Read PDF Alexios, Before Dying: Books 1-4 of Alexios (Lives of Alexios)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Alexios, Before Dying: Books 1-4 of Alexios (Lives of Alexios) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Alexios, Before Dying: Books 1-4 of Alexios (Lives of Alexios) book. Happy reading Alexios, Before Dying: Books 1-4 of Alexios (Lives of Alexios) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Alexios, Before Dying: Books 1-4 of Alexios (Lives of Alexios) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Alexios, Before Dying: Books 1-4 of Alexios (Lives of Alexios) Pocket Guide.

Brian Silliman briansilliman. Sep 18, Share This Post. Tag: Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Tag: Assassin's Creed. Tag: alexa. Tag: Amazon Alexa. Tag: Amazon. More Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Watch the mythical new trailer for Assassin's Creed Odyssey. Except every week in your inbox.

Your email. Sign in to comment:. Sign out:. All rights reserved. Told to get the Russians, he will get the Russians. Unable to find the culprits, but needing to show something for all this to save face for his investigation, he indicts 12 guys from GRU who will never see the inside of a courtroom much less a prison cell. Was is Russians? We have public information that pretty clearly ties Russia to the Podesta attack. Looking at the details contained in the indictment, it seems clear that Mueller also gained access to at least some of the internal communications of this group.

This is the sort of thing that the NSA exists for. In addition to that, Mueller clearly has access to the search engine history of several of the agents. This is basically what the NSA is for. Now, I do agree that this is political theatre, but not for the same reasons. The purpose of the indictment is simply to say: my investigation is not over.

Real crimes have been committed, and there are many loose ends yet to be pulled on. Look, for example, at section 43A:. On or about August 15, , the Conspirators, posing as Guccifer 2. The Conspirators responded using the Guccifer 2. In the meantime, while you may not have any way of personally verifying the accuracy of the indictment, there are people out there who do. Whether it was or not is immaterial, as pinning it on Putin is right in line with the goals and prejudices of the intelligence apparatus…. Mueller-bashing aside, this is identical to the theory 2 I described, correct?

Do I have this right? In terms of how they identified the specific GRU officials, it seems likely to be tied to the information provided to the US by Dutch intelligence, which we found out about back in January:. The short version is that Dutch hackers had thoroughly infiltrated the specific operation that performed the DNC hack, and were not only monitoring their internet traffic while they did it, they had access to the security camera in the front lobby of their building and were watching specific Russian intelligence officials come and go every day, and they gave all of this to the US.

This would be a real zinger, if the person you were responding to had denounced Putin for spying on us. Or if anyone at all had. The Russians ran an operation to spy on the Democratic party, which is day-ending-in-Y stuff. But then they leaked that information and ran an online propaganda campaign in the US to try to influence probably mainly to throw sand into the gears of the election. That is true, even though we do both of those things to other countries from time to time.

However, the much bigger issue in this case is that there were people involved in the Trump campaign who were apparently interacting with Russian agents, and may have somehow been made part of that Russian intelligence operation against us. Nations gonna nation. The real question is why the current President seems so keen to play for the other side in the game, and whether he actually assisted them in their espionage. Russia engaging in espionage against us is business as usual. An American citizen — let alone President — helping them do it, is something else entirely.

Foreign governments running the USA sounds really bad, because it seems likely that such people will have very different values opposed to my own and will not act in my best interest.

Alexios, Before Dying

I know that they have values opposed to my own. I know that they do not act in my best interest. So what am I supposed to be afraid of again? The real question is why the current President seems so keen to play for the other side in the game. Any concession from Trump that Russia had anything to do with helping him win can and will be used against him in the court of public opinion, and possibly in a court of impeachment. He has nothing to gain by agreeing with his enemies on this one. And from a political point of view which I believe is all he really cares about , his enemies are the Democrats, not Putin.

