Slashdot Mirror

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/...

Amazon's claim-to-fame is next-to-nothing shipping.

Walmart recently bought Jet and Zoro, and though the Walton heirs will still be purchasing the name-brand milk this week, Jeff Bezos just became world's richest man.

False.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/...

http://www.cnn.com/videos/heal...

video from yesterday of Gates and Gupta

26 million is the camel's nose.

For reference look at the F-35.

The development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet, has been beset by spiraling costs and schedule delays. The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.

Personally I place the blame for the F35 on the planners rather than Lockheed Martin. The project wanted too many different roles and objectives from a single aircraft. Of course LM obliged and they had the age old dilemma of Capable, Cheap or Possible, pick any two.

That being said, there isn't a production fighter available today that would be suitable in an all out war. They're all too expensive, too complex and take too long to produce. How long would the UK's current stock of Eurofighters and F35's last? There's only about 200 aircraft in a combat role in the RAF to begin with. In WWII, Britain could build a Spitfire or Hurricane faster than the Germans could shoot one down. RAF pilots are often quoted as saying that they were (during the battle of Britain) were running low on pilots, but never on planes.

And even at that breathtaking price, testers say it is on a path of failing to deliver its promised combat abilities.

It has also been soundly outclassed in dogfights against 1970's era aircraft, even with the F-16 carrying external fuel loadouts which should give it a large disadvantage. And to top it off, "o make matters worse, the test pilot found it almost impossible to turn his head to see behind the plane, something you'd want to do in a dogfight."

Lockheed has been PAYING people to say good things online about the F-35 recently. That is not something you have to do if your plane is any good.

26 million is the camel's nose.

For reference look at the F-35.

The development of the Joint Strike Fighter, a fifth-generation stealth jet, has been beset by spiraling costs and schedule delays. The program's price tag is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.

Trump has already spent more on American infrastructure in a year than Obama did in 16 months...

[citation needed]

While you're under my desk looking for that, suck my balls. They are currently chronically dry.

Mass murders do happen in Europe. In fact you are much more likely to be killed by a machine gun in Europe than the USA.

The word you're looking for is an assault rifle (machine guns are not used by people other than military) but that's a moot point.

This important thing to note is argument is a red herring when it comes to the issue of gun legislation because fact of the matter is that US has both a higher rate of homicide in general as well as a higher rate of mass shootings/murders than Europe. So the fact of the matter is that you're statistically much more likely to become a victim of a mass murder in the US than in Europe.

Most mass shootings happen with handguns.

This is correct.

You want to know what I noticed about these recent mass shootings? Well, I'll tell you anyway. Most of them were in gun free zones.

You want to know what I've noticed about these recent mass shootings? Over a third of them globally happen in the US despite you being only 5 % of the world population. Compared to other western nations, even other western nations with a high gun ownership rate such as we here in Finland, the difference is staggering.

Most of the people doing the shooting were barred from possessing a firearm, this could be because of age (have to be 18 to own a gun, older in some states), previous conviction (felony or some violent misdemeanors), prior drug use/possession (even in states where it's been legalized, federal law still prohibits firearm possession), mental health history (this can be permanent or temporary), illegal alien (as it should be, this is an armed invasion IMHO), or as mentioned before being in a "gun free zone" at the time.

First of all, this idea that most mass murders are done with an illegal gun seems to not hold true in light of the facts (more on that later).

But even if it would, even if it'd be the case that most mass shootings are done with an illegal weapon, that's not an argument against control, that's evidence to the contrary because it indicates that what gun control you do have is poorly implemented if criminals can acquire guns with such ease. Those illegal weapons come from somewhere. The fact that people who shouldn't be allowed to own guns manage to get them with such ease that mass shootings are now almost a daily phenomenon in the US should tell you that the system is broken somewhere. Either the laws are broken or alternatively the enforcement of the rules is lacking, because it should be alarming to you that murderous criminals can acquire weapons that they should not be allowed to get with relative ease.

Nearly every illegal weapon used was at some point a legal one. The gun show loophole is perhaps the most famous one of the examples that comes to my mind, though I'm not an expert on US law. No level of gun control will make much difference if there exist legal ways for people to bypass the level of control and purchase weapons without having their backgrounds checked and so on. This comes down to a combination of points made by the OP and you. The OP said that the ease of getting an AR-15 probably has something to do with it, and you rightfully corrected him that most mass murders are done with handguns. Therefore the correct question is: does the ease of getting a handgun affect the rate of murders?

