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.

From my understanding (IANAL), essentially, since the 2A has been confirmed as an individual right by the Supreme Court and encompasses the right to self defense, the court said that Hawaii has to allow someone to carry in public in some manner. However, since the Peruta case ruled that *concealed* carry specifically was not protected, they basically have to allow open carry hecause otherwise there's no way to exercise that self defense right.

I think the TLDR is "you can restrict how people carry, but you have to allow *some* way for them to carry".


That said, as someone with a CHL in a state that also allows open carry, I would never open carry for a multitude of reasons without some very specific context.

 feeder wrote:
Isn't open carry basically a "shoot me first" sign in a potential armed BG scenario? What does open carry offer that CC doesn't?

The ability to lawfully carry a gun in public without the need of a permit.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Isn't open carry basically a "shoot me first" sign in a potential armed BG scenario? What does open carry offer that CC doesn't?

The ability to lawfully carry a gun in public without the need of a permit.

Lots of cases in OC states where the definition of lawful is a judgement call on the police

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/398566-trump-im-concerned-russia-may-interfere-in-election-to-help-democrats

President Trump on Tuesday said he is "very concerned" that Russia will attempt to interfere in this year's midterm elections, claiming Moscow "will be pushing very hard" to support Democrats.

The tweet is the latest in a week's worth of mixed messages Trump has sent on Russia since he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Monday.

Trump stood next to Putin in Helsinki and cast doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election — with the intention of helping to elect Trump. He blasted the special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling as a "witch hunt" and said Putin offered a "strong and powerful" denial.

He has since attempted to backtrack on those remarks and express confidence in the intelligence community, but muddled his corrections with repeated claims that the meeting with Putin was unfairly covered, that others besides Moscow could have been involved in election meddling and that the Russian interference is a “big hoax.”

Trump also appeared to tell reporters “no” when asked last week whether he believed Russia was still a threat. However, the White House later claimed he was saying “no” to answering additional questions.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned shortly before Trump's meeting with Putin that warning signs were "blinking red" to indicate Russia was preparing to launch another cyberattack.

Trump has regularly claimed that no president has been tougher on Russia than him, but he has drawn bipartisan criticism for his reluctance to call out Putin, particularly on the matter of election interference.

Administration officials have, in many cases, seemed to work around Trump’s rhetoric. They note the administration has armed Ukrainians, bombed Syria, expelled Russian diplomats and even implemented new sanctions, to which Trump first objected.

Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) have co-authored a bill that would hit Russia with additional sanctions if it is found to have interfered in future elections. The senators have requested a committee vote on the legislation by early next month.

The president has also frequently told reporters that he believes improved relations with Russia would be a positive development, and said prior to departing for Europe earlier this month that he hoped Putin could someday be a friend.

At the press conference in Finland, Putin told reporters he wanted Trump to win the 2016 election.

"Yes, I did, because he was the one who wanted to normalize relations with Russia,” Putin said.

Uhuh. Now our president is gaslighting

President Trump on Tuesday said he is "very concerned" that Russia will attempt to interfere in this year's midterm elections, claiming Moscow "will be pushing very hard" to support Democrats.

That was quite funny, in a way. And also very insulting for the Republican base voters.

Sure, the guys who hacked the Democrat mails to throw dirt on them would totally support the side who can put Trump in difficulties during mid-term and mess around with Russian sanctions again.

You sure you Americans can't do anything to stop lies blurting from his mouth ? Just for one day ? One hour maybe ?

Has it reached the point where someone needs to call for Trump to stop having bestial sex with farmyard animals.

 Asherian Command wrote:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/398566-trump-im-concerned-russia-may-interfere-in-election-to-help-democrats

President Trump on Tuesday said he is "very concerned" that Russia will attempt to interfere in this year's midterm elections, claiming Moscow "will be pushing very hard" to support Democrats.

The tweet is the latest in a week's worth of mixed messages Trump has sent on Russia since he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Monday.

