Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

721 profile views

Lectryk's Achievements

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/us/politics/trump-dominion-voting.html?campaign_id=190&emc=edit_ufn_20210921&instance_id=40945&nl=updates-from-the-newsroom&regi_id=59430290&segment_id=69508&te=1&user_id=6c9389d03dad9fe20eccb0f72439fd4b Trump Campaign Knew Lawyers’ Voting Machine Claims Were Baseless, Memo Shows Days before lawyers allied with Donald Trump gave a news conference promoting election conspiracy theories, his campaign had determined that many of those claims were false, court filings reveal.
  2. They did not allow the law to stand, the denied the request for injunction: "In light of such issues, we cannot say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application" About the law itself, they say: "In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’s law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/21a24_8759.pdf The majority is trying to thread a fine needle, and the way the court handled it wasn't good optics, but hey, that's our politics today. There is a procedural/martinet element to the slapdown (do it right, punks!) and in justices that were more thoughtful and less ideological, I would say they're actually asking for a chance to re-affirm the constitutionality of Roe v Wade through the power of the court, not just trying to buy time by getting a proper challenge to the law in front of them.
  3. Um, you mean they won't carry stories like this one? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/us/politics/sidney-powell-election-sanctions.html?searchResultPosition=1 I'm with grailknight; what are you reading? I can't look at a regular media site without seeing stories critical of Trump or his policies or his business dealings... I mean, One America News (or whatever it is) fellates him at every opportunity, but any credible and wothwhile site tears into him (Fox is neither, and the many net based sites are at best questionable if not out right shills also).
  4. Listing mitigations would take.... more words than we have reams and reams (or website and website) are filled everyday (not counting the historical thinkers) with ideas to mitigate the problems facing us. The issue is finding the few that we could probably implement, that wouldn't be hurtful, and wouldn't in some way make things worse..... the person/group that does *that*, I want running things. It's almost like these people don't read newspapers, or do google/Westlaw searches before proposing their paricular silliness - https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/11/federal-judge-rules-that-california-ban-on-offensive-vanity-license-plates-violates-freedom-of-speech/
  5. You've got two seperate things here - the factual based points you raised (non-funtional, etc), and the feeling/opinion based 'this is what the government should be doing, but isn't' and you use the latter as evidence for the former, which it just isn't. If you want to say the people are basically awful, self centered, churlish, hateful scum that you wouldn't have over to your house for dinner - I'll whole heartedly agree. Is it any surprise that the system of governance that those horrid things have devised is bad for us, and might be killing us slowly? Not at all. But it works the way they want it to, the way they devised it to work, and unfortunately it's the best system (supposedly) they've devised yet. As I said above, I probably agree with the majority of your thoughts about what in general is wrong with the state and shape of the world, and I may agree with several of the causes, so there's probably no reason to continue this particular discussion - we're talking past each other on this point. As to demise, you can put your mind at ease. Humans are the intelligent cockroaches of this world. The species has survived worse environmental conditions than the worst the specialists are predicting for the forseeable future. Fine, we'll lose all coastal habition that currently exists, a band around the equator will become only semi-habitable, the ideal growth band is going to shift north and south from it's current position (our Canadian friends will have a choice to make about the unruly idiots to their south), and the globe will only support 2-3 billion at most (if current technology survives). Our currently existing society and governmental system won't survive the changes that the nation/hemisphere/world is going to face (hell, they've both changed in my lifetime - and my grandparents were born in the 1890's - how much has changed since then?), but unless something stupid happens involving a world wide nuclear exchange, this planet isn't tough enough to wipe us out, only people can do that. It won't be a happy or easy life to survive, but life is evolved to survive. I never saw any loss of temper - if this is you losing your temper, you are a very polite and low key angry person . My tone got out of hand a few times, and I should have stopped sooner, most likely. You have my apologies - no direct insult was intended.
  6. Nothing you sent in your two replies supports your thesis (listed above, again). How is the government not incentivized to responsiveness to the citizens, and how is the government not functional. In answer to the points you raised, my answer would be - things you don't like will change when enough other people who don't like those things act in concert to effect a governmental change in line with their desires. Again, I cite the last election as a prime example of the government being incentived by the people - "don't do what we like, we kick you out and try someone else." There are several names for governmental systems and nations that are not responsive to citizen demands, that don't work on the model of representative incentivation from their citizenry. What are their track records on issues you think important? How is China's record on contribution/mitigation of global warming? Or maintaining civil rights for the population? Our wealth inequality inside their borders? Racial equality/treatment of ethnic minorites? Yes, we face challenges on several points. I think the battle on climate is lost, and mitigation looks iffy; huge chunks of the oceans have already surpassed the 2 Centigrade mark, and oceans are a main driver of climate. We've been seeing more forceful storms, stronger/longer fire seasons, droughts, the heat dome going on right now, etc. These are only the precursors of what we'll see in our lifetimes, ratchets on the roller coaster ride at the start up the hill - each click should be telling us what we're going to face soon. Even if the people of the world committed to a world wide effort tomorrow to not only decrease new inputs of carbon into our closed system but also to scrub out what is in the system currently, we're committed to the upswing of effect - again for our lifetimes. And if the efforts