Allegedly from Genghis Khan (though considered out of character by some historians) The greatest joy for a man is to defeat his enemies, to drive them before him, to take from them all they possess, to see those they love in tears, to ride their horses, and to hold their wives and daughters in his arms.
Was Clinton calling it the gold standard after everyone understood its contents, or before, when it was considered this dark terrible secret too sinister for the likes of commoners and representatives?
...Hitler used the plot as an excuse to prune the ranks of about seven thousand individuals, few of which actually had to do with the attack. Likewise, the Gestapo and the SS took advantage of the incident to accuse their enemies, many of whom were not merely executed, but killed brutally to make an example of them. Hanging from piano wire was popular. It was a good time to be in the piano wire market.
The United States takes its tradition of patriotic duties from culture of Old England, though it doesn't work very well there either. Officers from affluent families seemed to have strong patriotism to motivate them. Conscripted enlisted men, not so much.
The motivation to civic duties from patriotism (jury duty, the draft, census forms, voting, writing angry letters to your congressperson) only work when the people are patriotic. Such as if they generally feel enfranchised, recognized and supported by their state officials and agencies.
That's not a situation we have presently in the US.
Considering how long it has been since that has been a common feeling, it is no surprise that all of these functions have become tragic commons. People don't expect the legal system to be available to them (And why should they when innocent people are forced into convictions or plea bargains every day?) so of course they don't care to be a juror.
When we have to choose between a charismatic demagogue and a criminal career politician, why would people want to vote?
When we're being sent to fight in foreign lands to win land rights for corporate interests, why would people want to risk their lives?
But as I'm fond of noting, We build a civilization with the people we have, not the people we wish we had. (credit to Rumsfeld where it's due) Now that there is a abyssal divide between the state and the people, we're going to need to find other ways to motivate them to want to participate in their own governance.
Once votes and juries count again, they might start doing it out of patriotic duty again, and people may actually put effort into serving their country.
But so long as our country treats its people like conscripted commoners pressed into service for the bemusement of a handful of gentiles, we're not going to show much enthusiasm for service.
I'd like to see this bring into discussion the a regulation of technologies that Law Enforcement are allowed to deploy in their line of work.
Given that detection tools are being used to incriminate but not vindicate, we've already established that they're not being used in service of the people, ergo they should be restricted to a limited set and the limits of their ability to detect made public and open.
When our officials that direct the operations of law enforcement and the Department of Justice are able to return the function of their agencies back to service of the people, respecting the rights of the individual, their selection of acceptable devices can be expanded once again.
Yes, this means that criminals will be able to better cover their tracks, but considering the police are hunting down the lower-hanging fruit of helpless bystanders, undetected crime likely continues to flourish anyway.
The problem with voting against Hillary is voting in Trump. And the problem with voting against Trump is voting in Hillary.
Trump is the one that's planning on forcing the inner city to the work farms to do all the jobs that illegals are doing right now.
Or he may just force our prison population to do all that work for free and put our inner city kids straight from adolescence into prison.
We do that a lot already.
The steps to a holocaust are small and the gradient shallow. What frightens me is how little trump supporters care for Trump's policies. This isn't a send-a-message-to Washington vote. This is the guy in charge for at least four years.
...this might be fixed by typos and miss-targetings having a poisoned fruit effect throughout any law enforcement agency, so that any information derived from the BUTTLE investigation (rather than the TUTTLE investigation) would become inadmissible down the line. Friends and associates of BUTTLE, locations of BUTTLE, phone numbers called by BUTTLE, all inadmissible.
Then not just the NSA but any downriver agencies would have a strong motivation to double and triple check their work.
But none of the rest of the system works to support this, what with corruption and overreach and perverse incentives.
Hillary Clinton may be a crook and an imbecile when it comes to technology, but she's pragmatic. She's not going to nuke anyone because she'll actually listen to the military advisors why we don't nuke people.
In fact, years being Secretary of State, she probably understands.
Trump on the other hand is an unstable volcano, and when he decides that he needs retribution, he just wants the biggest club with which to do it. So not only do I think he's going to nuke someone, but he's going to nuke a nation over a slight by one of its officials. Trump is not one for proportional response.
And if he doesn't nuke someone, it's pretty certain he's going to send our nation to war over petty bullshit.
And this is not getting into his policy when he's not wanting to work off some aggression. Either he's going to build a wall, halt immigration and intern Muslim Americans, or he's going to delegate to Pence, which is going to give us another extreme-Conservative Bush era.
Clinton will respond the way presidents typically respond, which is to mass public outcry, or legislative obstruction. Sadly, she'll still let the CIA torture people and bomb Afghani civilians. She'll still let the police murder people with impunity and route minorities into prisons. And she will still overclassify and torture / imprison whistleblowers until they snap and rot.
That's exactly what it is. We won't know who gets elected until we observe it, though not due to quantum indeterminacy but due to the chaos of large-scale social dynamics. No-one knows until after the fact who the lucky butterfly is that chooses between floods or drought.
Your friends seem to believe you're going to vote as they do, either against Hillary (for the Republicans) or against Trump (for the Democrats).
By voting for a third party, you're not voting against either, but that means that you're not voting against the one you would have voted against, had you chosen to vote against one.
We Are the Champions was released in 1977, so with a short (28 year) copyright term, it would be in the public domain now, which would mean that Trump and the RNC would have the right to play it.
The matter remains that Mr. Mercury would b marginalized by Trump / RNC policy so using his work to promote such a platform would be regarded in bad taste. (Then again -- and I'm guessing here -- Freddie, were he alive, might have enjoyed the irony, so long as Trump didn't actually win.)
Though, also, bad taste seems to run epidemic in polotics in general, let alone the GOP and its bedfellows.