@radx

I don't see money being taken out of politics. Especially not with a Republican legislative / executive before the next election. In fact I've honestly become cynical about campaign finance reform having any serious effect no matter how well designed.

You can limit campaigns and their committees all you want, but if the money's there it will find it's way in through sponsored media and astro turfed 'grass roots' organisations that will claim some kind of legal disassociation with the candidate. Or the law will just be ignored like the supposed separation between campaigns and super PACs now.

Not that I like this, but I feel the lesson here as far as winning elections is concerned is, for a successful party the campaign never ends. Obama was blamed for every economic and foreign policy event over the past 8 years with little meaningful rebuke despite GOP obstructionism being a huge factor. He came very close to losing to Romney.

After Republicans claimed the legislative branch and so many state level positions that message should have been easy to refute citing an unwillingness to compromise for results (Simpson-Bowles debt plan should have been exhibit A). I would not at all be surprised if even now with almost complete government dominance, they are able to blame the Democrats for years to come by claiming to be fixing existing policy mistakes.

If Democrats don't deliver an effective message, they'll be looking at a second Trump term, with every failing over the previous 4 years blamed on them.

If I had to make the case for tragedy being ultimate source of comedy, this would be exhibit A.

There has never been a good video on this person or his work...his book-published works and Art Gallery exhibitions are breathtaking.

The supreme court is in a position to interpret the law because that's how our system works.
The Judicial's role is to INTERPRET the law that congress writes.
Due process is followed. You mean if strict, literal interpretation with no thought were the rule. It's not though.
Yes, the judicial interprets the legislature....so their interpretation may differ from the specific words in a law.
No, it's a matter of what the courts say is enforceable. Our system does not change laws because some, even most people disagree with the law. Just look at gun laws if you think differently. The people are willing to enforce more background checks and willing to bar anyone on the watch list, the legislature isn't. Enough of everyone is 'on board with twisting the rules', but they can't because the courts say they can't.
Really? You think people won't panic if you yell "fire" in a crowded room. OK, make sure you NEVER stand between me and a door then.

Um...yeah...you just keep thinking that "well regulated" has nothing to do with being regulated. I disagree.

I don't understand your point about eminent domain....Full Definition of eminent. 1 : standing out so as to be readily perceived or noted : conspicuous. 2 : jutting out : projecting. 3 : exhibiting eminence especially in standing above others in some quality or position : prominent.

Sounds the same to me.
-Newt

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/campaign-stops/a-week-for-all-time.html?emc=edit_th_20160617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=40977923

Golden quote:
"In this week of trial and tragedy, Trump showed us how he would govern — by fear, by intimidation, by lies, by turning American against American, by exhibiting all the empathy of a sociopath. Seal this week. Put it in a time capsule. Teach it. History will remember. But come November, will we?"

By the way, I've stayed out of this extremely boring back and forth. There was nothing to be gained by weighing in. It finally has come to a blessed end, just as this op-ed was published in the New York Times.

So I'll say it again, since this video is my contribution to the Sift and I am claiming final word. I may not be accorded it, but I am claiming it.

It is a stone hard fact that eligible does not equal fit. A brain-damaged accident victim with the right birth certificate, with the right age, is eligible to be president. That person is not fit to be president. This is logic. It just is. You can ignore the crystalline beauty of the fact of this analogy and have a fine time talking around it. Doesn't change the fact that Ken Burns is right, Timothy Egan is right, Mitt Romney, both Bushes, Meg Whitman, and the Republican strategist who is quoted in this op-ed are all right.

Trump is unfit for the Presidency.

As much as I'll defend police, this guy can ram his entire head up his shit-doesn't-smell ass. The rider can subpoena his phone records to verify that it was in fact a police related call, not sending dick picks to teenagers. And the goings on of a public official are abso-fucking-lutely the business of citizens.

I'd say reprimand and remediate the officer, but this may be the behaviors the bosses want exhibited. I think a lot of problems with law enforcement today need to be addressed from the top down...not always reacting to the end result.

Heh, that's my local zoo (Chiba Zoological Park). They just put the lion exhibit in like two months ago. It's so new that when I just checked their web page just now I noticed they haven't updated the park map with the location of the lion exhibit yet, although there is an announcement about the lions on the front page.

