The Russians did it.
The Russians did it.
It might have been 'steadily declining' but the rate of decline increased drastically starting in mid 2008.
http://www.tradingeconomics.co... (switch it to line graph)
And just because someone has a 'job' doesn't mean it's a good job - in fact there are a lot of very skilled people who are working shit jobs just to put food on the table because their previous jobs have never come back. Gallup has a very nice ongoing poll that shows just how bad it really is:
If you total all of the other 49 states (including all of those "highly populated areas") leaving out California, the results are thus:
Clinton only wins the popular vote because of a 5 million vote swing in San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Somehow people are complaining that the electoral vote is unfair, while their own proposed system (straight vote) would have just one populous and ideologically-homogeneous area having the power to over-ride the results of the other 49 states. This is proof the electoral college WORKS, not the other way around.
Clinton only has a lead in the popular vote because of ONE state - California. Take California out of the mix, and Trump wins by MILLIONS when the popular vote is totaled from the other 49 states.
Arguing about the unfairness of the electoral college and the supposed inequality in relative weight of votes in regards to electoral value is completely insane when the end result would be that picking up a few extra million votes in just one populous state would negate the value of votes in the other 49.
We are NOT A DEMOCRACY. There are well documented and valid reasons for that decision. The fact that in this instance just one regional population group could have dictated the election in the proposed system - counter to the results of the other 49 states - is a perfect example of the wisdom of the existing electoral college system.
Seriously. A perfect example of how average individuals get fscked while the rich can do what they want. Every other fucking tweet/instagram/facebook post by a celeb is a commercial endorsement of some sort, I don't see the FTC making a fuss - until it's a (well-dressed) average American - THEN it's a problem.
From the quoted Wikipedia page:
The grenade can inflict injuries (e.g. penetrating eye wounds) out to 15 metres (49 ft) from the site of detonation. Victims caught within 3 metres (10 ft) of the detonation site are almost certain to be killed or severely wounded."
If you think all these words are confusing, you should really stop.
regulated - this one I'll admit is confusing from modern times. It meant self-organizing. Back in the day a town or village, if there were a need(war), the people would grab their guns and supplies, self-organize, and choose their captains/leaders before reporting for duty. A perfect example of this is Abraham Lincoln, who was elected captain of his first volunteer company that was organized to fight Black Hawk. He was elected by popular vote with no military experience. The company then reported for duty and swore allegiance.
Militia - means the same thing it always has, the media has just turned it into a negative
security - means the same thing, self-protection.
State - means the same thing, self-organized independent grouping of people. See 'nation-state' or 'city-state'
people - means the same thing it always has, the general population.
"bear arms" - again, same thing, the ability to own and use weapons
infringed - unbelivable that his confuses you - means restricted and/or removed.
You can not have a weapon without buying it first.
Not correct. You can make any standard firearm at home - rifle, handgun, shotgun, completely legally. You don't need a license unless you start selling/transferring, or if you're making full-auto/destructive device weapons.
And for that matter, states often don't ban the outright ownership of the swords,brass knuckles, etc. Instead the public possession of them is outlawed. In Minnesota, I can own an auto-knife/switchblade.sword. But I can't carry it in public.
Oh please. http://www.snopes.com/police-p...
Who needs paid agitprop when idiots do a fine job already.
They cannot die soon enough. 95% of my mail is paper spam that goes straight into the trash. The rest is either packages (that could go by UPS instead) or bills from Luddite companies that are too dumb to figure out how to save money by sending e-bills.
USPS is faster and cheaper for 90% of the stuff I ship or receive, I've got no complaints. As for the junk mail, blame the credit card companies.
I haven't sent or received a personal letter in over a decade. Why would anyone prefer that over email?
No cards? No official mail? Not much of a life eh?
Plenty of countries no longer have a government run postal service. They are doing just fine.
Our postal service isn't really government run (well, depending on your definitions I guess). It's a self-financing entity that has a bit of government protection while the employees are considered civil servants. As long as it's self-financing, there's really no reason not to have it around.
For some reason they seem to hire people who can't read an address, let alone get out of their fucking car.
Delivery #1 - Phone call from Washington DC number, girl who can't speak English asks for wrong name, asks if I live at address that is incorrect. Once I figure out who the hell it is, I say correct address they say ok. (It's an apartment, there's a fricking buzzer) 1 hour later I get call from same number, I tell her to buzz the door, she doesn't, says she's outside. I go outside and she's half a block down buzzing the wrong building. (our buildings are clearly marked with the number on it) FFS lady!
Delivery #2 - Another call from DC number, dude says he's outside. I go outside, and dude is parked in the middle of the street blocking traffic, opens his door and passes the box to me from the seat of his car.
These people are wearing Amazon badges/clothing. It's a wonder they managed to get dressed in the morning.
FYI - I get packages _all the time_ and FedEx, UPS, and USPS - even DHL has never had a single problem delivering to me.
That's just a single case. There are plenty of situations that you need papers or you're doing something illegally/black market. Want to rent an apartment? want to buy a house? want a loan? want benefits? want a job?
Again, I've have no concerns or sympathy for someone who who chooses to live as a cash-only squatter. Legal immigrants don't have this problem, working people don't have this problem, retired pensioners don't have this problem.
"Historically, in this country, the social contract has not amounted to "papers, please!" That was supposed to be the kind of thing reserved for commies and fascists,"
Popular myth and Hollywood. And yes, the social contract HAS generally demanded that you produce papers. You want a job? Papers please. You want a loan? Papers please. You want government benefits? Papers please!
"Also, driver's license does not actually signify either citizenship or legal status. The amount of supporting documentation that is required to issue one varies from state to state, and not all of them ask for an SSN. Of course, even if it did, not everyone has a driver's license - as the name makes evident, it's a document that is issued for a specific reason, and not all people even need it."
You're right that it doesn't signify citizenship or legal status, but it does establish identity. And the supporting documentation required to get one does require establishing said identity - or did until some of these states changed the laws so that illegal immigrants could get a driver's license (and those driver's licenses are different from 'normal' driver's licenses.)
"how exactly you imagine checking for it."
The same way we've already been doing it: you want a job? Papers please. You want a loan? Papers please. You want government benefits? Papers please! The problem is right now we're not enforcing it hard enough - _punish_ companies/people using illegal labor and they'll stop doing it once it's no longer cost-effective.
"Russia might be ruthless but at least they have a plan."
They also have the law on their side. The US presence is technically illegal.
"Germany and Turkey had to take in MILLIONS upon millions of refugees "
Considering their genocidal former regimes caused millions of refugees to flee across the world, it's a bit poetic, isn't it?
You had mail, but the super-user read it, and deleted it!