That’s just as daft an answer as the original nonsense. a) the two issues are intertwined - probably stemming from the same cause, in my book - and b) the thing about race is just nonsense, as you’d expect given that ‘races’ aren’t actually a real thing. (If you live in a racist society you have to deal with the…

CVTs confuse people because we mostly use the engine noise as a guide to speed changes. When I’ve driven a CVT on highways I’ve found my speed dropping unless I watch the speedo more than I’m used to, because as long as I’m hearing the engine revving at a constant speed I subconsciously assume road speed isn’t…

Somewhere the prosecutor was waiting for a Fed Ex delivery.

I can’t comment on US political history in regard to who’s got away with more of it. I’ll just point out that gerrymandering is a universal desire among politicians.

People like that aren’t really dealing in morals. In my experience they’re not thinking about the other people involved as people, they’re so angry at something else in their life that they’re getting worked up about fantasies. Which, come to think of it, describes people on any side who forget other people are people.

I don’t know about accident, but it’s consistent with someone losing their rag in a big way. That could, conceivably, be the one-off incident that makes someone realise they need help.

“It’s never the woman you know either.”

It’s not an order. It’s a change to the ROE that doesn’t actually change anything.

According to the BBC, they mostly have no claim to asylum at all. They’re economic migrants. As I understand it, that means the US is entitled to refuse them entry - although obviously it’s a daft idea to do so.

“If we lost control of some situation at the border and some sort of massacre resulted”

It depends on the order. Conceivably, yes. In this case he hasn’t given any order, though. 

That would be no different to some random racist turning up and shooting them, in the eyes of the law. 

He can send troops there. He can’t make them do anything military once they’re there.

Oh, well, you’d better tell the scientists who study such things that your antisemitic propaganda outweighs their science.

“Never forget: there is an inherent conflict of interests between the worker and the employer.”

“The only reasons to not-unionize is because [rancid neo-antisemitic tirade]”

There are very good moral arguments for making public sector strikes illegal. And equally good arguments against the idea. It’s not like the thing’s clear-cut, because even if you can’t strike, you can still quit en-masse.

That’s a shitty bit of apologetics for slavery. No, government employ is not like slavery and you cannot excuse slavery by claiming it was.

No, you have that the wrong way up. The working class are those who work for other people because they don’t want to be responsible for their own business. (I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with that.) Everyone else is varying degrees of middle class. Apart from e.g. The Queen, who is one of about ten people…

Maybe we shouldn’t be taking unionisation advice from a man who believes the unions are a key way of sticking it to those ebil jooz...