!agree

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/christine-blasey-ford-ex-boyfriend-says-she-helped-friend-prep-for-potential-polygraph-grassley-sounds-alarm

The idea she knew nothing of polygraphs given her field seems extremely unlikely.

Her supporters will most certainly continue to believe her.

And will likely point to the comments about drinking as a balance.

Thinking you can bring someone down on anonymous allegations ... no sympathy

@oprahsminge I get you are... I'm saying that to think, as she said she did, that you could ruin such a process totally anonymously is a concerning belief and hard to imagine she didn't understand what she was saying.

She said she just wanted the info out there.

It's hard to say if its being stupid or what

There is certainly contradicting logic here

You wouldn't put the info out if you didn't want it to affect the situtation

She did

No.

She wanted to be kept out of it

she wanted the info out

Keeping her identity private is different from keeping the info private

She said she wanted the info to get to Trump and the Senate

I know

My point is she clearly wanted the info to affect the situation

why else would you release it?

I agree. Maybe we're talking about different things. My issue is that she believed not only that she could throw a wrench into his nomination but could do so via anonymous claims.

I've seen few bring this up specifically.

People yell "due process" but seem to ignore that she explicitly said she didn't want due process by saying she wanted to influence the situation via anonymous claims.

That information would have had to become public

Unless the government explicitly defined it classified

I would imagine a FOIA request could change that.

I'd be a bit surprised if these reports for public offices would be restricted. Redacted... sure... but not totally off limits.

Perhaps. Even so I'd think such info would make it back to his FBI files.

The whole IDW has many blindspots. Especially with regard to political theory and economics.

centralism = utilitarianism as a first principle

Most centralists tend to be utilitarian

The Republicans got a lot more rebellious individuals after the Ron Paul Revolution and Tea Party.

He wasn't extreme enough for me... but I'm an free market anarchist.

But he's pretty damn close

He was the only politician I ever actively supported

He's good in relation to the average but not as ideological has his father

I have respect for people with educated worldviews. Sanders is not one of those people.

He very clearly ignores history, game theory, economics, etc.

No, it doesn't. If you don't know the counter arguements to your own views.

That's bullshit

https://www.c-span.org/event/?452493/senate-debates-brett-kavanaugh-nomination-final-vote-expected-afternoon&live

wahmans

He's small potatoes so the left don't care.

Ugh... the SCOTUS is not there to protect anyone. It's there to uphold the US Constitution.

^^

"I DO NOT CONSENT"

She's a patriot... well then. Let her go.

"Don't Bitch, Vote"

Yes... because voting means it works in your favor.

Seriously

There are multiple definitions of "left" and "right" over the years. You have to define your words before talking about this stuff.

"everyone was Keynesian back then" well... everyone popular. There were those of the Austrian school.

corporatism is often in effect socialistic.

Mises' Omnipotent Government goes into the whole Nazi theory and practice pretty well.

corporatism in which government controls the actions of the companies is effectively socialist

@Deleted User Mises wrote Omnipotent Government in 1944 and called Nazism socialist

It is not some modern interpretation.

Sure. Difference of degrees. Not kind.

@devpav No he didn't.

He was opposed to open borders.

His supporters were open borders

He kept quiet about it

His website was clearly anti-open border

Working at BF caused my very very progressive friend to turn to a JBP following libertarian

@AdorableStormtrooper https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/

Bernie has many of the bad policies of Trump and none of the good ones.

ew

@halfthink Just what I was about to say

I'm #TeamMeteor... my hope is a meteor resets the planet ecosystem.

native American vs Native American

@Jes Mostly by people who are too stupid or ignorant to understand the science they see

It is religion

PRs are pretty well mixed

Yeah

But it's only once a month or so

@oprahsminge It'd be amazing if he did. I didn't notice if Shapiro mentioned anything about the reference.

The risk is that the military reacts in some way with violence. That will play poorly.

Whitehouse got one too

And ricin

Same with the Clinton and Obama ones

it was caught in screening

Then at least ricin was sent to Trump

Apparently a high ranking Dem was on the return address of the packages so her evac could be related to that.

There are plenty of crazies who could have done this.

@Timcast define "large"... there have been a few NYC attacks... the guy driving the van / truck for example

@Undead Mockingbird Define work. For classic progressives and those in South Africa they worked as expected.

Is that image on cnn.com supposed to be the actual package?

The problem isn't tech. Anyone can get the core tech.

The issue is government intervention in the tech space. ISPs, domain services, IP in general, etc. are heavily interfered by government at many levels.

Intervention in finance is even more pervasive. Hence why there is such a limited set of payment processors.

It's not NJ... it's NYC metro NJ

plenty of NJ is republican

Hahah

Good for him

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nycs-de-blasio-would-love-to-see-city-control-rents-and-housing-development

@Timcast Your comment about "unfettered capitalism" and pollution is misinformed. It was government, not the market, which enabled pollution at scale into commons. Disregarding their role as arbiter of private property disputes. When people brought businesses to court over air and water pollution early in the industrial revolution it was government which said that it was OK because it was for the benefit of all.

It's fine if you think it'd happen even if there was free market courts but history shows that businesses got away with polluting because governments allowed it.

Certainly that was part of it too.

Given pollution is subjective it was reasonable that courts ruled that say... burning wood for heat was not pollution because everyone did it and pretty much everyone accepted that as the cost of surviving.