Youtube comments of possumverde (@possumverde).
-
2900
-
1900
-
1800
-
899
-
567
-
399
-
282
-
256
-
178
-
121
-
110
-
105
-
93
-
89
-
73
-
70
-
62
-
55
-
54
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
50
-
50
-
48
-
47
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
42
-
41
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
35
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
31
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
They reached the summit an hour ahead of what they had planned and decided to go looking for waterfalls, though they had been advised not to. (They both had extensive search histories concerning the location of said waterfalls in the week leading up to their disappearance, but assured those who warned them not to look for them that they wouldn't... but they did end up with around two extra hours they weren't expecting to have by reaching the summit early...) The gullies they photographed themselves in were not all along their original path and have since been identified. As has the dirt trail they were on a week later. What most likely happened was that they realized they weren't going to be able ro make it back to the summit (and thus the only path back to town) before it got dark and were going to have to spend the night on the mountain. In that gully area, the only cleared ground suitable for setting up any sort of makeshift camp would be one of the gullies themselves. They made their first attempts to contact help around an hour before dark which makes sense. The temperature was in the mid to upper 50's at night, and they were in shorts and tee shirts, so they would have wanted shelter. The debris formations they took pictures of themselves in front of would have seemed ideal for that. Such gullies are dangerous (especially before the rainy season is fully under way) since blockages can form and hold back water, leading to a very strong surge with debris down the mountain when the blockage gives. It likely rained that night, and they got hit by such a surge with nowhere to go inside the debris tunnel they were in. I've seen such surges, and they would definitely have been injured to some degree and washed along for a bit. Had one or both been carried to where the incline steepened, it would have led to significant injuries and no viable way back up.
They would have had to travel down the gully, which would have taken them to the river. There, they would have had water, but nowhere to really go (especially if one or more were injured) and would likely have decided to wait and hope a boat would go by (highly unlikely), or searchers would find them. You can go quite a while without food, but after about a week, you'd be pretty desperate. The dirt path they were on in their week later photos has since been identified via drone, and when you see it, things start to make sense. It ran along a gully and from the bottom likely looked like it went all the way up. It didn't. About halfway up, it essentially ran into a wall of dense foliage with nowhere to go. That would have been the last of their energy and the point at which at least one was likely to more or less give up. They probably went back down the mountain to their water source to wait for help, one died, and the other was too weak to make it for much longer. The only way back up would have been a gully, and by then, there was likely a good bit of water flowing down, so the survivor would have had no options. Nature took care of things from there.
The concerned looks on their faces in some of the gully photos were likely the result of their realizing they weren't going to get back in time but might as well take the pictures since that's what got them into the mess in the first place. While the night photos were likely just them using the flash as a flashlight. The head photo makes sense if you have an injured half starved person going up an incline with the person behind them taking periodic pictures to see where they were going. A stumble and fall would bring the person behind down as well, and a photo could easily have been snapped in the process. The photos aimed upwards were probably an attempt to signal a drug plane heard but not seen (as they run without lights) which regularly fly over that area at night. (Somewhere down there, there's probably such a pilot who saw those flashes but can't say anything about it because then they would have to explain why they were flying over that area at night with no flight plan registered anywhere.)
The physical evidence all makes sense as remains and items will get washed into the river during the rainy season. Also, the people in the village were not informed of the missing hikers until quite a while afterward and their stories as to where the evidence was found and it's initial condition were different depending on which villager was asked. They had probably already found the stuff, cleaned it, and were using some of it when they found out, and just threw it all back together to turn it in. The phones and camera were damaged and not in working condition with quite a bit of garbled data on them. The investigators were simply able to retrieve some of the data from them. The oddities of missing photos etc. could easily be explained by that. The "famous" missing photo had a registry entry but no trace of the actual image file. That can happen from a glitch. The investigators merely said that the only way it could have manually been removed was via PC, not that it had been removed so. Anyone smart enough to remove the image file would have purged the registry entry as well and attempted to adjust the numbering to completely cover it... or just destroyed the camera (and phones) to make sure there was no evidence to begin with. The foot in the shoe is perfectly natural when it comes to human remains. Shoes slow the decomp process down which leads to the feet eventually falling off. Shoes are somewhat buoyant, so if they end up in the water, they'll travel along. The "sun bleached" bones were most likely not truly or fully sun bleached. A couple of species of the last stage decomp beetles in the area excrete phosphates as they do their work. Such phosphates easily and quickly leech into the bone and turn it very white (they even have a slight glow in the dark for a bit after prolonged exposure to sunlight.)
I think that covers most of the "mystery."
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@suspicious241 Texas v White wouldn't survive modern review (assuming an honest SCOTUS who base their decision on the Constitution and not their own personal/political agendas...which is a pretty big assumption these days sadly.) The Chief Justice at the time had been a fairly high ranking member of Lincoln's administration and a few of the other Justices had ties to it as well. On top of that clear conflict of interest, for a lot of it's "stronger" points, the opinion relied fairly heavily upon the original "Articles of Confederation" which no longer existed in a legal sense rather than what was actually said during the Constitutional Convention which produced it's replacement (letters like those you mention shoule have little to no legal standing either unless their views were brought up and agreed upon during the convention... they weren't.) Comically, even their interpretation of the AoC was/is sus as it was claimed that the term "perpetual union" included within it meant no state could leave when common usage of "perpetual" in legal contracts at the time simply meant there was no built in time limit on the agreement. It would last indefinitely unless one or more parties sought to alter/end it (SCOTUS justices would have been very familiar with that usage as they had made prior rulings where they defined it as such in their opinions.) Had they focused on what was argued during the Constitutional Convention, they would have found that the issue was intentionally left unaddressed because enough states balked at the idea that once in they could never leave to prevent reaching the nine state ratifications needed for the Constiturtion to take effect. It was understood at the time that it's absence meant the 10th amendment would apply leaving it up to the individual state to decide and it was intended that Congress would address it at some later date once the government officially existed. They never did... and still haven't.
As an aside, one of the most obvious "tells" that secession was likely legal came from how the government handled charges against Jefferson Davis and other Confederate leaders. A little known fact (at least in modern times) is that prior to the states leaving, Davis was considered one of the foremost experts of Constitutional law in DC (and not just by his own party.) As a result, his seeing secession as being legal would have given others good reason to believe it was. That was further evidenced by the fact that the government dropped all charges against him and others he represented as soon as his case was on it's way to SCOTUS. It was feared by many that given the opportunity to make his legal arguments on the matter before SCOTUS, they very well might be forced to agree with him. In other words, they purposefully denied him his "day in court." His argument can be found in the book he wrote later however and having read it (the legal argument part anyway...as the rest is a bit too propogandalike for me to stomach), I can see why they didn't want to risk it. It's far stronger than those eventually made in Texas v White.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Abortion is the act of terminating a pregnancy (generally via medical procedure.) Any other meaning assigned to it is simply one's personal belief and thus subjective. As such, those meanings have no place in any legal argument involving the subject. While the issues of paternity and any obligations that may come with it are legitimate, they are a matter for civil law to address, not criminal. The latter being the issue at hand here.
As for whether or not it should be a state issue, that's where it get's a bit tricky. The argument used in Roe v Wade isn't very sound legally (even the late Justice Ginsburg disagreed with it's reasoning...though not that abortion should be illegal at the state or federal level.) However, there are other potential interpretations to be made in favor of it being a protected right under the existing constitution. Some of which at least deserve consideration before defaulting to the 10th amendment. That's where the problem with what SCOTUS is doing here comes into play. By addressing it via the use of the "shadow docket" as opposed to hearing new arguments, they are essentially overturning a previous ruling concerning constitutional rights arbitrarily. That is not how SCOTUS was intended to operate. The "shadow docket" is really only meant for use in time sensitive matters like emergency injunctions etc. There is no reason to consider the issue of abortion rights as being an immediate emergency. Roe v Wade has been around for ~50 years now. If a new interpretation were so important that it has to be made immediately, then it should/would have long since been addressed.
That said, much of the blame should fall on pro-choice members of Congress over the last ~50 years for not taking action to cement abortion rights directly into the constitution. For some reason such members along with a great deal of their constituents, apparently seem to think that it's SCOTUS who "cements" laws. It's not. SCOTUS merely interprets existing law in terms of it's constitutionality. Congress is responsible for writing them. By not addressing things directly via legislature, they leave SCOTUS very little to work with. The less they have to work with, the more fragile and arbitrary their interpretations will be. Give them more direct in depth laws to work with and their rulings become much stronger and thus more binding.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Robert Schultz
Depending on how many cases of covid 19 the US ends up with, the number of deaths could potentially get pretty high.
