Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
whembly wrote: Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
Not necessarily. You could also have a Andrew Mellon situation where the politician legislates his competitors out of business. If you wonder why you have to buy expensive gasoline for your car, rather than a century of inexpensive biofuel, blame him. When DuPont found out that Ford was about to go with biofuel in the 1930's, Mellon set it up so that one of the key ingredients in Ford's formula became utterly illegal in the US.
It was called Cannabis sativa though you may know it as marijuana.
How about the simple act of foreign entourages specifically booking blocks of rooms at the Trump DC Hotel? Report on the news this morning said it's going on right now.
whembly wrote: Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
Not necessarily. You could also have a Andrew Mellon situation where the politician legislates his competitors out of business. If you wonder why you have to buy expensive gasoline for your car, rather than a century of inexpensive biofuel, blame him. When DuPont found out that Ford was about to go with biofuel in the 1930's, Mellon set it up so that one of the key ingredients in Ford's formula became utterly illegal in the US.
It was called Cannabis sativa though you may know it as marijuana.
Heh... didn't know about that cannibus tidbit.
Samething about the difficulties of using the hash plant family in the textile industry as well.
whembly wrote: Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
Not necessarily. You could also have a Andrew Mellon situation where the politician legislates his competitors out of business. If you wonder why you have to buy expensive gasoline for your car, rather than a century of inexpensive biofuel, blame him. When DuPont found out that Ford was about to go with biofuel in the 1930's, Mellon set it up so that one of the key ingredients in Ford's formula became utterly illegal in the US.
It was called Cannabis sativa though you may know it as marijuana.
How about the simple act of foreign entourages specifically booking blocks of rooms at the Trump DC Hotel? Report on the news this morning said it's going on right now.
Yup... feel like a "I told ya so" moment is coming.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/03 18:30:30
whembly wrote: Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
Not necessarily. You could also have a Andrew Mellon situation where the politician legislates his competitors out of business. If you wonder why you have to buy expensive gasoline for your car, rather than a century of inexpensive biofuel, blame him. When DuPont found out that Ford was about to go with biofuel in the 1930's, Mellon set it up so that one of the key ingredients in Ford's formula became utterly illegal in the US.
It was called Cannabis sativa though you may know it as marijuana.
How about the simple act of foreign entourages specifically booking blocks of rooms at the Trump DC Hotel? Report on the news this morning said it's going on right now.
Yup... feel like a "I told ya so" moment is coming.
Not only that, but there was that article a little while back about how the Secret Service may have to use some space (if not an entire floor) in the Trump Tower to keep Melania and son safe. So, the question being: will they pay rent for that space, or will Trump write it off on his taxes?
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
whembly wrote: Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
Not necessarily. You could also have a Andrew Mellon situation where the politician legislates his competitors out of business. If you wonder why you have to buy expensive gasoline for your car, rather than a century of inexpensive biofuel, blame him. When DuPont found out that Ford was about to go with biofuel in the 1930's, Mellon set it up so that one of the key ingredients in Ford's formula became utterly illegal in the US.
It was called Cannabis sativa though you may know it as marijuana.
How about the simple act of foreign entourages specifically booking blocks of rooms at the Trump DC Hotel? Report on the news this morning said it's going on right now.
Yup... feel like a "I told ya so" moment is coming.
Not only that, but there was that article a little while back about how the Secret Service may have to use some space (if not an entire floor) in the Trump Tower to keep Melania and son safe. So, the question being: will they pay rent for that space, or will Trump write it off on his taxes?
I'm not really bothered by that...
SS has a floor where Bill Clinton post-President office is in Brookland, and I'm sure the SS has something near the Bushes...
The Bidens are renting their "guest house" on their property, and I'm sure the Obamas would have something similar.
EDIT: he just confirmed Mattis for Sec of Defense.
EDIT II: saying there should be consequences for flag burning...
>implying there shouldn't be punishment for burning your countries flag
Have some respect.
Freedom of speech and dissent is more important than your feeling getting hurt because someone burnt a piece of cloth.
