I think voting should be required by law to be in person with very, very few exceptions, and those being extraordinarily controlled and regulated to protect against fraud.
There is an interesting idea here though: if even one of your parents was a US citizen, the United States considers you a citizen even if you were born abroad, never entered the country, and don't even speak English. They expect you to file US income taxes and pay them unless you go through the renunciation process. Thus, purely by accident of birth, the US asserts that it has complete control over you as it would any "real" US citizen.
Given the US government's stance, it's only logical that they would be required to afford you all the rights of a citizen as well, including the right to vote. I'm genuinely curious how they would administer this, since voting is all done at the local level, and you don't have a state, county, or city to claim residence in if you've never even entered the country.
Oh, it's the new troll again.
The thing was captured on TV with multiple camera angles. There are dozens of videos out there dissecting every frame of the footage.
Do you think if anybody was able to show that he somehow spoofed getting shot that the left wouldn't have clung to it like a drowning man to a life ring?
Let's not forget the guy that was standing behind him that also got shot and died. Unless you're suggesting that was fake too.
Tell me you know absolutely nothing about guns work without telling me you know nothing whatsoever about guns.
People that don't shoot think that guns work like laser beams, but even with a tuned rifle with match ammo that performs consistently well with that specific gun, I doubt you'll find any shooter who would be willing to bet that they can reliably just clip someone's ear while they're speaking and moving their head at any distance.
The mental contortion the left is willing to do to avoid acknowledging a reality they don't like is pathological.
They now recommend a pre-nup, post-nup, and reaffirmation after a few years have passed. Oh, and if the woman doesn't provide her own attorney, they say the man has to pay for independent counsel for her. And courts still frequently invalidate the fucking things after all that.
You can sign an unbreakable contract with the military at age 17 without any oversight or attorney representing you, but even if you move heaven and earth to keep a prenup valid they'll still throw it out. Absolutely insane bullshit.
But, tell me again about "the patriarchy" and how rough women have it.
coercion
That's the same bullshit reasoning they use to invalidate prenups. "But if I didn't sign it, he wouldn't marry me, so I was coerced!"
Bitch, that's the entire principle behind contracts. Each side offers something the other wants and they reach a mutual agreement. You just want the other party to fulfill their half of the contract and renege on yours.
Imagine if we did this for other contracts: "I really wanted the car, so it was coercion when I agreed to a high interest loan. I should just be able to break the contract, and keep the car". It's laughably insane.
Of course our legal system suspends all logic and reasoning, because wOMeN.
LoL, and that fucking trucker mustache. Comics as a media worth reading ended around 1994. Just let them die.
I wish more people would do this. When you're interrupting the person you're interviewing and arguing with them, you're making yourself part of the story, which is a No-No for journalism regardless of what your political beliefs are.
Pointing at the double standard is valid, but the call should be to get them to shut the fuck up no matter who they're asking questions to. I wish normies would understand the obvious truth that if only one side of the political spectrum is getting this treatment, the reporter isn't neutral.
I think the Democrats don't see the incongruity here, because as long as they tolerate you owning some form of firearm, they don't feel like they're being dishonest in saying they are not going to take your guns.
Basically, they will say they support the Second Amendment when what they mean is they will tolerate you having a shotgun or hunting rifle for strictly non self-defense purposes, provided both the weapon and yourself are strictly limited. Basically their vision is something like england, where you can own it but it has to be kept locked up 99% of the time, and it's basically a toy you take out for a week once a year to go hunting.
It's all bullshit of course. The whole point of the Second amendment is that you can own a gun for self-defense or any other legitimate non-criminal purpose. But I think this is what goes on in their head that allows them the cognitive dissonance to say they're not in favor of banning guns when they openly advertise that they want to ban all the gun models that you are I might want to own.
If she was catholic, why she wearing a Star of David necklace?
Someone else posted a similar "fact check" published by NBC:
Fact check: Trump says Harris ‘wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison’
“Now she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison," Trump said.
This needs context.
CNN recently reported that in her response to an American Civil Liberties Union questionnaire in 2019, Harris said transgender people who rely on the state for care, including federal prisoners and detainees, should have access to gender transition treatment. The Harris campaign did not answer questions from CNN on whether she still supports that position.
Hilarity ensues when they say "this needs context" for what is a factual statement but they said "This is true, though Trump says differently." When Harris 100% took his comment about having a bloodbath in the auto industry out of context to try and say that he was going to start an uprising if he wasn't elected.
No matter how much you hate journalists, you don't hate them enough.
For sure. They've never been about tolerance, despite their claims. They simply have a different set of values and preferences, and they've always been fairly aggressive in punishing those that don't share their values. There's no small amount of cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics on their part.
For example: if Republican says they oppose transgenderism, even if they express sympathy for transgender individuals and the desire to get them treatment for what is (rightly) considered a mental illness, Democrats would call them intolerant, which then justifies getting them fired from their job, ostracizing them, or just generally ruining their life. All in the name of tolerance.