to scrub go too far, our grandchildren will be facing a different cycle (not that it shouldn't be tried, but that is an agrument for not trying that I've already seen in literature). Yes, there is income inequality and it is grossly accelerating in this country and around the world. And, yes, efforts to change this are being blocked by people who are incentivized by their constituents to not change (even Manchin - his state is not exactly blue). But, again, incentivized to take a position. You can even say that certain groups have disproportionate weight in the incentivation process - but that isn't the same as saying incentivation doesn't work. How it works is just engineering and tweaking of the balances (n.b. Citizens United). I will probably agree to some extent with any negative example you want to provide, but the reality is there is no national will to address these issues and there won't be change until there is will to act. Protests, demonstrations, riots, sit-ins, whatever you example you want to cite are not will. Voting and involvement in supporting change is. And we don't see a lot of involvement, really. The Democrats anemic performance this last cycle shows that. But the system as a system (incentivation to provide certain outcomes/functions from a government or else) is working just fine. And saying that it doesn't work is just isn't a supportable or defensible position.
  7. Which part of the pledge do you think obligates you to be a servant of the government? I can't think of a part that does, so I'm asking. Even web searches (does the pledge of allegiance make you a servant to the government) that should have brought some hits, don't come up with anything after going 7 pages deep into 6,800,000 returns. It just got further and further away from the topic.
  8. How is it not incentivized by the people? We just had an election, and changed government. I'd say the former administration didn't do a proper job, and the people made their choice and lack of happiness clear - they fired the group they weren't happy with. If Trump wasn't incentivized by the upcoming election, why did he do everything he did to curry favor with his voters? If our system doesn't incentivize politicans in general, why do they work so hard and boast so much about everything they do for their constituency? Why do they do so many non-explicitly job related activities to get re-elected? Why do administrations try for big wins on initiatives/laws/whatever? Why is there so much pork doled out to states and districts if there's no incentive? The reward (incentive, if you will) for politicans here would be re-election and being able to continue running/leading the government. What do you see as our Federal Government not functioning "properly"? What is your definition of "properly", I guess that's where we should start, because the government I see (at all levels) provide a hell of a lot of regulatory, safety, and legal potections; at the State and Federal level military protections are afforded as well. I have been involved in a few of those things. For not working properly, they certainly seemed to be effective at meeting the goals (and paying my salary) that were set for them by the government in response to citizens demands for service.
  9. How did he explain (if it was asked) that it didn't work historically? That companies would forsake the profit motivation out of the altruistic, public minded civic spirit that they all hold dearest?
  10. There are reasons you see articles talking about the 'objectivist hell' places turn into, when anything close to Randism is practised.
  11. I'm building a character, and part of the concept is certain skills bought as powers. I pick a skill to start with (Lockpicking), and part of the concept is that people won't see the character doing the lock intrusion. I go to Power Modifiers, and Invisible Power Effects isn't listed as a possible Advantage. Looking at the reason why it's unavailable resulted in this - The other skills I checked were the same. Then I looked at 6E1 p124 'Sensing Powers and Special Effects' to verify this, and Skills aren't listed as a type of power that would visible on p126 Obviousness. I thought if I bought it with a Focus Limitation (one of the sections on 126), then IPE would become available - nope, again. I skimmed through p283 Skills as Powers, and didn't see anything explicitly in that section they cause effects. You built the app using the rules logic and what I've found so far indicates there aren't visible effects on skills as powers. Since I first started playing Champions up until now, some version of p124 has existed - powers have a mix of visible effects. I admit my reading might not have been careful enough (it's late for me, and a lot of type was skimmed looking for Visibility wording) - could you tell me what I missed in the rules that excludes skills as powers from this requirement? Thanks.
  12. Trying to amp up the insulation he has from the shock to his paycheck due to the pandemic, is he?
  13. Ah, the clown car that is modern American politics, with a candidate bragging about getting so much money from the Russians (with a B!) and other foreign sources that it will be difficult to launder into into his campaign (and more than he needs - that's how serious these backers are!) - all in the name if keeping Anerica from turning into a 'Communist-Socialist Sh*thole', even if it comes to using former communist-socialist military personnel to perform a hit. I'm leaning towards legitimate, because even the most out there comedians/writers don't think something this batsh*t would actually be believable.
  14. Um, no. Not at all. Treason has a very defined meaning under the law. Expressing an opinion, no matter how misguided you may feel it is, or how much you disagree with, isn't treason. It may be argued to be a lot of things (misstated, misguided, incendiary, etc) but it is nowhere near treason.
  15. Personally, I agree with Pariah's point. To yours though, the story doesn't say if the other accused seen before Judge Cooper have gone home early and it doesn't say what those who were released were actually charged with - they could have been charged with lesser offenses, in the aggregate. If they really did 'worse things' than Barnett, then I can see a plea bargain involving him providing evidence against these people in his future. I'd also want to know Federal guidelines for holding til trial - judges do have leeway. And in this case the word 'normally' used by his defense attorney indicates to me that the hold falls within discretion. It would be harsher language if his attorney felt his client was wrongfully being held. Archer - he was very lucky. It doesn't matter if the outburst is directed at the judge or not - simply being disruptive in a court setting can lead to contempt charges; in this case, that's just a cherry on the top kind of thing, but still...
  • Create New...