During the 2018-2019 season, ~16,500,000 people sought treatment for the flu in the US (~5% of the population) and ~34,000 died from it (~0.01% of the population) for a mortality rate of ~0.2%. At a mortality rate of ~4.25% (13,600/320,000), covid 19 would only need to infect ~800,000 people (~0.24% of the population) to match those deaths. Were the number of US covid 19 cases to match those of the flu, a 4.25% mortality rate would lead to ~700,000 US deaths (~0.2% of the population.)
It's highly unlikely that there will be anywhere near that number of US cases and the mortality rate will likely end up being much lower. As such, there is definitely a good bit of fearmongering going on. However, a healthy dose of concern is warranted if we want to minimize the overall threat.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Uller1967 At the time (and to this day) there was/is nothing in the Constitution that addresses secession / states leaving in any way. It was left out because it was one of the few issues they couldn't get enough delegates to agree on originally. Over the 80+ years between the creation of the country and the civil war, every state threatened to secede over something at least once. Not once did anyone argue that it wasn't legal. It was assumed that, since there were no powers concerning the issue delegated to the federal government in the Constitution, the 10th amendment put the issue in the hands of the state governments.
Also, though not often mentioned, before secession, Jefferson Davis was considered to be one of the foremost Constitutional law experts in Congress. If he didn't think secession was illegal, there's a strong chance that it wasn't. That is bolstered by the fact that once his treason case was about to go to SCOTUS, the federal government dropped all charges against him and other ex-Confederates out of concern that when Davis made his arguments, SCOTUS might be forced to agree with him. All in all, the argument that it was legal is much stronger than that claiming it wasn't.
Currently, the only precedent concerning it is the later SCOTUS decision in Texas vs White which (indirectly) saw it as not being legal. However, the argument given there would not survive modern judicial review. The fact that the Chief Justice at the time had been the Secretary of the Treasury under Lincoln's administration and at least two of the other justices had ties to said administration as well (and all justices were from northern states) doesn't exactly help it's legitimacy either.
As for the Forts being federal property...A great deal of British property was seized and held with no recompense during and following the Revolutionary War because it was located in USA territory. That alone makes the "Union property" argument seem a bit...weak. However, if that really was a problem, Lincoln's administration and Congress could have simply offered to sell them to the states they were located in. Many, including Fort Sumter, were never actually completed prior to the war due to lack of funding. The Union dumping them off for whatever they could get would have gotten them off the books and lessened the tension which would have been mutually benefitial.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Arbadee.PayZaLee When it comes to ranches and farms, indoor "pets" aren't all that common (not until recently perhaps). Such pets are going to be expected to pull their own weight to some degree. For example, cats will likely be barn cats/mousers, dogs will be livestock defenders or herders etc. Any that become a problem rather than a benefit (raiding chicken coops for example) are likely not going to be kept around long. Also, a dog can be a biter but not bite certain people. If it goes after workers, livestock, etc. it will likely get put down. I'm not saying I like the practice, but I did somewhat grow up on a farm (grandparents had one), and farmers/ranchers are a pragmatic lot who tend to take care of such business on their own. Depending on how rural an area is, there may not be shelters available and if someone is trying to get rid of an animal, that usually means there's a problem with it and thus no one will be interested in taking it. Noem already has enough issues for me to dislike her, condemning her for something that isn't that uncommon of a practice just seems a bit pointless and possibly hypocritical to me.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@scottbrady7499 If you have proof that he was getting some sort of kickback, then present it. Otherwise, you're just parroting the delusions of our President (whose mental status is at best questionable.)
When you actually look into it, you'll find that Hunter's salary, while appearing odd, was completely legit. The monetary aid from the US did indeed go to " energy related companies" in the Ukraine. The company Hunter worked for however was one of the few that were already operating in the black and as such recieved little if any of that aid. They requested none. Hunter was indeed hired because of who his father was. However, that was the point. They wanted someone on the board that would raise their image. In other words, he was the equivalent of a paid spokesperson. He had few duties (though he did assist in some deals) and was mostly there for his name. American companies do that all the time and usually pay such spokespeople a good deal more than Hunter was making. The company's records have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and no incriminating evidence has been found concerning Biden.
If being paid to use your name is a crime, then we need to lock Trump up and throw away the key. That's been his primary source of income for well over a decade or so.
Edit: Just to make it clear, I'm not a fan of the Bidens. I am however, a fan of fair play and find this bs about Hunter to be petty and vindictive. The Dems at least had evidence when they went after Trump.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Article 2, sec 1, clauses 2 & 3 only deal with various aspects of the electoral college process. Clause 4 is the only one of the bunch that addresses the setting of a specific day for something. Even then, it still only applies to aspects of the electoral college procedure and clearly gives the US Congress the power to set a uniform date for all states. See below.
. Article 2, sec 1, clause 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Article 2, sec 1, clause 3
The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
Article 2, sec 1, clause 4
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Also, Pretty much all states have changed their electior laws without direct action by their legislatures at some point. Texas seems to enjoy doing so on a fairly regular basis (ironic considering the suit they filed.)
As for Pennsylvania, due to how vague their state constitution is worded concerning election procedure, it can be argued that not attempting to throw out the changes made was essentially the legislature giving approval of them. Beyond that, the "police powers" given the states by the 10th amendment when it comes to emergency health/safety etc. laws could be used to justify the changes in question.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It was definitely a flustercluck however, I would suggest that all (especially the media) do some deep investigation into all factors involved (school floor plans, district protocol, etc.) before laying it all on the chief.
For example, It was district policy for all classrooms to have their doors shut and locked while class was in session. At least one of the two classroom doors was open. At the point where the gunman started shooting outside, he was over twice the distance and two doors away from the classroom door than the teachers were and was not running. Still the teachers were incapable of getting there first to shut and lock it. According to interviews with survivors, nearly all of the shooting and all but a couple of the deaths occurred within minutes of him entering the room and well before the main body of the police had even had time to arrive (one death came later when a hidden kid's phone rang and got the gunman's attention. While another came shortly before border patrol went in when they asked if anyone needed help to yell "help me." One of the hidden children did which got the attention of the shooter and well...)
The two officer's who responded first did attempt to reach the gunman but (looking at the floorplan) had no chance with pistols and essentially no armor due to the defensive position of the shooter and the lack of cover between them and the shooter. Both sustained multiple grazes trying and ultimately fell back and called for back up from the Uvalde PD as protocol required.
Here's where things get messed up. From what I can find, the school district PD does not have it's own 911 dispatch and shares one with the Uvalde PD. So the childrens calls were going there not being dispatched directly to the chief. It doesn't appear that the calls for help from inside were being passed on to him. It's not mentioned in the news much but there was a ~40 to ~50 minute long lull in gunfire that started around the time the chief arrived on the scene. With that in mind and the fact that he wasn't being informed about the calls from the children inside, his thinking that they were just dealing with a barricaded shooter with no children in immediate danger makes a lot more sense. Also, looking at the floorplan, for the officers in the nearby hallway to go in, it would have meant a situation where quite a few would most likely be wounded/killed if the shooter were waiting on them to come and no guarantee that they could even get in as he would only have needed to shut the door to prevent it. Given that and the belief that no children were in danger, it completely makes sense that he would not want to try a frontal assault until shields were available.
Those in charge of the school district itself share a bit of blame as well. From what I've found, the safety protocol only required that the high school and middle school have dedicated officers stationed. The elementary school was not specifically mentioned (which explains why no officer was there when it began.) It also appears that they spent the bulk of their security funds on the high school and middle school with the elementary school again being left the scraps. Also, the idea of creating their own small undermanned and underequipped PD rather than just simply letting the Uvalde PD handle their area as well just seems unnecessarily complicated and was likely a primary factor in the confusion etc. that day.
In the end, trying to lay the blame solely on the police just doesn't seem fair. This was more a matter of many mistakes from many sources combining to form one giant overall mistake. Basically, everybody dropped the ball.
As an aside. Looking at the layout of the building, any parents that went in whose kids were in that classroom would most certainly have come out in body bags had the shooter been waiting on an assault. So, the police keeping them back was the wise move.
Edit. I forgot to point out just how undermanned and underequipped the school district's PD was. It consists entirely of a chief, four (possibly five) officers, and a detective. They have three schools and the district in general to deal with and do not have armor that could stop high velocity rifle rounds nor are they armed for a shootout against such.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@chriswampler1 Dude, 30,000 people left the city long before the immigrants started coming in. That's why there were so many blighted properties. Hardly anyone is moving to Ohio (away is more common). The immigrants aren't displacing anyone. They're replacing those who left and aren't coming back. Since the immigration, companies have moved in as well as businesses opening/expanding. With the added workforce and consumer base, places can now field 2 or 3 shifts of workers, both American and immigrant. Without the immigrants, they wouldn't be able to stay in business, and Americans would lose their jobs. The only problem their experiencing is growing pains. They'd been lower population for long enough to let their schools, hospitals, road repair, etc. downsize. Once they leverage the economic growth into expansion of those resources, things will be fine.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The whole problem with sec 3 of the 14th amendment is that it doesn't indicate how it's supposed to be handled at all (something that is definitely Congress' job to fix.) For example, it became law many decades before there was even a federal statute addressing insurrection and rebellion. As a consequence one can argue that it's specific use of those two terms was meant to be a judgement call rather than require a conviction first (as there wasn't originally any statute to convict someone under related to those terms.) That pretty much flies in the face of the historical legal tradition of "innocent until proven guilty" but as written, the argument would be sound.