Yes, yes it does. One of the key reasons why Europe on average has less murders & mass murders is precisely because you cannot acquire a legal handgun here nearly as easily as you can in the states. This means that the amount of handguns in the black market is also consid

Yeah, it's not like ISIS killed 60 Philippine soldiers in an open battle for territory

... and this is nothing new. From the 1600s: Moro jihad against the Spanish invasion.

One thing that has not changed in the last 400 years is that the conflict is in Mindanao, which is a long way from Metro Manila. The Moro conflict is irrelevant to the lives of most Filipinos.

Yeah, it's not like ISIS killed 60 Philippine soldiers in an open battle for territory

Cool story, bro. http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/1... Kmart still bought it. They then merged into Sears Holding. Still owned, bought by Kmart. So the original point still..stands. Actually.

If you, however, actually really sort of look at the heart of the specific matter, than you will in time realize that many, if not all, of the additional - dare I say, superfluous - words that you are choosing to occasionally pepper throughout your comment, probably are not strictly necessary.

What does it even matter now? The readership of the flagship journalism outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times is falling

Actually, though I can't speak for total figures, digital-only subscriptions to the outlets you mention have exploded in the Trump era, more than tripling year-on-year: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...

You know who says otherwise? Trump.

Trump Jr quid pro quo sanctions relief in exchange for Russian government help in the election. This is treason.

source

Papadopoulus (Trump campaign aid) colludes with Russia's attack on America, and confesses to lying about it to the FBI.

source

Carter Page claims the dossier is fake while corroborating its assertions.

source

We hate the wealthy so let's elect a bunch of rich white guys with a life long track record of fucking over poor people to save us. How is that working out?

To be fair who else is a white person to vote for? The Democrats openly dislike and work against them (citation below). Seriously, this is like David Duke wondering why he doesn't get the black vote.

Citations: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/... http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/23/...

Early generation autonomous vehicles will undoubtedly still require some amount of human intervention for special cases or tricky navigation. How would your autonomous car, for instance, possibly be able to understand where you want to park inside a multi-story parking garage, especially if you have a ticket for a particular spot? Seriously, it's going to be decades before cars are that smart. Maybe not even then.

In the situation you describe, the car's autonomous systems would kick in during self-driving mode to avoid accidents, even if you're in self-driving mode.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/2...

Relevant quote:

That doesn't mean that drivers will necessarily have to use the car's autonomous driving mode in order to be safe, though. Even when the driver is in full control of the car, these systems will still run in the background, ready to take over the instant there's danger.

And yes, if your tires are worn, there's a good bet the cars will know about that. Everything will have sensors in them, including tires.

Fox -- 19
NYT -- 4
NBC -- 3
Reuters -- 3
WSJ -- 2
CBN -- 2
ABC -- 1
CBS -- 1
WashPost -- 1
AP -- 1
Time -- 1
Forbes -- 1

As dumb as it sounds, this is how the copyright office handles it already. http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/2...

"Person is Promoted Because of Facebook Post"
or
"Divorce Averted Because of Social Media"

Wait no more

No one executive from the 2008 financial collapse is in prison.

A myth.

The cells in your body don't know what time it is.

I'm just going to be blunt here: You're an idiot. There's this thing called the circadian rhythm, and yes, bothering your circadian rhythm does real harm to your body.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/11/...

I've lived in Arizona most of my life, and personally, I fucking hate dealing with daylight savings any time I am somewhere else during those switch periods.

While you were coming up with that, did you stop at all to think about how many very non-capitalist countries are the worst offenders here? Iran, whose economy is 60% centrally planned (which is a wet-dream-come-true in your case) holds the #1 most polluted city in the world, with many other either pure socialist or mostly socialist countries not far behind them. For comparison, the US, which is arguably the most capitalist country in the world, doesn't even have a single city that falls within the top 1,000 polluting cities in the world.

What an epic fail on your part. You aren't very good at thinking, you know. It's best to leave that to the competent people.

As war profiteering, you realize much of this has nothing to do with weapons, right? Even your own link says so. But let's stay on this subject, now that you've brought it up: Which country focused the most effort on building high powered nuclear weapons? (Hint: It wasn't a capitalist one.) And speak of weapons:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/30/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Though I could go on forever; in fact Russia alone does many of these in tandem for different military branches.

But what's the first Google result on this for America?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHi...

I pity those with weak minds like yours...they always end up being somebody's useful idiot.

Wait up - back in May IBM reversed their remoting policy and shifted to bringing people back into the office. Did anyone ever get a solid reason why they opted for this route?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/1...
https://www.bloomberg.com/view...

Right, good thing that loan was only paid back almost 5 years ago...

You give the electorate way too much credit. The situations are often nuanced and most won't investigate the nuances such that over-simplified sound-bites "work".