How could it possibly benefit him to agree with their years long line of attack that his election was illegitimate and that he maybe even did something illegal along the way. The page you link to mentions evidence that it did:. Searches of Nexis business info, the SEC database, and the National Business Register turn up no results for any company called Concord Catering except a small and unrelated business in Arizona. Putin has done me no harm. He is not my enemy. This is a novel and interesting position! Why not just come out and say it in plain language, instead of wading into a discussion on a somewhat-related topic and tossing off a sarcastic potshot that kind of hints at your novel and interesting position but does not actually say it, forcing people to draw it out of you via questioning?

If you want to start a digression, opening it by gotcha-ing a strawman is an unproductive way to go about it. I assume you know that. When said gotcha is the entirety of your comment, it makes an assumption of good faith very difficult. And glancing at the thread, it looks like it is a good way to derail evidence-based updating of factual beliefs. That all said, the object-level topic of moral values in international espionage is an interesting one, and I might engage when I get back to a real keyboard.

One clarification though:. IIRC there was a Planet Money about this, which suggested this whole thing was the personal crusade of this rich businessman who went to Russia in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, made millions, was friendsw with Magnitsky, eventually ran afoul of the Putin regime for some reason or another, saw himself charged with corruption, leading to having his business assets confiscated and having to flee the country at risk of jail, at which point his buddy Magnitsky ended up mysteriously dead.

Planet Money, of course, presented all of this uncritically, and made no attempt to even speculate about any sort of ulterior motives, or what the other side of the story might be here. Anybody watched the HBO series Succession? So in light of earlier discussions on tariffs, i though this article from might make for an interesting read. Below is my favourite part, which rather cleverly illustrates how even a unilateral tariff can hurt the party that imposed it. Perhaps our protectionists could understand this issue better if they would consider the economic effects in Illinois of a tariff against all products from our other 49 states.

Here is how it would work. We do not have, for example, an automobile industry in our state. The reason is simple—we can buy cars cheaper from Detroit and, in effect, pay for them with machine tools that we produce cheaper than they do. Thus those industries would also have to lay off workers.

But unquestionably, many new jobs would have been created in our new automobile industry. Yes, the general public would have to pay more for a car. Companies that have to purchase a lot of vehicles would take a hit to their profits, putting some out of business. Consumers have to pay more per car, but more of them have jobs at the local car plant. The car company charges more for cars, but now sells a lot more.

  • Alexios I Komnenos?
  • From the Rapidan to Petersburg: The Overland Campaign and the First and Second Battles of Petersburg?
  • J.K. Lasser Pro Real Estate Investment Trusts: New Strategies for Portfolio Management (J.K. Lasser Pro.);

And this new, ideally healthy and secure car industry with better paid employees would be able to make improvements that lower costs at some point. Additionally, if enough people are employed at decent salaries, people have more money to spend at other businesses, and a much better, more stable community. Like it allegedly was before the factories went overseas. That is the whole point. The idea is that the overall benefits to the community due to jobs etc. Specific individuals may suffer, particularly at first. The idea that the lowest price is the only thing that should matter to consumers is ridiculous, though I know many subscribe to it.

I realize some people would definitely not prefer this, and I know by many measurements we are better off due to globalization, but not everything can be measured or satisfied in gadgets and money. The predicted collapse of everything is somewhat ridiculous. Raising the minimum wage definitely has downsides that many proponents completely fail to consider, but the assertion that every business would drop their employees by a proportionate amount is just not true. And the people making these higher wages spend more money and may be motivated to do better, which offsets at least some of the downsides.

Raising prices is the stated intention, either to penalize the other country or to benefit our own. Obviously there is a rationale behind them, or no one would propose them. Now it has everyone employed in the local community, so it retains power. Why does the passage completely ignore the idea that the new industry would create new jobs?

I know it is not so easy and there are only so many jobs, but it is at least worth a mention. And eventually, new corollary industries would grow up around the car industry. The question is not whether they could pay the higher wage but whether, at the higher wage, it would be in their interest to continue hiring the same number of low skill workers. For your question on tariffs, you can find a sketch of the relevant economics in a chapter of my price theory text.

