Elerond

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html Here's how California's new voter registration law will work California has received a lot of attention in recent days for its new voter registration law, which is intended to streamline the process of signing up to vote and encourage more participation in elections. Here’s what we know — and don’t know yet — about the new law: https://www.npr.org/2015/10/11/447796712/california-becomes-2nd-state-to-automatically-register-voters California Becomes 2nd State To Automatically Register Voters https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/dl/motorvoter California New Motor Voter Program The Department of Motor Vehicles and Secretary of State are working to establish a new California Motor Voter Program as defined by AB 1461. This new program will increase voter registration during DMV transactions by automatically registering any person who is qualified to vote unless that person opts out of registration. Exciting changes to arrive in April 2018. More information coming soon. Law itself https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1461 Assembly Bill No. 1461

They voted against republicans budget bill, which will lead to shut down of government because government will run out of money, without bill that gives them right use more money. Republicans introduced budget bill that was made to support only their agenda, with full knowledge that they don't have enough votes to pass it, and they tried to force democrats support it with threat of closure of government, but it seems that democrats decided to see if republicans actually have balls to close government or will they yield and add things that democrats want on the bill. Which was probably quite easy decision for them because majority of their voters seem to support their decision.

They voted for partisan bill and hoped that they could force democrats to vote for it with threat of closing government, but most democrats decided not to yield such heavy handed maneuver forcing republicans in situation where they most likely need to negotiate bipartisan bill.

Neither republicans or democrats have enough votes to have mandate to decide budget alone, which is why they need bipartisan bill So shutting government down was bipartisan decision

Exactly, they control both chambers of Congress and the WH (though the WH isn't being all that helpful, thanks to Trump), it's up to them to reach a bipartisan compromise, but they don't want to. Meanwhile, the Democrats understandably are trying to work hard the leverage that they have by stonewalling over DACA. That is funny. It's the republicans fault for not getting an agreement and then saying Democrats are working hard by "stonewalling". Let's be honest, neither party plays with the other and hasn't for a long time hence one of our biggest problems we have ongoing politically. It is how system is made to work Majority is only one that has power to make propositions and minority's power lies on their ability to refuse those propositions if majority does not accept some of their demands. And if compromise can't be found then it goes to game of chicken to see which one will blink first. Usually majority feels pressure to find compromise because they would face majority of the backslash from the voters and media, but these days it seems people are so politically divided that both majority and minority are more likely to face backslash if they give in without getting everything that they want.

Most of them lost their minds long before this. I find it interesting how doctor actually said that Trump isn't really in good shape (when taking in consideration his weight and medicines that he is taking) but is healthy enough to most likely to survive next 7 years and how that is twisted to story about how Trump is healthy and fit, because his shape was not as bad as some people predicted/hoped. Also I find it interesting how people say that Trump doesn't exercise even though he spent more time on golf course than in office. Even though golf is not most physically straining sport it demands lots of walking even when one uses mostly golf car to move that it would be strange if Trump does not actually do more physical exercise than your typical 70 year old. Although Trump seems to be much worse shape than my Grandmother who is over ten year older than him, but she was athlete in her younger days (like for example when she was 70 ) The doctor said the bolded? I'm not doubting you, however do you have a link? Also, health is a relative thing. Trump is far from the pinnacle of health, however he is definitely healthier than the average 71 year old, and probably a lot healthier than the average person 10 years his junior. Which really isn't hard as most people are really unhealthy these days. Yes doctor gave measurements that tell that Trump is overweight and he also mentioned Trump takes medicine to help effects of not show good shape like ones to lower his cholesterol, which means that he isn't really in good shape (which of course doesn't mean that he is in bad shape either).

Most of them lost their minds long before this. I find it interesting how doctor actually said that Trump isn't really in good shape (when taking in consideration his weight and medicines that he is taking) but is healthy enough to most likely to survive next 7 years and how that is twisted to story about how Trump is healthy and fit, because his shape was not as bad as some people predicted/hoped. Also I find it interesting how people say that Trump doesn't exercise even though he spent more time on golf course than in office. Even though golf is not most physically straining sport it demands lots of walking even when one uses mostly golf car to move that it would be strange if Trump does not actually do more physical exercise than your typical 70 year old. Although Trump seems to be much worse shape than my Grandmother who is over ten year older than him, but she was athlete in her younger days (like for example when she was 70 )

