BuckFifty
Member
What?????? This statement has left me utterly dumbfounded.Originally Posted by alsbos
It is not part of a larger interfering complex; it is siRNA contained within a nanoliposome. (I don't know how loosely they are applying the nano prefix in this case). The liposome is just the carrier and increases cellular uptake of the siRNA.
TMPHBITEU
What "rights" do you think workers need that they don't have?
Member
Maybe because there's no proof of these allegations? Kinda like the "muslim travel ban" you were so sure of just a few post earlier.
Member
Inside every democrat is a communist trying to get out.
Member
How exactly do you find this a "strong" argument? If bank robbers go into a bank and steal all the cash but leave the gold bars behind, then does that mean the robbers didn't actually steal the cash? That's how poor that argument is.
Nevertheless, there can be many reasons why, and all we can do is, like you, make up stories and theories. Perhaps the fraudulent ballots were made last minute, so there wasn't time to fill the rest out, perhaps the people that filled the fraudulent ballots didn't realize they should mark the rest, perhaps legitimate voters only cared about the presidential race and ignored the rest, etc, etc. These and other theories are plausible, but it doesn't matter: the issue is that there is evidence of fraud in the presidential election.
Another thing to think about is that foreign adversaries are very likely to attempt to influence US presidential elections (this could be yet another theory of why the ballots were exclusively for presidents). The US president has pretty much free reign over foreign policy and the president is also the commander of the armed forces. This has significant impact on foreign countries. The president has limited power outside of that. So, given that, most Americans should be more concerned about local elections and congressional elections (where laws are actually formed) rather than the presidential election. But, the US media focuses on the presidential election. Why is that? Adversarial foreign influence? Ignorant voters that simply see the presidential election as a Super Bowl of the two parties (pick your blue team or red team)? Perhaps a combination?
Do you know the difference between a "racist comment" and a "racial comment"? That's your English assignment for today...Get back to us when you finish.
You don't know that "Trump dislikes Muslims". It is known that Trump dislikes incompetence, and he runs his businesses as meritocracies. Race, religion, gender, etc, has shown to have no bearing on his actions. If you really want to call Trump a "racist", then you need to think about why he appointed a black Surgeon General, a black Secretary of HUD, why he publicly denounced white supremacy, and why he did this: Policy | White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. It will be easier for you to simply admit you were wrong than continue calling him a "racist" or a purport of "racist" comments. You are using a word that you do not understand.
Regarding the "muslim ban" -- Trump shut those countries out because there was no way to track who was coming in. Those countries did not have accurate reliable histories of their people. Military intelligence has known for a long time that enemies of the US come in through those countries (the military knows who many of them are and they have tracked and caught a significant number of them in those countries). This was a national security decision. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to enlighten us.....
Member
Got it, I jumped the gun on the enzymatic complex that interrupts transcription. Thanks for the heads up.
Member
I think you're on the right track. Sanders might as well be a communist. karl marx wrote the communist manifesto after all, and Sanders is certainly a Marxist. There's a saying,"christians go to heaven, socialists go to communism". Everybody has a beautiful plan for your life, but socialism is usually a secular vision of a future paradise. That's the religious appeal people try to point out. And it's why socialists always need be the righteous class, because socialism/marxism/communism is a secular religion with a beautiful plan for your life. That's why they are critisized as IDEALOGS, because they know that they have the right plan for your life, past failures are seen merely as failed experments to learn from. So i'd say it's religious social and economic, you get the full ESCHATOLOGY or future vision.
Or I might be all fucked up i don't know.
Member
I think this is a pretty accurate assessment of communism/marxism/general leftist political thinking. It's something that naturally flows from Nietzsche's "God is dead" statement. Utopia must occur at all costs, because there is no after life to look forward to. Not to say that there aren't other ideologies or philosophies that can develop from atheism, but Marxism/Communism/Socialism seems to produce the most fervent zealots.
Member
So, yes, if the electors fail to achieve a majority, it goes to the House, and you're correct that each state's delegation gets one vote.
However, for a court to intervene and prevent a state from being counted? That's the part that isn't realistic. Validating the vote doesn't really matter. The Constitution and the Federal law implementing it (Title 3 U.S. Code, Chapter 1) don't take much interest in how a state actually chooses their electors, provided they don't step on the 14th Amendment on the way.
In a more general sense, the states and their bond with the Federal government, in our law, are perpetual and indestructible, their citizens provide the sovereignty of both simultaneously, and neither can dissolve that without mutual agreement. The Constitution says "shall", not "may". Even if the bombs have fallen and all communications have failed, my read is that the President of the Senate is supposed to appoint a messenger to travel across the nuclear wasteland to track down whatever is passing for the survivors' state government and retrieve the certificate from their electors to bring it back to Washington.
There's just nothing in there meant to exclude a state except under the most extreme circumstances, and even then, both houses of Congress have to agree. Whether or not people even got to vote is sort of an afterthought compared to making sure the state comes up with electors somehow.
I was thinking it over, however, and did think of another way a state government could get itself excluded and jam up the process without the courts, maybe even without any bad intentions on anyone's part. I don't think it could matter here, but it would involve a state legislature doing something radical and now I have an idea for a really bad political thriller novel.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote