Slashdot Mirror

So much crap is going down right now.... where to even start.

There's a straw donor program that just got busted as well as a voter fraud ring in Indiana.

We have the DOJ giving the heads up which you can read here. This was forwarded by one Peter Kadzik, who you might remember as being put in charge of the reopened investigation. Conflict of interest much? Podesta says he's a "Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail." His son wants to help Hillary's campaign. Plenty of other emails of them having lunch, parties, etc. together too, incidentally.

An African-American church was burned down and people are raising money to repair it.

Well, except for all the Rightwing violence like Trumpist arrest warrant issued for attack on Clinton rally
or This Arrest warrant for Trumpist Tom pettyway assault on Clinton Rally shall I go on?

1. They did not say that they are reopening the investigation. The memo itself makes that clear.

2. The emails are related to the server, but not from Clinton

Pete Williams is reporting that the emails have A) nothing to do with Wikileaks, and B) were not withheld by Clinton.

Beyond that, we know very, very little right now. Actually it's rather bizarre that Comey would throw a bombshell like this 11 days before the election. But let's see where it goes.

They keep saying Comey is a straight shooter, but I'm not seeing it. He went out of his way to tar and feather her every bit he could, even when he admitted they had nothing. His previous actions were well beyond what could be expected of any other investigation into any other person.

Seriously, examine every member of congresses unclassified email with this kind of microscope. I'd bet you'd find a crap load more than this. This bitching about a few things marked (c) and such is ridiculous. Confidential is the lowest form, and basically amounts to may cause damage. By far and wide she handled classified material correctly. That was the ultimate result of the investigation. That a couple of mistakes were made in years of work is not news. I don't know anyone that doesn't occasionally make a mistake at work. This crap where they keep bitching about the personal server is also freaking ridiculous. Her personal server was at the same classification level as the main department server. A data spill on one is the same problem as the data spill on the other. The only difference for the personal server is, so far at least, no one has apparently hacked it, which you can't say for the department server. It was hacked.

Now we have a super vague thing which says absolutely nothing. Comey deliberately released it in such a way he knew it would be leaked, and yet it has no information. What precisely was his point? There is not enough time to possibly conduct any investigation. The only possible reason I can think of to release it is to influence the election with vague rumors and that is _not_ his job. If he had something solid, then fine, but none of these vague rumors.

He should either release everything he knows right now or resign, or preferably both. This is completely insane. You can't even defend yourself against this. It is just a vague statement of possibly maybe something sometime may come out. Where is the right to confront your accuser? Where is the right to be innocent until proven guilty? This is just the beginning of another witch hunt, and I am for one tired of it.

What the hell is our country coming to? Trump whines and bitches like a little 3 year old of it being so damn unfair. He is right. It has been unfair, but not for him. Every advantage has been handed to him. Billions in free press coverage. For the longest time no one hardly called them out on his continuous lies, and even now it is minimal. You can't keep up with his lies. You have Putin spending crap loads of resources hacking every possible resource he could to destroy her. You have republicans using their investigative powers doing the exact same thing. You have Comey releasing massive details of their investigation, as if to state, even though they could prove nothing, they were bound and determined to hurt her as much as possible, completely against all department standards. Now, eleven days before an election we have Comey throwing them another random bone with no real information in it? It smells like partisan crap to me. It is certainly highly inappropriate.

1. They did not say that they are reopening the investigation. The memo itself makes that clear.

I'm not sure how you can make such a claim, since the memo you linked states "...and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation."

Furthermore, nothing else in that memo makes the point you pretend it does.

1. They did not say that they are reopening the investigation. The memo itself makes that clear.

2. The emails are related to the server, but not from Clinton

Pete Williams is reporting that the emails have A) nothing to do with Wikileaks, and B) were not withheld by Clinton.

Beyond that, we know very, very little right now. Actually it's rather bizarre that Comey would throw a bombshell like this 11 days before the election. But let's see where it goes.

New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.

We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20...