Trump stood next to Putin in Helsinki and cast doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election — with the intention of helping to elect Trump. He blasted the special counsel's investigation into Russian meddling as a "witch hunt" and said Putin offered a "strong and powerful" denial.

He has since attempted to backtrack on those remarks and express confidence in the intelligence community, but muddled his corrections with repeated claims that the meeting with Putin was unfairly covered, that others besides Moscow could have been involved in election meddling and that the Russian interference is a “big hoax.”

Trump also appeared to tell reporters “no” when asked last week whether he believed Russia was still a threat. However, the White House later claimed he was saying “no” to answering additional questions.

Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned shortly before Trump's meeting with Putin that warning signs were "blinking red" to indicate Russia was preparing to launch another cyberattack.

Trump has regularly claimed that no president has been tougher on Russia than him, but he has drawn bipartisan criticism for his reluctance to call out Putin, particularly on the matter of election interference.

Administration officials have, in many cases, seemed to work around Trump’s rhetoric. They note the administration has armed Ukrainians, bombed Syria, expelled Russian diplomats and even implemented new sanctions, to which Trump first objected.

Meanwhile, Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) have co-authored a bill that would hit Russia with additional sanctions if it is found to have interfered in future elections. The senators have requested a committee vote on the legislation by early next month.

The president has also frequently told reporters that he believes improved relations with Russia would be a positive development, and said prior to departing for Europe earlier this month that he hoped Putin could someday be a friend.

At the press conference in Finland, Putin told reporters he wanted Trump to win the 2016 election.

"Yes, I did, because he was the one who wanted to normalize relations with Russia,” Putin said.

Uhuh. Now our president is gaslighting

Russian plan to defeat the US:
1. Rig the elections so that a total idiot gets elected president.
2. Continue to rig all elections until said idiot has virtually absolute power, bringing the anger of his opponents to the boiling point.
3. Watch the US collapse in infighting.
4. ?
5. Profit.

Not saying this is the Russian plan, but it could work. What would happen if the Republicans won big in the midterms, and Russia was shown to have interfered to such a degree that the elections were evidently rigged in favour of the Republicans? How would Democrats and fanatic anti-Trump people react to that?
I am kinda afraid something bad will happen. Whatever happens, Americans need to keep their head cool.

Whatever happens, Russia needs to keep its hands off our democracies.

If Russia continues to interfere, the eventual backlash will be pretty damn bad - for Russia.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Has it reached the point where someone needs to call for Trump to stop having bestial sex with farmyard animals.

No it'd be too stormy to do that.

Russian plan to defeat the US:
1. Rig the elections so that a total idiot gets elected president.
2. Continue to rig all elections until said idiot has virtually absolute power, bringing the anger of his opponents to the boiling point.
3. Watch the US collapse in infighting.
4. ?
5. Profit.

Not saying this is the Russian plan, but it could work. What would happen if the Republicans won big in the midterms, and Russia was shown to have interfered to such a degree that the elections were evidently rigged in favour of the Republicans? How would Democrats and fanatic anti-Trump people react to that?
I am kinda afraid something bad will happen. Whatever happens, Americans need to keep their head cool.

Thats the plan my folks and I are going entirely blue this year, we all registered as democrats, like half my family... staunch consertatives... God my dad hasn't voted democrat ever, not for a long time.

If the republicians won big? They already have, they already own all major parts of the government and haven't been able to do anything with that. Its kind of baffling actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
Whatever happens, Russia needs to keep its hands off our democracies.

If Russia continues to interfere, the eventual backlash will be pretty damn bad - for Russia.

If we have a strong president and a congress willing to help the people and priotize our election security. Cause currently our congress is... Well rather lame on the republician side. If anything of these last two years has taught me its that the current repubs aren't really effective leadership. (not as effective as they used to be thats for sure).

The current Republican Party is a dangerous organisation.

While this is something I should have expected from Trump it is still disheartening. I mean I get he is a narcissist but this basically solidifies for me that without a shadow of a doubt he is a traitor.