I am not saying that it is likely to work, or that it is not highly vulnerable to criticism, but I do think it should be fairly addressed, and I rarely see that happen. I do believe that some minor level of morality should be in play, and I think the companies and owners themselves benefit from contributing to a more stable community. Making profit the only aim does not generally provide the biggest benefit to the company or owners, unless you define everything in life by getting a few more dollars.

I realize many people do think that way and do not believe in any other purpose, but that is not a self-evident idea nor a healthy one, in my opinion. Many companies are ruined that way, and that logic does not come naturally to everyone. Employees are not just a cost drain, they are supposed to be contributing to the company. Not everyone making close to minimum wage is all that low skilled. At least some companies would be willing to hire close to as many people or even the same amount if they needed those employees to keep the company running.

It may lower their profits, but it is still in their interest to do so, to keep the company properly staffed and running well. Of course, this is all case by case. I agree that in the aggregate, the effects would probably be negative, especially with the minimum wage issue. There is a huge potential for backfire. Other things matter, and ripple effects occur. People are not these perfect rational actors who are always motivated or discouraged by the gain or loss of a few dollars. By way of counterargument, I offer a picture of Detroit in versus Detroit in You keep finding other ways to tell me that tariffs make things more expensive.

I already understand this. I completely understand this. Conversely, I can show many photos of the Detroit Metro Area which show improvement or stasis across the time window of to Which of those photo-pairings would be more accurate? A photo of that location from would not show the stadium, but it ought to show the old baseball field and at least one new skyscraper. Call me crazy, but I think a superior approach would be to gather information from about economic activity across the country for the past several decades and compile it into aggregate statistics.

That said, I thought it was obvious that the Detroit of yesteryear was a nice place to live, and today is blighted. Is this not so? As a resident of the Detroit Metro Area and a worker at a company that supports the Automotive Business :. By population, the City of Detroit is hollow shell of its s heyday. At that time, the Metro Area had a population in the vicinity of 2 million, and about 1. Most areas of Detroit have seen small changes up, down, or mixed since then. The biggest change in the City was in the aftermath of those riots.

To mention population again: from the census to the census, the population of the City of Detroit shrunk.

Related Articles

In the and census cycles, the City fought hard to convince the Census bureau that its population was more than 1 million. By the year , the City of Detroit population had shrunk further than that. In contrast: the population of the Metro Detroit area rose during most of that time frame. That number remained mostly-the-same in , indicating stagnation but not much decline.

The fortunes of the Metro Area seemed to rise and fall with the national economy.

  • Alexios I Komnenos?
  • Family Tradition;
  • Know Your Rights: Easy Employment Law for Employees.
  • Guiding Lights: Monuments and Memorials at the U.S. Naval Academy.

The fortunes of the City of Detroit seemed to fall with the exodus of population to the suburbs. There is some interplay of the fortunes of the City of Detroit with the national economy, tariffs, and overseas competition. But those things are overshadowed by the population movement that was triggered by the riots of By it was down to 1. The riots merely accelerated the process of white people fleeing the urban core for the suburbs. They were not the cause. The problem with Detroit is that its advantages have been eaten by a combination of cheap transport and the increasing cost of mining in the Lake Superior and Appalachian regions.

Why was Detroit the motor city or why were steel mills on the Great Lakes, in general? Because you had the iron ore mines in Minnesota and the Upper Peninsula, and the coal mines for coke in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. You had cheap water transport over the Great Lakes for the iron which is denser and lower value than the coal , and somewhat more expensive rail transport for the coal. Where do these come together? That means that every ounce of copper and pound of waste rock had to make journey of over a mile straight up , and nearly two miles on its actual path of travel. There is absolutely no lever that Trump or any politician can pull to bring back the Rust Belt to its former glory.