Your source does not discuss New York - or any other place - being underwater in any amount of time. It mentions a point of no return but does not detail a specific consequence that happens when that point is passed. Do you have a source that supports your hyperbolic claim?
 
 

I suspect that only death by old age

Very highly unlikely as nobody has died in the US of old age since the 1950s.

New York City was supposed to be under water by now. Same people are saying the same thing. Time appears to be very subjective to these people. Any prediction or statement involving time should be taken lightly.

We've already crossed past arbitrary points of no return and whenever it happens... goal post is moved.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/20...

We're constantly being treated to this and when the prediction doesn't happen... no apology... no admission... nothing. Just a goal post move.

Will they admit in 50 years what they haven't admitted over 20? Will they admit over 100 what they won't over 50?

I suspect that only death by old age is going to resolve this because some people are going to keep this shit up to their graves.

...in 2006 by Al Gore? "...unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return", Gore said.

...in 1999, by James Hansen, telling us that the 2000's would rival the 1930's for the highest ever... of course, then we went into a "hiatus" of global warming. Original article.

...in 2006, by this group, saying, Extinction is OUR choice, unless... .... within the next 8 years we have STOPPED using fossil fuels, PLANTED millions of trees, ended logging, and PREPARED our cities and agriculture for the inevitable sea rise. OTHERWISE OUR CHILDREN MAY NOT SURVIVE!

...in 2006, by the Independent?

...in late 2006, by Mother Jones?

..in 2004, by James Hansen? Article

Or maybe just google all this from 10+ years ago, telling us we'd all be dead in 10 years. google.com

Let's stop with the hysteria and stick to facts. I'm not against cutting CO2 emissions, I am against needless panic mongering.

Would you like the police to turn a blind eye to the crimes? Look at what happened in Baltimore when police stopped patrolling.

I'm not the person you're replying to, but perhaps rather than the either/or scenario, we could go back to first principles.

Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?

Hyperbole much? An occupying force? That's where you're going? Have you ever been under occupation? Do you have any idea what conditions are like under occupation? Here's a hint: go ask the Palestinians what occupation is like.

Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?

You do realize those neighborhoods most likely have a high percentage of minorities (which is odd since they then wouldn't be minorities)? Would you like the police to turn a blind eye to the crimes? Look at what happened in Baltimore when police stopped patrolling.

because there is obviously a middle ground between giving the police 'new toys' and giving them pillows.

This is the middle ground. Police won't be shooting at criminals. They'll be using less lethal means to do their jobs.

Of course all of this wouldn't be necessary if criminals wouldn't be criminals. But lets us blame the police for doing their job, not the criminals for committing the crimes, for putting their lives on the line to protect the whiners, who think nothing of going into the line of fire in domestic disputes or go out in miserable weather to rescue asshats who drive around signs warning people of flooded roadways, thereby endangering themselves in the process.

It seems they care about the plight of your brothers and sisters more than you imagine in your fantasy world of oppression.

Just because you know people who are responsible gun owners does not mean everyone is and the statistics prove it out, particularly when it comes to children either killing themselves or others with guns they found lying around.

Then there are those who think Russian roulette is a game.

This doesn't include those gun owners who don't bother to report their guns have been stolen. Which is odd because if they're responsible they wouldn't leave their guns in their cars.

Just because you know people who are responsible gun owners does not mean everyone is and the statistics prove it out, particularly when it comes to children either killing themselves or others with guns they found lying around.

Then there are those who think Russian roulette is a game.

This doesn't include those gun owners who don't bother to report their guns have been stolen. Which is odd because if they're responsible they wouldn't leave their guns in their cars.

Just because you know people who are responsible gun owners does not mean everyone is and the statistics prove it out, particularly when it comes to children either killing themselves or others with guns they found lying around.

Then there are those who think Russian roulette is a game.

This doesn't include those gun owners who don't bother to report their guns have been stolen. Which is odd because if they're responsible they wouldn't leave their guns in their cars.

At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.