When we went on the opening week, the lions didn't seem to give a fuck about anything despite there being lots of kids pressed up against the glass. I figured they were too tired from having been transferred from the zoos that donated them (they were both born and raised in captivity).

There's a huge difference between a candidate that doesn't align perfectly with one's ideals and candidates diametrically opposed to one's ideals. You will NEVER find someone that aligns perfectly with your ideals except yourself.
If ALL candidates on the ballot are diametrically opposed to your ideals, the best solution is to write in the name of the candidate that DOES align at least mostly with your ideals, the second best idea is to simply not vote. Casting your vote for someone you think will be disastrous in order to deny someone you think will be apocalyptic is a terrible way to vote, IMO. I understand it, but I disagree with it.

If we order pizza, and the choices are limited to 4 types of mushroom pizza, or pizza with mushroom, onion, and sausage, and you are deathly allergic to mushroom, sitting in the corner and pouting and refusing to eat, while complaining to the room that they inappropriately completely excluded you from the process is the right choice.
Yes, it would be better to become more involved at the 'choose the toppings' level, but not everyone has that ability, and doing so is no guarantee of success.

If neither nominated candidate offers even some of what you want, what then?
I don't advocate not voting at all, but voting for the slightly lesser of two evils is not the only choice, supporting candidates that don't have a chance of winning THIS TIME can set up the next election so they do have a chance...it's a long game, but still better than 'boycott', and better than voting for certain disaster, even if that disaster is inevitable.
The notion that YOUR candidate is the only right choice and everyone else is being manipulated just might be reality in this instance, and not naïve in the least. Voting for someone just a step below apocalyptic seems naïve to me. If you think that the candidate is the only right choice BECAUSE that candidate is your choice, and not because they exhibit the qualities and positions you think are absolutely necessary, unlike all other candidates, then I agree, that's immature and naïve, but I don't think many made their decision that way.

I think like the first comment there said, they're more like projections and overlays, not holograms.
My guess is that most of what we see is either added on top of the live video of the people, not actually projected amongst them, and the other one (in the dark) is like a planetarium movie, 360 surround, maybe even 3D, not hologram.

Now THIS was holographic, and awesome (I saw it in person), and it's a terrible shame that now, 30 years later, we still don't seem to have this technology outside of concerts.....(sorry for the quality of the video)
*related=http://videosift.com/video/Vancouver-Expo-86-Part-III-GM-Holographic-Exhibit

Vancouver - Expo 86 - Part III- GM Holographic Exhibit has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

Oh yeah...sorry.
http://videosift.com/video/Vancouver-Expo-86-Part-III-GM-Holographic-Exhibit

You've reminded me of something hilarious from the expo, but I can't find a picture of it. There was a 2D sculpture of a Canadian Mountie, I think near the roller coaster, that totally had a huge boner! It was really the end of the arm, but the way it was made the elbow is in back, but in front was just a little triangle just below waist level. It was too funny, and obviously not intentional. Oh, the things you notice when you're 16.

The GM pavilion was by far the most interesting thing at the fair that year...at least to a 16 year old kid (and I'm including the roller coaster). Sadly the footage isn't the best, but the quality of the projection was excellent. The show was an old native American telling stories that came to life in his campfire smoke. It wasn't until the end that he becomes smoke and you realize he wasn't an actor, but was also a projection the entire time. It was amazing, and more than a bit sad that we don't have holographic movies today, seeing as it was clearly possible 30 years ago.
I don't remember much of the rest of the fair. Lots of silly movies and miniatures, a few performances, a couple of rides, and lots of oddly depressing foods. GM definitely won my vote for best exhibit by far.

Most 'spare parts' in China come from the political prisons the prisoners are executed for their crimes and harvested for parts.

Why else would this operation happen in China?

Gunther von Hagens does an exhibit of plastinated humans, Body World, where most of the specimins are Chinese political prisoners killed to order (he literally communicates things like, shoot this one in the heart, I need an intact skull).

Well. It's on purpose, obviously. Money is made on service and ink cartridges, far moreso than the printer sales!

I have no evidence, but I submit this video as people's exhibit A.

They had to have special cargo tie-downs installed. You know, like the kind they use when they need to haul a whale between zoo exhibits on a giant truck...