Death should be mourned and never celebrated, except to celebrate a life well lived. However, the Supreme court is a special case. Because of the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices, the only way that most Supreme Court justices leave the bench is by their own death. The death should always be mourned, but the opening of a particular Supreme Court seat may be celebrated by many, especially if the departing justice used his opinions of the Constitution to support positions of hate, prejudice, segregation, and inequality. Of course a lot of that was built into the Constitution from the beginning, but changes have been and will continue to be made to better assure that all are created equal, and all will be treated as such.
It's always good to have Mr. Roler here to tell us what's going on
"when everyone thinks alike, no one is actually thinking."
So that's why so many have recently been goosestepping to Mr. Trumps words!!
Share buybacks do absolutely nothing to invest in the company, to grow the company, to create new products, or to sell existing products to new customers. Wouldn't growing the company, hiring new smart people, and inventing new products do much more in the long term to making this a much more valuable company?
Share buybacks don't help our country, they don't help middle class Americans; they don't help the company; and they don't do anything to make HPQ a stronger, more competitive company. Share buybacks should probably be made illegal.
Blacks make up less than 15% of the population. They, in no way, make a majority of the unemployed. The unemployment rate for black is about twice the rate for whites, but that is still no where near the majority of the unemployed.
"when demand once again climbs"
You'll have a long wait. the demand for oil has been dropping in the US, Europe, and many other countries for at least 10 years, and there is no reason at all to expect that that will change anytime soon. Many have recently replaced a car that got 24 mpg with one that gets 38 mpg, or better. With increasing efficiency and insulation, we just don't need all that oil any more. As you say, supply and demand... And meanwhile the Saudis, Venezuela, Iran, and Russia fight for a dwindling market share.
I think that the usual definition is someone who has served in the Senate, the House, the Cabinet, or was a state governor. I guess that that would make Eisenhower a non-establishment president, too.
I thought we were talking about winning, not just running. But, there is no argument with anyone running. Anyone can do that.
You may be right, although history doesn't say it is a simple possibility. The last time a non-establishment candidate won the White House was with Andrew Jackson in 1828.
But if it does happen, then you seem to be saying that Bernie will win the White house. After all, he did win half again as many votes as the Donald did in the recent election.
Or how the Christians will let him run. They appear to be adamantly against him for dozens of reason, from the language he uses to his knowledge of the bible.
Jeb Bush did it as well. There was no federal law to use government email servers until 2014, well after Hillery left office. So, she did not violate nay laws, because the laws didn't exist then. However what she did was politically, and ethically stupid. She appears to have made a bunch of bad decisions. This is just one of them.
Three state officials get votes for each state, as well as a bunch of national officials. They are asked to vote as their states vote in primaries. but if the state primaries are divided, I expect the officials will be divided, as well. A few states also send unbound delegates, rather than having a primary at all. Finally many, if not most states divide delegates proportionally, based on the primary vote, while others are winner take all. There is still a very good chance that the unbound delegates, and party officials will make sure that no one wins on the first ballot. After that all delegates are unbound and anything could happen. There is a good chance that 3 or 4 viable candidates will remain at the time of the convention, with none of them having enough votes to win.
The same thing might also happen with the Democrats, but with just 2 candidates, that is much less likely to happen.
No, identifying information such as address, party registered with, etc. You can provide a driver's license, if you have one, but that is not required to vote here..
I have no idea how it's done in Michigan, but in out town and sate, you go up to the table and tell you name and and a little more identifying information that may be asked to the volunteer there. If what you tell then matches the information in the registered voter list, then they give you a ballot. It works well here.
If they have registered to vote and are listed on the voter roles, then they are eligible to vote. In most states (but maybe not Texas? See above..), one is required to to provide proof of citizenship and proof of local residence before registering to vote.
Well, voter registration is a done state by state, so are you saying that Texas cities and towns don't check anyone when they register to vote to assure that they are citizens, and local residents? If so, that's their problem.