Bradley Manning's exposures made him (or her? — one never knows with Illiberals) — a hero as well. He may be in prison, but he is a hero still — with numerous fans at home and abroad.

Julian Assange was a hero too, as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive".

But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.

See also "Peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism".

"Note that the liberal media and Hillary are entirely ignoring the attack, probably because they know they bear some of the blame."

That, sir, is a lie, and you are a liar.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/16/...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10...
http://abcnews.go.com/US/north...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po...

Regarding releasing the transcripts, on February 5th, Hillary said she would "look into it. I don't know the status." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hi... She has dragged her feet since then. Now, thankfully, some of them have been released so voters can read them and judge for themselves in time for the election. It obviously was not in her interest to have them made available.

So... what have we found out by actually reading them?

*crickets*

Regarding releasing the transcripts, on February 5th, Hillary said she would "look into it. I don't know the status." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hi... She has dragged her feet since then. Now, thankfully, some of them have been released so voters can read them and judge for themselves in time for the election. It obviously was not in her interest to have them made available.

Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.

If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.

That's because the Bush administration treated the CIA as a lawyer instead of a scientist.

They should have been asking "tell us what you can discover about Iraq".

Instead they asked "give us the strongest case you can that shows Iraq has WMDs".

The understandably the CIA did exactly as requested, and created false evidence.

On the contrary, there's no huge political motivation to blame Russia, sure it's politically inconvenient for Trump, but lets be honest, no one is choosing who to vote for based on whether or not Russia is doing the leaking.

With this on the other hand, the publicly available evidence is pretty damning, there's no significant political pressure to skew the investigation, and most of the off-the-record stuff from analysts is more convinced than the public statements from the administration.

They could always be wrong, but I think it's really damn likely that Russia is behind the attacks.

Hmm. How is it unproven? Because you and other civilians haven't seen or read the evidence, you believe there is none? Or, it's it because certain news outlets and other propaganda deny such evidence? Anyway, I can see a clear case for avoiding any proactive action on our part but also see good cause to do so. It's a difficult decision to make that the average person can't contemplate due to our lack of insight and knowledge.

Let's not forget that the previous administration (Bush) took us to war under false pretenses.

If you're old enough to remember that era, recall that Bush and Cheney were all over the news saying that the evidence was real, and Tony Blair even came out and confirmed the evidence of WMDs.

Everyone *else* in the world, including the UN inspectors, claimed that there were none.

Does anyone remember the Iraq war? It took 9 years and cost us $2 trillion, caused half a million civilian deaths, 4500 American serviceman deaths, and several hundred American amputees.

I think it's entirely reasonable that, before we go to war with a fukkin' nuclear power, that we be shown some of the evidence first.

Do you disagree?

I've already stated that there is no way to prove Powell's use, as he stated he has none of those emails, as referenced in the link above.

Hey, I'm not the one accusing someone of felonies without proof.

From your link, Powell did state: "I am not sure HRC even knew or understood what was going on in the basement" which I can only believe means that she herself wasn't 100% aware of the technical aspects of her email support, so you'll need to provide proof that she intentionally kept anything hidden on her private email server.

How about the fact that she specifically ordered someone to send classified material "nonsecure" and remove the classified headings?

But in one email exchange between Clinton and staffer Jake Sullivan from June 17, 2011, the then-secretary advised her aide on sending a set of talking points by email when he had trouble sending them through secure means.

Part of the exchange is redacted, so the context of the emails is unknown, but at one point, Sullivan tells Clinton that aides "say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it."

Clinton responds, "If they can't, turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.

- CBS News

Also, we do know that of the 30+K emails Clinton sent, only 22 were later classified as secret after the fact. 104 were considered classified, yet all of those came from an unclassified state dept system. Guess what's not allowed on unclassified systems?

We don't know that at all. We know that the State Department and the campaign were claiming that to the New York Times a year ago, (your article is from January), but "the truth" about Clinton's emails has changed several times since then.