I also know that Russia is going to start influencing the right wing soon that this is exactly what is happening.

Trump's gaslighting on this is unsurprising, but abhorrent nonetheless. The dude really does not know when to stop digging.

That said, from a geopolitical/game-of-empires perspective, Russia switching support to the other wing in the next election would not be out of the question and could very well fit their policy goals depending on Russia's aims, if for nothing else than to just keep the shitshow alive and increase confusion and keep the US distracted. I don't think Trump was really thinking that deep, he's just deflecting, but it does need to be something that the D's need to remain conscious of, lest they be hoist by the same petard.

 Da Boss wrote:
Whatever happens, Russia needs to keep its hands off our democracies.

If Russia continues to interfere, the eventual backlash will be pretty damn bad - for Russia.

But from the Russian point of view, why would they back off?
Short of outright war, there is little the US or any other country can realistically do against them that they did not already do after Russia invaded Ukraine and started attacking people with nerve gas in Britain, and nothing if they are destabilised by internal strife with things like Trump and Brexit.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
While this is something I should have expected from Trump it is still disheartening. I mean I get he is a narcissist but this basically solidifies for me that without a shadow of a doubt he is a traitor.

He's only literally a traitor. Technically, he's all good, and that's all that matters to some people.

I also know that Russia is going to start influencing the right wing soon that this is exactly what is happening.

Start influencing? They recently unmasked a spy that had been working in the NRA/GOP circle for years. It's becoming clear that Nov 2018/ 2020 is gonna be a major turning point for the US.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Whatever happens, Russia needs to keep its hands off our democracies.

If Russia continues to interfere, the eventual backlash will be pretty damn bad - for Russia.

But from the Russian point of view, why would they back off?
Short of outright war, there is little the US or any other country can realistically do against them that they did not already do after Russia invaded Ukraine and started attacking people with nerve gas in Britain, and nothing if they are destabilised by internal strife with things like Trump and Brexit.

Sanctions can be increased. And we can start our own attacks on Russia.

And you know, outright war is impossible but I am willing to bet those guys in the CIA can get pretty creative.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Whatever happens, Russia needs to keep its hands off our democracies.

If Russia continues to interfere, the eventual backlash will be pretty damn bad - for Russia.

But from the Russian point of view, why would they back off?
Short of outright war, there is little the US or any other country can realistically do against them that they did not already do after Russia invaded Ukraine and started attacking people with nerve gas in Britain, and nothing if they are destabilised by internal strife with things like Trump and Brexit.

Well you would think that, but there are lots more sanctions to be place. Plus all it does is force Europe to invest in different fuel sources/countries for fuel, what does Russia actually export of value besides fossil fuels? Not much so in reality all Russia is doing is killing themselves down the road

The big thing that can be done against Russia is targeting energy exports and financial transacting. If the US manipulates oil and gas prices (in large part through negotiations with allied) to keep them low and shuts Russia as a whole (as opposed to specific individuals and concerns) out of using US financial services, one can expect Russia will be...monstrously uncomfortable. Now, thats not without risks and costs of its own, which is why they havent been done yet, but much greater economic pressure could be brought to bear.

Also, let's never underestimate the possibility of armed conflict, someone can always do something stupid or unintended.

 feeder wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
While this is something I should have expected from Trump it is still disheartening. I mean I get he is a narcissist but this basically solidifies for me that without a shadow of a doubt he is a traitor.

He's only literally a traitor. Technically, he's all good, and that's all that matters to some people.

I also know that Russia is going to start influencing the right wing soon that this is exactly what is happening.

Start influencing? They recently unmasked a spy that had been working in the NRA/GOP circle for years. It's becoming clear that Nov 2018/ 2020 is gonna be a major turning point for the US.

I can agree Donald Trump is a traitor, he has no right to be president.

The fact that we know what happened with the NRA is pretty disheartening as that is the major lobby for the GOP. The Koch brothers are next on the list of terrible people with too much power in their hands.