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-ca-motor-voter-law-20151016-html-htmlstory.html Here's how California's new voter registration law will work California has received a lot of attention in recent days for its new voter registration law, which is intended to streamline the process of signing up to vote and encourage more participation in elections. Here’s what we know — and don’t know yet — about the new law: What is the process? When people go to the DMV to obtain or renew a driver's license, or to get a state identification card, they’ll be asked for the usual information in such transactions, such as their name, date of birth and address. They’ll also be asked to affirm their eligibility to vote and will be given the choice of opting out of registering at that time. Information about anyone who does not decline registration will be electronically transmitted from the DMV to the secretary of state’s office, where citizenship will be verified and names will be added to the voter rolls. When will this go into effect? That’s unclear. The law goes into place on Jan. 1, 2016, but the DMV said in a statement that it would not send information to the secretary of state until that office "develops regulations, completes a statewide database system and funding is secured to implement this program.” The regulations, which must be agreed upon between the DMV and the secretary of state, will have to settle basic procedural issues, such as how the “opt-out” question will be phrased and how often the DMV will transmit data. The statewide voter registration database, Vote-Cal, is on track to be implemented by June 2016, said Secretary of State Alex Padilla. He said he expects funding needs to be minimal, noting that the DMV received money in the current state budget for a technology upgrade. If there are extra costs, he said, “the governor signed the bill, and I interpret his signature as a commitment to funding implementation as necessary.” Resolving the procedural questions will take some time, Padilla acknowledged. “It won’t be in time for the June primary of 2016,” he said. “At the latest, for the 2018 election cycle, I expect millions of new voters on the rolls in the state of California." Is this really “automatic” voter registration? Not quite. No one who is eligible will be registered to vote without their knowledge. Proponents of the New Motor Voter Act have emphasized how the electronic transmittal of information will simplify the process. Lori Shellenberger, voting rights director for the ACLU of California, called the law “a gold standard for what is an automated voter registration, but not automatic.” How is this law different from Oregon’s, where automatic registration was first enacted? The key difference is the timing of the “opt-out” choice. In Oregon, there are no questions about voter registration at the point of service at the DMV. Rather, the DMV forwards people's information to the secretary of State. Those deemed eligible receive a card in the mail that informs them of their registered status and allows them to pick a political party or to opt out of registration. What about people in the country illegally who are able to obtain driver's licenses in California under a law passed in 2013? Padilla noted that there is already a separate process for residents in the country illegally to apply for special licenses. Although citizens are currently offered the opportunity to register to vote at the DMV under an earlier federal law, noncitizens are not. That will continue under the new registration process. People applying for the special licenses will not be asked about their eligibility to vote and will not be asked if they’d like to opt out of registration. “We’ve built the protocols and the firewalls to not register people that aren’t eligible,” Padilla said. “We’re going to keep those firewalls in place." “We’ve built the protocols and the firewalls to not register people that aren’t eligible,” Padilla said. “We’re going to keep those firewalls in place." Of course one can always disputed effectiveness of said protocols and firewalls.

I’ve Studied the Trump-Fox Feedback Loop for Months. It’s Crazier Than You Think. On Tuesday night, I, along with many Americans, was shocked when President Donald Trump tweeted that his “Nuclear Button” is “much bigger & more powerful” than North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un's. Having spent the past three months monitoring Trump’s Twitter feed professionally, I also had a good sense of why this spectacle was unfolding. After watching a recording of the previous few minutes of Fox News, my hunch was confirmed: The president was live-tweeting the network’s coverage. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/01/05/trump-media-feedback-loop-216248

That's assuming there is anything like an equilibrium. There is an argument to be made that decline in birth rates could be a one way trip. Population equilibrium is not constant, as it constantly changed by new scientific discoveries, declining natural resource and living space. Also changes in climate and even changes in societal norms effect on it. Birth rates and populations can decline century and then have sudden change of course and start rapidly increase for next century and then go back to decline and so on. We as species have big advantage in fact that we can actually monitor and effect on our population growth and decline and our birth rates in multitude of ways. Baby boomer generation was actually very untypical thing to happen, not because of lots of babies were born but that majority of them survived to adulthood, which is thing that is new phenomenon made possible by advances in medical technologies, food production and housing. I mean world population crossed over 1 billion in 1800s and now we are closing 8 billion. Any other species on this planet cannot sustain such population growth for ~200 years without of aid from humans even then it is usually becomes soon unsustainable.

thats where I am heading but I wanted to play with them for a while first, you ruined my fun "Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women." I am so proud of you two's ability to read what is written and how you don't let your preconception impact on how you interpret things. Good job That is issue with history - it have impact on current events, have fun fighting with windmills I started this conversation over this point "Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? :)" By saying Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim and giving example why I think so So who here is fighting windmills? Sorry I must seems dumb but is that example in that quote somewhere? Or was it that some decades ago women were disadvantaged? "Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those. It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased). It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married. Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women." But I probably have mistaken and historic disadvantages don't cause any disadvantages today, which is why it is fair to say that Czechs are just lazier people than Finns as average Czech is so much poorer than average Finn.

thats where I am heading but I wanted to play with them for a while first, you ruined my fun "Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women." I am so proud of you two's ability to read what is written and how you don't let your preconception impact on how you interpret things. Good job That is issue with history - it have impact on current events, have fun fighting with windmills I started this conversation over this point "Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? :)" By saying Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim and giving example why I think so So who here is fighting windmills?

thats where I am heading but I wanted to play with them for a while first, you ruined my fun "Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women." I am so proud of you two's ability to read what is written and how you don't let your preconception impact on how you interpret things. Good job

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those. It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased). It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married. Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. Look I am not arguing about how things were. Neither am I so how: Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. If they are no longer in place? (expecting some mental gymnastics) Because of those laws of the past there are less of female versions of Trump and Koch brothers who use their inherited wealth to lobby laws and become political leaders.

