People are out and about, going back to work and rioting. In another month this may be a distant fear that never occurred.

The POTUS election is the Superbowl of voting. Every rule and nuance will be debated and fought to the Nth degree. There are know stories of Dems cheating and also Reps cheating.

If Reps introduced Vote by mail then Dems would cry fowl.

My biggest fear is another hanging chad type issue. This time would be is the circle filled in all the way. Or used a pencil instead of required ink or you sign you name but is different on you voting card ie you signed voting card with full middle name but mail in ballot only singed with middle initial.

IF vote by mail is used then no gray area of debate should be allowed. Its filled completely correct or voided. No side will allow this. Hence this is be another hanging chad election which Trump will still win and another reason for Dems to claim fraud.





Truth of the matter Trump is the best Democrat and best Republican. No one really likes him but shit gets done.

IF Hillary was in office and wanted to push a 3 Trillion Covid aid bill Reps would bitch and moan. Trump pushed the aid and Reps fell in line and Dems added non related goodies. Every one won and lost at the same time.

I sometimes tell them "My forefathers fought and died for my right to remain silent. Discarding that right would be outrageously disrespectful and insulting to their sacrifice, and I'm certainly not going to do that to make a stranger's job a little easier and my life harder."

No, Bob, that's called projection. Your head has always been in the clouds.

There is obstruction there. No question. It will be assumed to be felonious obstruction without a full release of the investigation, something already being fought against by Trump even as he tells you he wants it released. This report specifically did not exonerate Trump, so of course he lies and says it does...and of course you take his word over the report summation itself about the report itself. *facepalm. I wonder why I talk to you, you tell me you think I'm intelligent, knowledgeable, and communicate well, but never does a fact make it past your ears (eyes). You admit Trump is a massive, professional liar and fraud, yet you believe every word he tells you. It's simply asinine and mirrors the actions of someone with serious mental deficiencies or disorders.

YOU want to play this game another 6+ years....with Clinton, a private citizen already cleared by multiple investigations over multiple never ending politically motivated accusations already spending 10 times the money and effort to nail her, and your bubble was burst and your dreams of charges went bust....but you want more...More...MORE.

No, I am not the one of us in a bubble....never was. I held no illusions that this investigation would publish any findings that would make a difference, being politically stymied as it was, nor that there would be any consequences if it did because it was led by republicans, controlled by republicans, and any consequences relied on republicans to do their job and not kowtow to their great exalted leader. Since you people are all brain dead sycophants who love Trump exponentially more than America I never had any illusions it might matter or change any minds. I was correct.

Funny how as recently as last week this report was all lies and a purely political hit piece, a witch hunt created by unprofessional frauds and liars and based on lies that should be discarded out of hand because it's so tainted it's worthless, and this week it's an unimpeachable Trump vindication (even though it's blatantly not) prepared by honorable professionals that did a great job. *facepalm

Now, the multiple felonious state charges in states not controlled by republicans, those might stick, but won't matter a whit to your ilk. He won't be jailed, so you'll gladly vote for a felon....again.

So the great divider gets to lie more about the findings and erode our international standing, political discourse, and civility farther and you get to kiss his feet and prepubescently thumb your nose at anyone not following suit....while our union dissolves and we slide towards dissolution. Enjoy. Your kids get to live in the hell you're creating.

Bob.
Stop being stupidly catty. Many investigators are Republicans including Mueller.
<1/6 of the Clinton investigation over a legal real estate deal, which found zero, amounted to zero, and you want to reopen it and investigate a private citizen with another special council with no target or budget limits...but this investigation was over treason and a felon filled administration that's committed uncountable (and been convicted of uncountable) felonies since Trump was elected, run by Trump appointees he only called Democrats when they wouldn't illegally do his bidding, then ended by two Trump sycophants that said it should be quashed before being appointed.

And you still whine like a little bitch. WTF, man, grow up. Your children are more adult. I bet they don't whine and pout when they get what they want.