Since it's Congress' job to fix the problem, it makes sense that SCOTUS would pawn the responsibility for doing so off on them. One could argue that since SCOTUS is supposed to handle the interpretation of federal laws, then they should handle the issue. However, the law is so vague that any such interpretation on their part would essentially be the same as legislating from the bench. Granted SCOTUS has had a bad habit of doing such legislating over the last few decades or so (especially with 2nd amendment cases), so it is odd that they would suddenly decide to actually do their job properly for a change, but it is what it is.
In this particular case, the ruling is correct. The 14th amendment only applies to federal candidates. States are pretty much free to do whatever their state constitution allows when it comes to state/local elections. Interestingly, had Colorado had something similar to sec 3 of the 14th amendment in their own state constitution, then they may have actually been able to keep Trump off their ballot since the problem boiled down to their attempt to interpret and apply federal law at the state level. Something that is obviously not their jurisdiction. The people who filed that suit were well aware of that and chose the wrong jurisdiction on purpose because they knew it wouldn't fly in it's proper venue (federal court rather than state.) What's sad is that 5 of the 9 justices on the Colorado Supreme Court chose to rule based on their own political agenda rather than the law. Something that should cost them their seats...but won't.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Sadly, they may have a bit of a case. Minus the obligatory intro stuff, you spent at least ~50% of the video addressing products from other companies (including bad reviews of their products without making a good effort to remind the viewer that they weren't Lomi reviews), went very light on the scientific arguments, especially in context (actual comparison to landfills when it comes to carbon footprint for example, would have been nice), and seem to have done a bit of cherry picking when actually addressing the Lomi itself (for example, you left out the third setting of the product which is the setting they claim can actually be used as compost for plants instead of just being tossed out like usual.)
For a video meant to bust Lomi, you should have left the other companies out of it entirely, looked up Lomi's full claimed tech specs, and addressed them with direct scientific arguments and proper context (such as the aforementioned comparison with landfills etc.), While the product does appear to be hot garbage/a scam, the video came across more like an unfocused hit peice than a sound refutation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@marthastewwart There are plenty of investigators, lawyers, etc. out there who see the same problems with how this investigation has been handled and the "evidence" against this oddball. It's not just me. Most who look at it closely feel the same as I do about it.
Out of curiosity, do you really buy the "surviving witness's" story? What seems more likely... That someone would encounter a masked intruder in their home, who just killed four people like it was nothing, freeze up in panic, and live to tell the tale while remembering details like "bushy eyebrows" yet not calling the police or checking on their housemates for seven + hours... or they came home earlier that night, went to bed, didn't see or hear a thing, woke up near noon, found their housemates brutally murdered, felt guilty about sleeping through it and not being there for them, and decided to go along with whatever story those investigating the murders told them would put the killer out of action? Survivor's guilt is a powerful thing.
I never wanted to believe such frame ups could ever be a thing (or at least be successful) but the more I look at the way this has been handled, the less sense it makes... unless it really is complete bs... Combine that with so many people immediately assuming the guy is guilty without doing a little research into on their own and actually questioning all of the oddities in how it's been handled and it just isn't right. People want this guy to be guilty so they can sleep a little better at night and have a target for their anger and disgust over the loss of four innocent lives and they are willing to ignore a ridiculous amount of things that don't add up to achieve such peace of mind. Seriously, if this were an episode of some tv crime drama, few would be able to suspend their disbelief enough to enjoy it. Yet, in real life, it's perfectly fine for so many... thst's a bit concerning.
2
-
Any who do a deep dive into investigating this will find that it was an honest mistake on the chief's part due to many factors. They will also find that almost all of the gunfire and deaths occurred within a couple of minutes of the shooter entering the class room. Well before the main body of the officers and the chief had even had time to get to the scene.
It isn't mentioned much, but there was a ~40 to ~50 minute lull in the gunfire that began around the time the chief arrived. Combine that with his not getting the 911 information about the childrens calls and no one telling him otherwise, his assumption that it was just a shooter holed up in a room alone, waiting to be taken out was sound. Also, when you look at the interior layout of the buildings involved, it's apparent that if the officers waiting in the nearby hallway were to assualt the shooter's room and he be ready for it, they would have taken heavy casualties before reaching the door and all the shooter would have needed to do then would be shut the door and lock it. With the erroneous assumption that he was alone in the room and the accurate recognition of the vulnerability of the officers were they sent in, choosing to wait until shields etc. were available would be the logical choice.
Sadly, the person truly responsible for this tragedy (other than the shooter obviously) was Irma Garcia (and possibly the other slain teacher as well.) The school district protocol requires that all classroom doors be shut and locked while class is in session. The door to Garcia's half of the joined rooms was open (the only one in the school unless the other slain teacher's door was also open...which is unknown currently) At the point that the gunman started shooting outside, he was over twice as far away from the classroom door than Garcia could have been were she at the farthest part of the room from the door and he also had two doors to get through as well. He wasn't even running and yet, she failed to reach the open classroom door to lock it before he got there. If she had followed protocol to begin with or had quickly reacted to the outside gunfire, there would likely have been few if any serious casualities. The classroom doors were sturdy enough to prevent the breach team from getting in without a key, the gunman would have fared no better and been forced to move on.
There's a great deal more of blame to go around to pretty much everybody involved including the district leaders as well. Generally though, everyone dropped the ball in their own way on this. That said, the fatal mistake was that classroom door being open. If that weren't the case the subsequent mistakes from everyone else would most likely never have been.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
*****
It can be hard to spot that which has become commonplace...It's been nearly 20 years since I went, and after recently considering going back for a degree in a different field and looking into the current state of things, I was highly disappointed in what I found...even my Alma mater has fallen victim to the cry baby generation and seems to care more about "safe places" and providing easy throw away degrees in an attempt to bring in more students...many of whom have no business being there...and it sickens me that they don't even bother to tell these kids that certain degrees (of which they are so proud of offering) might...at best...qualify them for a job at Starbucks...and for damn sure will barely, if ever, pay for themselves...
Still, it's not so much that one can no longer receive a somewhat useful education in certain fields, it's that what they learn will likely not be worth the cost...and if that wasn't enough of a discouragement, there's the general...well...patheticness of the current generation (as well as those of the near future at least) of students which will continue to make future employers wary of hiring new graduates (especially depending on their field of "study")...I can avoid the latter were I to go back thanks to my age and experience...but the rest has given me doubts as to whether or not I (or any sane adults for that matter) could put up with the growing number of special snowflakes, their ridiculously idiotic political correctness and their overall war on free speech and the freedom to associate with whom one wishes without persecution* long enough to get out with my sanity much less a new degree...
*Harvard's recent decision to persecute and discriminate against students who happen to be members of social clubs which aren't affiliated with the school and aren't located on campus...and more importantly, the general lack of outcry against it from college students nationwide and the sadly large number who actually seem to support it...has all but put the final nail in the coffin of higher education in the US...and pretty much broke my heart...I've never cared much for the Ivy League, but for whatever reason Harvard is seen as a beacon of higher education in this country and for them to set a precedent for something so ignorant and anti-American (and likely found to be illegal if challenged) is just...sad...and worse...since the school is somewhat of a role model to the others, it will end up being repeated at schools across the country in one form or another...and all while the "students" cheer...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The invasion is a criminal act and the aggressor should get nothing...other than a bill for the damage done and reparations for the families of the dead.
Putin has no real leverage here. His list of significant "allies" grows thin. China (being one of the few that matter) is not happy with him over this so if any "help" were to come from them, it would likely come in the form of helping themselves to the areas in eastern Russia they've been eyeing for decades. From their view, Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan have an important difference. Ukraine is an internationally recognized sovereign nation (which China themselves recognize.) Taiwan isn't. Invading a sovereign nation requires strong justification while reclaiming what they see as a part of their country currently in rebellion requires none. As such, Putin's weakly backed and often silly arguments in favor of his invasion are not enough in their eyes to justify his unnecessarily stirring up of such an international hornet's nest and they want no part of it.
