BBC already filed a motion to oppose Trump’s filing.

See, it’s shit like this that gives me hope that when the time comes, a good chunk of the enlisted side of the military will not stand with Trump.

Those are the “precision” missiles.

It’s a lie that the the Military Industrial types often tell.

Drones are better for precision, but only because they’re slower and usually under active control.

The House doesn’t have a filibuster. It never has. The Senate has the filibuster.

I always liked Quisling as a term. It means the exact same thing, but is the name of one particular monster who gleefully betrayed his own country to the Nazis, and then ran the country for them.

It’s actually waves of religious extremism. Ebbs and flows. It can be, and has been, fought before. The problem is that it never fully dies out.

I’d like to think that reason can eventually win. If only because the religious extremists keep taking it to, well, extremes. This drives people away from the belief, because why the fuck would you ever believe in the shit the extremists preach?

They tell you that you’re worthless, that you should bow and scrape while they ignore every single tenet of their own religion. Holiness becomes removed from actions and becomes and excuse for terrible behavior.

But then the extremist are forced to back off, or their little sect of greed worship dies out when the grifter claiming to be a preacher dies or gets sent to prison, and the cycle is primed to begin again when a new sect of Christianity pops up to start recruiting in an area, often by first attacking non-Christian education options.

RFK the plague bearer is the reason. Trump implicitly trusts the last person to speak to him about any given topic, as long as one out of every six sentences are naked praise.

Actual experts are unlikely to offer any praise, let alone once every six sentences.

Just drain it and then clean the paint off and sand it down to smooth out the stone again.

Then you can fill the pool with water that has been treated properly.

It’s not hard, it just takes competent people being in charge of it. Not someone’s “pool guy”

I want him to live long enough to completely fuck Republicans in the midterms.

I don’t think Trump likes his kids that much.

He’s also worked fairly hard to not have a successor, because he’s a malignant narcissist who doesn’t care what happens after he’s gone.

Archive.org the original and best.

Winning a battle is easy, winning an occupation is close to impossible.

This is a thing Trump does, he’ll tell person A that he’s not happy with person B, and then he’ll turn around and tell person B that person A is on the outs.

It’s all high school level drama for drama’s sake. From someone who rapes high schoolers.

The claim is that a container ship could be used as a drone carrier.

This claim was used to justify attacks against Iranian shipping companies.

The truth is that it is possible to use a container ship this way, and the US might not see it coming in time to actually do anything about it.

Also important to note that the operator of that site has been editing archived pages, so who the fuck knows if anything still matches the original.

But yes, the malicious hijacking of people’s browser to launch a DDoS attack is worse.

Oh, you want 20th century again? You didn’t like it in my original comment, but back to Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, proven definitively in 1950.

Arrow’s impossibility theorem is a key result in social choice theory showing that no ranked-choice procedure for group decision-making can satisfy the requirements of rational choice.[1] Specifically, American economist Kenneth Arrow showed no such rule can satisfy independence of irrelevant alternatives, the principle that a choice between two alternatives A and B should not depend on the quality of some third, unrelated option, C.[2][3][4]

The result is often cited in discussions of voting rules,[5] where it shows no ranked voting rule can eliminate the spoiler effect.[6][7][8] This result was first shown by the Marquis de Condorcet, whose voting paradox showed the impossibility of logically-consistent majority rule; Arrow’s theorem generalizes Condorcet’s findings to include non-majoritarian rules like collective leadership or consensus decision-making.[1]

Then a bit later, this important part;

Rated voting rules, where voters assign a separate grade to each candidate, are not affected by Arrow’s theorem.[17][18][19] Arrow initially asserted the information provided by these systems was meaningless and therefore could not be used to prevent paradoxes, leading him to overlook them.[20] However, Arrow would later describe this as a mistake,[21][22] admitting rules based on cardinal utilities (such as score and approval voting) are not subject to his theorem.[23][24]

The Spoiler Effect is when a voting system fails independence of irrelevant alternatives. This is what drives two party dominance, after all, if you’re punished for voting third party, third parties become actively harmful. This is why the major support for most third parties comes from their ideological opponents. Jill Stein being super cozy with Russia and Republican donors being the key recent example.

I’m falling for the mathematical truth.

We’ve known that Ordinal voting was bad since the 1780s, The Mathematician, philosopher and Girondian, Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, the Marquis de Condorcet, wrote the seminal work on it; Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Majority Decisions (Essai sur l’application de l’analyse à la probabilité des décisions rendues à la pluralité des voix). Found here in the original French

We haven’t fixed anything, because the voting method itself is broken. In any First Past the Post election, you have the Spoiler Effect, where just a few votes for a third party can guarantee that the person furthest from that candidate on the political spectrum wins. Look at Ross Perot securing Clinton’s win in 1992 and Ralph Nader securing Bush’s win in 2000.

None of that shit is fixed because we’re still using the broken system, a system that wasn’t actually ever really designed as such, it was just the default easiest way to do things and enables minority rule.

It’s a consequence of Ordinal voting methods, particularly First Past the Post.

Arrow’s Impossibility Theorium spells it out. https://electowiki.org/wiki/Arrow’s_impossibility_theorem

The tldr is that any ranked voting system will result in two parties.

This is really because all ranked voting systems are built around the word “Or”.

You support A or B. Which means that A and B have incentive to demonize each other, because every vote for A is one less potential vote for B.

The solution is abandoning Ordinal voting for a Cardinal system.

The simplest method is Approval.

Approval voting is a single-winner electoral system where each voter may select (“approve”) any number of candidates. The winner is the candidate approved by the largest number of voters. It is distinct from plurality voting, in which a voter may choose only one option among several (where the option with the most selections is declared the winner). It is related to score voting in which voters give each option a score on a scale, and the option with the highest total of scores is selected.

Another option is STAR.

www.starvoting.org

It’s been deliberately designed to make for better election results.

While Bill is a rapist, neither he not Hillary are stupid.

Epstein was running an obvious blackmail operation.

The Clintons seem to have met Epstein around the time frame when Bill was being scrutinized for not keeping it in his pants.

They also seem to have actually cut ties with Epstein after his conviction.

Bill did borrow the plane in those years before the conviction. So there are still questions to be answered, but I still don’t think Bill did anything on the plane.

I don’t know about Crockett. She’s taken money from AIPAC.

There’s a reason why the Republicans want her to be the Dem nominee.

She’s been good on some subjects, but there’s that nagging doubt.

If there were no better option then yes, vote for her. But there is a better option.