Alt-Right is popularized by the media, but most have no idea where the term came from or what it means, or that it started as a slur (like "tea-baggers" or "libtard"). Or that there's basically 4 different usages. (1) Non Paleo's - those that failed the establishment right (paleoconservative) litmus tests. (2) Trolls and Blasphemers - those who mock the SJW's/Progressives, by pretending to be what they're accused of (to parody the source that's not in on the joke). (3) The Establishment Alt-Right this is the Spencer faction and what most today think the alt-right is (but very few actually belong to) (4) And the Proxy Alt-Right - which is anyone that's not hostile to everyone else that's to the right Karl Marx. This article explains all that and more.
Republicans are the anti-science party, unless we're talking about 9/11 truthers, Obama birther movement, anti-vaxxers, GMO's, Organic food, Nuclear energy, green energy, economics, minimum wage, "free” anything (healthcare, education, etc), Global Cooling, CO2 (Global Warming), Fluoride, Killer Bees, Bees, fracking, obesity, second hand smoke, DDT, gluten, FDA, bottled water, Alar, salt, fat, polyunsaturated fat, sugar, artificial sweetener, food coloring, diet soda, Electromagnetic Fields (EMF), Bird Flu, SARS, and so on. Twice as many democrats believe in: astrology, UFO’s, Ghosts. 50% more believe in: reincarnation, fortune telling, Bermuda Triangle, spiritual energy, the gender pay gap, the population bomb, peak oil, Ozone hole, gun control, don't believe life begins at conception (or viability), gender feminism, those that claim citizens united conferred corporate personhood (anti-history/facts). And so on.
Do you love the Constitution and Rule of Law, or do you prefer a corrupt political tyranny (where the President has the powers to write/nullify law)? Pick one. If you support DACA then you aren't compassionate, you just picked the latter.
They say Republicans think Democrats are dumb, while Democrats think Republicans are evil. But why? The answer is surprisingly easy. Democrat know they want to help people, so they think anyone who doesn't like their ideas on how to do so must be evil. Republicans know they want to help people -- so when Democrats call them evil (or greedy, racist, etc), and they know better, then they know that Democrats are just stupid. So Republicans know Democrats are dumb, because Democrats think Republicans are evil.
After every election that the democrats lose, a faction starts coming out in force and explaining why we should eliminate the electoral college Which is especially ironic if their selective amnesia didn't interfere with their memories of just weeks before the 2016 loss, they were excitedly talking about how the electoral college could help Hillary prevent President Trump from coming to power, even if he won the popular vote. After they lost, the tone flipped 180° without a picosecond of introspection, or the slightest bit of irony. If you want to understand the full force of that irony, remember Obama lost the popular vote to Hillary in the primary (but he had more delegates), and Hillary lost the popular vote to Bernie Sanders (but she had more delegates): so neither of them would have likely been President if they practiced what they preached. But when some people lose, they want to retroactive change the rules, and get mad when you call them bad sports for doing it. However, if you have any clue about civics, history and human nature, you have an inkling of why the electoral college was created, and why eliminating it, would probably destroy the nation.
Germany is a free society: unless you do something the collective decides you shouldn't. Then you're far less free than in America, or much of the world. The point isn't to bash what is a lovely country, and great people, it's to remind people that Freedom isn't how you treat people you agree with, but how much people you don't like or agree with, are free to do things you don't approve of.
"Gropegate" is a completely overloaded term, since the most popular way to slander a political opponent in recent years, is to accuse them of sexual harassment.. then trounce out one or more Women with claims ranging from "he said something that they felt was to sexually forward", to "he used his position to intimidate me into sleeping with him", all the way to various kinds of rape to slur their integrity. Thus there is no "one" gropegate -- there's Clinton, Schwarzenegger, Trump ("grabbing pussy" comments on tape, or specifically one of the women on a plane that said he did it to her), everyone in Hollywood, the media, and all those that helped them.
Mike Pence went to see the rap-musical about Alexander Hamilton. And was rewarded by the classless audience with boos, and by the less classy cast, with a call-out and civil lecture about how inclusive they all are, and welcome him to be (with bitten tongue snark implying that he/Trump are bigots). The motto seems to be: never miss an opportunity to lower the bar, or whine when this gets reflected back.
The purpose of this aimless article isn’t to convince people of any particular solution, it is to meander through the facts, eviscerate the fallacies, and give everyone the data to come to their own conclusions about Voter fraud and VoterID. There are a lot of fallacies and noise about voter fraud and whether voterID (requiring ID at voting places would fix it). I’ll list just a few of the many examples of voter fraud, and reasons for concerns below -- yet, there's are a lot of DNC fronts (media outlets) that claim there’s virtually none. Why the discrepancy? Well the reason is that voter fraud overwhelmingly benefits the Democrats (DNC). If you were them, would you want it to stop? Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
There are three common classes of illegal voting: non-citizen (Illegals), proxy (voting for someone else, alive or dead, individually or mass ballot stuffing), duplicate voting (more than one state). All can be mitigated with simple voter roll sanitizing -- but Democrats have historically been against that as well as voter ID, and one can easily guess why.
Tomorrow (11/09/2016) will be the day after a work party that turned into a drunken orgy. You try to shower and wash clean the fuzzy memories of what just happened, and have the fortitude and denial required to make eye contact with your coworkers the next day... but you all share each other's guilt and shame.
I have no problems with social experiments. I just want honest accounting of them. San Jose Mayor (Sam Liccardo) got people to sponsor "tiny homes" (garden sheds) for the homeless on public lands, at about about 5x the cost per unit (≈$70K each) as it would cost an individual. Which I find compassionate to the homeless, and cruel to the taxpayers. We know how this will end: crime, disease, and detritus to our community, suppress property values, it will attract more homeless (for the free housing, etc) -- and those things will cause backlash against the Homeless it claims to help. But Sam gets free press, and that's what's important, right?
The knee-jerk anti-voterID response is, “but Voter Suppression”. While voter suppression is real, and infrequently happens on both sides of the aisle -- it's usually done by not having enough polling places in the right areas, not by checking ID. Yet when real voter intimidation comes up by goons in Philadelphia standing outside a polling station with clubs, the Obama admin drops it, because it benefited them. 400M poor people in India can voter with VoterID, and an ID is required to collect unemployment, foodstamps, welfare, medicare, Social Security. But it's "intimidation" to ask to see them at the polling booth.
The anecdote about Bob Dornan and Loretta “Dirty" Sanchez, and how illegal aliens stole an election in my district. Which is why when folks deny that it happens or that it matters, I just shake my head. I saw it first hand.
Net Neutrality is a Mao suit: one-size-fits all, poorly. Imagine the idea of "mail neutrality": you're only allowed to charge one fee for mailing a letter, or a 500 lbs. refrigerator, and distance: one price fits all. We had no net neutrality for the first 60+ years of networking, the Obama admin invents a few "regulations" in 2015 to protect us from imaginary demons under the bed and non-problems that weren't happening, and people act like repeal of that will be end of days? Going back to those libertarian cowboy era of 2015 is unlikely to end freedom on the web, or be anything that anyone notices. And if Comcast/ATT/etc do something that gets on consumers nerves, THEN we can regulate with justification.