Trump underhandedly won a single legal round, out of how many? He's almost as exonerated as Jussie is, which is barely at all legally and only that because of special treatment, and not a bit factually.
The report said they found no proof of illegal "collusion" with Russia and Trump directly over the election interference his friend Putin undertook for Trump's sole benifit, but also said he committed obstruction, but Mueller was instructed he could not indict Trump himself, and his bosses who told him that they must be the one's to indict blatantly prejudged the investigation publicly long long ago, it's why they were chosen for the positions, so there never was jeopardy, yet Trump fought tooth and nail against it making it take 4 times longer, wasting far more than necessary because he simply can't ever testify without perjuring himself dozens of times, not even to clear himself. He simply cannot tell the truth, or even avoid lying for an entire sentence, so we had to investigate his actions, and will again.
Sad, very sad.

Now he's tossing another promise and going after pre-existing condition protections like he repeatedly specifically promised to never do....and you love it I'm sure. So very very sad.

Basically the Emperor, a human who was effectively immortal due to his psychic power constantly regenerating his cells, began to be considered a god because of a combination of lies from the chaos lords and because some of his followers simply couldn't reconcile his existence without him being divine. He constantly fought against it, telling them he was not a god.

Due to the chaos lords interference, a cult formed that would accept him as nothing less than a God. They fought a huge war and the Emperor was triumphant, but was so wounded that he was going to die. Unfortunately, his mind and psychic powers control FTL travel and some other stuff, so he had his people modify a 'throne' he had been creating to help him control the daily duties his mind performed easier. The modifications would keep his mind functional even as his body rotted and decayed.

The great irony is that he began to be worshiped anyway and his skull is the symbol of the imperium because it shows his willingness to sacrifice himself to 'protect' Mankind.

The effect of trillions of human beings expressing a deep faith in His divinity has massively empowered the Emperor's mind and soul. Whatever He may have been before the Horus Heresy, the Emperor now truly is a God within the Warp, equal in power to any one of the four major Chaos Gods, and very likely as powerful as all four of them combined, as He has become perhaps the strongest spiritual force for Order in the Milky Way Galaxy. His mind must claim the life energies of 1,000 human psychics a day to empower FTL and other functions of the imperium.

Okay, so I know I'm super late, but my interpretation is that something got in through the window (I know the crack is super small, so it's possible it got in through somewhere else and broke the window along the way) and fought with the dude - I think he might be a modern-ish caveman because of his scraggly hair and square head - and was killed and chopped up into meat. Morbid, yes. Nonsensical, yes. The only thing I could come up with? Yes.

This is probably the greatest trick the GOP and the evengelical leadership managed to pull on the Christian masses, to make them believe that somehow the GOP is the most Christian, while the Demoncrats are just that, Demons.

Christ said, let those who haven't sinned toss the first stones, but Republican Christians are the ones who fight to deny equal rights under the law to LGBTQIA+ just for sinning differently.

Christ said to treat others as you'd have others treat you, but Republican Christians are the ones who fought all the way to the Supreme Court for the right to deny service against somebody, again for sinning differently, then while they are still cheering they can hate gays more openly, get upset and call for civility when the queen of lies under the king of lies gets kicked out of a restaurant. I guess, judging by the way Republican Christians treat LGBTQIA+, immigrants and the like, want to be treated like they are pieces of absolute shit.

To those they typically say they don't hate gays, they "love the sinner, hate the sin", lacking any sort of empathy on how it would be to be told "I HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT YOU, but I love you... in a distant way as one should love any human". They somehow think all the bigotry and hatred they do in the name of Christ is showing the love of Christ... despite the fact Christ said Love was the greatest commandment.

