sylver_dragon

Also never been a fan of Biden (but voted for him, and will again, if I have to). You’re falling into a Sunk Cost Fallacy. Yes, anyone chosen to replace Biden would be a gamble. But, Biden is a losing horse. The right time to replace him was last year. But, just because we missed that opportunity doesn’t mean we should throw good time after bad. He should be replaced before things get so late it literally cannot be done.

This wasn’t some otherwise strong candidate, who just had a bad day. Biden is already struggling in polling. While the economy hasn’t been fantastic, it’s good enough that he should be crushing Trump. Even in 2016, Clinton was polling ahead of Trump and still managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Biden isn’t winning. He’s maybe tied and maybe losing in current polling. Trump had already proven that he can be convicted in court and not lose support. There’s just not much left to hurt Trump. And Biden doesn’t seem to have anything left to gain support. Things are not going to get better for Biden.

Biden is losing this race. It’s time to follow the rats off the ship, before we’re trying to escape a ship on the bottom of the ocean.

Well done. It wasn’t until I clicked into the thread that I noticed the link. Trump pulling a Nixon level stops just seems too plausible.

1. It’s never going to happen. Turkiye would give us another (probably US backed) genocide in the Middle East before they let that happen.
2. Even with proven oil reserves in those regions, the lack of access to the world’s oceans is going to hurt that country. For all of the modern advancements in the world, trade still goes by boat. Land locked countries face issues with moving goods into and out of the country, which usually adds costs and makes goods from that country less competitive. With almost certain poor relations with Turkiye, Iraq and Syria, this new country would be trying to move goods though Iran, which is just a bad plan. Or, some combination of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia. Again, if none of that sounds promising, it’s because it isn’t. They would be far better off to give up some land further north and try to get connected to the Mediterranean Sea.

Alcohol, a common cause of and response to children.

This appears to be the bill.
The House vote had 3 Nays (surprise, surprise, all Republicans)

• Foxx
• Massie
• McClintock

The Senate passed it via Unanimous Consent. So, no roll call vote.

I have to believe the actual poll and report aren’t as glaringly stupid as that headline. If you ask nearly anyone, “do you want peace?” They are going to respond with “yes.” The devil is always in the details though. Ask them, “should the war in Ukraine be ended by the Ukrainian Government capitulating to all Russian demands to secure an immediate peace?” And, you might find a lot of folks are suddenly less peaceful. This reminds me of the old saw:
There’s lies, damned lines and then there is statistics.

With a crafted question and a bit of p-hacking you can get a lot of results you want out of people.

That’s surprising, I would have expected his plans were pretty clear. You don’t genocide a population and then just leave the place empty afterwards.

As a worker in the Cybersecurity space, it’s absolutely fantastic for job security.

Russia could do that. But, they are kinda busy trying to keep up with demand from their own forces. And that’s only going to get worse as they run out of mothballed Soviet shitboxes to reactivate.

Sort of yes, sort of no. This is one of those places where the US Federal system of government would be beneficial. For the most part, Homicide is a State crime. This means that the State where the crime occurred would have jurisdiction and The US President would not have the power to pardon for that crime. So, let’s say that Biden sends a private hitman (and not Seal Team 6, the FBI or whatever fevered dream part of the US Government Trump comes up with next) to kill Trump. Said hitman would be indicted in New York under New York law for the homicide. President Biden’s power to pardon would not be able to help the hitman. By contrast, New York Governor Kathy Hochul probably could (I can’t be arsed to look up the power of pardon in New York). Where this breaks down is in DC or other Federal land (e.g. military bases). Since those are Federal lands, the Federal Government would have jurisdiction and the President probably would have the power of pardon.

And once you have found your specific collection of plugins that happen not to put the exact features you need behind a paywall but others, you ain’t touching those either.

And this is why, when I’m investigating phishing links, I’ve gotten used to mumbling, “fucking WordPress”. WordPress itself is pretty secure. Many WordPress plugins, if kept up to date, are reasonably secure. But, for some god forsaken reason, people seem to be allergic to updating their WordPress plugins and end up getting pwned and turned into malware serving zombies. Please folks, if it’s going to be on the open internet, install your fucking updates!

Languages shift and change over time. English, as we currently know it, has undergone several such shifts, to the point that it’s less a language and more several languages dressed up in a trench coat pretending to be one. Adding more Spanish words to the language is really just a continuation of a centuries old trend.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said last month. “I think a lot of these cases [will] work up, and the Supreme Court finally says enough is enough, we’re not a banana republic.”