Looks like Republicans are also slightly more empathetic in-group as well, making them just overall more empathetic.
Which is ironic, as the Democrats' whole schtick is that they are the party of inclusion, caring for the poor and marginalized against the big mean Republicans. Not only do they care far less about their opposing number, but they care less about each other.
Exactly.
What a weird flex: "Rioters didn't seize a 'large part' of the city and reduce it to a lawless hellscape out of a Mad Max movie; it was only six blocks" complete with a map of the city to emphasize just how small the area that successfully declared itself completely independent from the jurisdiction of the government was.
Let's all just pretend that the real issue isn't that ANY piece of a major city was able to successfully act as an independent government for longer than the time it took to truck in a bunch of cops and bust their heads open.
Fact check: Did Trump threaten there would be a ‘bloodbath’ if he doesn’t win the 2024 election?
This is true, though Trump says differently.
Fact check: Trump says Harris ‘wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison’
This needs context.
This pretty much tells you all you need to know.
The bloodbath comment was made to a group of Auto workers about the impact of China flooding the US market with cars, but Harris took it out of context in an attempt to make it sound like he was going to launch some sort of revolution if he didn't win office. It's the perfect example of when the moderators should have stepped in and placed the comment in its proper context but didn't.
Harris responded to a 2019 questionnaire and said that she believed people in federal custody should receive 'gender affirming care', to include illegal immigrants being detained or incarcerated. It really isn't any additional context that needs to be added.
Anyone who watches the mainstream media without realizing they have dropped any pretense of unbiased reporting is a fool.
Sanija you say? Now that sounds like a fine Swiss name, evocative of that country's proud heritage.
Oh look, she's Muslim.
Oh to be sure, he shouldn't have agreed to the debate under those rules in the first place, but once you're on the stage walking off is going to look much worse than gutting it out.
I'm of the opinion that he shouldn't have debated Biden a few months ago either, because it pretty obviously was being used as a Democrat screening tool to see if he was fit to run. If he hadn't debated Biden then, they almost certainly would have stuck with him as a candidate and he would have been completely crushed tonight even with softball questions and bogus "fact checks".
There's not much you can do in a "gotcha" situation like they were shooting for. His best hope would have been to immediately snap back pointing out that their clams are demonstrably false and questioning their integrity is journalists.
For example: That tripe about reaching out to the city manager in Ohio and him saying that no one filed a police complaint about their pets being killed should have been immediately smacked down with "I'm not interested in police blotter entries, I'm talking about the videos we've all seen on the internet from actual people with their real pets strong up like a butcher shop. Seeing as how you're a journalist, maybe you might want to ask some follow-up questions tomorrow with that city manager about how he explains those videos.".
It's also pretty telling when the live stream I was watching had posts less than 5 minutes later of police audio where people called in the exact complaints that ABC News said they were told hadn't been made. I get that he's not going to have that information available on the stage, but they took a break so I would hope an aide rushed up with the same information and then he could hammer them immediately upon taking the stage again.
People's opinion of the debate would certainly be colored by strong proof that the moderators were biased against one of the candidates being presented live while it's in progress.
Update to my post last week: The two Sword and 70's books on the list and Fade are now also free.
Bernard Cornwell is an awesome writer. His Sharpe series is just pure adventure fiction catering to males. I haven't read any of his stuff covering earlier time frames, but I bet it's in a similar vein.
It's got to be almost impossible to adapt any of his work "for modern sensibilities" so it's unsurprising this show was a disaster.
Revolutions only start when those in charge make living under the current conditions untenable. Basically life has to be so shitty that you're willing to risk getting killed or going to jail for the rest of your life on the mere chance that things get better.
Sounds like the police in England are working overtime to get everyone to that where they feel that way.
I've only read snippets of the indictment, is the US government alleging that Chen and her husband knew the Russians were providing their funding?
It says that they previously had contracts with RT through a Canadian country (presumably legally), and it talks about a fake person and people pretending to be this fake person's agents and employees that we're providing funding and direction, but are they alleging that chin and her husband knew this person wasn't real and that they were actually being funded by Russia?
The entire online ad industry where they pay per click is fundamentally flawed anyway.
While having bots click the links automates the process, it's essentially no more fraudulent than those mobile games that reward you for clicking on ads or watching videos. Nobody is really paying attention, they're just clicking to get whatever the game is rewarding them.
Ultimately there's no way to measure the "quality" of the click, as in whether or not the person clicking it is even paying attention, and it's also easy to outright fabricate clicks, which I believe Google has been accused of doing in the past.
Jesus, those aren't refugees, they're a pack of feral animals.
"Let's just slap a tan sports bra and gym shorts on and call it a day"
It's not just censorship, it's the laziest low effort censorship possible.
Let's not forget William Randolph Hearst, who hired famous western artist Frederic Remington to illustrate the revolution in Cuba in 1897. When he arrived there he wrote back:
“Everything is quiet. There is no trouble. There will be no war. I wish to return.”
Hearst replied: “Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I’ll furnish the war.”