His argument is that there would be no possible legal recourse if a US president tried to seize absolute power the way Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, by having everyone in the legislature that might oppose him lined up and shot.
Worldwide figures aren't relevant to US anti-trust cases; iPhones account for over half of the US market, their closest competitor, Samsung, is around a quarter, and everyone else combined is even less than that.
Jimmy Kimmel made fun of Aaron Rodgers for being a dumb conspiracist so Aaron Rodgers called Jimmy Kimmel a pedophile because that's what dumb conspiracists do.
Neither 179 nor 168 is enough of a sample size to draw conclusions; if you don't understand that then your statistics professor completely failed.
The total sample doesn't matter when you're only pulling out a small part of it. If I polled 10,000 people but only 20 of them were over 100 I can't go around saying shit like "A majority of people over 100 say" this or that.
Every day the mask trying to hide the fact that No Labels are an anti-democracy group who don't believe the American people should be empowered to choose their government and their whole reason for existing is to disrupt the democratic process to get a Republican in the White House slips a little more
Former Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Davis, a co-founder of No Labels, expanded on the group’s view of this potential scenario in an interview with NBC News on Thursday, suggesting the No Labels ticket could “cut a deal” with one of the major parties’ tickets.
Gee, I wonder which of the major parties former Republican U.S. Rep. Tom Davis is thinking of a cutting a deal with...
Davis also said that the group is looking at another potential, if far-fetched, outcome: A contingent election in which the president is selected by the U.S. House.
In the event that an effort to swing unbound electors fails and no candidate receives 270 Electoral College votes, the 12th Amendment of the Constitution stipulates that each state’s House delegation votes for one of the presidential candidates. In order to secure the presidency, one of the presidential candidates must receive the support of 26 state delegations. The Senate would select the vice president.
Gee, I wonder which party is almost guaranteed to have a majority in more state delegations if every state is counted the same regardless of population.
When asked if No Labels has looked at state delegations that could potentially side with the No Labels ticket in a contingent election, Davis responded, “Of course. Of course. Of course. We’ve mapped all this out.”
He noted, as an example, that a state like Montana, which has one House member, could “hold out” on its initial support of a ticket.
Gee, I wonder who it benefits to give Montana more power to decide the next president or stack the cabinet than California or New York has.
It's because they're both fucking useless and you should ignore (and remember to always ignore in the future) anyone dishonest enough to pretend that you can draw conclusions about voters under 30 from either one of them.
The NY Times/Sienna poll had 179 18-29 year old respondents while the Economist/YouGov poll had 168 18-29 year old respondents; those sample sizes are of zero scientific value.
Gun laws in the Czech Republic in many respects differ from those in other European Union member states. The "right to acquire, keep and bear firearms" is explicitly recognized in the first Article of the Firearms Act. At the constitutional level, the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms includes the "right to defend one's own life or life of another person also with arms under conditions stipulated by law".
Cool, cool. Handing oligarchs all of the state's assets while removing all oversight is an outstanding plan. It worked out great for Russia; they'll never forget how wonderful things were in the 90s.
Ivana Trump told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler's collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed
So, again, your original assertions are horseshit. The PRC is very explicitly trying to change the status quo of Taiwan having de facto independence. We know this from repeated, unequivocal official and unofficial statements about "reunification". This article is, in fact, about exactly that.
Your assertion that the US is trying to change the status quo by supporting the DPP might make sense in a world where the PRC wasn't supporting the KMT to an ever greater extent; either they're both equally trying to disrupt the status quo through political support or they're both maintaining the status quo by supporting opposing parties. You can't paint a "US guilty, PRC innocent" picture out of that no matter how hard you try.
But then, of course, suggesting either major political party in Taiwan actually supports or is proposing a change to the status quo isn't really true either, is it?
His argument is that there would be no possible legal recourse if a US president tried to seize absolute power the way Saddam Hussein did in Iraq, by having everyone in the legislature that might oppose him lined up and shot.