They also then try to put the blame of hatred of LGBTQIA+ people on Sodom. And while it is true that Sodom's sexual immorality didn't help, as it is specifically mentioned, it wasn't Sodom's sin. Also mentioned as a thing Sodom was guilty of was being hostile to foreigners, but they don't focus on that, just the sexual immorality. And they never focus and the actual sin of Sodom, which the Bible specifies as "This is the sin of your sister Sodom, she was a land of plenty and did little to help the needy and poor in her border." They ignore that, they ignore the hostility to foreigners, ignore that Sodom was vain and arrogant, and everything else listed after it says Sodom sinned greatly, ignore everything except the sexual immorality.

They love the rich, though Christ said that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. To which they'll typically try to say Christ was talking just about that one guy, but he said "a" not "that", as that guy had left the scene. Now the instruction to sell your things and follow after me, was directed right at that guy.

Christ said to help the needy and the poor, and they are the ones who most want to stop programs to help the needy and poor, so they can save tax money on themselves, or make said needy and poor dependent on the church.

Christ said blessed are the peacemakers, but they are the biggest warmongers of them all.

Christ said heal the sick, and they are the ones most opposed to medicaid for all, and other programs that would guarantee everyone access to AFFORDABLE health care. Somehow they don't care about affordability, and focus only on "the ER isn't going to turn you away just because you can't afford to pay then"... no but you'll be in massive debt for the rest of your life, meanwhile every other Christian nation in the world has medicaid for all at the very minimum.

Christ said Love is the greatest commandment, but they are the most hate filled and bigoted people I know. The most loving and Christ like of people I personally know, Pagans, followed closely by Unitarian Unversalists, followed a way back by Atheist, then liberal Christians, Muslims and way at the back is evangelical Christians... they are one of the biggest reasons why Christianity is loosing numbers, because they don't show the love of Christ, and they don't really care, they just have to do what they feel is right.

Abortions are at the lowest rate ever, because Obamacare gave women access to affordable health care, which was the key all along, but they want to get rid of those protections, because they don't actually want to stop women from having abortions by any means other than making it illegal and punishing women, you can't have them having any birth control or anything like that.

But Republican Christians somehow think they are the only real Christians, that no real Christian could vote Democrat... which you'd think would be their first clue that they are in a cult, when they start judging other Christians as not being Christian enough.

@newtboy,
"Yeah, that's honest, move to a profession where one single specific type of performance is the entire job..."

Take any highly competitive field and you've got similar professional grading based upon excellence in the field. Legal, Medical, Engineering, the same kind of professionals can be found hunting for top tier talent in any of these, no different than the NBA. Their criteria can be every bit as colour blind and there is strong economic incentives to do so to boot.

"Side note: there have been some who suggested affirmative action in sports, requiring a certain number of white players on teams. Indeed, there were white leagues that fought tooth and nail to not let even the most talented non whites participate. Just sayin...."
And that would be racist, and it was wrong, and it's something we should be glad to be rid of.

Just sayin....

"Race is considered, period."
Reasonable, non-racist people are going to disagree with you. They are going to, correctly, call your policy racist.

Can you really not see the other side that thinks fighting racism with racism is the wrong approach?

You mentioned SAT scores, no? They clearly DO benefit one group, rich whites.
You said "If one has a color blind computational method of creating a qualification score for candidates, how do we most fairly use that score to choose candidates." I pointed out that we don't have any such method, offered some of the reasons why the SAT is biased, and made suggestions of some things that must be taken into account to create one.

Edit: any method that ignores the exceptional efforts required in overcoming the pitfalls of being non white in America in order to be color blind, by definition, cannot be used fairly.

Yeah, that's honest, move to a profession where one single specific type of performance is the entire job, then claim it's possible to rate other jobs the same way. If the job can be boiled down to something as simple as how many times you can score a basket in one hour and NOTHING else matters, that works. There are very few professions like that, and educational opportunities should be nothing like that, especially when there's no unbiased test to determine intelligence, educational ability, and work ethic.

Side note: there have been some who suggested affirmative action in sports, requiring a certain number of white players on teams. Indeed, there were white leagues that fought tooth and nail to not let even the most talented non whites participate. Just sayin....

