What if the liberals were completely wrong about Trump all along? What if Trump is exactly what America needs?
After essentially declaring Trump as both Hitler’s reincarnation as the emergence of Antichrist it would take heroic levels of back pedaling to at this point accept that anything he does could in any way be positive.Really, due to the two party mechanics and the previous assertions by liberals it is literally impossible for them to ever make a positive remark about Trump.Even if Trump stole their political agenda and started checking boxes out of their own list of goals they’d be compelled to find a way to sell a narrative that it’s only a trick, a ruse, insincere or wrongly implemented.Given that Trump opposes many of their goals such a thing is little more than a thought exercise.They will continue to invent fake news and false memes to ridicule Trump, they will continue to attack Trump’s family members and shame them in public and there are no holds barred for them in their crusade against Trump and even discrimination in hiring towards Trump supporters isn’t off the table.This is part of a larger strategy of actively making it publicly dangerous to announce political stances that oppose those of the neo-Marxists.We will continue to see more public lynching without due process, people will continue to get fired and there will be massive campaigns to defame and shame people who oppose the neo-Marxism. The liberal media will continue to sell narrative rather than report news and so forth. They will even actively censor topics and events that don’t fit their current strategy, such as Finnish liberal media censoring the rise of antisemitism due to Muslim immigration.This is our current era and it looks very grim dark as opposed to the joyful optimism of 1990’s after the collapse of communist threat.Now we see the populace increasingly polarized and antagonized by each other across the West with increasing acceptance for ever harsher methods and brutish tactics.Social media specifically has unleashed a self reinforcing cycle of this type of behavior and increasing number of spectators are very concerned as to where this is taking us.
What kind of scam have you experienced?
This happened to me few years ago. I got hacked on Amazon.And it was brilliant.By some means the attacker got access to my account. But they did not order any expensive item. Because anything over $10 would trigger a notification to me. And they correctly anticipated that.So, what they did was they ordered very cheap items, not worth more than a dollar or two. They would order it using the stored credit card.Within a minute of ordering they would then cancel the order and Amazon gave them an option on how they want the refund: “original method of payment or as Amazon virtual currency”. What they did was they chose the latter. So money did not go back to my credit card, rather it started coming in as virtual Amazon currency.They bought lots of items and kept on getting money back in Amazon currency. I think they accumulated around 600–700 dollars.Then they added a second shipping address to the account. There are different workflows if the existing address is modified vs. a new address was added. In this case since a new address was added it did not ask for verification on the registered phone number.Finally, they bought something and shipped it off to Canada.How did I find out? Well, Amazon asked me “Hey are you sure you want to buy a car part and send it to Canada? Because both the location and the item are unusual compared to your purchase history.” They sent me an email with the above question.It took me a while to understand what is going on “Canada? Why? I don’t even own a car?”. Finally called Amazon and sorted things out. They cancelled the order, and removed all the false charges.Yes, I got pawned, but I think it was brilliant.-SaGa
Which constitution works better, the U.S. Constitution or the UK Constitution?
They differ not only in what they say, but how they are interpreted, and how they can be modified. The US Constitution is mandatory. It states the way things must be, and also specifies a long and difficult mechanism for changing it.The UK constitution is descriptive (and note the change of case in the word). It describes the way things are. It says the ways should be done if there is no reason to do otherwise. But in practice anybody can amend the "constitution" any time they want - if they can get popular consent, and particularly the consent of Parliament. It describes the normal behaviour, the uncontroversial path, doing things as they have always been done. But you can always stand up and say that a particular institution is obsolete, and we should change. And there will be a discussion, with different levels of civility, and if necessary Parliament, which always has the final word, will rule.Both models have their virtues. The US one has the clarity that it is clearly written - though you need two and a half centuries of Supreme Court judgements to fully interpret it. But it is all there, and not to be argued with, even it it is to be interpreted. But it is relatively inflexible. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Second Amendment, the arms of the 21st century are very different from the arms of the writers of that Amendment. Today's world offers choices that the Founding Fathers never imagined.On the other hand, the British constitution is written in many places and many styles, much of it precedent rather than legislation. Much of it is "understood" rather than explicit. Which makes it simultaneously to malleable, because any part of it can be changed any time, and too rigid, because it is difficult decide what it is to resist. An example is Prince Charles' letters. How much should the monarch, or the obvious heir, be able to influence those who govern apparently in their name? At the moment, I see the US constitution as creaking, and the British one as not so. On the other hand, maybe Britain's divisions would be better sorted if we had a clear set of rules to stand up for - or against.