At this point, I'd state that you'd need to prove that a single classified email with known classified information with the proper relationships in the document to actually make them classified was sent knowingly by Clinton from her private email server. Retro-active classification does not qualify.

Do I have to prove it? Can the FBI prove it instead? Let's ask FBI Director James Comey what he found on the server.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent...

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In a

Powell admits he advised Clinton on email

Clinton on email

Powell admitting he has none of the state dept emails

Powell and Rice both used personal emails for state business

And the list goes on. So if you have outrage for one, then you must have outrage for all, unless you can prove that there was something different about the one, except link 3 negates any possibility of proof.

Powell admits he advised Clinton on email

Clinton on email

Powell admitting he has none of the state dept emails

Powell and Rice both used personal emails for state business

And the list goes on. So if you have outrage for one, then you must have outrage for all, unless you can prove that there was something different about the one, except link 3 negates any possibility of proof.

That said, the pile of press releases goes back two decades and hasn't found much of anything that holds up to any scrutiny so far.

Skirting the law because prosecutors opt not to bring charges does automatically mean that things don't hold up.

Some of us have a better memory as to specifics. Ex: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hi...

Hillary already called almost half the voters "enemies".

A bad comment but she seemed to be referring to the party itself, and not the voters.

She doubled down and said many of them were "deplorable", "irredeemable" and "not America".

She apologized (unlike Trump's offensive comments). She was also right, about half of Trump's supporters are racist or sexist..

If I have to choose between my government hurting others or hurting me

Did Obama hurt you? The fact is that neither candidate it likely to have much impact on the lives of middle class whites.

And why do blacks, Hispanics, and so many other people get a pass for supporting a candidate who so obviously hates many of their fellow Americans?

Because that candidate obviously doesn't hate many of their fellow Americans.

She's clearly frustrated with a lot Trump's core supporters, everyone is at least frustrated with some portion of the US electorate. But I see no evidence that she actually "hates" them.

I wouldn't necessarily say Trump "hates" any demographic, even if his policies would be extremely harmful and discriminatory to them.

Hillary already called almost half the voters "enemies". She doubled down and said many of them were "deplorable", "irredeemable" and "not America".

If I have to choose between my government hurting others or hurting me, what's my rational choice?

And why do blacks, Hispanics, and so many other people get a pass for supporting a candidate who so obviously hates many of their fellow Americans?

What are people supposed to do when the other candidate declares them "enemies"? Flawed as he is, if Trump is your only hope to avoid being treated like an enemy by your country's government, why wouldn't you support him?

Please cite your long list of examples of these toys being used in such a dangerous way

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-drone-near-miss-lax-20160318-story.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/07/08/two-drones-nearly-collide-with-nypd-helicopter-operators-arrested/#1294615f1db8
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/09/travel/unmanned-drone-danger/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/dec/23/champion-skier-marcel-hirscher-has-near-miss-as-drone-falls-out-of-sky
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30369701
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/europe/uk-drone-near-miss/index.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-reports-more-aircraft-drone-near-misses-1417025519
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/05/29/ny-bound-pilot-swerves-to-avoid-collission-with-drone.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3251543/Drone-owners-forced-register-devices-tracking-database-four-near-misses-aircraft-past-month-alone.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12180261/Number-of-near-misses-involving-drones-and-aircraft-quadruples-in-one-year.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-37042796
http://gothamist.com/2016/09/20/man_maybe_arrested_drone_crash.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/us/white-house-drone.html?_r=0
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/05/25/drone-crashes-hits-2-people-during-marblehead-parade/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/22/world/drug-drone-crashes-us-mexico-border/index.html
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/drone-crashes-stands-u-s-open-article-1.2348324
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/07/02/drone-crashes-in-brighton-mans-backyard/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/07/drone-crashes-into-yellowstone-hot-spring/13721055/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/drone-crash-university-kentucky-football-game-could-land-student-hot-water/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/drone-crashes-empire-state-building-man-arrested/story?id=36729221

And the number one group to confuse the two are Global Warming advocates who use every weather incident as backing.