Sure it is just a piece of cloth, but it is what it stands for. That flag is rested on the coffins of soldiers, and hung on proud patriots porches. Destroying that flag, while most likely screaming something about white people, capitalism, or Donald Trump, is desecration to the people that hold it dearly. Have your protest, but don't piss where you eat.
So, why is it then acceptable to use it as a fashion accessory, clothing of all types, napkins that'll be used to wipe food and grease off people's faces, disposable paper plates, bumper stickers, etc?
Why is it unacceptable to desecrate the flag in one way, but not others?
The flag means many different things to many different people. Some see it as a symbol worn by comrades in defense of their homes, others see it as the symbol that others committed terrible atrocities under against them, some see it as a symbol of freedom and independence, others see it as a symbol of imperialist excess. For some it's a reminder of everything they believe in, for others its a symbol of a system that doesn't represent them and that they feel actively seeks to sideline and marginalize them. In many ways all of these things, and far more, are true. People should absolutely be free to explore and express these viewpoints.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think this Taiwan conversation is a good move by Team Trump - it's straight out of the Bismarck play book i.e keep your rivals off balance and guessing.
The Chinese are treating the South Pacific as though it were a Chinese lake.
Trump gently reminded the Chinese that the USA has options in the region, and it keeps them guessing about what kind of administration Trump will have with regards to foreign policy...
So you criticize clinton dor being hawk yet aplaud trump for sabre rattlng with china.
Clinton wanted a no fly zone which might have led to Russian jets getting shot down. Trump exchanged brief pleasantries with the President of Taiwan.
There is a big difference between the two.
My preferred option is peace between China and the USA, but it doesn't hurt to send them a peaceful reminder now and again.
Talk softly and carry a big stick, and all that...
However youw slice it you are rooting the one that's most likely to get usa into war with either russia(trump and putin disagree on jupt about everything except human rights are overvalued) or china.
The idea that Trump will be less likely to get into a war than Hillary has always been both confusing and hilarious, especially when the only thing pointed to was a *proposed* no-fly zone while the Trump's view on Nuclear weapons is that why have them if we're not gonna use them
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
whembly wrote: Either way, if policies are enacted that helps Trump companies' business... at least the other players in the industries would benefit as wll.
Not necessarily. You could also have a Andrew Mellon situation where the politician legislates his competitors out of business. If you wonder why you have to buy expensive gasoline for your car, rather than a century of inexpensive biofuel, blame him. When DuPont found out that Ford was about to go with biofuel in the 1930's, Mellon set it up so that one of the key ingredients in Ford's formula became utterly illegal in the US.
It was called Cannabis sativa though you may know it as marijuana.
How about the simple act of foreign entourages specifically booking blocks of rooms at the Trump DC Hotel? Report on the news this morning said it's going on right now.
Yup... feel like a "I told ya so" moment is coming.
Not only that, but there was that article a little while back about how the Secret Service may have to use some space (if not an entire floor) in the Trump Tower to keep Melania and son safe. So, the question being: will they pay rent for that space, or will Trump write it off on his taxes?
I'm not really bothered by that...
SS has a floor where Bill Clinton post-President office is in Brookland, and I'm sure the SS has something near the Bushes...
The Bidens are renting their "guest house" on their property, and I'm sure the Obamas would have something similar.
Yeah, but I doubt any of them are going to be profiting anywhere near as much off of it as Trump will be. It's not a big deal to me, either, but it is just one more thing that Trump will get to personally enrich himself off of (and I'm sure some people are still thinking he's awesome for giving up the Presidential salary). Just one more indicator that politicians do not live in the same world we do.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/03 23:52:18
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Breotan wrote: Since the outcome isn't going to change, they don't want to waste the time or manpower or risk missing that deadline.
You won't know till you look. The issue with that whole approach to it is that it assumes that there was no fraud. However, voter fraud is, by and large, undetectable until a recount takes place (unless you get caught manipulating the ballots directly, or get caught i na sting talking about how you did it..... like some of Trumps extended family are I believe serving time for.). If there were, in fact, millions of illegal votes, a recount is the surest way to find them. Same hacking voting machines, the dead voting, etc etc.
