“Say, Ed! How was your trip? Lager?”
“Hi, John. Yeah, I’ll have a lager. The whole trip was lousy, a journey through hell all the way.”
“Didn't you fly Green-Osbourne?”
The bartender swore; he was a wealthy man who owned the bar he was tending and quite a bit of Green-Osbourne Transportation
It's just that the connotations changed over time, making "marriage" somehow a religious thing, with "civil union" being the same thing in practice - minus the religious connotations.
Thus, he switched his support for what seemed like a viable option. A bird in hand now.
Later years offered greater clarity - and a shift from 1996. Civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? No.
As Obama sought a U.S. Senate seat in 2004, he told the Windy City Times, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws.
I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue.
I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.
He described his hesitation to endorse same-sex marriage as strategic and political.
What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. â¦
I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. â¦
Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.
Guy is a politician and a government official.
It's his job to find a compromise and push a consensus in the best interest of the citizens.
Most those middle states have large tracts of land - occupied by very few people.
And no... Electoral college was NOT created "to get the politicians out of the big cities and blah-blah-blah".
Number of electoral votes has fuck all to do with where the voters are located, are they rural or urban, OR are they visited by the candidates during their campaign or not.
It was created back when there was no "flyover country" - but only towns, villages and farms along the coast. THE coast.
And it was created cause they were paranoid about Congress ignoring the will of the people, getting together and electing the president on their own - while also being paranoid about big states doing the same thing.
Which is why there's that stipulation about government employees not being eligible for the position of an elector.
And why it is based on the number of people living in a state (while each state still gets two votes on top of that) and not its geography.
Including those people counted as "three fifths of all other Persons".
Because a live performance, by a living human being, in front of an audience of living human beings is based on the performer's ability to interact with and perform in front of said audience.
I.e. To stand in front of and be observed by thousands of people.
Which is about as private as standing naked in the middle of a panopticon, and yelling so everyone can also hear you.
The fact that those people paid the toll to do that doesn't make any of it more private or less exposing.
Hell... Jim Jeffries got punched in the head by an audience member.
He later took the video of the event and included in his material - instead of demanding it be erased from the internet, because privacy.
Even though it is unflattering AND though he makes some bigoted statements about Irish in the "punch video".
Then again... he's not the kind of guy who would get a nervous breakdown and run away to Africa because he got paranoid about people wanting to see him in a dress or a kinda guy who'd file DMCA requests on account of being fat in a photo.
The Founding Fathers created the electoral college system specifically to prevent populist perverts like Trump becoming president.
Except that in this case Trump doesn't get the popular vote - he's at 42.5%. Clinton has 49.3%.
Also, electoral votes being a representation of the will and the number of the people in each state - they tend to vote in accord to the popular vote.
I mean... last time popular vote winner lost the election was in 2000 - back when Gore lost to Bush by less than 1% of the electoral vote, while wining the popular vote by 0.5%.
Last time before that... you'd have to go back to the '80s. 1880s. Before women could vote and just after black men got the right to vote... at least on paper.
Other than that... there are only two more cases of a winner of the popular vote not winning the electoral vote as well. In the 1870s and in the 1820s.
Winning the popular vote but losing the election is not a normal thing. It's an exception which happens very rarely.
Like, centuries can come and go between such elections.
You think Clinton's campaign is feeling desperate? Vegas is paying out 6-1 on Trump presidency, but you know better, don't you?
What will their odds be in 3 weeks?
That would be the odds of note.
While having 666-1 odds on Trump presidency may be of note, it will sure be too unsettling for most people to place such a bet.
In any case, it is multiaxial.
Which is why you are seeing what you are interpreting as a circle. Or what others see as a horseshoe.
It's actually people's methodologies overlapping and blending into each other (what/how they do) instead of their ideologies (that which they believe/know to be true).
Thus "Different yap patterns, but always willing to dictate how others must act in minute detail." looks like a circle - cause it is a view along a single axis.
The "willing to dictate how others must act" axis of authority, while ignoring all others.
Cause both peaks and valleys come off as circles on a map.
We shoot Matthew McConaughey into space and that fixes everything.
Also, we get space colonies and anti-gravity plus Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain are involved in the whole thing as well.
Oh, and Matt Damon gets shot out into space out of an airlock.
It's win-win-win-win-win... win-win all the way.
And that you misunderstood "implication" thinking it is related to if-then logic, so you are confused with something being "half true".
Instead of "implication" being used commonly as a synonym for "suggesting" - i.e. "insinuating", i.e. "claiming".
And let us also assume that you haven't actually read through the article you quoted.
Cause it actually has a video of Trump "making that claim".
The "half true" in fabula lies on the back of Trump getting the timeline correct.
That's the "true" part of the "half true". He got his A before his B. He got the order of the dates correctly.
Which IS somewhat of a feat for a man who can't get the date of election right.
But ignore him getting the timeline right and look at the claim as meaning "BECAUSE you got a subpoena you have deleted 33,000 emails." (which is what he is claiming) - and it's nothing but unproven bullshit.
Except it's not just any unproven bullshit - it's "after being investigated by the FBI - who found nothing" unproven bullshit.
Politifact didn't infer anything.
Nor did they set up a straw man argument as you seem to be implying there. As in, suggesting.
They are just too polite and too nitpicky to simply label it "bullshit". Which is what it is.
Cause he isn't talking about the order of the dates... however amazing it might be that Trump got that part right.
Well... if we assume that he isn't a complete imbecile who is simply thrilled about figuring out the order of the dates of the events, and that he is thus not talking about dates but about some sort of guilt regarding those events.
I mean... that could be true as well... but it's doubtful.
He's obviously at the very least a moron.
That flag was the battle flag of an army who fought Unites States soldiers. As such, it belongs in the ranks of the Isis flag and the Nazi swastika.
And "overbearing federal government?" Hoo, boy... Here's a hint: Neighborhood associations are NOT part of the federal government.
The damned smart phones were invented fifty years too late, right when the GenXers were too busy to teach their kids manners. It's just plain RUDE to talk on the phone or text when you're having a conversation with someone else. Pulling out the phone when it hasn't rung is the height of rudeness.
Telephone etiquette was worked out a century ago. If you have compeny and the phone rings, you say "excuse me", answer the phone and say "I have company, can I call you back?" and the polite answer to that is "sure" unless it's an emergency.
My eighty eight year old mother rages about that behavior, and believes it's the smartphones themselves that causes it!
It isn't internet dysphoria, it's "I'm sick of assholes" dysphoria.
No problem is so large it can't be fit in somewhere.