The big thing that can be done against Russia is targeting energy exports and financial transacting. If the US manipulates oil and gas prices (in large part through negotiations with allied) to keep them low and shuts Russia as a whole (as opposed to specific individuals and concerns) out of using US financial services, one can expect Russia will be...monstrously uncomfortable. Now, thats not without risks and costs of its own, which is why they havent been done yet, but much greater economic pressure could be brought to bear.

Like what hillary suggested?

Yeah I can agree. Russia needs to lose its power and fold.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/398624-mattis-trump-tweet-made-clear-iran-is-on-the-wrong-track

I'm seriously reconsidering my opinion of Mattis as a man of principal. I'm not sure if I'm deluding myself that he is putting on a dog and pony show for Trump to stay in or if I've created a narrative for myself about a moderating influence in the White House because I assumed a lot about a popular general.

@Feeder: I meant the specific narrative that Russia supports Democrats because Trump is too strong on Russia.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/398624-mattis-trump-tweet-made-clear-iran-is-on-the-wrong-track

I'm seriously reconsidering my opinion of Mattis as a man of principal. I'm not sure if I'm deluding myself that he is putting on a dog and pony show for Trump to stay in or if I've created a narrative for myself about a moderating influence in the White House because I assumed a lot about a popular general.

@Feeder: I meant the specific narrative that Russia supports Democrats because Trump is too strong on Russia.

The white house is filled with wolves in sheeps clothing so no I think many of us have been deluded by what is 'normal' now.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big thing that can be done against Russia is targeting energy exports and financial transacting. If the US manipulates oil and gas prices (in large part through negotiations with allied) to keep them low and shuts Russia as a whole (as opposed to specific individuals and concerns) out of using US financial services, one can expect Russia will be...monstrously uncomfortable. Now, thats not without risks and costs of its own, which is why they havent been done yet, but much greater economic pressure could be brought to bear.

Also, let's never underestimate the possibility of armed conflict, someone can always do something stupid or unintended.

Russia has no energy exports to the US, and countries like Germany aren't going to place sanctions on Russian energy exports because that mean they'd have to rely on worse alternatives (such as Turkey). Not to mention that US-Germany relations aren't all that great at the moment thanks to Trump, so European willingness to help the US engage in a conflict with Russia has its limits. Not to mention that a great deal of Russian energy exports goes to countries like China that are even less willing to help the US. Countries like Belarus, Kazakhstan and China also limit the effectiveness of any material sanctions on Russia (Belarusian sea food exports really took off after 2014 for example, despite Belarus not having any sea or fishing fleet) Furthermore, shutting Russia out as a whole from US financial institutions is not possible to do legally (and it would be disastrous for said US financial institutions who would lose much of their business to institutions in other countries. Nobody wants to do business if you can be just shut out if your country does something the US doesn't like. It would collapse the US' financial soft power.)
If something could have been done to really hurt Russia without crippling the US/Europe as well, it would already have been done. Finding support for self-destructive measures will be difficult, no matter how far Russia goes.

As for cyber-attacking Russia back, that is already being done, with little effect. The US does not have the same cyber warfare capabilities countries like Russia and China have. In Russia, if there is a brilliant software engineer/hacker somewhere, he gets immediately snapped up by the FSB, SVR or GRU. In Russia, that is by far the best career track available. Same in China. But in the US, why would such a person work for a mediocre salary for the government if he can use his talents to make big, big bucks at Google, Apple, Microsoft or another big company?

And war, well, that would be the most self-destructive of all measures. A war between Russia and the US (with or without European involvement) would cause massive destruction on both sides, no matter who comes out as the victor (that would be China, of course).
Putin is a cautious man. If he continues to push and agitate, it is because he knows he can do so relatively unpunished. Western politicians since the Cold War have been sadly lacking such observational quality and long-term thinking.

The best thing the US can do is to not lose their heads over Russian provocations, to ABSOLUTELY NOT let the Russians play their divide and conquer game, and instead use it as an opportunity to introduce a more secure voting process (hint: trash the voting machines, go back to pen-and-paper ballot voting only, and count all votes by hand in the old-fashioned way. An election without electronics can not be hacked.) and increased cybersecurity (and introduce free icecream. Icecream is the best. Will also help to cool down heated arguments).