That ends the campaign. Without taking Pennsylvania off the Electoral College table, Trump can’t lose.
You miss the point of the recount. It wasn't to dethrone Trump (though many people, yours truly included had hoped) but rather to prove that election fraud took place. I am actually a bit surprised that the judge ordered another million on top the 2 million already required for the recount and that they had to post it in less than a week. However, it's less important to have one in PA as there's no way to verify the evotes there, as PA's voting machines keep no physical record to compare them against.
On the up side, Trump's people failed to block Wisconsin's recount.
Have any of the recounts actually turned up any statistically significant discrepancies?
Ive seen it reported that one recount turned up just ONE extra vote for Clinton.
(EDIT).
Note, that's intended to be an honest question, not a loaded one. I'm going off week old information from British media and I'm just not up to date with american news.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually still a big to-do about something. Election fraud is a crime, after all.
Ironic isn't it, that before the election it was Trump talking about recounts and electoral fraud, and Clinton and the democrats were condemning him for it and complaining about how outrageous that was.
Both sides are being huge hypocrites here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/04 05:12:43
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Have any of the recounts actually turned up any statistically significant discrepancies?
Ive seen it reported that one recount turned up just ONE extra vote for Clinton.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually still a big to-do about something. Election fraud is a crime, after all.
Ironic isn't it, that before the election it was Trump talking about recounts and electoral fraud, and Clinton and the democrats were condemning him for it and complaining about how outrageous that was.
Both sides are being huge hypocrites here.
Watch out, I brought that up a few pages back and got lashed for it.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ironic isn't it, that before the election it was Trump talking about recounts and electoral fraud, and Clinton and the democrats were condemning him for it and complaining about how outrageous that was.
Both sides are being huge hypocrites here.
There's a rather significant difference between declaring the election a fraud before election day and investigating potential fraud after the election (and any fraud) has happened.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Vaktathi wrote: The idea that Trump will be less likely to get into a war than Hillary has always been both confusing and hilarious, especially when the only thing pointed to was a *proposed* no-fly zone while the Trump's view on Nuclear weapons is that why have them if we're not gonna use them
That was campaign talk. You don't bring up campaign talk in the cold light of day
On a serious note, we know from history that wars are often started by flashpoints. A jet getting shot down by mistake in a 'no fly zone.'
Warships going toe to toe in a disputed naval zone or something. If you know your Cold War history, there were quite a few flashpoints that were only de-escalated by somebody keeping their head in a tense situation, when others wanted to hit the red button.
Trump's talk about firing the nukes is just that - talk. His secret service agents would probably put him in a head lock and stop him anyway.
I'd be more worried about low level flashpoints spinning out of control.
A very good example I read about is Woodrow Wilson. Desperate to keep the USA out of WW1, he could do nothing as U-Boats claimed American lives, the pressure slowly building on him to act, the press and the public gradually getting more and more on his back...
That creeping pressure is the danger to watch out for. I saw it in the UK when the usual suspects were pushing for military action against Syria.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but I think this Taiwan conversation is a good move by Team Trump - it's straight out of the Bismarck play book i.e keep your rivals off balance and guessing.
The Chinese are treating the South Pacific as though it were a Chinese lake.
Trump gently reminded the Chinese that the USA has options in the region, and it keeps them guessing about what kind of administration Trump will have with regards to foreign policy...
So you criticize clinton dor being hawk yet aplaud trump for sabre rattlng with china.
Clinton wanted a no fly zone which might have led to Russian jets getting shot down. Trump exchanged brief pleasantries with the President of Taiwan.
There is a big difference between the two.
My preferred option is peace between China and the USA, but it doesn't hurt to send them a peaceful reminder now and again.
Talk softly and carry a big stick, and all that...
