GeorgiaDon

If Trump is elected I foresee a pardon and maybe a Medal of Freedom.

It may be harsh, but at this point I think any US citizen (even if they are a dual citizen) who travels to Russia or Iran or North Korea and is taken hostage should be on their own. No way the US should allow itself keep being put on the defensive by such reckless people. It sucks to be unable to visit family, but lots of people get put in that position and deal with it. If someone takes that risk and it blows up in their face they need to own it. There have been plenty of examples of things going sideways, so no-one can claim they didn't know the risks, especially a journalist.

Tommy Tumbleville.

Also it didn't cost 100 million dollars to produce one airplane.

Surely amongst the Republican members of the House there must be some who are sane and reasonable enough to negotiate support from enough Democrats. But, that would require prioritizing legislating over partisan power, so of course it will never happen.

Here's an interesting modern day example: John Urschel played college football at Penn State, then was drafted by the Baltimore Ravens in 2014 and played three seasons before retiring. While at Penn State he earned bachelor's and masters degree in mathematics, then started his PhD at MIT (also in mathematics) while playing for the Ravens. He is currently an assistant professor at MIT. Sports can teach some people to be organized and highly focused. On the other hand I could point to a former college football standout who today lives in a single wide trailer in the college town where I live.

I think they are all emotions, such as like, love, sad, etc. Not "informative", I agree", thank you", and so on. I may be wrong though, I try to stay away from Facebook as much as I can.

D'oh! I stand corrected.

I moderate a different forum (science based) that has buttons for "informative", "I agree", "thank you", and "amusing". Here, in Facebook fashion, we only have "like". My "like" to your post was meant as "informative" and "thank you".

Why did Hillary/Bill/Obama/Biden have her killed? (Just anticipating the Konspiracy Korner).

That reads like a Laurel and Hardy routine. Who's on first?

There's a lot that stinks about this fiasco. No question it's totally inappropriate for India to be carrying out assassinations on Canadian soil, if that is what happened, as seems likely. Nevertheless, it seems more than a little naive to publicly accuse India before the investigation is even complete. Even more so to do it while in the middle of negotiating a free trade agreement with India, which was critical to maintaining ties to Asia after the shitstorm with China. Canada seems to have a "high horse" problem, lecturing other countries about their moral shortcomings, as if they would suddenly change their behavior. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, now India; are there other countries where Canada is now persona non grata? What has that accomplished, other than to isolate Canada? I know there are some situations where Canada didn't have a lot of choice, such as Iran, but even there I would think some diplomacy could have helped, at least after the fact. Regarding China, I think Canada got the short stick for carrying water for the US. I also wonder how it is that some of these people are able to get Canadian citizenship. One would think that after being caught with multiple fraudulent applications, someone would be shown the door.

Canada has suffered a lot thanks to the conflict between Sikh nationalists, some of whom have been outright terrorists, and the Indian government. A friend of mine lost family on Air India flight 182, which was blown up at 31,000 feet over the North Atlantic by Sikh terrorists based in Canada. 329 people died, including 268 Canadians. I wish people would leave their violent conflicts behind and not import them to a country that was so generous as to accept them as immigrants.

I'm actually concerned that Republican-dominated state legislatures will use the legal dodges they passed after the last election to discount votes from Democratic-leaning urban districts, and throw their electoral college votes to Trump even if their state votes for the Democratic candidate. I think that could actually happen in Georgia, for example. Here the legislature gave themselves the power to take over the administration of elections in counties they don't like, based on flimsy pretexts, and even to throw out those votes. Ditching the votes from Fulton County alone, for example, would certainly throw Georgia in Trump's direction. Of course if that happens in enough states to throw the entire election to Trump, would be the end of free elections. How should the majority who didn't support Trump respond to that situation? Also I have been victimized by vandalism to my property, and implied threats from some neighbors, after putting up a Biden/Harris sign in the last election. I had to install security cameras after that. Somehow I don't think things will be any better next time around. It doesn't take "most of the nutters" to do significant damage. It only takes one, for example, to burn my house or barn down. I do not understand the appeal of Trump as a cult leader, but I have heard enough people say things to make it clear that to them voting Democrat makes you worse than Pontius Pilate.

Which is the day before Super Tuesday. Just what Trump deserves for all the shit he has been flinging about judges/prosecutors/juries. If it were anyone else I'd think they would take the hint and stop antagonizing people, but since it's Trump I'd say forget it.

And then what? There is no way he and his "base" would just accept that they lost again. If anything their response will be worse than it was last time.

"Threat", like "risk", includes both the probability of something happening and the consequences, if that something does actually happen. An event that is extremely unlikely, but catastrophic if it does happen, is a threat but maybe not a big one. For example eventually the sun will become a red giant, and the Earth will be incinerated, but the chance of that happening in the next 100 million years is indistinguishable from zero. An event that is likely to occur, or is actually occurring right now (as in the case of climate change), can be more of a threat even if the consequences are less dire than incinerating the planet. The question is, I suppose, how likely do you think it is that a nuclear war will happen?

A woman was visiting El Paso TX and called for an Uber to take her to a casino to meet with her boyfriend. Along the way she saw a road sign for an upcoming exit to Juarez, Mexico. She immediately assumed she was being kidnapped and taken to Mexico, so she pulled out a handgun and shot the driver in the back of the head, killing him. The road they were driving on was, in fact, the correct route between her hotel and the casino, and they were nowhere near the actual border. Oh well, nobody's perfect. Can't have the 2nd amendment without breaking a few eggs after all.