He can only nibble around the edges which is all these tariffs are doing. But my emotions will not change the fundamental economic reality of the mining industry. Places like Detroit that were located due to those mining districts are in the same boat. If we were able to increase mining and steel production in the US, would the state of US manufacturing improve? My impression is that the Detroit metro area has some very nice places to live, and some very not-nice places, like most cities. When we talk about cities being nice or not, I think what we generally are measuring is the percentage of area in the city that is nice vs the percentage that is not nice.

Which might not be particularly relevant, so long as you are not forced to either live or work in the not-nice part. Note that this thumb is very, very expensive. Your tax dollars at work. The Swedes, who are certainly not skimping on wages or labor safety do not seem to mind hauling iron up from 1. So, really, to revive US mining, you have to drive down the real cost of electricity.

Since then Runaway Shops to Mexico and China. Access to steel and coal and transport, sure, and Detroit had factories for iron stoves and horse carriages with workers who had useful skill sets, but management really likes to cut and run now and then. If he ended up paying more for shipping raw materials than he gained from dodging unionization, he still comes out behind—plus paying the cost of rebuilding the plants.

He wanted to get away from where he was, but he was still limited by transport networks. Once transport got cheaper and you could get raw materials moved further for the same cost, they decamped for the South for both the better business climate and the actual climate. Once founded and a network in particular industries has been built up, the city may continue for other reasons, as most US cities have. Back when the town was first founded around the mines, workers had to live very close to the mine portal, and this more or less continued through the open-pit iteration by tradition, so when the mines were running, a new worker could move to the town and be confident in finding at least some amenities though they were a lot less picky then.

So we would have an operating mine, but probably still a shrinking, aging population. Once founded and a network has been built up. See also: all major cities are built near waterways or ports, which we no longer need to make settlement practical, and which in many not all cases limit growth. That must have started to change by the time the American West got settled. The same goes for Las Vegas. Not actually on it, but close enough. Looks like no, but it does owe some of its growth to the Colorado, in a roundabout way — the first casinos there were built to cater to workers on the Hoover Dam in the early Thirties.

The city already existed as a railroad and wagon stop, though. The largest city without a navigable waterway is Johannesburg, a gold mining boom town that got big enough to keep going after the mines closed. Shanghai 34 million — sea and Yangtze river Guangzhou 25 million — Pearl river Beijing So most of the Chinese cities that are growing are located near waterways. And a lot of these cities have experienced this massive growth during the last 50 years, after modern transportation technologies became available.

And they are not all the result of a city just growing — Shenzen was a really small vilage 50 years ago. I think how close it is to Hong Kong and others centres of economic importance probably makes a difference. If you look at a night time photo of Spain, you see a bright spot in the middle, where Madrid is, and the lights in the coast; the middle of the country is much darker.

And I do think this is due to transportation, in part, although historical reasons also matter. Otherwise, why is Seville on the coast growing while Salamanca the city with the oldest Spanish University and Toledo which was an imperial city, before the court was moved to Madrid are not?

Edit: I understand that US geography is different than other continents. But, from my scant knowledge of US geography, it seems like the biggest cities are still located somewhere on the coastal states. Which middle states are densely populated? Is there no correlation with river transport? Because Chicago was a major connection for waterborne transport, it then became a major rail hub.

Louis is at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, and right at a major obstacle to navigation Chain of Rocks , so there was a significant amount of portaging and transloading of river cargo occurring there, so a city naturally sprung up. So for the most part, cities in the heartland are still highly correlated with river transport, though more for historical reasons.

Rivers are still a very important method of transportation, but not as huge a percentage of the economy of cities as it once was. The interior of the US is much less densely populated than the coasts. This is roughly the same distance as Paris to Moscow. The Dallas-Fort Worth area is quite a bit bigger than Denver, with no major water transport to it either.