However youw slice it you are rooting the one that's most likely to get usa into war with either russia(trump and putin disagree on jupt about everything except human rights are overvalued) or china.
Trump is huge hawk.
What candidate Trump said will be miles away from what President Trump says when he starts his new job.
Remember candidate Obama, the things he'd said he would do, and how well that turned out?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/04 10:40:07
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What candidate Trump said will be miles away from what President Trump says when he starts his new job.
So you don't hold Trump to his campaign promises, but expected Hillarly to do exactly what she said she was going to do?
You don't see any kind of cognitive dissonance here?
I don't hold ANY politician, be they American, be they British, to their campaign promises. I'm too long in the tooth for that.
Clinton is an exception. Actions speak louder than words, and she had a track record for gung ho foreign intervention, Libya being a prime example.
Even if Clinton had said NOTHING about a no-fly zone, I still would have expected foreign intervention from President Clinton sometime, somewhere.
A leopard never changes its spots, as the old saying goes.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't hold ANY politician, be they American, be they British, to their campaign promises. I'm too long in the tooth for that.
And you should, because it's been shown that American presidents, on average, end up keeping two-thirds of their campaign promises.
Clinton is an exception.
This doesn't jive with your above statement.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What candidate Trump said will be miles away from what President Trump says when he starts his new job.
So you don't hold Trump to his campaign promises, but expected Hillarly to do exactly what she said she was going to do?
You don't see any kind of cognitive dissonance here?
I don't hold ANY politician, be they American, be they British, to their campaign promises. I'm too long in the tooth for that.
Clinton is an exception. Actions speak louder than words, and she had a track record for gung ho foreign intervention, Libya being a prime example.
Even if Clinton had said NOTHING about a no-fly zone, I still would have expected foreign intervention from President Clinton sometime, somewhere.
A leopard never changes its spots, as the old saying goes.
Libya is just the tip of the ice berg.
Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria (she wanted to go in harder then we did). Her entire time near the head of our government, she's been involved with all sorts of military interventionism. That's why I never got the whole "trump will take us to war" thing. Clinton already had a long track record of it, while all we had for Trump were bloated words of a narcissist.
President-elect Donald Trump is again walking back his biggest campaign promise: to build a wall along the southern border of the United States.
On Thursday, during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity in Cincinnati, Ohio, Trump said that “vicious rivers” and “mountains” would mean that it was not necessary to build the border wall in parts of the border.
“Now, there are certain places you don’t need a wall, because you have, you know, you have mountains, you have other things. You have large and rather vicious rivers,” he said during the interview, though he declined to specify where those natural barriers were.
Still, he insisted that he was going to build a physical wall, as he had promised on the campaign trail: “But, no, we’re building a wall. It’s going to be a real wall, because we’re going to stop the drugs from coming in.”
He added that the wall would stop illegal immigration while still allowing legal immigration to move forward.
“We’re going to have a real wall and we’re going to stop what’s happening, because what’s happening in our country is very sad in so many different ways,” he said.
This wall --- or fence as it might also be in places -- is getting smaller and smaller it seems.
The Rio Grande doesn't look too imposing at first glance
but that's easily fixed with some out of the box thinking
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Hey now, if we're going to do it right, we're not just going to have sharks in the Rio Grande, we're going to have sharks with fricking laser beams attached to their heads!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Ironic isn't it, that before the election it was Trump talking about recounts and electoral fraud, and Clinton and the democrats were condemning him for it and complaining about how outrageous that was.
Both sides are being huge hypocrites here.
There's a rather significant difference between declaring the election a fraud before election day and investigating potential fraud after the election (and any fraud) has happened.
And let's not forget Trump's recent claim of "millions" voting illegally.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
I was never clear on how the recounts are conducted.
Is it simply a count that Candidate X got this many votes, and Candidate Y got that many votes, after ensuring the ballot meets integrity inspections???
Then, you're not going to find any evidence of fraud because you're not looking for it.