IOW pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Too bad more than 300 years of institutional racism (slavery, Jim Crow, redlining, etc) has left you without bootstraps. Sucks to be you I guess.

I heard an interesting example on NPR yesterday. Imagine two businesses. One has a sign on the door that says "No blacks allowed". The other has a sign that says "Black people welcome". Both signs mention race. Are they both racist? The conservatives on the SC seem to think so.

Lincoln campaigned on a policy that all new states admitted to the union had to be non-slavery states. At the time of Lincoln's election the senate was evenly divided between slave and non-slave states so Congress was unable to pass anti-slavery legislation. However that was certain to change if Lincoln could implement his anti-slavery policy for new states, as several territories were moving towards statehood. For that reason the slave states saw Lincoln's election as a grave threat to the long-term, or even relatively short-term viability of slavery in the US.

Are you aware that the "fetal heartbeat" is not a real heartbeat produced by heart valves opening and closing, such as the sound you hear with a stethoscope? It is an artificial sound generated by the ultrasound machine in response to electrical activity in cells that will only later develop into a functional heart. An actual heartbeat can be heard much later in gestation, around the time limit previously enforced under R v W law. The so-called "fetal heartbeat" is usually detected at around 6 weeks gestation. Many women are not aware they are pregnant at that point. They often notice a missed period, which will be at around 4 weeks, if their periods are regular. If they are irregular they may not be aware their period is overdue until later that that. Under most circumstances women will have a week or two to confirm the pregnancy, make a decision, and if they choose try to arrange an abortion. Many states have laws that require multiple doctor's visits before an appointment can be made. In short, fetal heartbeat bills are a de facto abortion ban. Does having a heartbeat mean life must be preserved at all costs? Is a heartbeat more important than brain activity? If a patient is irreversibly brain dead but still has a heartbeat, must artificial means be used to keep that patient alive indefinitely?

I wonder if his NY properties can be seized if he doesn't pay up?

Yes it is. Where does that get us? How many paranoid people are likely to see medical care for their paranoia? As a ball-park estimate, I would say none. If you are paranoid, are you going to trust a doctor, or anyone, who tells you you have a problem? OK, but maybe family, friends, or coworkers will make the mentally ill person get treatment? In the USA that cannot be done. You can't force anyone to get treatment against their will, unless you are willing to sign an affidavit that the person is an immediate danger to themselves or others. That affidavit requires proof that the subject did or said something that establishes that there is no alternative besides incarceration in a mental hospital to keep them from killing themselves or others. Now they are at the tender mercies of the judicial system, and are certain to suffer lifelong problems with employment, finding housing, etc. because they now have involuntary commitment to a mental facility on their record. Very few people are willing to do that to a family member, close friend, or coworker. I found this out from personal experience when I had an employee who showed all the symptoms of being a paranoid schizophrenic, They were not in any way violent, just the kind of person who took all the batteries out of smoke detectors in their apartment because they were certain they were cameras and microphones. I felt badly for them because their illness was messing up their life, they had no friends or romantic partners because people were scared away as soon as the paranoia came out. But as an employer/friend there was nothing I could do except talk to them, which ruined our relationship. Because paranoia. The mental health issue is real, but a distraction at the same time. No-one is kept from buying guns due to mental illness until they commit a violent crime, by which time you already have victims. The alternative is to force people to undergo diagnosis and treatment against their will. In what way is that to be preferred over background checks, waiting periods, age restrictions (21) before being able to buy military type weapons, or restrictions on magazine capacity? As it is we have the worse of all combinations: anybody (even paranoid, excessively angry, or delusional people) can buy whatever they want in the way of guns, and nobody can force them into treatment until they kill a bunch of people. Yay!!

I think there are a number of ways to be "racist". The most obvious of course is to overtly make and act on negative assumptions about people based on their pigmentation, hair texture, eye folds etc. I'm sure such people still exist, but they are probably diminishing or at least getting better about "passing" as not racist. Another way is to support policies and practices that have an adverse impact on other people in a way that correlates with race. For example, almost all school districts in the US are supported by local school taxes, which depend on local property values. Wealth, including property values, has become a great proxy for race, which I commented on the the parallel thread "What is Anti-Woke". For example redlining confined home ownership for non-whites to neighborhoods with low property values. The practice was outlawed only in 1968, but it continued unofficially for years, and formerly redlined neighborhoods are still to this day marked by disproportionately low property values and high minority ownership. Because school taxes are tied to property values, schools in most areas with high minority (especially black) populations are very limited in their resources, compared to schools in primarily white neighborhoods. Low resources means crappy science labs, larger class sizes, fewer electives, etc. How could this be corrected? Perhaps school taxes could be collected by the state and shared equally across school districts, so each district gets the same amount of money per student? What do you think happens whenever something of the sort is proposed? Richer property owners get up in arms, outraged that their tax dollars would go to kids in other school districts. So, even though they would not say racist things to your face, they strongly support a school system that directs more resources to their own race. Same thing with trying to limit political rights. They don't have to say the racist part out loud, but making it harder for people in large cities to vote compared to rural people gets the job done. At least they don't burn crosses any more.