> [M]ontgomery’s defiant mayor announced that the city would continue to operate the program. Curiously, he asserted that to stop issuing tickets would breach the city’s contract with American Traffic Solutions.
If complying with a contractual obligation would place you in violation of the law, doesn't that make the contract itself legally indefensible and therefore void?
It doesn't seem like he's trying to say "the Obama administration actively encouraged the Washington Post to trip over its own shoelaces and perform an epic, journalistic face-plant" in this particular case, but rather that because of the Obama administration pushing the "Russian hacking" narrative so hard, with so little evidence, they created the climate where the Washington Post had a strong incentive to want to put out a story like this. And in that, he's absolutely right.
Sing it with me, folks: correlation is not causation. After all, the number of works of visual art copyrighted in the US similarly has an inverse correlation to the number of females in NY who slipped or tripped to their death (really!). It doesn't mean it's a causal relationship where more of one means less of the other.
In this particular case, though, there absolutely is a causal relationship. Technology companies are out-competing them by having a better product, and are ending up eating their lunch.
Thing is, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. Sucks to be the guys who failed to compete, but that's their problem. They have no right to make it Google's problem.
These guys have been blatantly disregarding any and every law they find inconvenient from the very beginning, and now they're running red lights, making hook turns through bike lanes, and completely disregarding requirements for proper registration of their autonomous vehicles.
I really hope this case gives some agency an excuse to shut them down completely, because this just raised the stakes. Before, their lawless attitude only screwed people out of money and dignity. Now, they could kill someone.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship is rarely does.
Yet, Susan has focused not just on understanding what kind of speech precedes violence, but also on what works in counteracting that -- and she argues (and we agree!) that censorship -->is rarely does.
No, I specifically and quite clearly meant "the Republican party and not simply the Republican presidential candidate." Please look over what I wrote again, with a bit more reading comprehension this time, as I was clearly referring to all the elections rather than simply the one that you're focusing on.
Better question to be asking: why do these MILLIONS of people not have valid ID? (Or, to put it another way, if 90-99% of Americans can do it, what's stopping these guys?)
It's not difficult to get a state ID or driver's license. (If anything, it's *far too easy* to get a driver's license, as it theoretically requires demonstrating you're capable of driving, but I think everyone here would agree that experience shows we hand those out *far* too easily. But that's a debate for a different time.) It's not some arduous task that a reasonable person would conclude acts as a credible barrier to enfranchisement.
If you do not comply with basic, simple prerequisites, you're unable to perform actions that depend on those prerequisites. Why should voting be a special case? If it's really that important--and I agree that it is--isn't it really that important to put into place simple, common-sense measures that any legitimate citizen who cares enough can easily comply with, in order to ensure its integrity?
Generally, the fewer people that vote the more favorable it is to Republican candidates.
This would seem to not hold up against the facts: the 2016 election had the highest voter turnout in recent memory, and across the board--not just in the Presidential vote--the Republican party won in a landslide.
As I've said before on here, it was pretty much inevitable, as it's the Republicans' turn to screw things up now. It's a clear pattern that's been going on for decades in American politics: we didn't like Bush Sr. raising taxes after saying "read my lips, no new taxes," so we threw him and his party out and elected Clinton, who was even worse. We got sick of his endless scandals, so we threw him and his party out and elected W, who was even worse. We got sick of his moronic antics and endless wars, so we threw him and his party out and elected Obama, who was even worse. (Are you seeing a pattern yet?) Then we got sick of him and his party causing trouble for us with health care, race relations, civil rights, and oh-by-the-way not doing anything to put an end to the endless wars he campaigned on opposing, so we threw him and his party out and elected Trump, who is almost guaranteed to be even worse.
Anyone who was surprised by Trump's victory is simply not paying attention.