To me, the only way to find some evidence of fraud is if there's some electronic malfunctions at the scanners or polling booth. Or... a state-wide review of the voter rolls is conducted to determine if the registered voter is allowed to vote and/or registered voter voted only one time. That'll take a massive amount of sherlocking...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/04 15:36:48
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What candidate Trump said will be miles away from what President Trump says when he starts his new job.
So you don't hold Trump to his campaign promises, but expected Hillarly to do exactly what she said she was going to do?
You don't see any kind of cognitive dissonance here?
I don't hold ANY politician, be they American, be they British, to their campaign promises. I'm too long in the tooth for that.
Clinton is an exception. Actions speak louder than words, and she had a track record for gung ho foreign intervention, Libya being a prime example.
Even if Clinton had said NOTHING about a no-fly zone, I still would have expected foreign intervention from President Clinton sometime, somewhere.
A leopard never changes its spots, as the old saying goes.
Libya is just the tip of the ice berg.
Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria (she wanted to go in harder then we did). Her entire time near the head of our government, she's been involved with all sorts of military interventionism. That's why I never got the whole "trump will take us to war" thing. Clinton already had a long track record of it, while all we had for Trump were bloated words of a narcissist.
I'm no fan of Trump and I think he'll be a disaster as President, but people overlook the fact that with 8 years of Obama, America has had:
Hundreds of civilians killed by drone strikes he gave the green light to.
A backtracking of his promise to close G'Bay
More uses of the espionage act than any other President in American history.
War declared on whistleblowers, and a shameful betrayal of his Presidential oath to defend the American constitution.
I'd be the first to admit that probably EVERY American president has betrayed that oath, but under Obama, the 4th amendment is dead, buried, and we've had the memorial service. And this man is supposed to be the Liberals' hero!
Who knows what Trump will do. He may be worse, but I think it's strange to say he'll be this when the guy still in office has done so much to damage American liberties...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't hold ANY politician, be they American, be they British, to their campaign promises. I'm too long in the tooth for that.
And you should, because it's been shown that American presidents, on average, end up keeping two-thirds of their campaign promises.
Clinton is an exception.
This doesn't jive with your above statement.
You have isolated a sentence from a quote and taken it out of context.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/04 15:48:09
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Have any of the recounts actually turned up any statistically significant discrepancies?
Because that's the only ONE that's been allowed to be completed before Trumps supporters started disrupting the recount with suits against it. Wisconsin finally gave the go-ahead and they're starting there.
Point of fact that it's the Greens, not the Democrats, demanding the recount. People seem to be having a hard time with the idea that there are actually more than two political parties in the US, and keep blaming the Dems for what the Greens are doing. Clinton has agreed to participate in the recount, but is not directly involved in it, afaik
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/04 16:13:01
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
I was never clear on how the recounts are conducted.
But, yeah, I would assume it's really only the paper ballots they're recounting. There could be a way to mine the data on the electronic machines to detect something fishy (too many votes cast in too short a time?), but that could get messy to prove.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/04 16:53:41
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't hold ANY politician, be they American, be they British, to their campaign promises. I'm too long in the tooth for that.
And you should, because it's been shown that American presidents, on average, end up keeping two-thirds of their campaign promises.
Clinton is an exception.
This doesn't jive with your above statement.
You have isolated a sentence from a quote and taken it out of context.
You said that you don't hold any (in all capitals, mind you) politician to their word except for Clinton, so that makes your first sentence untrue. Care to explain your "context" then?
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
But, yeah, I would assume it's really only the paper ballots they're recounting.
Nope. The electronic ballots are the ones that they're interested in. The reason for the recount is that several mathematicians have claimed that the electronic voting machines in those states show signs that they were tampered with, by giving mathematically improbable results. Some of those machines, however, produce a physical copy of the ballot however, for recount purposes. So, to open the machines to examination, they want a recount.
BaronIveagh wrote: Truth be told I got that expression when we worked on testing BFG on several occasions.
There are several things that would work I just went with the FAQ as it was recent. I should have said it was a man who found the Australian GW website prices.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
saying there should be consequences for flag burning...