Don't you mean the Global Warming denialists who use every weather incident as backing for their own agenda?

Really, a snowball to the Congress?

What's with the accusations? Don't you know you live in a glass house?

Banal corporatist propaganda. And yes, the math is basic: very little of the cost of drugs comes from R&D. Much of which is taxpayer-financed through public universities, but due to incestious relationships made possible by Bob Dole, are patented so the taxpayer can enjoy paying through the nose to buy drugs she paid to develop.

You want real innovation and real reforms on drug prices? Reduce the length of drug patents to zero, and make all drug research publicly financed. R&D would no longer be focused on what is the most profitable, and instead the most needed. Drug prices would crater, as billions would no longer be spent on tv ads, no more dividends would be paid, and executive coke-and-hooker vacations to the Bahamas would be a thing of the past.

Socialized medicine: the fiscally conservative option. Always has been, always will be.

We currently spend stupendously huge amounts of money on healthcare, education and infrastructure.

Education "more than any other nation in the report' (per capita, roughtly $15,000 per student, approximate $1 Trillion):
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us...

Healthcare "$3.2 Trillion" (over $10,000 per person):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...

Infrastructure "$416 Billion":
http://usa.streetsblog.org/201...

That's approximately $4.5 Trillion

10-25% support use of terrorist tactics

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/many-british-muslims-put-islam-first/

and 2/3rds would not speak up if they knew of a terrorist plot. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article4730825.ece

In April 2016, in a staged joke skit done for charity, Mayor of New York City Bill de Blasio said he was on "C.P. time" for not previously endorsing Hillary Clinton for President. Leslie Odom Jr. then said he did not like the joke. After that Clinton delivered the punch line that it was supposed to mean "cautious politician time". This was criticized as racist and tasteless.[16] In response to this, President Barack Obama, during the 2016 White House Correspondents' Dinner on April 30, jokingly apologized for being late because of "running on C.P.T.", adding that this stands for "jokes white people should not make". [17]

[16] Hillary Clinton, Bill de Blasio criticized for race-based joke http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-bill-de-blasio-criticized-for-race-based-joke/
[17] President Obama at White House Correspondents' Dinner 2016 FULL SPEECH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYB-NuW_SRo

The issue with North Korea's sites isn't really ads.

North Korea's official news website serves malware

The Attack on Sony

North Korea's cyberattack on Sony Pictures exposed a new reality: you don't have to be a superpower to inflict damage on U.S. corporations

Shared malware code links SWIFT-related breaches at banks and North Korean hackers

Of course if they can get some hard currency from them I doubt those pages will be ad free forever .... if they are now.

For every arctic, there's an antarctic.
It was just two years ago that there was record ice in the antarctic area.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an...
That certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on bird-frying solar reflectors, or bird chopping windmills for a guestimated 0.2 degree reduction in the planet's temperature

There was record sea ice in the Antarctic a couple of years ago but the Antarctic Ice Sheet (that's the land based ice) continues to lose ice. Part of the reason for the record sea ice is that the melting of the ice sheet puts more fresh water in the ocean around Antarctica making it easier for the sea to freeze.

For every arctic, there's an antarctic.
It was just two years ago that there was record ice in the antarctic area.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/an...
That certainly justifies spending hundreds of billions of dollars on bird-frying solar reflectors, or bird chopping windmills for a guestimated 0.2 degree reduction in the planet's temperature

> The good old days were not good. In the US, you could be lynched just
> because of your skin color, and the perps, which often included the
> local sheriff, would get away scot free. This is just one example out of scores.

In 2015 or 2016...

s/lynched/killed during a traffic stop/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/21/...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/po...

If you don't want black people to be coddled as you say, then stop coddling them with "you can't do it without white people's help" attitude.

Don't take my word for it, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/li...

My viewpoint isn't based on MY race, it is based on what actually is. I have no doubt there are racists, I have given plenty of examples of racism via "low expectations" logic presented by liberals in defense of their own racist policies.

