Using large trucks (UPS sized) is much more inefficient than a flying drone. Though I expect we'll have drone Segways delivering things. Wheeled, unmanned, and one item per delivery.

Of course, you can shut them up with a "what do you do about the old person targeted by scammers who steal all her savings, so she's left penniless at 80, with no means of income or self support? She'll lose her home, and die starving on the streets if nothing is done. What would you have done? Yes, but what if the donations don't cover that? Is there any safety net at all?

That usually gets them on a 6 hour rant about personal responsibility, and some blaming the victim and such. But never an answer.

I'm a rabid left-wing radical, and apparently a fiscal conservative as well.

That's the problem with the current definitions. Everyone labels with the intent of shaming, not describing. I want a small government that does nothing but protect the rights of people from anyone who would impinge on them, from private or governmental sources.

A Libertarian wants a government that doesn't defend rights, but defends contracts. If property has rights, and people only have rights assigned to them by their property, then you are libertarian. If you believe people have rights, and property is one of the lowest rights in the hierarchy, then you are liberal. If you believe money has rights, and people don't, then you are a conservative.

Nobody was saying we (or they) should be doing what the others are doing. But that the global definition of "center" puts the US firmly in the "right" category. That was all, not that we should be more or less like someone else.

That the US is likely not in much better shape, it's not like we have found the magic answer.

The right to vote is Constitutionally guaranteed to citizens, but not denied to residents (legal or illegal). A state could allow residents to vote. A state "grants" most of the rights of citizenship. So ignore the feds. The most they'll do is pass a law that takes away the state's highway's funding if they don't enforce laws the feds can't enforce. Like how they set 55 as the NMSL, 21 for the drinking age, and tight laws on drunk driving.

What's odd is that Congress would have been able to require 21+ to vote for a congressman, but not for president. The presidential elections are not federal elections. Congress could require the electors in the Electoral college be 25+ or whatever they like, but not the ages of the state voters selecting them, that's a local election, not a federal one.

Stating facts is "emotional"? Since when is "emotional" an insult. I guess that's considered a feminine trait, and the misogynist in you that makes you emotionally hate Hilary so much makes sure you try to take as many subtle jabs as possible. So subtle that if you are called on them, you'll deny them. But your words are there for everyone to see.

Nope. I argue on others. That you have a selection bias doesn't change reality. Though that would be nice for you to support your bias and misogyny. After all, if you aren't a woman-hater, why do you emotionally hate Hillary so much, when you have no facts that support your irrational and emotional rants against her?

"well known"? that's a laugh. For one, nobody knows me, for another, I'm center. When I go to places outside the US, I'm a radical conservative troll. Given that I get accused of being a radical from each side, I must be doing something right. I'm a libertarian. That's right to the left, and left to the right. And no, I'm not a US neo-liberal Libertarian, but a classic one.

And how many until the US no longer exists in its current form?

You've proven yourself a liar or an idiot. You are wrong on that point, and so you believe it to be false and are baiting me by lying, or you think it true and are an idiot for making up things in your mind to make your silly little world view easier to reconcile with reality when the two are quite divergent.

Everything I said was 100% true, but because I point out reality, that proves my bias, and it must be my bias I'm arguing with you, and not because you are 100% provably wrong.

You are lying again. I never said she was "innocent." I just said that her handling of emails didn't break any law identified so far. I note that the Hillary haters don't quote the laws broken often (except when accusing her of having received confidential documents, which would have indicated a law breach, but not by her). But for the email-only issue, what law did she break? If there is no law broken,then it's legal. It is that simple. If you can't name the law you think she broke, then you should default to thinking she's law-aiding. That you don't indicates *your* bias, not mine.

The quote you give says the opposite of what you say it will.

So the "penalty" is that they will file for an injunction to prevent you from working at the new place. No loss of money. No fees or monetary penalty at all. The only "punishment" is forcing you to get a new job. And that's only if they get a court injunction, which might get thrown out by a judge looking at the invalid clause.

What she did was use personal email when an official email was not provided for her, at a time when it was allowed to do so. The rest is mostly lies, made up by the people who hate her. When did the IT department make an official email account for her to use? Never. When was she officially notified that the rules she was hired under had changed? Never.

But it's her fault that she followed all the rules she agreed to.

Yeah, and the news has picked up on a facebook joke that quotes Cruz as saying Obama couldn't run for president because his father wasn't American and he wasn't born in the US. Sometimes the news has it wrong.

And his corporate welfare and war policies were not significantly different from the previous president, marking him as center. He's far too right wing for me. He promises change, but doesn't deliver.