 Da Boss wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Whatever happens, Russia needs to keep its hands off our democracies.

If Russia continues to interfere, the eventual backlash will be pretty damn bad - for Russia.

But from the Russian point of view, why would they back off?
Short of outright war, there is little the US or any other country can realistically do against them that they did not already do after Russia invaded Ukraine and started attacking people with nerve gas in Britain, and nothing if they are destabilised by internal strife with things like Trump and Brexit.

Sanctions can be increased. And we can start our own attacks on Russia.

And you know, outright war is impossible but I am willing to bet those guys in the CIA can get pretty creative.

CIA is already doing that bro. Been doing it for 70 years.

I would really like to see an extension of sanctions and a move toward fuel independence for Europe. That is why Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants was really stupid and short sighted.

 Da Boss wrote:
I would really like to see an extension of sanctions and a move toward fuel independence for Europe. That is why Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants was really stupid and short sighted.

I said it a few US politic threads ago, but Thorium based nuclear reactors are the energy of the future along with a mix of geo,wind and solar.

 Ustrello wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I would really like to see an extension of sanctions and a move toward fuel independence for Europe. That is why Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants was really stupid and short sighted.

I said it a few US politic threads ago, but Thorium based nuclear reactors are the energy of the future along with a mix of geo,wind and solar.

Basically everyone who knows anything about energy knows - nuclear is our best stop gap solution until we fully transition to solar power.

 Da Boss wrote:
I would really like to see an extension of sanctions and a move toward fuel independence for Europe. That is why Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants was really stupid and short sighted.

I said the same. But nuclear energy really does not seem popular in Germany at all.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
I would really like to see an extension of sanctions and a move toward fuel independence for Europe. That is why Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants was really stupid and short sighted.

I said it a few US politic threads ago, but Thorium based nuclear reactors are the energy of the future along with a mix of geo,wind and solar.

Basically everyone who knows anything about energy knows - nuclear is our best stop gap solution until we fully transition to solar power.

Yes but Thorium based reactors have the potential to be the safest ever, and they do not produce nearly the same amount of waste that regular nuclear reactors do. R and D into them have just been held up by the usual suspects and lobbyists though.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/398624-mattis-trump-tweet-made-clear-iran-is-on-the-wrong-track

I'm seriously reconsidering my opinion of Mattis as a man of principal. I'm not sure if I'm deluding myself that he is putting on a dog and pony show for Trump to stay in or if I've created a narrative for myself about a moderating influence in the White House because I assumed a lot about a popular general.

@Feeder: I meant the specific narrative that Russia supports Democrats because Trump is too strong on Russia.

Is Mattis going down the rabbit hole? He was always a bit to gung ho 'the ends justify the means' mentality for my taste, but saying things like "only" and "primary" are really out of touch with reality given the amount of support Iran provides versus Russia for Assad, as well as the fact that Iranian efforts seriously expanded upon the entry of Russia into the conflict (ignoring the stream of Russian equipment to Assad before the intervention of course). Assad was always going to win without outside intervention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I would really like to see an extension of sanctions and a move toward fuel independence for Europe. That is why Germany decommissioning it's nuclear plants was really stupid and short sighted.

Russia is a key driver for European eagerness to get an agreement set up with Iran.Sadly Trump seems to do his best to demolish that approach. But really, Iran and clean energy investment can really speed up the decline of the Russian oil and gas sector (not to mention that Russian oil and gas reserves on our side of Eurasia are going to be woefully insufficient in providing our needs by 2030).

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The big thing that can be done against Russia is targeting energy exports and financial transacting. If the US manipulates oil and gas prices (in large part through negotiations with allied) to keep them low and shuts Russia as a whole (as opposed to specific individuals and concerns) out of using US financial services, one can expect Russia will be...monstrously uncomfortable. Now, thats not without risks and costs of its own, which is why they havent been done yet, but much greater economic pressure could be brought to bear.

