Since when do dictators not need staff? What a dumbass thing to say
"The only reason we're pretending is so China will stop letting Russia transport military supplies through their territory to North Vietnam. Talk about outdated."
Really? That's the only reason you can think of? Off the top of my head:
- The Chinese now have practical guidance to how to push Trump's buttons in relation to US foreign policy stances towards China. They could, if they wished, put a hundred clever people in a room with the sole task of spending the next three months building a plan of action for taking advantage of that
- China could choose to make life difficult for US companies, both overtly and covertly, in response
- China could bring North Korea into play as a lever
- China could disengage from the US and turn towards other economies
I picked it up again some 5 years ago, and the pseudo-assembly code totally turned me off
You do realize that the federal government does allocate funding for schools in the exact same manner as highways and food stamps or housing and so on right? Outside of social security and medicare, it is all passed to the states for the state equivalent program to administer with strings attached to how it can be spent. The bulk of all of that is funded by state and local entities in the same way schools are funded. Highways are funded through a fuel tax and certain excise taxes on tires and such but the federal government has a constitutional right to establish post roads (highways)
And I didn't realize the context of your comment at first. I should have replied to the grandparent instead of you. But the manner in which taxes are collected is not an excuse, it is the order of things. The feds only have as much power as was ceded by the states via the constitution and their ability to stretch clauses beyond obvious meanings. War is a constitutional role for the federal government, schools- not so much. The same with everything else you listed. It exists as some stretch of some related power granted to congress which is why the funding is passed to the states to administrate.
The US government has never funded schools by much to begin with. It simple isn't their job to and all the funding they do give comes with strings saying how and when the funding can be spent.
The states and local municipalities largely fund schools and those political entities do not fund the wars. Your decrease funding to pay for a war might sound good but it shows a lack of knowledge on the scope and magnitude of education funding in the US.
You are correct to a degree. But this wouldn't be an ex post facto law. It would be the same as a no smoking in a public building law. It just means that actions that was once legal (smoking at the courthouse) is now not legal. So existing contracts would just become unenforceable in respect to the law after the law takes effect but nothing makes the provisions before the law takes effect illegal or punishable. This is further complicated with Calder v. Bull which sort of takes the line that only criminal laws can be ex post facto. So unless this law provides criminal punishment, the courts would likely ignore any ex post facto claims.
Now if the law says anyone who had one of these contracts before the law takes effect will be fined or imprisoned or otherwise punished, the ex post facto clause certainly would become valid. But a new law just means you have to change your behavior from the date it takes effect.
Interestingly, we have seen this ex post facto law situation with interest rates in which congress changed the rates for the Stafford student loan program to rates lower than contracted rates for a period of time from July 1 to to august 9th of 2013. H.R.1911 actually has language in it saying that it takes effect as if it was passed on July 1st 2013 even though it was signed into law a over a month later. Yet nobody challenged it.
It doesn't matter what score or moderation the parent is. I as everyone should, surf slashdot at -1 and give bonuses to troll and other down mods specifically because people with agendas will use the moderation system to hide dissent.
So to a regular logged in user, your point is largely lost unless that user is only looking for an echo chamber to agree with themselves. Otherwise, they would have modified their levels also and view low scoring post.
Not only that, these are cities which are political subdivisions of larger governmental entities who hold power and control over them. It may be impossible for them to actually ban anything of the sort if the higher political entity doesn't agree or allow it. For instance, the population of other cities in the same political entity would be bared from entering in a vehicle that is otherwise perfectly legal and registered under their laws.
Imagine France saying this vehicle is legal to purchase and drive and your vehicle registration is good everywhere except Paris who decided to make up their own rules. Not sure how that will play out but I don't think France's federal government will like being overridden that easily by a subordinate jurisdiction.
At 55-70 mph, a 600 mile trip out on day one, load or unload, and a 600 mile return trip on day two to do the same is easily doable. It is not more than 11 hours driving and with the higher speed limits, just a little over 9 hours (you will not average 70 mph for the entire trip).
But you are also forgetting team truck drivers where one person sleeps on the first shift and then takes over when the first shift driver's time is up. The team drivers could easily cover 1200 miles within a single day.
The summery says it has a sleeper and all so either scenario is doable.
Incidentally, I'm terribly interested in understanding what meaningful difference you see between someone being a Trump supporter and someone who happens to support Trump. So far as I can see, you've just added in a "happens" as though it was random chance or an external agency that made someone support Trump, but no doubt it means something profound to you.
Oh nonsense. We all, individuals and companies, judge people for words and acts all the time, including platform granting and denial. I'm sure we all are fabulously multidimensional, but that doesn't give us a free pass from having consequences applied to our behaviour, whether we like it or not -- and whether the behaviour is about whether to grant / withdraw a platform or what we choose to say when using such platforms.
If Twitter gets this wrong, they'll suffer the consequences as you say, but frankly I heartily doubt it. They're much more concerned about being seen as a platform for hateful speech at present, because they see that as driving away more people.
In what way is it a stupid idea? They are doing it to avoid advertisers and users migrating away from their platform. Obviously, they have to weigh up Trump supporters and others leaving in outrage at the ban, vs others leaving in outrage at the lack of a ban. It's not clear that one group is self-evidently larger than the other. And who knows, maybe the weighing up is made easier by the political and moral beliefs of the decision-makers. So be it: they're running a private company, not providing a public service.
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. -- Winston Churchill