Race is considered, period. The argument is that being non white should be considered as a positive, an obstacle being overcome, rather than a negative, a biased excuse to deny opportunity.

From the outside looking in though, requiring diversity of genders and races by law is the issue.

If we simplify student quality down to only their SAT scores, what is the fair and equitable method of picking the 100 students that get admitted for the upcoming year?

Here's what I think a color-blind non-racist equal opportunity minded admission process looks like. Sort the students by SAT score and admit the top 100.

Looking at the comments from the left, by example the Daily Show video jabs above, the process I described is considered a rollback of hard fought civil rights.

???

I have a few French friends, and as I see it there's quite a fundamental cultural difference at play here. I'll do my best to explain it, although I don't fully understand it myself.

There's a very fundamental French principle of equality that's considered as sacred as American freedom of speech. It means that when you're French, you're French, and explicitly not a member of a sub-culture. I heard about this when they banned wearing a hijab (I think) in schools: the children are French first, and must comply by French norms above others.

The French government have fought very hard to fight the foundation of religious and ethnic sub-cultures within France. This is obviously very different to the American approach of embracing your heritage and, just as Freedom of Speech has unwanted side-effects, so does this. The players are French, not African. Their cultural past was indeed wiped when they became French (at birth or otherwise). Yes, they're of African descent, but that's considered very different to being African.

Now, it's fair enough to argue the the American approach is better, but I think it's important to understand that this is not the French approach. There is a fundamental cultural difference there, and without understanding that, you're going to miss the point of their argument.

You know, if Republicans hadn't just fought so hard to guarantee the legal right of businesses to deny service to gay people, I would have a little bit of sympathy. But this is exactly what they wanted. They just never imagined that they might be morally disapproved of as well.

It's not even as much that BLM disrupted the Pride parade, but that one of their demands was to ban the police from participating in the parade in the future. That's actively destroying years and years of hard fought progress to bring people together, and I can't fail to call that a bad thing. Again, I hope the US chapters are different in that much, and in many states there is also much more justified outrage against the police, which is very much unlike up here in Canada.

Canada's BLM held sit in protests demanding to meet with the chief of police and then repeatedly abandoned the meetings before they were supposed to happen. They then went on to condemn the police chief for having zero interest in protecting black civilians in Toronto. FYI, the chief of police of Toronto at the time was a black man.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/mark-saunders-police-black-lives-matter-1.3587533

A BLM toronto co-founder railed at how our Prime Minister, who makes Barack Obama look like very right -leaning, is a white supremacist terrorist. Rhetoric that just means absolutely nothing and looks like little more than gross false victimhood.

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/nzd4px/black-lives-matter-toronto-called-justin-trudeau-a-white-supremacist-terrorist

And then for good measure another co-founder squeezed in a quarter million dollar 'overtime' payment on their last week with the University of Toronto's Student Union. When the Student Union sued to get that money back as their was no documentation justifying paying out that kind of money all of a sudden the Student Union were racists. Eventually the case was settled with an undiclosed amount returned.

https://thevarsity.ca/2017/07/31/the-breakdown-the-utsus-lawsuit-against-former-executive-director-sandy-hudson/


BLM Toronto has done enough harm I am pretty comfortable saying I oppose them. The goal of making race relations better is of course good. Correcting injustices is of course good. I just don't see that coming from a group taking the actions I've seen, IMO they are actively making things worse, not better.

Again, that is specific to up here in Canada, I can't imagine that the US chapters can be as bad without it having been all over the media where I couldn't miss it. That said, up here I would likely have altogether missed everything but the parade as well save for having personally witnessed a just disgusting racist attack on someone at a an event. That led me to discover the attacker was tied in with BLM Toronto and suddenly seeing that as perhaps not an entirely isolated event .

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

This is only the second video I've ever seen on the subject!

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Why-knights-fought-snails-in-medieval-art