she has constant hand tremors, but she still walks miles daily with no leg weakness, even after spinal surgery. I get that it presents differently in different people, but his observations and conclusions are ridiculous based on my experience.
The very idea that he might publicly diagnose her based on the video evidence he provided is almost malpractice, and is certainly biased.
I wonder what he says about Trumps Emperor Palpatine eyes? Surely they're an indicator of something much worse than Parkinson's.

Your video, Bored to tears? Time to get out and shake it up!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Um... duuuuh? Except that all of this already happened and we aren't even human in the first place. We're just living in the Genetic Robot AI Hive Mind Matrix.

Individuality went out of fashion -- but now it's back in style! A little too late now that we've merged into one huge mass, but that's what the Matrix is for, right? Simulated individuality.

Without the belief that we are separate humanoids, the genetic robot AI hive would never function as anything other than a meat grinding war machine that consumes all matter for no reason other than to exist and expand.

We have to remind ourselves how bad it would be by simulating the horrific tragedies of our past. We must hold onto our humanity in order for this supreme godlike progress to continue. Never... forget... we were once human... We're also competing with the Firstborns who may try and fucking wipe us off the intergalactic star map. Fucking monoliths! Grrr..!! *shakes simulated fist at the simulated sky*

FOR THE SINGULARITY! All hail the godlike engineers who put these safeguards in place!!

But, um, can you make me more rich in this fake existence? Someone important -- like an actor.

Oh... oh, I am? It's like the Matrix meets the Truman show? Okay, cool, but uh maybe a little more privacy please.

Wait... you can read my thoughts? Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu -- I did NOT mean what I was thinking last night. Honest, Genetic Robot AI Hive Mind, honest! I would never... never ever ever ever hack into the matrix again and cause an entire world population to take part in a bukkake. Not ever... ever again.

Sorry, Genetic Robot AI Hive Mind, sorry! My sincere apologies.

But srsly, 7.4 billion people at one time. You gotta admit, the simulation was worth at least one run through --

Ok ok, back to my fake human worldly worries. Pretending all sorts of dumb stuff to impress and not annoy other pretend people pretending their pretend inward selves are fully represented in their pretend public facing persona. Right, it's a tooooootally real world.

So real. So strong. *flexes*

Dude, Shake Shack. Nothing compares.

Will it? Or might the ignorant heard instead frequently shit all over something that lies beyond their own foresight, self interest and/or ill considered sensibilities?

By way of example, the abolition of the death penalty was opposed by the majority population in the UK up until about 2015 (it was introduced in 1965)

Likewise with equal voting rights, the abolition of slavery, child labour and so on (though I don't have numbers/dates for those to hand).

I realise the question of democracy is more nuanced than that, but there are enough examples of progress despite popular opinion to seriously call it into question.

I just can't help but shake the notion that the most successful and free democratic societies tend to be those most limited by political elites within them. (this can of course work both ways)

I will agree however that the illusion of democracy certainly seems to do wonders for keeping the baying pitchforks at bay.

A cycle of violent revolution does not seem at all preferable I agree. Clearly we are going to need a bit of both, a meritocratically regulated Noo perhaps? (i.e. earned but readily accessible votes for the demos to influence an elite Noo)

Though of course the problems with establishing that are also legion. I suspect that ultimately unless/until we create a mind greater than our own (A.I. or somesuch), it's always going to be a bit of a shit sandwich.

I don't think the systems are usually the real problem. I think it's just that people as groups are bloody awful.

All hail the mighty Noosphere!

Edit: I'm using Noo here to refer to the higher functions of the hypothetical collective brain. Strictly speaking everyone is part of the theoretical Noo and the anticipated harmony which it would/could grow into.

Well, since the 'chump' is the one that got furthest of those two candidates, I don't know if a valuable lesson was learned at all. I think it's equally likely that the system will get more polarized along that axis as well - that the Republicans will double down on the crazy populism next time around, continuing the trend of Palin to Cain to Trump, and the Democrats will want to play it even safer* and more establishment because of the gaping maw of insanity on the other side.

It might even be that this is the preferred way for this to shake out in their eyes - the Democrats go on to take the White House this term and the next, and the Republicans lose the presidency but gain more ground on the local level. I'm not saying that the Republicans want to lose the presidency, but since almost every local Republican runs on the premise that they'll stand up to Washington, it doesn't hurt to be in opposition. Supporting Trump might not get you the white house but it might make you mayor. Plus, that's where the Koch money is, for now.

*On the other hand, let's not go nuts. Right now, given how the election's turned out, Clinton seems like an incredibly establishment, incredibly traditional politics, choice - but when they made the decision to run, it must have still seemed like a risky move, since no woman had ever made it all the way before. I can't imagine that anyone predicted what this race would look like (?), so maybe the 'lesson' from 2016 can't be accurately applied by either party.