Arguably, the Freedom Caucus in the House and President Trump in the White House make it something of a four party system, currently. Three of those parties operate with the Republican label, but maybe sub-parties are the way we need to go. Perhaps this will lead to more negotiating and deal-making in the future, but I don't think anyone is there, yet.

The middle of your "fake news" definition is correct, but you've tacked on a few unnecessary qualifiers; it is simply "outright lies masquerading as real news". It doesn't have to be propaganda, and it doesn't have to have a specific public opinion shifting goal.

One theory floated on the PBS New Hour was that the later beachers were responding to distress calls from the earlier beachers.

I could cheat either system easily:

If you set a minimum pay, no matter what the level, have the foreign contract company who "owns" that employee to pay a fee for the privilege of keeping their job. They still make a good wage, from their perspective, if perhaps not as much as the USA intended. The foreign asset (or outsourcing company like Tata) kicks back a portion of that money to the corporation who holds the visa (or charges a lower contract fee), and everybody wins. This sort of thing is probably illegal with current USA labor laws, but either cut the jobs of regulators who are supposed to be watching for this sort of corruption, or we get rid of that pesky labor law... in the name of cutting useless regulation and bureaucracy.

If you base wages off CEO's home district, then clearly we need to place a subcontracting CEO in a low-pay district. Maybe we can set up a bunch of straw CEOs in Appalachia (jobs for coal miners!) and create a market where all the H-1B visa earners are well above the district's market value.

As long as the system appears to have been fixed (no regulators to check it, and no one trusts the media when they report it is broken), the people will be happy. Maybe throw in a periodic ritual sacrifice of an H-1B shell company to show you're working hard to stamp out corruption.

So, what you're saying is you apparently have forgotten the start of any other presidency, governorship, or other political term. Everyone comes in trying to change things and implement their new agenda. They meet with mixed success, depending on how much of the rest of government is behind them. That's part of the "checks and balances" system. Trump is coming in harder and faster than usual by bypassing the legislative process and going strait into executive fiat mode. Just as quickly, balance of power is hitting back to let him know that isn't (or shouldn't be) how it works.

If you think he is more honest than other politicians, again you haven't been paying attention; he simply lies more boldly. He knows that his supporters will accept strongly-worded "alternate facts" more easily than the carefully worded, weaselly, technically true or unverifiable statement of a skilled politician.

All that aside, I hope that his H-1B changes are more effective and thoughtful than his previous executive actions. This is a system that could use some fixing, but I suspect bold meddling will just create a mess. We'll have to see what the final order looks like.

Definitely not new. I remember reading an article back in the late '80s that followed that line of thinking: that C is constant now, but was faster when first measured, allowing a magical curve that placed earth's age between 5,700 and 10,000 years old.

The defense they appear to be using goes like this: The law says the cars must pass this specific test, but it doesn't say the cars have to perform according to those emission standards the rest of the time. Therefore, our actions (or the actions of our rogue engineers) are morally wrong, but not legally wrong. We're sorry, and will fix our reprehensible (but not illegal) actions without opening ourselves up to criminal liability.

The interesting question, to me, is whether or not it was actually flying below the treeline. From TFA, the drone's owner presented flight data showing that the drone was not below the treeline, but the man who shot the drone down had two eyewitnesses saying it was lower. If we have altitude readings and video footage, it seems to me those should be able to trump eyewitnesses (assuming that data is complete and not suspect). That's why people are pushing to put bodycams on police, for example.

How far does this "character" concept extend? Do you need permission to sell your home-made stormtrooper costume? Do stealth airplanes and the "invisible" flying aircraft carrier violate the "character" of Wonder Woman's invisible airplane? Are you allowed to sell your Pontiac Firebird after installing a K.I.T.T. kit?