People would have recognized him. Plus he wanted to peruse the aisles and check things out, not hide away. He wouldn't have known how to dart in and out, that was the point.

Also people didn't have cell phones in the 80s (I think that's when he did it). Would have been a payphone.

Hmm so the current C can be host or device, but really I'm not focused on that aspect. I'm focused on the reversible flip it over kind of thing - like USB A you flip over because you never get it right. You could have made a USB C style that always assumed is device.

Shipping container houses are terrible ideas. You want insulation, windows, plumbing, etc. They don't work well in those small steel containers.

Site construction is not efficient at all. Like at all. It's horribly inefficient. It's pretty much the worst industry I can think of. There's a reason why factories exist. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on that, so we don't need to keep saying the same thing back and forth.

Yes shipping is an issue. That's why regionality is important. If hurricanes keep hitting the same area, that will create regional demand.

*Also, it's not shipping a complete house (which yes can be done too), it's a modular house. That's the whole point of the post.

Really? I'm asking why they didn't design and use a reversible C style in 2007 instead of the micro USB. Afaik a reversible style is not dependent on tech development from 2007-2014,

So any idea why they went with the horrible micro USB instead of a reversible C style?

Just like different car models you can have different house models if the market is big enough.

Someone uploaded German POW stories onto YouTube that I was listening to. Some prisoners (in France I believe) forged "gold" rings from copper and then sold them to the guards in the middle of the night for food. Guards couldn't tell at night.

And we go back to the start: Her not dropping out is a bad thing. Which is an issue. You applaud her efforts to spoil the Dem vote? Yeah you show who you are.

Her name is already on the ballot, but yes you drop out and fewer people will vote for you.

People thought Trump wasn't going to win and that Hilary was going to win in a landslide.

I see you live up to your reputation.

... A spoiler? Which is what she is.

The report notes, "A person involved in the Trump transition said that they are exploring a 'spectrum' of legal options for working with the current administration, including signing and not signing the GSA agreements, and the potential implications," before ominously adding, "By not signing the agreement with the White House, which provides access to the agencies, the Trump transition can also avoid submitting an ethics pledge, whose requirements are outlined by the Presidential Transition Act."

That's a bad thing.

But why micro USB? That was later wasn't it?

RAR isn't creative enough.

How about ROSS. Rock obtaining and studying synthetic.

Your ignorance is stunning.

Ah you open with an attack, always a good way to start a nice productive conversation huh! Skimming first you are rife with attacks (just like your last message) so this will be my last reply. There's little productive discussion when I see someone acting like that.

Yeah environmentalism is pretty left wing. And it wasn't just environmental like anti smog that pretty much everyone agreed on. It was climate change. You know CO2, the new thing.

Your first article is paywalled. But to address your text: Fiscally conservative? You can be relatively fiscally conservative and still implement left policy. It's a common mistake to think left policy is wildly expense. But the first articles actual title: "Top goals is steady reduction of nation's debt". Debt reduction? That's what you're saying defines him as not left? Yeah you can reduce the debt while doing left things. Especially not so difficult to do when Clinton left a surplus.

Second article: "What has gone mostly unnoticed, however, is a change in the man’s voice. It is often now that of an unapologetic populist." Tone of voice? That's what you're linking? This isn't a deep analysis, this is a feeling story time piece. "Then he lit into almost every aspect of the Bush administration. “I think this is the worst foreign policy that any president has ever made in the history of the United States,” Gore said." Yeah after the wars you might speak a little bit louder. I'm only skimming this because of the next point:

I see you're still demanding people read your links (long ones at that) when you openly said you "skim" people's replies and don't reply to what's said. Hypocritical much? Shows how you operate. You demand people do things that you take great glee in not doing, while attacking that they even wrote anything at all.

I have no idea what your point is about the Obama administration.