I really hope they do Senator. In a Banana Republic, the Glorious Leader is usually not held to account for his crimes. In the US and in functional Republics, we actually hold people to account for the crimes they commit, regardless of their current or former positions. Trump committed a crime, being a former President doesn’t mean he can’t be held to account.

It does seem that there is an implicit right to vote, but not an explicit one. Which is why I mentioned the Privileges and Immunities clause, if there is a Constitutional right to vote, it likely derives from there. But, being implicit, rather than explicit, means that it falls to judicial review to codify it. It’s also not as solidly guaranteed. Unlike say, the right to assemble, there is no specific text you can point to and say, “this bit of text, right here, says it.” So, it wouldn’t be surprising to see any such decision overturned later on (see: Dobbs decision).

The US constitution does include the right to vote

Kind of, but also kind of not. I replied to another commenter on that, I’ll point you there.

The state level clause about exclusions is only necessary if the right to vote exists in the first place.

I agree that, and event directly stated in my previous post, exactly that:

there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote

Unfortunately, an implicit assumption is not the same as an explicitly enumerated right. It’s a fine distinction, but can be a big pain in the arse. In theory, US Citizens have a lot of unenumerated rights, via the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. However, as it’s left open to interpretation, it ends up amounting to almost nothing.

So that explains the wooshing sound.
Sorry, I guess I’ve been primed by one too many comments where folks seem to want to ignore the laws as written when they are inconvenient to the outcome they want.

I was just focusing on what was there in the Kansas Constitution; but, lets walk through it:

15th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

We’ll ignore Section 2, as it doesn’t seem useful here (same for other amendments below). So, you have a right to vote that cannot be limited by “race, color or previous condition of servitude”. That last bit meaning slavery. So, it kinda does seem to imply a universal right to vote. But again, this leaves open the possibility that the US Government (USG) and States do have the power to limit it otherwise. As a ridiculous example, it seems that this Amendment leaves open the possibility that the State could limit the right to vote for left handed people.

19th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Pretty much exactly as above, but extending the protections to “sex”.

24th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Continuing to extend the limits on USG/State powers. This time, it outlaws poll taxes.

26th Amendment, Section 1
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

And now we’ve extended the prohibition on limiting voting due to age.

There is a through-line on all of these which amounts to “The USG/State cannot limit the right to vote in these specific cases”. At the same time, they all leave open the possibility that the right to vote can be limited by the USG/States, so long as the reason isn’t one of the protected classes. The text of the US Constitution itself is pretty silent on the issue.

Article I, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

That kinda tosses the whole thing to the States to figure out. Though, that has been modified by Federal Law a few times.

Article 4, Section 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

This is the “Privileges and Immunities” clause of the US Constitution, and it’s been a useful “catch all” to further push the rights of the people. If a universal right to vote exists in the US Constitution, it’s probably here. But, that’s going to fall to judicial review. Which, for the moment, the Kansas court seems to have rejected.

As opposed to?
While being a country of written laws does have it’s pitfalls, it also means that we have something to go back to and agree on. There is a reason that political bodies have been codifying laws since the city-states of ancient Mesopotamia. The alternatives usually break down to some sort of “guy with the biggest stick, at the moment, makes the law”. No thanks, I’ll stick with being a “codified law savage”.

That line isn’t about voting, it’s about being qualified to be a Elector, sent to the Electoral College to actually elect the next US President. So, not exactly textual evidence that there is a right to vote enshrined in the Kansas Constitution. The next couple of sections also kinda work against a universal right to vote in Kansas:

Disqualification to vote. The legislature may, by law, exclude persons from voting because of commitment to a jail or penal institution. No person convicted of a felony under the laws of any state or of the United States, unless pardoned or restored to his civil rights, shall be qualified to vote.

This shows that the legislature does have some power to remove a person’s ability to vote under Kansas law. Granted, there seems to be an assumption implicit in this that people have a right to vote, so long as it’s not been removed. But then we get to:

Proof of right to vote. The legislature shall provide by law for proper proofs of the right of suffrage.

That, right there, is probably doing a lot of heavy lifting for this law. The legislature has the power to provide “proper proofs” for the right to vote. So, it would seem that the Kansas Constitution is setting the legislature up to gatekeep voting, based on “proper proofs”. That could well be the signature verification.

This looks like one of those cases where being a country of written laws can lead to weird outcomes. Yes, the right to vote should be universal. But, if the law, as written, doesn’t say that, then that’s not really the law.

So let’s see, I can buy a computer with a new architecture, which will wreck havoc with running my existing software, all for some half-baked AI version of Clippy. That’s gonna be a, “no”.