Oddly enough, they are almost all more liberal states.

You're actually making my point. ;) Black people (and minorities) need help because they are black (or other minority) , so liberals help them with their policies. I happen to live in one of those states, and the reasoning given for these laws is patently racist (unintentional as it may be) "Minorities can't do normal things because they are minorities.

As for voter fraud, you can't substantiate that which you cannot measure. We can't measure fraud, because we can't check for it. Because to check for fraud, implies racism because .. black people (and minorities) need all the help they can get to vote. Never mind that any illegal vote is disenfranchises all the other votes. ;)

Presumably, the same could also be said of Saudi Arabia and China.

A quick Google search turned up a news article from several years ago that indicated cooking fires (of which the leading type are grease fires) result in roughly 480 deaths per year at that time and presumably there are many injuries as a result as well.

I couldn't find any statistics or news articles providing a figure for battery related deaths or injuries, but I suspect it's not as many, though I have heard multiple stories about batteries in electronic cigarettes causing injuries, though it's believed that in some part this is due to improper use of the device. Also, in past reports about battery fires, people have reported the device getting uncomfortably warm before the battery erupted (it doesn't really explode) and destroyed the device. Even if you had it on you, if you were awake and not intoxicated, you would probably notice and be able to remove the device from your person before being hurt.

Your odds of either injury are very low, but for an arbitrary individual it's far more likely that they will be injured as a result of a grease fire than as a result of a battery fire.

Romney - On 31 separate accounts during his campaign he said "The first thing I'll do when I get into office is...". And frankly, it was never the same thing twice.

Here's a list of Obama's "Top Priorities" from 2010 - just two short years into his Presidency - a current list would be quite longer...

Just sayin'

You mean the phone that belonged to San Bernardino county that they forgot to install MDM software on it and then when the government tried to get the data from the automated backup (or was that reset the password) screwed that up too. As far as I know nothing has come of the data that the government got out of the phone using some undisclosed exploit. Turns out all that effort would have been better used if instead the FBI had tried pissing up a rope.

Stop worrying about the middle class, the USA doesn't have one any more!

She's even gone as far to blame a black man for telling her to do what she did.

I don't know that's an accurate way to describe it. The truth may be more nuanced:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/co...

It appears he did make a general recommendation related to an outside account, but perhaps Clinton's aides over-spun it, not necessarily Hillary herself.

She has been legally and politically pressured to describe in detail why she didn't use the gov't system, and recommendations from Powell would be a legitimate part of that.

The process of fixing these barriers does include discrimination, but only because the English language uses this same term for multiple things.

In Engineering, this is called a weighting function on a feedback loop to drive a system to reach a desired output level more quickly. But there are two crucial aspects to implementing it properly that aren't being done by the people currently advocating affirmative action:

• The loop has to feed back to before the output function you're measuring is produced. As I explained above, this means your hiring quotas have to somehow lead to minority applicants being more qualified and thus more hireable. Educational quotas achieve that. So do economic assistance programs for the poor. But hiring quotas don't achieve that.
• The weighting has to be temporary - you have to remove the feedback loop once you've achieved the desired output level. Otherwise you'll overshoot and go right past the desired target. Unfortunately, I have never seen an affirmative action program define when it will be removed. In the case of gender, it's caused significant overshoot with boys now lagging girls in all areas.

The FEC is not investigating the DNC for moving $61 million from local elections into the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though that would appear to directly violate FEC regulations, and possibly money laundering laws as well. (It literally rearranged the primary political landscape.)

However, the FEC did say that Bill Maher made an excessive and impermissible donation to the Bernie Sanders campaign. They're definitely on the ball and looking after our interests!

Oh, and new E-mails from the Clinton server have surfaced from a FOI request by Judicial Watch.

Remember how Hillary said she deleted *only* personal E-mails that would be of no interest to the investigation? Yup - several work-related E-mails in the new batch, which were not given over to the FBI. (Also, these were released under by the State Department under court order, which means that the State Department had them and didn't make them available to the FBI either.)