Obama? I already explained. He ran center and won. Your list of things bailing out homeowners? Not exactly far left lol, that's just reactionary to oh I don't know the subprime mortgage crisis that tanked people. I already explained each point.

So Obama. He ran center. And he won. Aka he learned from Gore to not rely on the left that doesn't show up.

all of his policies were progressive,

I already explained this. When in office, he acted left. He ran center relying on hope and yes we can. But when he got in after the election, he acted left. And the thanks for acting left was to lose Congress. Aka: the left never shows up.

You also seem to think that bringing up people’s past policy positions is some kind of dirty trick

It's not a "dirty" trick that works like you're trying to suggest. Well I already explained it, you're trying to suggest that no one ever changes their platform, changes their thinking, to adjust to information on the ground. Your argument is that if Gore did a center thing 12 years ago, or for Hillary 2016-1965 = 51 years prior that that person is now set in stone forever. It's a ludicrous "trick" that might sound good on the surface. But when you think about it, it makes no sense - unless you think that people are set in stone and can never, never, never change anything they ever think.

, I was right, you just repeated yourself.

You mean I went through each candidate, and then summarized? But you have to attack lol. The summary was a little long because I both summarized and responded to you.

especially when you don’t know what you’re talking about. But, for the record, your premise is obviously faulty; if you vote for them when they move to the center, the takeaway isn’t going to be that it’s safe to go to the left, it will be that it’s safe to go to the center. .... Anyway, still very telling that you won’t address the fact that Ross Perot played a huge part in the 1992 election, but I’m sure you’d have to Google, “Who is Ross Perot?” first. But thanks for, “today’s explanation,” really funny stuff!

Ah I've seen this trick before too! A common strategy. You sandwich your brief statement in attacks. You attack to throw the person off, then you quickly follow up with the actual point, hoping the person is too distracted by the attack. In this case followed up by some not so relevant stuff, before quickly going to the next attack to continue to throw them off!

Do I address the attacks? So I wear myself out with that? Do I address the point, and let the attacks go? Which makes you feel like I can't address the attacks. Do I address it all, at which is very long and becomes more me just "defending" myself, which makes me look weak. I see your strategy all the time.

I think calling out your attack strategy addresses that, so I'll continue to the actual point:

Which the Dems lose, they go to the center to find voters. You're not rewarding them (to use your parlance). It's that every time they go left they lose. Every single time, the left does not show up. So the next guy learns to go center to get votes. And they win when they go center. But even then someone will run a left thing, or enact a left thing, and then they lose again. So back to the center to win. You want them to move left? The left needs to reward them when they run left or do left things, but that's never done. See the history in my previous reply. I'm just repeating myself.

but I’m sure you’d have to Google

And like I said, quickly followed by more attacks! Boy I recognize your structure.

Which I already addressed too! Like before I'm just repeating myself. You openly said you are only skimming what I write, because it's not worthy of your attention. So I said "So I'll just hit a few [key] points". You openly said you didn't read , but you want people to drill down on every little bit that you grace other people a response to. Fucking lol at the hypocrisy.

So do I respond to Perot, when I've already had to repeat myself time and time again. I'm tempted to and actually started writing. but I see no point given what I see. And this is long enough.

So now do I list alllll the things you didn't respond to? Look how long this is already.

So like I said that's my last response because you're gleefully ignoring what's said (skimming technically) while demanding I go through your links, I'm just repeating myself, and most of all: Your rife reliance on attacks. Have at your next round of attacks. Ciao

Um can someone translate what this means?

I think a large part of it is consistent demand, and that must be regional because of the size and shipping of the final product. Hurricanes solve both to some extent.

Well did they have dual citizenship? That's different than illegal immigrants who don't have dual.

Umm you don't have to take back your citizens? Are you sure?

I read a great legal comment once about how revoking citizenship sounds cool but is really bad for pretty much exactly this reason. You're left in this weird legal limbo with no country to go to (in that case to face criminal legal process).