Another weakness of Putin's position is his army's poor performance against an opponent they should have steamrolled in a week or so on paper. The international community (including China) are not impressed. In it's sorry state, it poses no real threat should Putin try to escalate this into a full blown conventional war and can be ignored as a bargaining chip.
That leaves nukes. Not a concern. Neither the Russian military nor the people will allow Putin to do something so stupid over what is essentially a failed attempt to intimidate/bluff NATO/the west into allowing him to swipe some territory. Were NATO, a combination of other countries friendly to Ukraine, or just the US alone to send in troops and air power to assist the defense, the Russian army would be pushed out far quicker than they pushed in with few losses for the defenders. At that point, without nukes, it would be over and his military would know it. They would also know that any attempt to use nukes in response being the initial aggressor would be insane. All of their relevant "allies" would immediately wash their hands of them (some possibly even turning on them) and it would ultimately be the end of the Russian people. As poor/lazy as the Russian commanders seem to be when it comes to combat tactics etc. they're not entirely stupid or suicidal. If Putin tried to launch out of spite and with nothing to be gained from it, they'd end his rule on the spot. If not them, then the Russian people. He can't hide the truth from them for much longer even with his control of state media and when they finally realize what's actually going on, they'll end him before he ends them.
The best approach would be for Ukraine to simply refuse any negotiations until every Russian soldier is out of their territory (including the two bullsh*t "republics" formed by Russian backed terrorist cells...er..."armed separatists"... in the Donbas region.) NATO/Ukraine friendly nations (if they haven't already) should expel all Russian diplomats from their countries, freeze any Russian assets they can, and cease all trade with Russia. Those capable should begin orginizing air drops of supplies for any besieged cities, mobilize and (with approval of the Ukraine government) send troops and air power to aid in the defense. Putin has no hand and has been bluffing the whole time. Calling/folding would be foolish. Raise the pot and he'll fold...or get folded by his own people. If the world keeps folding to his bluffs like we have been for many years, his position will only become stronger. Eventually, he won't need to bluff anymore and it will take an all out war to dislodge him. This is the perfect opportunity to clean him out. If we let it go, we really will be risking a world war in the near future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really wish Prof Susskind would take a closer look at simulation theories and apply his own unique twist to the concept. It doesn't necessarily require existence to be the result of a computer. If you boil it all down, it can actually work with the holographic principle. With or without a computer, the universe has to be "rendered" somehow. Fields can simply be seen as layers in a rendering process and perhaps the method does indeed use an encoding that involves a 2D representation of 3D information. I think the reason many physicists don't like simulation theories is because, in the end, quantum mechanics ends up being best explained as an "artifact" created by an incomplete rendering process. Consider, if you existed entirely within a rendering which cut corners by truncating/approximating calculations below a certain scale, what would that look like if you attempted to reverse engineer the rendering process? The tiny scale where corners are cut, would appear to behave statistically. Heck, it would explain the double slit at least as well if not better than anything else does. Information for particles is held as wavefunctions rather than constantly being calculated for each particle (to reduce workload/energy consumption.) In a double slit, detecting which slit a particle came through would force a calculation which would collapse the wavefunction and then generate a new one once said calculation has been performed. Since the newly generated wavefunction was created after passing through the slits, there would be no interference pattern. If no calculations are needed until the particle hits a detector, then you get interference as the result of a "bug" or limitation in the code handling the process. Whether or not it's actually done on a computer or simply by the "rendering" process of the universe itself doesn't really matter. You can still reverse engineer it and perhaps find bugs and glitches like say...ER bridges to potentially exploit to your benefit. Just a thought.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@moiseshuerta3984 Do some research and don't just believe what bs you hear on social media (and especially don't believe anything coming from Comrade Putin's state run media or state funded "independent journalists" like Patrick Lancaster.) Azov Battallion has always had various amounts of Jewish members, were funded by a Jewish billionaire before being folded into the Ukrainian military, and now serve a Jewish President. Odd for a bunch of nazis.
I'm sure there are quite a few that have swastika tatoos and some who are even practicing nazis (especially prior to becoming legit military when many of the more ideologically extreme members left to pursue such ideologies.) Such is common all throughout Europe these days sadly, but if that were the prevalent ideology, one wouldn't expect the Jewish ties. Their main issue is their extreme nationalism, but nationalism on it's own doesn't necessarily mean race (along with the Jewish members, there are quite a few other ethnicities represented as well including Russian speaking Ukrainians) and isn't intrinsically bad (though like anything, can be if taken too far.)
Also, there's a regiment in the Indian army who have nazi symbols on their uniforms but aren't considered nazis. Both stem from WWII where units comprised of both ethnic groups joined up with the Germans because they happened to be fighting the foreigners who had conquered them. The enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that... While very much cringeworthy to most, The Ukraine regiment who wear the totenkopf was formed in honor of a Ukrainian unit who fought the Bolsheviks when they invaded ~1919 and had a "death's head" on their battle flag as well as the SS 3rd panzer division who used their own version of the "death's head" and fought alongside an all ethnic Ukrainian volunteer SS regiment who formed to fight the USSR (the conquerer of Ukraine.)
If you really want to go there, look into the nazi movement in Russia that Putin has done nothing about because they like to prey on peace protesters and homosexuals (and thus currently serve his purpose.) There are also many possible nazi members in the separatist militias working with Russia. A couple of weeks ago, Russia awarded a military commendation to one of their leaders who had multiple nazi related symbols on his uniform when receiving it in person from a high level Russian representative. Said Russian didn't seem to have a problem with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mrreciprocat Look at the bureaucratic nightmare that our half-assed attempts at socialist programs (welfare etc.) have already created. Now imagine if we go all in...With our population, the bureaucracy needed to administer such programs would essentially require us all to work for some aspect of it (assuming we want such programs to even remotely function.) Personally, I don't see a purpose to living in such a system. It would just be communism with a more acceptable name but the same bleak future.
As far as health care goes, there's a reason why so many people from countries with socialized health care systems come to the US and pay out of pocket for important surgeries/treatments. The waiting lists in their own countries are ridiculous and the quality of care is mediocre at best due to the lack of incentive that comes from capped pay for their medical professionals, limitations on what equipment they can afford, etc.. Also, without people in non socialized health care countries like the US paying the R&D costs for new meds etc. Those countries with socialized health care would not have access to them due to caps on how much their governments will pay for such things. Someone has to pay the difference. If we go with socialized health care, who will that someone be? No one. R&D is expensive and if no one pays for it, it will simply cease to occur (or slow to a snail's pace at best.)
Similar issues arise when it comes to science, technology, manufacturing, etc. Socialist programs become increasingly inefficient with population increase and thus require that more and more resources be allotted to them just to maintain mediocre results. Resources that could otherwise be used to further the growth of tech/manufacturing etc. Essentially, such systems stagnate as the workforce spends all it's efforts just trying to maintain the bureaucracy.
Currently, ~40% of yearly published scientific papers come from the US/are co-authored by US scientists and are often funded by private business (often by the much maligned corporations.) That will not be maintainable if we transition to a socialist system. The resources to fund such things will have to go to inefficient socialst programs instead.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It makes sense. It all boils down to Trump's decision to actively discourage mail in voting. That was a fatal tactical blunder.
For starters, Trump failed to pick up a decent chunk of votes from right leaning people who would have voted for him by mail but weren't interested enough to do so in person. They heard their candidate saying that their mail in votes wouldn't get counted, the Dems would toss them out, etc., said "oh well", and didn't give it another thought. Biden however, picked up the votes from their left leaning counterparts and likely some of the moderates as well. With the final margins as close as they were, those missed votes would probably have given Trump enough for a win.
The anti-mail in vote approach also explains the odd behavior of the vote counts as well. It caused the vast majority of Trump's total votes to come from in person voting (~80% in Pennsylvania for example.) Biden's votes however were more evenly split between mail in and in person (roughly 50/50 in Pennsylvania, leaning a bit toward the mail in in other swing states.) Due to that polarization, Trump appeared to have strong leads in the final swing states at the end of the in person vote. However, in the states that couldn't do early counting of mail ins, the in person got tallied first then the mail ins were counted. Biden had far more mail ins than Trump so once that count started, Trump's percentages could only fall and Biden's only rise.
