I think the anon's scenario wouldn't be likely mostly because it relies on the idea that "red" state politicians would stand up to an overreaching federal government in the first place. We've had so many indications that is not the case.
Unfortunately our system seems like a good one, it's good against outside threats and even against some degree of inside negligence, but the problem is that it isn't at all good against wide-scale, intentional subversion from the inside.
So yeah, ideally it would be illegal to pass such laws (and it is probably technically illegal in a sense), but the problem is you're playing inside of a totally captured and controlled system. It doesn't matter what's illegal right now. It matters what those interested parties can get away with.
Doesn't seem like sf, a lot of them are casually walking and the group is larger than expected. Probably a swat team or something like that, since a few do have weapons up like they're ready for contact. Not sure, but I doubt the guard would be walking around like that.
Yeah, I didn't mean he was great by any means lol, more just meant that he didn't let the city turn into Chaz or anything like that. All the lmpd I know are just waiting to hit that pension and get out of there at this point.
Seems to be the nature of cities by now - they just get worse and worse. Ol Greg will probably seem level headed compared to whoever they get next.
Louisville sucks more than it did 6 years ago, for sure. That said, he did better than most libs during the summer of love. I don't go there all that much, but I'd say he operates about like a businessman lib who is the mayor over a major city would operate -- pushes the corporate victim nonsense (LGBT, race, etc), talks like a socialist kind of guy, but doesn't completely hamstring the police or fold completely over to full blown commies.
Basically, he's probably corrupt and definitely all in on immoral leftist nonsense but he still wants the city to remain somewhat functional and satisfy the corporations/tourists.
The idea that not voting will somehow be beneficial is absurd!
As an attorney, Lin should know this. You could argue that voting won't help or that voting won't help, or even possibly that voting will help, but arguing that not voting will provide some kind of benefit is logically nonsensical and sketchy.
I'm married to someone of another race and it's definitely not "racist" in anyway to have preferences about who you date. If she wants to date a certain type of man, that's her call and nobody else's - people are just hating because she wants a family and kids with someone of her choosing instead of to be a degenerate egirl with zero standards.
Leaving for an unknown destination would probably not be your best bet. It sounds good - going to the forest, but if stuff really went south it wouldn't be the dream scenario most think of. Feeding and hydrating yourself would be very unlikely and surviving the elements would further decrease the likelihood of survival.
If you're there and have roots as well as nearby family, it's probably your best bet. I'm sure you realize that the location is way, way less than optimal, so maybe if you could convince your support system to also head elsewhere, that might be your best bet. If not, at least it sounds like you're on the right track to maximizing your situation.
Just don't fall for the concept of fleeing to the unknown unless you can realistically forecast that it's a better and more realistic option than staying in the known (which it could be, at some point, but don't do it impulsively because it would likely carry huge risks.)
I've thought they were lying about this for a while. Looked into it a bit a few years back and it seemed to confirm that there's some shadiness going on. Eventually moved on and kind of forgot about the topic altogether. I'd say it's highly likely though.
Generally these things aren't "myths." They're more likely to be a reality that is presented out of context. Think human nature - people don't just keep a myth going over hundreds of years without some sort of influence to do so or belief that the myth is a reality.
It was probably real and was probably different than what we think of it as being. Just as a lot of the mythology of the past was probably based off reality, but details were incorrect (fallen angels vs god's, etc.)
Because the NPR exists to influence, not to inform.
They will phrase things in a way to hypnotically suggest to sleepers that there is only one real argument, leading them to accept this stance by default with minimal info. All of them do it, which is why there are so many highly opinionated people on the left who know very little about the topics they're so opinionated on - they can repeat a few talking points, but break down if forced to bring any depth to a conversation. It's a mixture of hypnosis and herd behavior.
These are the people who said they "didn't like labels" ten years ago. Now they gain status by attaching as many labels to themselves as possible.
It's crazy how their worldview can be so easily manipulated, but that's the result of rejecting truth.
That's why I like Nino -- says what's on his mind, isn't polished in his presentation and doesn't mind being wrong (or admitting when he is.)