And of course, it's not about the lies and corruption that these leaks uncover... it's those evil Russians meddling in our internal political affairs. What right do they have to meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

I've gotten 'kinda jaded about whether it's "appropriate" or "inappropriate" to remove personal details from a leak and such. Go ahead and dox the lawmakers, maybe it'll get them to make better laws to protect their privacy, and by accident, protect ours as well.

Maybe I should start a petition on Change.org to get some of these problems addressed. That always works.

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Hmmm "No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case against Hillary Clinton"

I suspect making an offer that no reasonable prosecutor could refuse falls into that category.

hiLIARy sent and email instructing her staff to remove the classified marking from documents so they could send them unsecure.
FBI Director James Comey testified that there were 3 classified emails that had portion markings on them, that would happen only if her employees removed the header and footer markings of a classified document and missed some of the portion markings in an effort to send them unsecure.

Ahh, so Hillary! s power of persuation is SO STRONG that she got Tim Kaine to change his support for TPP on the very day he was nominated at VP. I mean, she clearly would NOT pick a pro-TPP running mate, would she? Unless perhaps she's still not really settled on the TPP itself...

You shouldn't try to talk shit about anyone behind their back. Anonymous rating/review sites are ripe for abuse and slander, and the info should be taken with a grain of salt, if not ignored altogether.

Yes. But there may be something to it too.

I would never publicly expose an employer for anything - even if I had proof - because I would become unemployable. And suing and getting compensation under whistle blower laws? Well, it better be enough to allow me to live well for the rest of my life AND cover any other legal expenses I may incur if my ex-employer decides to come after me for something.

Here's what happens to many and I'm trying to find the Economist article they did years that told of one person who spent years unemployed while suing/being sued by their former employer for whistle blowing only to win and get just one year's salary - with no compensation for legal expenses.

It's best to keep your mouth shut, quit and find another job - unless you're being told to do something illegal yourself.

It just doesn't pay.

Who is making it "volatile high stress" ??

That implies a conspiracy level manipulation, which I'd reject. What, is a better choice of interrogatories.

Regular Americans tired of people like BLM rioting,

And the BLM are rioting where now? Besides, it helps to recognize why there have been protests, and that riots are few and far between, and may well be blamed on outside forces, including excessive police action.

But the "Regular Americans" being "fed up" is nothing new, that's been true since it was Abolitionists and Indian lovers, Suffragettes and Prohibitionists.

cities like Chicago getting shot up daily without a peep from the "Black Leaders",

Except you've apparently never listened to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan or Barrack Obama.

All of whom have tried to get a handle on it. But then you look at the recent DOJ report on the Chicago PD, and you ask how that happened.

cops getting shot in ambushes

Yeah, except the ambushers have so far been lone wolf actors, not part of any organized groups. That raises a lot of questions, such as how to respond to the problem.

or ... liberal idiots shouting "Hands up, don't shoot" (didn't happen), "pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" (BLM) or some racist asshole targeting "Cracker" cops ?

And conservatives never shout or say anything offensive? Including some cops.

ALL you have against Trump and his supporters is stupid words.

Ahem, your last three concerns are entirely about words. Did you not notice?

IMHO actions speak much louder and you probably should be paying closer attention to how things are ACTUALLY proceeding, rather than listening to the idiot talking heads who know nothing.

Ok, so when are you going to start demonstrating that you've been paying attention? Have you looked at how very few cops have actually been shot, and how despite frantic claims that there is some widespread pattern of calling for violence against cops, it's really been a few scattered individuals, nothing near a concerted effort? Have you noticed how BLM have been demonized, attacked, and accused, yet not connect to any actual violence? Have you not noticed that cops have killed far more people than cops have been killed?

Then there's Trump himself. Have you noticed his tendency to embellish the truth? Have you noticed his pattern of conduct, say, in regards Trump University?