The reason it seemed like Biden's numbers spiked was simply due to the fact that mail in votes were handled in large chunks and the data reported only once or twice a day. The in person vote was consistently updated in smaller amounts over the course of election day giving it a gradual climb. If you take the bulk mail in data, split it up into smaller bits, and add it gradually over the period of time it took to count it, you'd see a slightly steeper but steady climb for Biden's results as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well, last year, Trump leaked what was supposed to be classified information on a press conference concerning a leader of ISIS we had assassinated. Information that revealed military tactics and assets within the organization. In doing so, he likely set back our intelligence operations within that group by years. Then, there's his decision to abandon the Kurds working with us in Syria. That will weaken our military's ability to find groups willing to trust us enough to work with us in the future. The particular way he went about the assassination of that Iranian general didn't do wonders for our military's reputation either. Now, he's getting ready to throw our military and intelligence operations in Europe and to some extent the middle east into unnecessary chaos for at least a couple of years with the withdrawal from Germany. Once, that goes into effect, it will be the perfect time for certain countries to mess with us. Putin for example could use it to go ahead and take the rest of the Ukraine if he wanted. Also, enemies in the middle east would be in a good position to act against us or our allies as well. Personally, I consider a pattern of behavior which underminds our military's ability to do it's job well to be sabotage whether it is intentional or just the result of stupidity.
Also, the thing with the ISIS leader was not the only time he's committed such an error. He's given information concerning the location of nuclear subs to a "friendly" government. Something no other President has been dumb enough to do. He has compromised assets we had in Russia and elsewhere with his inability to keep his mouth shut as well. The longer he's in office, the more damage he's going to cause.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Last I checked, Donald Trump was elected President, not Pope. It's the latter who supposedly becomes infallible upon election. The former is simply an employee of the American people, can be held fully accountable for their actions, and if such actions warrant it, they can, in effect, be fired.
People (especially Republicans) should be disturbed by Sen. McConnell's blatant contempt for his responsibilities under the Constitution. Regardless of his personal views on the matter, his duty is to conduct an impartial trial in good faith and vote his conscience once all the evidence and testimony have been delivered. The fact that he's been making the rounds on right wing media announcing a verdict before the trial and actively assisting the defendant should disgust anyone who has any love for this country. Especially his constituents. Since he's apparently unable or unwilling to do the job he was hired to do, one would hope that those who hired him will exercise their right to hire someone more dedicated to the responsibilities of the position next time around. Impeachment aside, the man can't even be bothered to perform the basic duties of his position. There's an ever growing stack of legislation passed by the House just gathering dust in his office while he's out there mugging for the cameras ffs...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One thing that should be noted is that mild cases of myocarditis are very common. Most people will have such cases multiple times throughout their life and never know it. Even if they notice symptoms, they're often blamed on fatigue, heartburn, etc., aren't a nuisance, and therefore medical attention is never considered or sought. As a result, the expected number of cases is a pretty much useless metric (especially for comparison concerning the vaccine side effects) because, due to all the paranoia attached to the vaccines, people are actively looking for side effects and doctors are testing for things like myocarditis without symptoms being present. Things they would not have previously done.
It just so happens that the vast majority of the myocarditis cases supposedly tied to vaccines are of a severity that would have been missed/ignored prior to covid and have been found from testing with no symptoms present. Throw that in with the time period after vaccination that they're counting and it's likely that the number of cases isn't much if any higher than it would have been prior to covid had people been as hyperaware and such testing been done.
Data is at best meaningless/at worst deceptive when not considered in the proper context and few, if any, are considering the psychological/unique conditions (like testing for things without symptoms for example) involved in all of this vaccine hoopla before deciding that it must all be related.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@BladeJones The numbers didn't just go down, they took a nose dive. They were climbing rapidly during the first week of November (before the lockdown had been in place long enough for it's effect to show.) They then fell steeply over the remaining three weeks. On top of that, once the lockdown was over, the numbers began and maintained a consistent rise to their current state.
Concerning California, Texas, and Florida, when you factor in their percentages of the total US population and US total cases, California has ~0.05% fewer than their share of cases. While, Texas and Florida each have ~0.1% to ~0.15% more than their share. Also, for the last few days, both Texas and Florida have been near the top of the list for new cases with far more than California (despite California having a much higher population than either.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Listen up children. It's time to grow up (though Tucker's gone so far off the rails, he may be a lost cause at this point.) The "they got away with it, why can't we" argument ceases to have any legitimacy once you're around 10 or 11 years old...if not sooner. If you ever want to be taken seriously by adults, you'll quit using it. Also, the riots in the cities and the riot at the Capitol Building have a major difference between them that negates the aforementioned childish argument anyway. The riots in the cities happened in...the cities. Aside from protecting federal property, it's not federal law enforcement's job to deal with them. If you have a problem with how they were handled, take it up with the relevant state and local governments. The attack on the Capitol Building was a direct attack on the country as a whole. While people living in insane places like Portland, Seatle, Atlanta, etc. may not care enough about their cities to protect them or at least hold their local/state leaders accountable for their pathetic handling of them, the same cannot be said for the country as a whole. That crossed a major line and to be fair, those who participated in it are getting off very light considering the severity of their actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think people are being very unfair to his frat brothers. Their story makes far more sense than that of the bar. For example, originally, the bouncer's story matched that of his friends in that he was tossed out the back door. The bar later started claiming that they put him out the front. That makes no sense. They removed him for his behavior. They're not going to walk him through the other patrons if his behavior is the problem. Out the back he goes.
Also, his friends claimed that none of them were allowed to leave until the tab was settled. That sounds about right. I've seen it before. They also said they weren't allowed to go out the back to meet up with him. They had to go out the front and walk around. By the time they got there, he was gone. They then claimed they called him to see where he was and he told them he was on his way back to the hotel and that he was almost there. If that's true, then there's no point in them going after him since he would be at the hotel before they could catch up to him. Nothing wrong with that.
Here's the kicker. If you rotate the bar 180° with the rear exit being in the front and then overlay the path he took, it leads to the hotel and he would have almost been there by the time of the call. It is indeed possible to get that drunk. I did something similar when I was in school. I figured it out relatively quickly but I wasn't completely trashed at the time. Distance wise, the point where he tripped and hit his head would have been close to the hotel had he gone the right way. After he hit his head, his path makes no sense which isn't surprising since he also began to stop and look around confusedly often from then on.
Edit: The bar employees are the ones changing their story and it's in their best interest to pawn it off on his friends. They overserved him, tossed him out by himself and then kept anyone from getting to him before he wandered off to his doom. They are very liable and they know it. Until what really happened becomes more clear, dumping on his buddies is simply not fair.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@charleslloyd4253 When has the Russian military really been tested? Until Ukraine, never (and in the action they have seen, they've underperformed.) People just transfered the Soviet military's reputation onto them when the USSR fell apart. The two are not the same. The Soviet military could get away with using conscripts and morale killing brutal tactics because they had Commissars up front to crack the whip. The Russian military kept the conscripts and tactics but dropped the Commissars. You can't win a war if your soldiers' morale is gone...just draw out the inevitable.
On paper Russia should have steamrolled the whole of Ukraine in two weeks tops. In reality, they tripped allover themselves and troop morale ran out about 2 1/2 weeks into it. From then on all they were doing was long range artillery and missiles with the occasional airstrike when their air farce could canibalize enough parts to get some of their jets airworthy. They couldn't get their ground forces to go in and occupy the last cities they had besieged, lost a few generals who went to the front to play Commissar only to come back in a bag, and pulled back. Even pulling back they had problems as they were unable to maintain troop discipline and some ran amok.
That is not an army to be concerned about. The morale issue alone isn't really fixable without reorganizing the entire way they do things and they simply aren't very well trained or supplied. Their equipment looks ok on paper until you factor in the piss poor maintenance it receives due to corruption. Very little of the funds allocated for their military actually makes it there. The bulk ends up in private bank accounts. Also, their tanks have a fatal design flaw that all the caging they can weld on to them won't fix (their auto-loader system has almost all of their ammo up in the turret which is not as well armored as it should be. Set one round off and the entire tank goes up.) Their army wouldn't last two weeks against a well supplied and structured NATO force along with the Ukrainian military. At least not while trying to fight on the offense. They might hold some already occupied cities for a couple more before morale issues ended things. Their air farce would be pushed out in a few days (lack of maintenance means they can only field a fraction of what they have) and their offensive ground forces would have to follow soon without air support.
Anyone who thinks Russia would go nuclear if pushed out of Ukraine is just being silly. It would serve no purpose, and immediately cost them the few "allies" they have left. While pretty much turning the rest of the world against them. Russian generals may get their positions based on politics rather than merit, but I doubt many would be dumb enough to even think that would be a good idea. If NATO would just grow a pair and go in, it would be over pretty quickly and the way Russia is, Putin would likely be disgraced and possibly removed if he refused to step down.
I'm curious, where exactly do you think such an army could expand the fight to once pushed out of Ukraine? If NATO simply held at the border with the occassional air assault to take out active artillery/missile launch sites in Russian territory, what then? It would be on Russia to attack and they would simply be stopped. Also, remember that despite being "allies" China and Russia have had an ongoing border war of sorts going on in the east for decades. Were Putin to pull anymore troops from that region than he already has, China might just decide to help themselves to some areas they've been eying for a long time. They're definitely not impressed with Putin or his military at this point.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The vast majority of the gun fire and deaths occurred within the first few minutes that the shooter was in the room (according to survivors.) Well before the main bulk of the police had time to get there. The slain teachers (or at least one of them) are to blame for most of those deaths. School district protocol calls for classroom doors to be shut and locked while class is in session and at least one of the two doors to the combined classroom was left open. From the point where the gunman started shooting outside, he was more than twice the distance and two doors away from the classroom doors than the two teachers were and yet they failed to get the door(s) shut before he reached them. They were the only class that had an open door.
