Huh?
Are you suuuuuure about that?
I'm pretty sure that most coups involve the military.
As far as civil wars go, oh, there's at least one going on right now in Myanmar, and the gov't def. has an air force there.
HelixDab2
joined 1 year ago
Calculators also say that dividing by 0 is an error, but logic says that the answer is infinite. (If i recall, it's more correctly 'undefined', but I'm years out of math classes now.)
That is, as you divide a number by a smaller and smaller number, the product increases. 1/.1=10, 1/.01=100, 1/.001=1000, etc. As the denominator approaches 0, the product approaches infinity. But you can't quantify infinity per se, which results in an undefined error.
If someone that's a mathematician wants to explain this correctly, I'm all ears.
But the tree never makes a sound.
That depends on how you define 'sound'. If it's only perception and interpretation that creates sound, then sure, a tree falling with nothing to hear or perceive it makes no sound. But if you label sound as the vibration created independent of the perception of the phenomena, then sound happens regardless of whether it's perceived or not. Since we label some sounds as imperceptible, or outside of human hearing ranges, my interpretation would be that the phenomena is the sound, rather than the perception of it.
TBH, Dems have absolutely done the same thing before. A super-easy example is Biden's policies to forgive student loans (which, BTW, I'm fully in favor of; it was just done in such a way that it wasn't legal). There's currently a case underway right now regarding the Lloyd Austin throwing out plea agreements with Guantanamo Bay detainees; there's a pretty solid argument that he doesn't have that legal right.
My point is that Bush et al. pushed the limits of what was legal, and in general stopped doing those things when courts told them that they weren't allowed to. OTOH, Trump has absolutely, 100%, flagrantly violated the law and court orders many, many times.
Ah! Got it.
I can't say for certain that it will be hotter than regular hair, but it seems likely, because there's a 'cap' built into them that the hair is tied to. Many wigs are also made with synthetic materials that can absorb and retain more heat than human hair. He best bet is likely going to be finding someone that specializes in wigs made of human hair, and talking to them about it. Be warned that wigs made from human hair costs quite a bit more than fashion items; they can easily be several hundred dollars each.
I have a lot more freedom in this area because of my gender; it's socially acceptable for me to simply shave my head. If you mom doesn't like the appearance of patchy or thinning hair, would she consider that option?
Most people don't split their ticket when they vote; if someone votes Democratic for president, it's likely that they end up voting Democratic in most other races on the ballot as well. That's especially true if they're actively voting against Trump, and the other candidates are endorsed by Trump. So, if I was a Republican trying to take control of the Senate and retain control of the House, that would be a risky strategy.
As far as the other possibilities go, IDK. It doesn't seem likely because...
...Many of the Republicans currently endorsing Harris are been vocally anti-Trump for a long time now. It's not new that they're anti-Trump, but it is new that they're actively endorsing a Democrat. I don't think that they're trying to actively work to get Trump elected by some subversive means, and it seems like the numbers of people that would work on--versus the number of Reagan-era Republicans that would take it at face value--seems very marginal.
Staffers are basically just office personel.
Staffers are usually True Believers. They want to work for an administration because they believe in the person, and believe in the policy. That, BTW, was why Trump had such ferocious turnover; people become disillusioned at a blistering rate.
That's such a fucking stupid take from someone that doesn't even have a grade-school understanding of politics.
The Republicans endorsing Harris don't like her, and they don't agree with any of her policies. They probably do agree with much of the bullshit that comes out of Trump. On the other hand, the Republicans endorsing Harris genuinely believe in America, and in the idea of democracy. They clearly see that Trump is an enormous threat to democracy in the US, and that he's doing everything in his power to break the system that they believe in, even if his specific policies are things they agree with.
Whether I like Bush Jr., or Cheney (either one, really), or George Will, or any other Republican endorsing her, or not, they are still people that believe in the rule of law. Trump does not believe in the rule of law. These Republicans largely believe in letting voters decide, even if they'll jerrymander the shit out of districts. Trump does not. These Republicans don't believe that this country can survive a second Trump presidency, and they would rather lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and possibly a few seats on SCOTUS, than watch our democracy die.
Any covering on the head is going to hold heat to one degree or another. If she wants to minimize that, then something like a shemagh or a keffiyeh is likely her best bet (although a keffiyeh is considered menswear). They're both fairly light weaves, almost gauzy, and should allow air to circulate.
Hair in general is just hot, and the more you have, the hotter it is. If you've every gotten a crew cut or shaved your head in the summer, you'll know that the difference is stark.
Why does she need a wig or hat though? Is this a religious issue, where she's not allowed to show her own hair?
So, gov. Abbott is trying to prove that he has no idea what terrorism is, huh?
Terrorism has a pretty solid definition. It's not just an armed group that scares people; it's violence that's directed at uninvolved civilians as a proxy for the gov't. It's violence with an explicitly political motive. If you systematically murder the extended families of police officers in a town so that the cops back off enforcing the law and the gov't collapses, that's terrorism. If you're killing rival gang members, that's just a turf war.
These aren't terrorists, they're just ordinary criminals, and gov' Abbott is just an ordinary idiot that's trying to score political points.
Hmmm, simple majority vote. Interesting. So if we somehow got a Democratic house with a Trump presidency, they could just refuse to confirm any VP at all, which would make the speaker of the House 2nd in line for the presidency.
This would also be true of a guerilla civil war in the US though. You'd be relying on locals--people that had probably had friends and families killed by gov't military operations and indiscriminate bombing--to help you root out insurrectionists.
Would a large number of 2A supporters be in favor of tyranny as long at it had an (R) next to it? Sure. Certainly not all of us though.