In all honesty, “limit the state dinner to who the white house can seat” sounds like a perfectly reasonable alternative to tents.
The home of the national manager doesn’t need to be a venue big enough to seat every last member of Congress, the cabinet, the supreme Court, every other statewide elected official, AND a foreign dignitary with their entourage.
If we do need a venue that big, it should either be part of the Capitol or a free standing structure.
Yes, it absolutely gets windy in NYC.
Remember that Manhattan is laid out in a very regular grid. This is equally useful if you are a poetic zepher of wind or a becaped superhero, as these long passages make it really easy to (traffic allowing) rush forward at full speed and little chance of hitting a wall.
Political parties are creations of the electoral and governmental systems in the nations they exist in
“Most European nations” is an imprecise way of saying “dominant parlimentary unicameral legislatures”. To use the UK as an example, all sovereign power is asserted by the lower democratically elected chamber of parliment. Neither the house of lords nor the king counter the assembled majority of parliment,.who from its own members appoint those who direct the government day to day. While there is a sub-national distinction, these are essentially creations of parliment and have no inherent power on their own.
Since the only thing that matters in national UK politics is parliament, all of the political energy is focused there.
In the United States this is not at all the case… national power is split as I described before, and a similar pattern repeats at the state level with distinct difectly-elected legislators and executives. The national government was historically a creation of the states, and each state has substantial ability to act in defiance of congress’s preferences.
Since there are so many different things that matter, the value of a third or fourth party is dramatically reduced. When minor parties start to win elections on their own, the major parties either adapt or die quickly. (I have remarked elsewhere that in American politics “there is no prize for second place”, and a worthwhile collolary here would be “and there are so many games to play.”)
You are technically correct in that if God came down and reworked all of the USA into distinct european-style nations with separate languages we would likely have similar party arrangements, with both the Democrats and the Republicans splitting into multiple parties. But if God also remade Europe into a single USA-style mega-nation made up of states with similar governments who shared a single first-language, European parties would likely congeal until there are only two.
As a practical matter, of course, neither is not a useful observations. And simplified observations of the differences between “Europe” and the USA like “the USA is far to the right of Europe” were part of what led the UK to devolve into a place where you can be threatened to silence for accurately describing a rich transphobe.
Your analysis completely ignores the impact of the US Senate’s wonky “cloture” rule, which is a compromise from the prior practice of the US Senate filibuster.
As depicted in way too many movies, the filibuster let any single senator (or small team or senators) essentially veto any piece of legislation by putting the whole thing to a halt. The modern rule instead (in essence) requires any act.of Congress to clear a 60% vote threshold in the Senate.
There hasn’t been a time in my entire life when the modern democratic party held the presidency, a majority in the house, and 3/5ths of the Senate. (Clinton had a party with segregation-era racists still in power; Obama had “blue dogs” who were nearly Republican, and Biden had a coal baron and a green party scam artist in the Senate )
Because “innocent” and “good” are not synonyms.
Jesus was the word of God. As understood by most denominations, Jesus of Nazareth WAS God born as a man, and Jesus rules in Heaven now. (But it gets confusing after that, and agreement drops off.)
Going just off my memory, Jesus said about five things about money:
He chased for-profit money changers out of the temple, who were in effect stealing from the temple and parishioners by insisting a gift of goods or other currencies had to be converted.
He answered a question about if His followers should give taxes to Rome by pointing that Ceasar’s face was on the coin,.and that they should “render to God what was God’s, and render to Ceasar what was Ceasar’s”
He extolled a poor woman’s gift of a few coins as a greater gift than the numerically larger gift from others,.since it was a larger share of the woman’s wealth.
He marked that one cannot “serve two masters” and could either seek wealth for its own sake or serve heaven, but not both.
When a rich man asked what it would take for said rich man to enter Heaven, Jesus told him “sell everything you have and follow me,” at which the rich guy went away sad.
There may well be others, but at no point in the gospels did Jesus forbid commerce or currency, or suggest that it was somehow improper to pool money together to fund a common house of worship.
Some modern self-described Christians are very money focused, to an extent that I’d argue they’ve abandoned.thr gospels like the rich man in that last bit… But Jesus wasn’t ever explicitly against cash.
Martin Luther was more than 1000 years after the start of Christianity. Heck, he may have been 1000 years from the conversion of Rome.
It was the message for when the phone service was disconnected. While this often happens after the person dies, it could have also meant they were away for an extended time. (Such as "I’m going to stay with my daughter for a few weeks after the birth of my grandchild.)
Absent other explanations, though, death is a probable explanation.for a grandmother’s phone being disconnected.
(Note that “poor with no money” is also possible, since phones cost money.)
Because, unlike oil, humans are a renewable resource.
Like, oil, however, too many of us is unsustainable.
AI will likely be similar to Asimov’s robot series, but just a bit grittier.
Better. That actually supports the assertion that Russia does engage in left-targeted disinformation (in Canada, on Twitter.)
It also supports the original point you dismissed as “wrong” – of the 90 “most influential” accounts, only 9 were subjectively identified as “Canadian far left”.
Maybe you should spend more time reading the actual articles, and not just their headlines?
True enough. But even a tyrannical government at least has a presumable intent of working for the betterment of its country. (Albeit through wrongheaded and small-minded means )
A.foreijgn power, especially a historical adversary and bad actor, is instead presumably working to harm or diminish us.
You presented it as proof that Russia is supporting misinformation on the left. To be that, it has to both include all three parts of the claim – that there is disinformation on the left, that Russia is covertly supporting disinformation, and that some of the disinformation on the left was supported by Russia.
If your wife sleeps around, and I engage in casual sex, it does not necessarily follow that I slept with your wife.
A common suspicion in America is that Vladimir Putin believes that Trump as POTUS is good for Russia, and that Putin interferes with US politics with a specific goal of helping Trump.
If you have some reporting that directly links Russia to left-wing disinformation I’d love to read it. But the BBC article I read after following your link didn’t have any such link.
Your article doesn’t seem to mention Russia once.
Rumors and smears are part of free speech. To the extent that right-wing trolls and their audience are actual voters, it’s essentially just a coarse form of ordinary political speech.
The extent to which a foreign government acting coverly is either creating or artificially boosting such content is scandalous.
Godwin himself pointed out that his law doesnt apply when discussing actual fascists.
By “association rights” I infer that you mean the right of free association.
If so, can you be a little bit more specific as to whose “association rights”, specifically, are a more important issue than the right of trans folk to get healthcare, be free from discrimination, and be able to play sports without being harassed?
My inclination is that the most important targets to defend against facist oppression are the ones being targeted, which does suggest one plausible answer, but I really do want to know what you meant in your post.
Please tell.me that you have better sources in the UK than I, and that their recent transphobic swing didn’t make trans care harder to get and keep.
There is a bunch of normalized transphobia in America. That certain views are shared by elected politicians doesn’t make them not transphobic.
“Trans allies aren’t even bothering to debate this white guy, they’re just calling him names” isn’t proof of anything more than the frustration of said allies. It’s essentially the same thing as “Trump derangement syndrome”.
If we want to argue that someone is or isn’t transphobic, it would be a better use of everyone’s time to focus on what they actually said and what justifications their critics give for applying that label.
If the Pope was in charge health care would be single-payer, abortion would be emergency-only, and both gay marriage and capital punishment would be illegal.
I wish I had the faith in human competency that conspiracy theorists demonstrate, but I think the truth is that humans are far stupider than that.
Most laptops or other portable computers are not repairable. Heck, even desktops these days are highly integrated with often just three chips and maybe a graphics card inserted into a motherboard.
If you really want reduced telemetry, switch to Linux NOW and only use systems that F/OSS folk approve of.
If you don’t need a PC for gaming, consider something like a raspberry pi.