Thanks to the convoluted and unnecessary existence of the school district's own police department, coordination was a complete flustercluck. The department consisted entirely of a chief, four (maybe five) officers, and a detective responsible for three schools and the district in general. They were not equipped with proper body armor against high velocity rifle rounds nor were they properly armed for a shootout against such. Nevertheless, the first two officers on the scene did attempt to reach the shooter but his position inside the classroom with the heavy steel door for cover was too strong and they were driven back with multiple grazing wounds. They did what protocol called for and called for reinforcements from Uvalde PD as they had the manpower and gear to better handle such situations.
From what I can find, the school district did not have it's own 911 dispatch and shared one with Uvalde PD. Due to jurisdiction, the school district chief was in command at the scene with nearly all of the officers present being from Uvalde PD but it does not appear that he was informed of the calls for help from the children (probably had his radio tuned to his own department's frequency instead of Uvalde's...that's speculation though) Around the time he arrived on scene, a ~40 to ~50 minute lull in gunfire occurred. With no knowledge of the 911 calls and no gunfire, he assumed that the shooter was barricaded in a room with no kids (and no one on scene gave him any information to the contrary.) Looking at the layout of the building's interior, the officers stationed in the nearby hall would have taken heavy casualties were the shooter to be waiting for them to come (as they would have no cover while the shooter would.) Also, the shooter could simply shut the door and prevent any who actually made it there from entering. Without knowing there were kids in there with the shooter, the chief decided to wait for shields to arrive before trying to dislodge the shooter. When gunfire was heard again (likely the poor kid whose phone rang and gave away their hiding place), the mistake was quickly realized and a breaching group organized and sent in.
Also, the school district protocol called for a dedicated officer to be stationed at the high school and middle school with no mention of the elementary school (which is likely why there wasn't an officer there to begin with.) From what I could find, they apparently put most of their security funding into the high school and middle school as well.
Long story short, everybody dropped the ball that day and prior when it came to those in charge of the district. Blaming it all on the chief/police is unfair. Especially since even had they done everything right, few if any of the deaths would have been avoided.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Decisions and courses of action can only be as good as the information they're based off of. At the same time he issued the travel ban (which came after the first diagnosed US cases), Trump was still downplaying the threat, arguing with his own medical advisors, getting rid of cdc employees that refused to back his downplaying etc. to the point that there was no reliable information to be had. As such, with the President assuring all that it was nothing to worry about, Biden and the American people in general could only take his word for it. That's why you had Democrats and Republicans etc. all saying things were ok. As far as they knew, they were. Now we find out that the President knew they weren't but said nothing. Had he simply informed governors etc. of the real threat, they could have better prepared in case things did go bad. Instead, he continued to assure them all was well only to turn around and lay all the blame on them for not being prepared...
That is simply not the behavior nor the level of decision making skills necessary to qualify one to be President. Biden may be suffering from some cognitive issues but even if he is, he's still a better choice. He at least is still wise enough to know that you let your medical advisors address medical issues, your generals fight your wars, etc. He won't be trying to do it all himself and therefore any lessened cognitive function will likely not have much of an effect on the overall outcome.
Edit: If there really were nothing to worry about, something as drastic as a travel ban would seem a bit dubious. As such, since the left is heavily focused on race, assuming the ban had a racial component behind it would seem plausible to them. I don't agree personally but it's not really that important of an issue either.
1
-
1
-
@RVCodeman Before my rant (lol) I'll say this. If the great state of Kentucky could garauntee that Mitch McConnell will not be re-elected, I might be a little less adamant about getting rid of Trump (maybe we could get California to ditch Pelosi in return if it would help.) As it is, the balance to the executive branch that is supposed to come from the legislative branch, is compromised by McConnell's prefering to get on his knees and fluff the President rather than hold him accountable like his job requires him to. In the end a President is only as dangerous as Congress and SCOTUS allow them to be. So far, SCOTUS has done their job. Congress (primarily the Senate), not so much.
That said...
Even before covid, there was nothing really backing the apparent improvement of the economy. Stock prices rose on nothing but optimism because people thought they had elected some sort of economic genius. All they elected was a glorified con artist who did what they were best at...con people (and manipulate the market for personal gain.) Nothing about any of the businesses really changed except their stock prices. Their bottom lines didn't improve enough to warrant an increase etc. Before covid, what was going on economically was exactly what went on in 1920. Optimism based "growth" with no real foundation under it. We all know where that eventually landed us...assuming they still cover the great depression in our schools.
Everything he has done has been for his own benefit (every once in awhile his benefit might accidentally benefit us slightly/temporarily as well...but it's entirely unintentional on his end.) The trade war with China is simply his way of making an excuse not to pay back the $900M+ in loans he owes to Chinese banks and companies. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if pulling out of Germany was due to him thinking that Deutsche Bank (who he owes over $300M to) was somehow tied to the German government...He can be that stupid at times. In a way, he got lucky covid came along when it did. At least now the inevitable crash that would have occurred during his second term has already happened and can now be blamed on the epidemic instead of him.
Long story short, he just isn't any good at his job, be it economic or otherwise, and has shown no desire to improve his performance (in fact, he seems to be getting worse.) If his Presidency were a season of "The Apprentice", he would have fired himself within the first few episodes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually, for once Pelosi and the Dems have done something intelligent. For one, the delay buys time to consider adding the President's violation of the impoundment control act as a third article rather than just use it as evidence for the other two articles. He has no defense against that charge if they choose to use it though alone it might not warrant removal from office. The Dems main point however, was to set a trap for the Senate Republicans which, pathetically, McConnell and some others have already been foolish enough to walk into.
No one ever thought that the Senate Republicans would vote to impeach one of their own party regardless of the evidence. By dramatically stalling under the claim that they want assurance of a fair trial, They essentially force the Senate Republicans into either publicly abandoning their constitutional responsibility to hold an impartial trial in good faith and vote their conscience based on the testimony and evidence presented during the trial or to break ranks and try to look legit. Thanks to that idiot McConnell, the Dems have already been more successful than they likely hoped.
In internet echo chambers, it may seem like Trump has a lot of support but many independent voters along with the silent majority of the Republican party are sickened by the behavior of the President and many of the various Republican representatives supporting him. Assuming no Senate Republicans have a crisis of conscience, Trump will likely survive impeachment and win re-election since the Dems don't have anyone electable running, but the Republicans will most likely lose the Senate. The latter is actually better for the Dems than getting Trump out of there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If police academies would start teaching cops proper ways to deal with the types of situations that lead to these bad endings, it would help greatly...The currently employed methods are almost guaranteed to escalate situations, not resolve them. If they would adopt approaches more like what are taught to mental hospital staff instead of the exact opposite approaches they are currently taught, many of these questionable shootings etc. could be avoided.
That said, it's generally a bad idea to just be a dick to an officer(s) from the start like many are. Their job is dangerous, they deal with the dark side of humanity day in and day out, and most have families they'd like to go home to at the end of their shifts. They're not going to have much patience with anyone intentionally giving them any unnecessary bs and if your actions even hint at violence, they're not going to take any chances with their safety. Long story short, put yourself in their shoes a bit before deciding how to handle your side of the situation. They're human like the rest of us. (and if nothing else, due to their authority, they will always be capable of making your life more dificult than you can make their's so why start a battle you won't win?)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No environmentalist should be blindly in favor of "green" energy either. Energy harvested from solar, wind, etc. only appears to be "renewable." In reality, that energy is simply being removed from the natural system (where it would otherwise play a role in weather patterns, temperature, and other environmental aspects) without being replaced. At very small scales, that's probably not going to cause much trouble. However, no one has seemed to see fit to look into what might happen if we were to start leeching said energy at a rate necessary to play a major role in the world's energy needs.
Fission, natural gas, and to some extent geothermal and hydro (minus ocean current harvesting which itself is just a variant of wind turbines that leeches energy from the ocean's environment without returning it) are our best bets. Fusion definitely deserves as much R&D as possible but, as stated in the video, it's a long way off so not really a current priority.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No. They really didn't. Even Republican Senators who questioned them complained that they danced around the questions and never really answered them. Also, the "they got away with it, why can't I?" defense they went with by showing clips of Democrats supposedly "inciting" violence generally only sees use by children and is never considered legit by adults.