If he ended up paying more for shipping raw materials than he gained from dodging unionization, he still comes out behind-plus paying the cost of rebuilding the plants. Once transport got cheaper and you could get raw materials moved further for the same cost for both the same cost, they decamped for the South for both the better business climate and the actual climate-.

Certainly agree with you that raw material cost and transport cost is vital to cities and factories. I just hate to see anyone mention a factory moving after labor trouble without the magic words Runaway Shop. My shibboleth, not your problem. Thank you. You said what I meant in a far more concise way. That is what tariff opponents keep doing, as though tariff proponents are not aware.

But it is amazing how many people either find that issue irrelevant, or actively take pleasure in the existence of hellscapes! And they think that attitude is self-evident! Conrad Honcho: Allow me then to present this picture as a counter-counter argument. If foreign competition destroyed Detroit, why does Grosse Point Park remain intact and prosperous despite being literally across the street? Are we to suppose that national trade policy applies to one side of the street but not the other? Fact is the suburbs of Detroit are doing quite fine despite being subject to the same prevailing economic conditions.

  • Alexius Meinong!
  • Get A Copy;
  • Classification of Finitely Generated Abelian Group;

This becomes even more evident when you compare Detroit to other cities. Also, you are far too dismissive of the effects of cheaper prices on goods. For the people who consume those goods, lower prices are interchangeable with higher wages in that they ultimately translate to more money in their pockets. You want to minimize hellscapes? Well under a protectionist regime half of Detroit would still be abandoned, and on top of that everyone there would be poorer since their dollars would have less purchasing power.

It kinda corrected my understanding of what AI developments are realistically possible within next years, but I am not an expert in the field. Is there any response from GAI community? If one has a family history of psych disorders not sure of the precise term; anxiety, bipolar; some institutionalization are there specific behavioral habits that can mitigate or prevent the onset?

Parrots and corvids apparently would have found use for them. Well, are they turning the wings into hands, thus losing their main means of propulsion, or losing the feet they stand on instead? I must emphasize, it would be a nightmarish sight.

Alexios I Komnenos - Wikipedia

If the hands were instead of feet, that could be interesting; the bird might grip a perch with one hand and use the other for some fine meticulous work, then alternate hands when one got tired. Did not like the article all that much actually, mainly because I felt it had too many holes and presents a false dichotomy.

ASSASSIN'S CREED ODYSSEY - Alexios Dies in Present Day Ending

One thing that really kept annoying and itching was how the conflict was somehow able to understand and steelman their opposing side, but the supposedly more rational mistake simply dismissed them as being ignorant. Which seems to be much closer to how people actually behave. I just found out at the pharmacist that here in Luxembourg , even though melatonin normally requires a prescription, you can get 0.

The pharmacist was not impressed with the request for a 0. Since that was why they were willing to sell it without a prescription, it was probably not in my best interest to correct them and, thus, they remain ignorant. You have an odd sort of time-travel ability. Every day at midnight you get to choose whether to keep the last 24 hours and continue, or roll back time 24 hours and live the day again. One early strategy might be to play roulette and bet on odd, even, black or red and roll back if you lose.

That would nearly double the money you have every two days, until the casinos ban you. After that, you probably have enough money to start making highly leveraged bets in the stock market or gambling on currency prices. So you could play for one more day, but not for your full bankroll, unless you play multiple times. Depending on the exact rules, you could keep betting until you lose, then on the next day repeat, change your bet on the last round and stop betting after that.

Then switch to the stock market. The attention that kind of money brings far outweights its utility to me. Expecially when I know I can easily make more money should I want to. That way your expected wealth on day n is 1. Of course, if you bet on things with multiple possible outcomes you can do much better than that. For any possible betting activity, you see the winner.

All you have to do is live through it once and on the second go-round bet on the highest payout thing that happened.

