Elerond

It is not really about freedom of speech or supporting cartoons, but that caricatures of political and religious nature are inseparable part of French culture, meaning that even if people don't agree with the message of some particular caricature or find it grotesque and bad taste, they still feel attacks against it and demands to censor it as attacks against France and Frenchness. You could just ask Muslims forget their prophet in attempt to prevent people dying because of extremists. In other words it is similar issue as why people support freedom of religion even though it leads people dying because of small groups of intolerant and ignorant extremists.

It is always good when supreme court does check facts before they make ruling

I would almost believe that these decisions are actually about ethics and/or saving lives if it wasn't fact that for some reasons need to protected these 'lives' seems to end when child is born and after that they become just another leaches that lives on other people's hard earned money

@BruceVCThere is not best system. Ideological purity always causes more problems than it solves. When it comes to policies you should go with ones that work best in big picture instead of trying to force policies that don't work because they belong ideology you like generally.

Left-right divide is what anybody doing the divide wants to it to be. Origins of the divide comes from French Revolution, wikipedia has pretty good article about origins of left-right political spectrum: "The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left. ... The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation. With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left. Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs. There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left." In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War. The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947): The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes." Ideological groupings Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism". Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists, communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats, left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals. Movements for racial equality and trade unionism have also been associated with the left. Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians, neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists, fascists, reactionaries and traditionalists. A number of significant political movements do not fit precisely into the left-right spectrum, including Christian democracy, feminism, and regionalism. Though nationalism is often regarded as a right-wing doctrine, many nationalists favor egalitarian distributions of resources. There are also "liberal nationalists". Populism is regarded as having both left-wing and right-wing manifestations in the form of left-wing populism and right-wing populism, respectively. Green politics is often regarded as a movement of the left, but in some ways the green movement is difficult to definitively categorize as left or right." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum But now days left-right division is become easier. As you need only to pick either left or right and then everything that you like is either left or right depending on what you pick and then everything you don't like belong to other option.

Yes in case that changing stance means that they will add reason for block in tweets in which they have blocked the URL to New York Post article

That is just simply bull****. There was no war when Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was made and both parties were aggressors in war that followed said agreement. Also western nations made pacts with USSR and they even sold them lots of the weapons that they used in their invasion. And US for example traded lot with Soviet union after 1933, which made it possible that USSR was able to build it industries. Also still in beginning of 1939 France and UK were seeking military alliance with USSR after Germany took over the Sudetenland, but those ended in May when Molotov become the foreign minister as Molotov was skeptic towards France and UK and saw better opportunities in dealing with Germany

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/10/12/california-illegal-ballot-boxes/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=wp_main "The California GOP has pushed voters to pop their mail-in ballots inside. Social media posts have advertised their locations, and one regional field director posted a photo to Twitter on Friday showing him holding a ballot in front of one of the boxes. “Doing my part and voting early,” Jordan Tygh wrote in the now-deleted tweet, which was reviewed by The Washington Post before it was removed. “DM me for convenient locations to drop your ballot off at!” But those containers, which were first reported by the Orange County Register and KCAL, are not county-authorized ballot drop-off sites. In fact, the unofficial boxes are against the law, state officials said Sunday. Erecting or advertising unofficial ballot boxes could be a felony that carries a two-to-four-year prison sentence, according to the secretary of state’s office." It seems that Democrats just don't understand that Republicans are law and order and also ballot boxes are people

Probably first winner who has given any doubt that they aren't deserving the prize

It is because god emperor protects america

Chavez has done lots of things to destroy Venezuela's oil industry (like in 2005 selling oil to US 40% below market price), but he is not responsible of nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry and kicking out foreign companies "Under the presidency of Carlos Andrés Pérez, whose economic plan, "La Gran Venezuela", called for the nationalization of the oil industry, Venezuela officially nationalized its oil industry on 1 January 1976 at the site of Zumaque oilwell 1 (Mene Grande). This was the birth of Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA). All foreign oil companies that once did business in Venezuela were replaced by Venezuelan companies, such as Lagoven (Standard Oil), Maraven (Shell), and Llavonen (Mobil)."