It was the Democrats strategy which did the most harm to their case. The overly dramatic sob stories of their own party members came across, at best, as a bit disingenuous. Had they repressed their dislike of Pence and put more focus on what Trump did to him, it would have been much more effective. Unlike the riot in general, the responsibility for the Pence hunting that went on that day could have been laid 100% on Trump. He (apparently) did a good enough job with his doublespeak during his speech to plausibly shift enough of the blame off of himself when it came to the general attack (judging by how many of his supporters fell for the trick.) However, he was the initial source of the bs claims of Pence's ability to affect the EC certification and the one who implied that Pence's inaction was disloyal/traitorous. Focusing more on that would have been a stark reminder to the Senate Republicans of what Trump was capable of doing to his own kind in furtherance of his vindictive/self-serving pursuits and may have tilted a few more of them toward voting their conscience rather than the party line.
Unfortunately, like the first impeachment, the Dems failed to see the best argument/charge and tried to win on moral outrage and emotion instead. (Trump's violation of the Impoundment Control Act, for example, would have been a slam dunk in the first trial but they barely mentioned it...likely because they figured the general public wouldn't even understand the problem. It wasn't the general public they needed to convince however.) Granted, the Senate Republicans would almost certainly have still acquitted both times, but they would have looked even more crooked than they did/do now.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danneman5036 If blind obedience to authority and resigning ourselves to a life of quietly suckling government teat were among our virtues, the country would never have existed to begin with. I'd much rather watch some of our cities set them fool selves on fire from time to time for...reasons, than to stagnate in apathy like many European countries seem to have become fond of doing. Buildings can be rebuilt once the fire is out. When the fire in a society burns out however, things generally just end up dark, cold, and forgotten. If nothing else, rioting shows that at least people still care enough to bother getting angry.
As for reason, maintaining a quiet little country and maintaining one as large and complex as the US are two very different things and expecting "success" at either to look the same is unreasonable. Consider this, the most densely populated city in Sweden has ~588 people/mile^2 and the country itself has ~10M people. New York City alone has a population of ~8.4M with a density of ~27,000/mile^2. That's just one city. We have many more that, while not as large, still dwarf the largest in Sweden and they are spread out over a far larger land area than Sweden contains as well.
Infectious diseases thrive on high population density and poor response coordination. Yet, the US has only lost ~0.003% more of our total population than Sweden to covid 19 going by the reported deaths from each country. Considering the political chaos and riots we've had to deal with at the same time, I don't think it reasonable that our healthcare system be condemned. Especially when those systems being touted as superior would implode into a bureaucratic black hole were they presented with just the population and distance issues alone. It's folly to think that what is ideal under one set of conditions will remain so under any conditions. Even more so to claim superiority having committed such folly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@trailguy Prices have been dropping, inflation has been making it's way down consistently for well over a year now, and we're recovering from the economic effects of Covid much faster than most other countries in the world. Also, if he goes through with mass deportations, there's no way to prevent food and housing costs (among other things) from rising by a lot. Then, there's the tariffs. Costs will rise whether we build new plants (which we won't) or just have to pay for the increased costs to the importer. New plants means having to pay much more to the workers to make the product. Essentially, you would create X more jobs so that 1000X+ people will have to pay more for the goods produced. The countries we tariff will counter tariff us (it works both ways). A lot of the goods we export are basically luxury items to their countries due to their cost of manufacture here, so they could do without them. Much of what we bring in, we need. Trade deficit increase. Bad for the economy. There's a great deal more but, in the end, the border issue won't look very important after the effects of all his other policies have hit.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
His behavior for fhe first ~2 minutes or so was the result of him trying desperately to hold his breath not the sxecution method itself. Once that was over and he actually started breathing the N2, he lost consciousness fairly quikly. The heavy breathing and random twitches that occurred afterward are what one would expect from someone dying from oxygen deprivation. While it may be a bit unsettling to watch, he was unconcious and had no awarenesa of it.
In othsr words, if you remove the unnecessary self inflicted agony from holding his breath ao long at the beginning, all he would have felt was a brief period of normal easy breaths, then a sudden feeling of euphoria/drunkenness for two to three seconds, immediately followed by loss of consciousnesa. Once unconscious, he would have felt nothing more and would eventually die from oxygen deprivation.
Despite what many anti-death penalty people claim, Nitrogen hypoxia is not something new. In fact it has been used for decades as a quick, painless, and safe method of rendering someone unconscious (usually for tests requiring unconsciousness and/or looking at behavior after regaining consciousness.) There are plenty of people out there who have experienced it first hand and they'll tell you that there's no discomfort involved (other than the occassional headache afterward from the brief lack of oxygen.) The only difference between it's non lethal and lethal uses is simply that the nonlethal version replaces the N2 with 02 as soon as consciousness is lost so that they quickly regain it, while for an execution, the N2 is kept going until the condemned dies from oxygen deprivation. It really is the most humane way to end a life.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Sam-rp8uh Are you being disingenuous or just naive? It's hard to tell sometimes when it comes to Israeli apologists. Israel's withdrawal in 2005 was a meaningless gesture. They left their puppet (Palestinian Authority) behind to govern, maintained control of the borders as well as the coastline, and they decided who came and went. Essentially, they turned Gaza into a prison for Palestinians and left their hand picked "warden" to operate it.
Over the long haul, the plan was to model Gaza after the West Bank by allowing various Israeli interests to slowly creep in and begin usurping Palestinian territory with the PA doing nothing about it like in the West Bank (where, since 2000, they've managed to lose ~70% of the area allotted for the Palestinians to illegal settlers and other Israeli interests.) Had it not been for the people in Gaza recognizing the ploy and kicking the PA to the curb in favor of Hamas, Gaza would most likely have become identical to the West Bank.
Also, from 2000 up until the Oct 7th 2023, well over 1,000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank were killed on average each year by IDF activity, ultimately leading to a k/d ratio of ~20:1 in favor of Israel. With such a lopsided civilian casualty rate, a strong argument can be made that Israel did indeed bring the Hamas raid upon themselves.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Having 50 states helps mitigate that a bit. In this particular situation, SCOTUS hasn't criminalized abortion, they've simply given the ability to do so to the states. Their decision is wrong but, thanks to our system of states, it will at least be possible for those seeking an abortion to get one by doing so in a state that still allows them while we work to remedy their mistake. Also, this decision isn't final as there are multiple arguments to challenge it with in states that issue bans and such challenges will eventually make their way back to SCOTUS. Also, Congress can still codify abortion rights and if done, SCOTUS will most likely uphold them.
If worse comes to worse and SCOTUS justices do go fully rogue, Congress can impose term limits etc. with enough public outcry to do so and/or...we do have a lot of civilian firearms out there to help...usher such justices into early retirement... should absolutely all other failsafes prove ineffective. I'll take our legal system, flawed as it is, over alternatives employed in other countries.
Also, technically we do have some say in who our judges etc. will be. At some point in the mechanism, we do vote for those who will eventually appoint our judges. Unfortunately, most people don't bother thinking that far ahead and thus don't question candidates as to what they will look for when considering such appointments. That's a fault of our own laziness though, not necessarilly of the system itself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. The President is authorized in any such event, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States, toward the aliens who become so liable; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary in the premises and for the public safety."
These gangs are not listed as agents of any foreign nation or government. The judge is correct.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You can actually work it out with maths. Pick an altitude. Then, work out the distance to horizon from that height. Next, work out the horizontal length of the horizon that falls within our central vision (roughly 12 to 15 degrees to each side of center depending on the person) by working out the circumference of a circle with radius equal to the horizon distance and then determining the length of 12 to 15 degrees of that circle. Once you have that, calculate the drop for that distance due to curvature. Then, work out the angular size of an object the size of that drop at the distance to the horizon. Finally, look up the smallest size the human eye can resolve and compare it to the angular size of that drop. If that angular size is equal to or greater than what the eye can resolve, you will notice curvature. I don't remember all the formulas needed but they're all easy to find online (there are online distance to horizon and angular size calculators available.)