Table of contents

My tactic could still fail spectacularly if the universe is highly random and rolling back time will not result in identical except for you those you interact with days. Roulette is not going to work — it is deliberately engineered to be a chaotic system, just your own interactions with the croupier and the entire place is going to change outcomes. Stock market movements based on information going public is the most certain, though you end up looking like an insider trader if you are not careful.

For straight gambling.. The condition of the animals is not going to change between resets, so you should have at least far better than average odds of picking winners. Though, still, do not bet the entire bankroll. If you lose your memories, then you need to be gambling on a chaotic system, to prevent losing loops, where you lose, go back in time, make the losing choice again, go back in time, etc.

And they keep on resetting the day, forever, never getting out of it. I suspect how much attention you draw is the important llimiting factor here. I think the sweet spot at the beginning might be horse racing. There are a LOT of horse races every day, so long shots are going to win fairly often. So if that day is typical, I should be able to assemble almost a million dollars from a thousand on my first day with one rewind, so 2 days.

Things break down at the high level. How much money can a hedge fund make on a daily basis? The IRS is easy to deal with, just pay them. To get into the millions should be easy enough. Conventional betting deals in those ranges so you could roll back once and then bet on accumulator bets picking the winners for a number of event on the same day. Being able to replay the day you could make crazy returns in any given day.

Or just rewind once buy a lottery ticket 10 minutes before the draw with the correct numbers. Lottery tickets generated by tumbling balls can probably not replicated. Someone did the math, and 1 gram of matter moving 1 millimeter away on the other side of the earth will completely change the result after 13 seconds of tumbling. How quickly in calendar time or subjective time?

If I am retaining memories, the right answer might actually be to hire myself out as an oracle over the internet from an undisclosed location, with a butterfly effect disclaimer. Attempts to get action by offering great odds, say offering on a coin flip for a billion dollars might get some traction at first, but in short order people will become very suspicious about how you always win.

So you can play the lottery with an expectation of winning eventually. The intent of the question was definitely that you would retain your memories of the day you rolled back. And considering the opposite case seems viable, too. Have there been any cases of identical embryos gestating in different wombs? In humans or animals? Embryo splitting. Do I believe the claim that the proposal is in my interest? You see this constantly with the arcane justifications for obviously self-interested proposals by companies trying to effect regulatory capture.

You just need to understand that the enemy is out to get you and you need to fight back. What can you do? Your Pfizer example I think is super compelling because while given as a mistake theory justification for free speech, it could just as easily be used as a conflict theoretic justification for distrust of power. Maybe you do actually need a revolution. What makes this extra compelling is that people are quite self interested when they reason. Even someone who is trying to be objective is likely advocating for themselves in some way insert reference to breast cancer, coffee motivated reasoning study.

You engage in conflict-theory type disagreement, because you still need to be able to advocate for yourself. Conflict Vs. Mistake: I really like this idea, and have some minor suggestions about how to improve your framing of the idea. It is a difference in cognitive frameworks, or mental architecture. And I think that some people might alternate between the two frameworks at different times, or in different contexts, which might be the source of a lot of the confusion people are having with the idea.

You clearly had the context of Marxism in your mind when you wrote this piece, and this distorted your description of the conflict theorist position. I think it is true that Marxism is dominated by conflict theorists, but I think you can find many conflict thinkers on the right as well. I re-read the piece before posting this. I think that rational agents using the conflict framework lack some key abstract mental … thing representation? This sounds like a very unkind thing to say, and I apologize for that, but I cannot think of another way to communicate what I am trying to say.

But I think that the mistake framework is crucial in the struggle to solve the most sticky and unclear political conflicts. So I just watched Robocop for the first time. Space travel is cheap enough that the President gives a press conference from a space station. In the future, audiences will love raunchy comedy by a man with an old-timey catchphrase! I also just rewatched Robocop and had the same thought. Remember the board meeting at the beginning were they first show ED?

