Stack Exchange
log in

tj1000

 Discussion on answer by Harper: Why d…

Imported from a comment discussion on aviation.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Jul 30, 2019 18:00
Chrysler made an automatic transmission in the 60's with a second oil pump powered by the output shaft... so that if the car was rolling but the engine off, the transmission could be shifted into gear. It was, and I believe still is, the only automatic transmission vehicle that could be push started.
 

 Discussion on answer by tj1000: Why c…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Nov 1, 2018 19:19
Obviously, it will make for a very interesting legal debate. Someone in the country illegally isn't subject to full US laws... they are subject to a subset that revolves largely around deportation. While the concept of birthright is noble, it has clearly been overtaken by events in the last few decades. Today, it serves as a magnet for illegal immigration. If we are to change the immigration laws, it should be done as the expressed will of the citizens, not by encouraging lawbreaking.
 

 Discussion on answer by tj1000: Why c…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Apr 17, 2018 19:43
@blip... Once again... if the majority of people wanted stricter gun control, they'd vote in legislators to get it. This doesn't happen, because candidates who run on a gun control platform tend to be defeated. What we really need to do is solve the root problem. Note that Europe, with strict gun laws, has seen a lot of mass murders lately: illegal guns, bombs, and now trucks. Address the cause, and the means becomes irrelevant. How many more people will die because some of you want to use tragedy to boost your political agenda, rather than solve the problem?
tj1000
Apr 17, 2018 19:43
@blip: if the majority of americans supported stricter gun control, we'd have it. We don't. If they supported it, those legislators 'bought off' by the NRA and industry would be defeated in the next election. That doesn't happen. Those very obvious facts don't back up a targeted survey designed to get a specific answer that 'sounds good'.
 

 Discussion on question by Mehrdad: Ho…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Apr 6, 2018 14:07
Protect themselves from what? Given the horrid condition of most state budgets, I'd say the states need to be protected from their own legislatures and governors. Don't need troops to do that, just voters who pay attention.
 

 Discussion on question by Snow: What …

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
tj1000
Dec 11, 2017 17:51
A malfunction in the environmental controls could lead to either oxygen toxicity, or oxygen depravation. Either condition can bring on a period of irrational behavior.
 

 Discussion on question by mike: How s…

Imported from a comment discussion on aviation.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Dec 7, 2017 08:37
To date, no 787 has auto landed itself in a forest...
 

 Discussion on question by Kala: Why i…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Nov 16, 2017 15:39
Communism WAS seen as 'evil' in the midst of the cold war, largely because one's enemy is always painted as evil. What else are you going to say - they have a great system, but we still don't like them? The Nazis painted European bankers as evil in their propaganda. Today, communism is seen as a failed economic ideology.
 

 Discussion on question by user4012: W…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Jul 21, 2017 11:15
Most unpopular laws don't become unpopular until the effect hits the populace. Wilson's income tax to finance WW1 is still with us, and fairly unpopular. Prohibition... rescinding it became a rallying cry by 1932. As for unpopular at the time of passage: Obamacare got the tea party a lot of votes, as much from the heavy handed nature of its authoring - despair over the failed economic model and skyrocketing costs is just starting to hit now.
 

 Discussion on answer by Sjoerd: How d…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Jul 14, 2017 16:47
@Relaxed: Since the specific question asked was 'how do you phrase the law to ban one but not the other', Sjored's answer is correct. It is fortunate for those crafting the law that some forms of the burqua cover the face, which often falls under existing laws forbidding the covering of one's face in public for any reason, and any such laws can be written to not specifically mention religion... even if the intent is to discriminate based on religion. Religions that had total nudity as a requirement would run into similar problems when implemented in the mainstream.
 

 Discussion on answer by James K: Why …

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Jul 14, 2017 14:29
@dev_willis: one can argue that information damaging a presidential adversary has considerable value, except... nothing of an illegal nature about Clinton came out during the campaign that wasn't already known. On a lesser level, one can argue that Don Jr should have gone to the FBI as this was a potential undue influence on a presidential election. Of course, that works both ways - Hillary Clinton didn't go to the FBI when she was offered the CNN debate questions in advance, and that's definitely undue influence on a presidential election. She used those debate questions, instead.
 

 Discussion on answer by Amadeus: What…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
tj1000
Jun 16, 2017 03:28
Sex as a medium of exchange isn't necessarily a sign of absence of intelligence. Las Vegas makes a fortune off of that very concept. Not a bad idea, now that I think about it...
 

 Discussion between PoloHoleSet and tj…

Imported from a comment discussion on politics.stackexchange.c...
tj1000
Jun 12, 2017 18:46
@PoloHoleSet - B Clinton wouldn't have won were it not for Ross Perot who took a big chunk of repub votes, so he was an unexpected victor. The 'perot effect' wasn't obvious until the post primary campaign was already under way. Whereas H Clinton was the expected victor, and awash in money. Maybe I'm being idealistic, or just out of date, to expect the democratic party to represent the working class and the grass roots. They sure didn't in the last election. Who do we turn to now?
tj1000
Jun 12, 2017 18:46
@PoloHoleSet - fair enough, neither party is clean, though I'm disappointed in the dems for embracing big money during the Obama years. I still believe that much of the DNC dumps probably were done by an idealistic insider, the motivation was there. Sadly, the message: ditch the big influence and start representing the people again, has been lost (the sanders backstab). In contrast, the RNC appears to have just sat back and let the cards fall where they may. Maybe they should have interfered - i would have preferred Kasich, maybe Rubio. Ironically, no one appears to have learned from 2016.
tj1000
Jun 12, 2017 18:46
PoloHoleSet - the DNC was being a hostile entity... to its own electorate. While technically, this isn't a crime, more a violation of the charter the DNC purports to adhere to, it certainly qualifies as a very embarressing detail: that big money had taken over the democratic party. This has a lot to do with why the DNC info was dumped but not RNC, partially because the RNC was more befuddled than deceptive to its own electorate, and partially because there are still some idealistic people in the democratic party who might have dumped it themself, in horror at what their party had become.
tj1000
Jun 12, 2017 18:46
Counterpoint: observing the 2016 primaries, it should have been obvious that the DNC was skewing the campaign against Sanders: holding the debates at off peak viewing hours was a big clue. Their bias was later confirmed through leaked emails. The RNC appeared more befuddled - putting up the lame Jeb Bush, and then doing nothing when Trump unexpectedly gained traction. The DNC meddled in its own primary, while the RNC did not, and maybe they should have. This suggests that only DNC info was leaked, because there wasn't anything in RNC files worth leaking, other than they were inept.