Granted, that uses only central vision (though curvature would be noticeable in that range long before peripheral vision could clearly notice it), doesn't include refraction (on average, it causes ~5% difference at sea level) and other environmental factors, and assumes nothing above sea level in your line of sight, but it will be a fairly accurate estimate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@derikbagley2958 The key point there is "back then" as in ~60 years ago, before the Cold War ended and the Soviet Union collapsed. Modern Russia is not the Soviet Union (well, except perhaps in Putin's KGB addled mind) and, when not doing stupid things like this invasion, isn't relevant enough for NATO to be concerned about (beyond keeping an eye on their nukes.) Putin having NATO on his doorstep is only a threat in his delusional mind's overestimation of his country's importance. He's swatting at long dead ghosts of the Cold War and seeing threats where there are none while the rest have simply moved on and are waiting for Russia to join them in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, by behaving as if the Cold War were still a thing and mistaking his current country for one of it's deceased ancestors, he's effectively forcing Russia to remain isolated and locked in the past. Furthermore he's created a self fulfilling prophecy which forces NATO and the west to make Russia their business again. He sees a threat (where there is none) launches a pre-emptive strike on that perceived threat, and in so doing, becomes a real threat to others, prompting a harsh response from said others and thus his delusional idea that NATO/the west are out to get Russia gets reinforced leading to further delusional beliefs on his part. I could almost feel a bit sorry for him as KGB reprogramming can never be completely undone (so he'll always be delusional), but his general douchebag demeanor is something he brought along with him not something forced upon him and that demeanor warants no sympathy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
General firearm safety rules are not always applicable in their use as props on a movie set.
For example, an actor is not supposed to unload or otherwise tinker with a "safe/cold" gun they've been given on set in any way other than what is required for the scene being rehearsed/filmed. For insurance and liability purposes, the status of all firearms on set is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. If an actor were to take such actions, the armorer could no longer be sure that the weapon is still safe as it's status will have been altered since they last checked it. In order to tell the difference between live and dummy rounds, the gun in this instance would have to have been unloaded. Something Baldwin wasn't allowed to do so he had to trust that the armorer/assistant director had done their jobs and that gun was indeed "safe." (Personally, I would probably have pointed the gun at the ground and pulled the trigger enough to cycle through the loaded rounds...assuming they were supposed to be dummies and not blanks...just to be sure, but that isn't exactly safe either.)
Another issue arises concerning not pointing the weapon at something/someone. It should be obvious that a scene where the actor is suposed to point and "fire" the weapon at the camera pretty much requires that the gun be pointed at the camera and thus anyone behind it. That's why they use plexiglass shielding in front of any cameras involved. The shield is designed to block any type of projectile which might be created by a blank round. A .45 round (like in this case) however, will go straight through it, the person behind it, and possibly the person behind them as well (which is what appears to have happened here.)
When the accident occured, the director, cinematographer, and Baldwin were working on an upcoming scene in which he would fire (presumably a blank when actually being filmed) at the camera. They described what they wanted him to do and he performed the action asking "so, something like this" after which he drew, aimed in the direction of the camera, and pulled the trigger. Had it been a dummy round like it was supposed to be (for rehearsal), then nothing would have happened. Unfortunately, the armorer/assistant director somehow allowed a gun to be given to an actor with a live round in it. Something which should never happen.
As much as I don't agree with his stance on firearms in general, Baldwin the actor did nothing wrong. Baldwin the producer however, might share some blame for the overall poor safety conditions existing on the set. Especially, if he was aware that some of the crew members had been supplying their own live rounds to do some target shooting after wrapping for the day (likely how real and dummy rounds ended up mixed together.) In the end though, the responsibility falls primarily on the armorer and assistant director. Hopefully, someone will eventually manage to create realistic cgi muzzle flashes and accurately mimic natural recoil so that there will no longer be a need to use the real thing in the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williamwilkins3046
18 U.S.C. § 1507
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
Nothing in this section shall interfere with or prevent the exercise by any court of the United States of its power to punish for contempt
"In or near" is not the same as "in front"
Edit: "In" is easily defined as being on the property. "Near" is the problem. To really be reliably enforcible, there needs to be a specific distance set.
It's like campaign sign rules when it comes to polling places. A rule that merely says no signs may be placed near a polling place tells you nothing. One that says no signs may be placed within 200 ft. of a polling place tells you everything.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Because there's a physical limit to the size of creatures with with the skeletal structure of humans due to gravity. I can't remember the cut off point, but it's around 10 feet (and well before that, the creature would have severe limitations to it's movement etc.) Beyond that, the ligaments, tendons, and bones would not be capable of supporting the muscle mass needed for the form to function at all. (Existing human "giants" of upper 7/lower 8 feet height always have mobility issues, usually severe joint pain, and never live long lives as the strain on their systems overworks their hearts, lungs, etc. as well.) Dinosaurs and other large fauna had the necessary skeletal, muscular, and circulatory system structure to compensate for their size.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@scotthooper4170 Don't be so naive kid. This has never been about defending themselves, freeing hostages, or even directly destroying Hamas. This was always meant to be a land grab via ethnic cleansing. Nothing more. One need only analyze the IDF's battle plan to see that Israel's stated goals do not fit with the methods being used to supposedly obtain them.
A prime example being their unnecessary (ab)use of 2,000 lb. bombs in densely packed residential areas to destroy individual buildings that could easily be dealt with by using much smaller munitions. The only reason for such overkill is if the goal is to cause as much collateral damage and civilian casualties as possible while still maintaining some form of plausible deniability when accused of genocide/ethnic cleansing.
As for the human shield argument, there may be some merit (though in urban warfare, civilians will be caught up in it whether intentionally or not.) That said, even if a "human shield" situation were involved, no Hamas member would expect Israel to level up to a ten block radius simply to destroy one building. With the use of appropriate munitions, such a situation would see all in the targeted building dead with maybe a handful more from damage to immediately adjacent buildings. By using a 2,000 lb. bomb instead, you're looking a destruction/casualty rate at least ~50 times greater (possibly as much as ~100 times). That is not an approach you would take if one of your goals was to free hostages as they will likely be held in such areas and thus die from "friendly fire" (which is exactly what has happened to most if not all, of the unaccounted for hostages.) It's also not what one would do if limiting civilian casualties and collateral damage is a goal.
Also, consider the IDF's battle strategy for each city. First, they take out the hospitals. Then, they destroy the utilities and housing making the city unlivable and forcing the civilians to flee south. Once that's accomplished, they regroup a bit and then do the same thing with the next city and the next city etc. That is not an efficient way to go about freeing hostages or generating Hamas casualties. All it's good for is herding civilians like cattle in to smaller and smaller areas until their population is extremely dense, they have nowhere left to go, and no resources to sustain themselves. With something like that as a goal, the obvious purpose would be genocide/ethnic cleansing. In fact, it's just a slight variation on how the early stage of the Armenian genocide played out. If continued, the IDF's next phase will simply be to lock them down and let starvation and disease do their dirty work for them.
One final thing. From 2000 up until Oct 7 2023, the IDF killed ~25,000 Palestinian civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. Hamas killed ~1,200 and took ~200 hostages once. Even when you add in the small handfuls of Israelis Hamas killed over that time, you're still looking at at least a 20:1 ratio in favor of Israel when it comes to civilians killed (which has since spiked to ~55:1)...and Hamas are the truly genocidal faction in this?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@batzman8585 I'm for keeping our word. Also, NATO getting involved now is likely the only way to avoid a world war. Everytime NATO has folded to one of Putin's bluffs in the past, his position got a little stronger. If they fold to this one, he'll know that the west deems his position strong enough for him to quit bluffing and then the real invasions will begin. By the time the world decides to do something about him, it will take an all out war to dislodge him and China might be convinced to enter then.
For the time being, Putin made a rare mistake here. He misjudged not only the severity of the outcry and sanctions from the west (and the resistance from Ukraine) but of the tepid response from his strongest "ally" as well. Currently, he doesn't really have China fully in his corner as they are not exactly thrilled with his decision making ability on this nor are they impressed with his military's performance. They've mostly just been giving him some lip service while doing very little to actually assist. They are highly unlikely to get involved directly enough to matter over something so foolish if NATO decides to defend Ukraine. Again, they'll back Russia with words and that will be it.
Also, Putin going nuclear isn't going to happen either. His generals won't allow it. Doing so would cost them the few significant "allies" they have left, turn neutral countries against them, and generally make them complete pariahs. Not to mention potentially lead to MAD. They'll end Putin before they'll let his delusions of grandeur to doom their own country and the world over this nonsense.
Without nukes to worry about, NATO involvement would claim dominance in the air in a few days, and offensive Russian ground forces would have to follow soon without air support. Occupying dug in forces might linger a bit but likely not long. The Russian generals know full well the sorry state their military is in due to maintenance, supply, morale, and poor training issues and aren't going to do much more than put up a token resistance on the way out so they can say they tried. If NATO stops at the Ukraine border, all Russia could do is launch more missiles and long range artillery. You can't "win" like that, just stack up more potential war crime charges. So that won't last long either.
It may seem scary, but now is the perfect opportunity to nip Putin's dreams of remaking the Soviet Union by force in the bud. He's overextended, doesn't have the support he needs and his military is sorely in need of an overhaul. On top of that, NATO has a legitimate reason to get involved based on a signed written agreement which Russia themselves agreed to (so they can't claim NATO's even remotely the aggressor or that they're sticking their noses where they don't belong as it's Russia who violated the terms.)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1