The president of OCP gives the following speech:. In six months we begin construction of Delta City, where Old Detroit now stands. Old Detroit has a cancer. The cancer is crime, and it must be cut out before we employ the two million workers that will revive this city. Shifts in the tax structure have created an economy ideal for corporate growth. But community services, in this case law enforcement, have suffered. This is also a world where major corporations invest billions gained from tax cuts in massive job creating infrastructure programs. It really shows the naive utopian optimism of the late nineteen eighties.

Paul Verhoeven likes his sarcasm, so that probably was intended as dystopian, not utopian, which is also made clear by ED failing to work correctly. Yes, most issues are very complicated, but often what people want is actually very simple. To use immigration as an example, what red tribe wants is for existing immigration law to be vigorously enforced. Did Mitt Romney win over any left-wing hearts and minds on any significant issues of our day? John McCain?

I basically agree. This is someone trying to steal your money. Index funds, which are dead simple. Compare with Getting Eulered. Who is the least powerful person who can meaningfully affect the outcome of the next US presidential election? My bet would be some of the staffers who do research to prepare the candidates for their debates.

I have almost the extreme opposite view here. No one individual can affect the outcome of the election, possibly including the candidates themselves. One person can build a truck bomb that demolishes a major building. Detonating such a bomb in the midst of an election should meaningfully swing the election in the direction of whichever candidate has staked out a more ambitious anti-crime or anti-terrorism position.

The candidates could probably throw the election by saying or doing something super-offensive[1] just before election day. Maybe the running mates, as well. Anyone who had actual serious dirt on the candidate could release it to change the election outcome. Though again, this needs to be pretty big. Trump paying off a pornstar, probably not enough—Trump financing half a dozen abortions for his various lovers, maybe.

A really high-profile journalist at a high-profile publication might manage to make something up that was plausible-looking and damning enough to change the election outcome. OTOH, this did not work out so well for Walter Cronkite, despite his towering reputation and high-profile position[2]. And even if it worked, it would probably come apart on the journalist soon afterwards and end his career. If you were the FBI director and just the right information came in at the right time, you might manage to make just the right announcements to swing the election somehow.

Probably even the guy you inadvertently got elected would can your ass for it, though. And this would have to be really scary or offensive—not some comment that could kinda-sorta be taken in an offensive way, but a complete meltdown on TV, or saying a bunch of stuff that would intentionally drive all their voters away. How can we know? Especially when we know that the oddsmakers wildly overestimated her chances throughout the entire process? Detonating such a bomb in the midst of an election should meaningfully swing the election.

I mean, of course they could. I myself had made similar comments about Obama during his Presidency that he could murder someone on live TV and very few of his supporters would stop supporting him. Having a bunch of innocent people killed for various reasons is an inherent part of carrying out the day to day duties of being president of the United States. That Trump has the moral courage to look at least one of them in the eye as he personally pulls the trigger is a ringing endorsement! Most of the answers seemed to say that no assassination has succeeded since because the Secret Service has gotten that much better.

OTOH, there have indeed been multiple attempts since then, including apparently many more after JFK than before, according to my brief search, and none have worked. Sample size seems to be roughly twenty. After the Secret Service failed to convince him to stop doing this, they started screening every person who would come within sight of him, which is where I believe their procedure still stands. And Oswald was only captured by the narrowest of margins, which I doubt would be the case today.

So, luck and procedures both. No one is sure. But thanks to a police chief in Florida, we now know what happens when you prioritize solving burglaries! He is the Messiah who would be born in Bethlehem Mic. He is pictured in the life of Habakkuk in his intercession and prayer for his people. He is the Messiah who would come from Teman at His return, full of glory Hab. He is our Protector Zeph. He is the Messiah who would be priest and king Zech. He would appear at the temple Mal.

Breaking News

He is the Son of David Matt. He is the Rock of offence Rom. He is the Head over all things Eph. He is the Image of the Invisible God Col. The question is, do you know Him? It is not knowing about Him, but knowing Him. Make sure that you know Him because it affects your eternity. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account.