Also, let's never underestimate the possibility of armed conflict, someone can always do something stupid or unintended.

Russia has no energy exports to the US, and countries like Germany aren't going to place sanctions on Russian energy exports because that mean they'd have to rely on worse alternatives (such as Turkey). Not to mention that US-Germany relations aren't all that great at the moment thanks to Trump, so European willingness to help the US engage in a conflict with Russia has its limits. Not to mention that a great deal of Russian energy exports goes to countries like China that are even less willing to help the US.

That's all true, but doesn't encompass the whole picture. The US can, and did previously, engage with organizations like OPEC to overstimulate supply and collapse prices as happened a couple years ago or arrange and sponser pipelines to alternative sources, subsidize energy exports, etc. If the US really wants to, it can collapse those markets. It would be costly, extremely so dependijg on what route, but not at all impossible.

Countries like Belarus, Kazakhstan and China also limit the effectiveness of any material sanctions on Russia (Belarusian sea food exports really took off after 2014 for example, despite Belarus not having any sea or fishing fleet)

Sure, but all with accompanying disruption and cost and likely increased supply chain timelines and smaller product breadth. That said, I wasnt really considering stuff like sanctions on food, thats not a huge pain point for Russia.

Furthermore, shutting Russia out as a whole from US financial institutions is not possible to do legally (and it would be disastrous for said US financial institutions who would lose much of their business to institutions other countries. Nobody wants to do business if you can be just shut out if your country does something the US doesn't like. It would collapse the US' financial soft power.)

As I said, it would have costs, but we've shut other nations out before (Iran, NK, etc) without catastrophic results, and nobody else has better alternatives to that US financial market. It could be done if there was a will. Would it be wise? That would depend on the circumstances, I certainly wouldnt advocate for that at the current time.

As for cyber-attacking Russia back, that is already being done, with little effect. The US does not have the same cyber warfare capabilities countries like Russia and China have. In Russia, if there is a brilliant software engineer/hacker somewhere, he gets immediately snapped up by the FSB, SVR or GRU. In Russia, that is by far the best career track available. Same in China. But in the US, why would such a person work for a mediocre salary for the government if he can use his talents to make big, big bucks at Google, Apple, Microsoft or another big company?

Because salaries at the NSA and CIA and FBI arent garbage, the benefits are pretty sweet, and those other companies are notoriously chaotic. Lots of very talented and intelligent people find good careers with the US govt in such fields (and lets not forget the revolving door with people moving in and out of the public sector, thats hugely common), and the services of the internet behemoth an be purchased/drafted if needed. More to the point, much more of the internet backbone exists within the US, lets not forget where the internet originated. US cyberwarfare capabilities are not exactly stunted, China and Russia however have far more incentive to actively use them while the US maintains conventional warfare dominance.

And war, well, that would be the most self-destructive of all measures. A war between Russia and the US (with or without European involvement) would cause massive destruction on both sides, no matter who comes out as the victor (that would be China, of course).
Putin is a cautious man. If he continues to push and agitate, it is because he knows he can do so relatively unpunished. Western politicians since the Cold War have been sadly lacking such observational quality and long-term thinking.

The best thing the US can do is to not lose their heads over Russian provocations, to ABSOLUTELY NOT let the Russians play their divide and conquer game, and instead use it as an opportunity to introduce a more secure voting process (hint: trash the voting machines, go back to pen-and-paper ballot voting only, and count all votes by hand in the old-fashioned way. An election without electronics can not be hacked.) and increased cybersecurity.

I concur with most everytjing here, though US elections are their own weird fragmented thing that arent actually coordinated by the central federal government. India has shown electronic voting can work very well and securely, with paper backups, US elections beind handled piecemeal by each state is something more of a disaster.

Well, today I started laughing at the point where Trump demanded that people not believe what they see with their own eyes, but they should instead believe him.

That's some 40k gak right there.