Number of confirmed covid-19 cases world wide: 34,410,636 Number of deaths by covid-19: 1,022,787 So survival rate is currently 97% Suvival rate in USA is only 0.1 percent better

People joked about debates over zoom, after the debate, but looks like that it may actually be only way how remaining debates can be organized now

Personally I probably will get richer if Trump is elected again as current republican and Trump policies have actually increased Finnish products and services ability compete in European markets. Meaning his trade war with EU hurts our american competition on European markets and USA's sanctions against Russia has made Finland even bigger port to Russian markets, like they ship sneakers from China to Finland so that they can be imported to Russia. And sanctions and threats against Chines companies has given Nokia ability to grab quite lot European 5G contracts and so on. But Trump's presidency has made it for China, Russia and Turkey to break international agreements and do their power and land grab politics. Which probably lead unrest all over the world. But I am not sure if Biden will make any difference because current state of US's domestic politics will guarantee that next president does not have time/ability to do effective foreign politics.

In 2016 when Trump won he called fraud in basis of millions of people voting illegally in person. So I am sure that Trump will again call fraud regardless of results

There were 33.4 million votes cast through mail in 2016 election That second link absolutely tells how you can't trust mail-in-voting "The California secretary of state’s election data obtained by the AP showed 102,428 mail-in ballots were disqualified in the state’s 58 counties, about 1.5% of the nearly 7 million mail-in ballots returned. " "The most common problem, by far, in California was missing the deadline for the ballot to be mailed and arrive. To count in the election, ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day and received within three days afterward. Statewide, 70,330 ballots missed those marks." "Another 27,525 either didn’t have a signature, or the signature didn’t match the one on record for the voter." So almost all the ballots were rejected because they didn't fill two basic rules of voting

I am not sure if half of republican voters can be described as fringe group https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311949-poll-belief-in-conspiracies-largely-depends-on-political-identity https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/12/27/belief-conspiracies-largely-depends-political-iden

People believed that there was child prostitution ring in basement of one tier building that doesn't have basement without evidence and didn't not believe pictures and videos that showed that there was no basement. So people will believe anything their side tells them regardless of facts evidence or probability of the thing. Voting by mail has been most popular in states controlled by Republicans. So it isn't like those who no 'fear' voting by mail aren't familiar with the system and know that it is as safe as voting in person. Especially when you take in account that majority of in person votes are done with over decade old voting machines that have know security issues.

When you don't care if claims are true or not, then it does not matter if process is clean and simple as possible as it does matter because other side cheats anyway

Project Veritas is excellent source for everything as they have get caught of faking evidence only couple dozen times

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html "Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750. He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made." Seem about right "Rather, there appears to be a closer-to-home explanation for at least some of the fees: Mr. Trump reduced his taxable income by treating a family member as a consultant, and then deducting the fee as a cost of doing business. The “consultants” are not identified in the tax records. But evidence of this arrangement was gleaned by comparing the confidential tax records to the financial disclosures Ivanka Trump filed when she joined the White House staff in 2017. Ms. Trump reported receiving payments from a consulting company she co-owned, totaling $747,622, that exactly matched consulting fees claimed as tax deductions by the Trump Organization for hotel projects in Vancouver and Hawaii." Draining the swamp seem to going well also

Allowing such agreements will lead to cheap labor import and lots of abuse. It is system which is used in Qatar and Saudi Arabia for example and it has lead both countries to have immigrant workforce who are quite close to slaves. And they also cause wages on those jobs drop so low that no domestic worker is able to do them an live with the wage.

If you have lots of illegal immigrants in country, making their status legal helps to control their economical impact better. As it is easier to regulate how much companies need to pay them for their work. It easier to spot abuse and low wages. It make easier to see where there is need for additional services (schools, shops, etc. every day services). Meaning that immigrants don't only take jobs, but create them by needing services and stuff. Uncontrollable immigration is problem, because it puts stress on existing systems faster than those systems can answer to increasing demand. Even though there are limit how much immigration country can handle it is always better to make immigrants somehow legal if you aren't able to sent them back to their home country, because if you let them became gray invisible mass which size isn't know, they will cause invisible stress to existing systems which is much more difficult to handle, as many issues will keep themselves in shadows until it is too late. One of the best ways to prevent illegal immigration is to kill demand for such immigrants.

So company can bring immigrant workers, arrange them to live in some sort compound and feed them what they get affordable and then make those people work them to pay that housing and food. And then in order to ensure that said immigrants follow law company can keep them behind lock and key. Would that be good arrangement to to you, which causes less problems in society than current immigration policies?

First you want people pay their rent and then you say that those who pay their rent could then collect that rent from them, how that should actually work?