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those. It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased). It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married. Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women. Look I am not arguing about how things were. Neither am I

There's nothing "tough" or "advanced" about rank idiocy such as "women are destroying civilization". Yeah it is outrageous statement, almost like patriarchy is holding women back right? Patriarchy is holding women in back, but not necessary ways that people think when they hear the claim Like for example it isn't even half century ago when in many (western) countries women could not actually own credit card, bank account etc. things without man co-signing those. It also wasn't that long ago when in many (western) countries inheritance laws jump over women in favor of male relatives (and some times male cousin could be higher in line than actual daughter of deceased). It isn't also that long when we had laws in many (western) countries that moved ownership of things that woman owned to her husband if she married. Today these laws still have impact on women statuses in societies as general as they have made our societies such that we have much more rich men than women.

Federal ID card was not because there isn't other ID cards that work in all the states, but to make ID card which federal authorities can give out. I am not sure if federal authorities can give out state IDs. In other news Trump administration officials are forbidding officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases — including “fetus” and “transgender” — in any official documents being prepared for next year’s budget. Policy analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta were told of the list of forbidden words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials who oversee the budget, according to an analyst who took part in the 90-minute briefing. The forbidden words are: “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “diversity,” “transgender,” “fetus,” “evidence-based” and “science-based.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.205aabe84b26

In my understanding biggest problem in voter ID systems is not id requirement per se, but sloppy bureaucratic work from decades ago, which is something that nobody seems to have interest to fix. To fight voter fraud and solve these constant id issue problems Establish federal register for citizen which will have everybody's birth certificates and all the possible changes that there come to it during person's life, like change of a name, state where person lives, social security number or some other essential information (like person dying). Moving all the existing stuff to above mentioned register Creating federal id card which is valid in every state Making it so that one can get above mentioned id from federal authority which can be found in (nearly) every county like post office in feasible price. And if states add automatic voter registration in the mix then voter fraud should be quite difficult and only thing that prevents people voting is not being able to go to vote (including early voting by post or such) for some reason.

Net Neutrality was in effect before 2015. FCC was forced 2015 for various reasons make it clearer because ISP's constantly fought against it. One of biggest reasons was Comcast decision to start throttle Netflix down until they agreed to pay Comcast millions of dollars extra for service that they had already paid. https://consumerist.com/2014/02/23/netflix-agrees-to-pay-comcast-to-end-slowdown/

https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-fccs-net-neutrality-plan-breaks-with-50-years-of-history/ I would not start gloating death of net neutrality yet. I would predict that this vote will be heavy blow against FCC authority (as their decision will be tested in courts and congress needs to decide what they will do to demands from their constituents) and will inspire actual laws to be placed in in order to protect interest of people who elect people to govern them. Several states (like for example California and Washington) are already starting to introduce their own net neutrality laws. Which means that future will be much more regulated and with much more complex set of rules.

He definitely took the easy way out, avoid all that media attention and eventual jail time I probably would have done the same what are you talking about? Police dropped that case. Are all people mad these days? You are ok with ruining peoples lives without trial? wtf Accusations of misconducts are typical in politics especially in USA. Just look presidential race of 2016 and how many accusation were made against candidates without any trials. Okay one candidate was but on trial and was convicted (Trump University lawsuit and judge approved settlement) but that didn't prevent him to become president. Other candidates were accused, among other things, of running child prostitution ring in pizzeria and even for committing treason and nobody seemed to want to wait investigation let alone trial. Politics is ugly business where one needs to have thick skin when it comes to accusations of misconduct. If Johnson was innocent he should had sued people accusing him instead killing himself, because later only makes it worse for his family.

I would say from current numbers Tennessee can still keep selling their "At Least We're Not Alabama" souvenirs

Chancellor is elected similar way as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/364336-fcc-ftc-announce-partnership-to-police-internet-after-net-neutrality-repeal FCC, FTC announce partnership to police internet after net neutrality repeal “Not only is the FCC eliminating basic net neutrality rules, but it’s joining forces with the FTC to say it will only act when a broadband provider is deceiving the public. This gives free reign to broadband providers to block or throttle your broadband service as long as they inform you of it."

Main reason why ISP's are against net neutrality is that rise of popularity of services like online gaming, Netflix and Youtube has made it more difficult to them to sell same bandwidth multiple times (like for example installing one gigabit cable in the apartment house and then sell every household living in said apartment house 100 megabit connection), because more and more people use services which use full capacity of their connections, which forces ISP's to build their infrastructure to actually have capacity that they are selling to their customers and they don't like that because that cuts their profits down, so instead they want government give them permission to throttle those services down or force them to pay those infrastructure upgrades for them.