I agree that the current electorate is like this, by liberal progressive design. 150 years ago, people were focused like a laser on politics and far better informed and educated than today. As a result, today the idiots votes can be persuaded with enough air time, and that is the only way the liberal progressives who want to abridge half the bill of rights ever get elected. My point was, eliminate the state run public schools, teach students how to think, and they will no longer be easily manipulated by the media or political ads.

As far as CNN, you can start with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And this: http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/2...

Off the top of my head, CNN predicted that Comey would testify that he did not tell Trump he was in the clear regarding Russia, the next day Comey testified that he did in fact tell Trump that he was not under suspicion.

CNN has played this Trump Russia collusion thing non stop for 9 months, and it turns out the people getting indicted are Democrat operatives and they are being indicted for actions taken before joining the Trump campaign and in collusion with the Democrats... including Hillary Clinton.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Oh, and you probably haven't even heard about this if you watch CNN (Bill and Hillary's bribery scheme to sell and illegally export 20% of US Uranium reserves to Russia) where they made over $100M for their foundation, that pays for all their living expenses except their house and their meals... http://www.breitbart.com/radio...

    As posted above.. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/2...

    I think 79 souls would argue that assumption.

    A city made of wood leads to things like the Great Chicago Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Plus, with the recent building fire in London, you would think it would be fresh on their minds. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/2...

Yeah not so much anymore. They typically replaced all the paper in the cockpit with iPads. They've done this on several airlines and it's FAA approved.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TE...
http://www.padgadget.com/2011/...
http://www.todaysiphone.com/20...
http://old.seattletimes.com/ht...

what nasty thing they're doing that this is supposed to distract us from? I will never believe that our CIA does anything out of the goodness of their heart. If I saw one of them reach down to pet a puppy I'd have it checked by a bomb squad.

For the record...

The release came in accordance with a 2014 appropriations bill for intelligence activity that required the Director of National Intelligence to review documents obtained from the raid, and make the files it declassified from the review available to the public.

Wednesday's document dump is the latest addition to the public collection, dubbed "bin Laden's bookshelf" by the DNI. The collection includes three previous releases since May 2015.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/01/...

And get fired as a judge. Twice!.

Oh wait, no, that's the latest crazy from Alabama.

If elected, he'd question Facebook, Google, and Twitter on why they allow "those gays" to even have posting rights, that just seems un-Jesus like to him.

Actually strike what I said in that previous reply...Sprint has been saying that big upgrades are right around the corner, usually placing 3-6 month timespans, for the past 12 years. They have a tower upgrade map that always shows these short timespans, ranging anywhere from a month or a year, where they say the tower is being upgraded. Meanwhile, that entire time, the service kept getting worse and worse.

Oh and: https://www.cnet.com/news/spri...

It's well past that two years, and two years before that, Sprint said "pardon our dust":

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/21/...

Seriously, this is nothing new with Sprint. I was with them for a very long time before I got tired of their shit, especially when they blatantly lied to me saying that my dropped call rate was 0%, and during that same call I got dropped, the rep actually called me back, I said WTF, and she said "I don't know what that was."

When someone talks about The CO2 Apocalypse, and out of the other side of their mouth chants "No Nukes Shut 'em All Down Now"...

Strawman argument. Who are those people?

Certainly none of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or these http://www.independent.co.uk/n... or these http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/...

That's why he went to a library and used their computer (in reality he was on the way to the library to use their computer for job hunting when he found it).

As a 1%er who doesn't need more tax cuts, I can't help but to shake my head at all of the dumb people who vote to make their lives worse.

A common reason many Americans vote Republican is that they simply believe the burden of socialist programs will fall hardest upon them. I.e., the poor will be exempt due to low income, and the rich will exploit tax loopholes to avoid paying their fair share, so who does that leave holding the proverbial bag? Sadly, this isn't too far from the truth.

There's also a prevailing attitude in this country that you shouldn't be punished for being successful. The meme of hard work equals success is instilled since a young age, and it easily leads to the logically fallacious belief that someone who is successful must have worked hard to achieve it. Why would you want to punish those who have worked the hardest, with higher taxes? Ironically, many 1%ers do understand that social programs are investments back in to society, rather than a punishment. Hence why the most productive cities generally lean Democrat.

The "ringing phones" isn't a thing.

How much money did the Clintons get from Wall Street again? (asking for a friend...)

https://www.politico.com/magaz...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/2...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

Never was a member and LOATHED peaceful Protest.
Nice try.
But as always
A LIE!

Found Trump's cockholster

You keep telling yourself that.

The "RUSSIANS STOLE THE ELECTION!!!" narrative is blowing up in Democrat's faces.

Exclusive: In Hill interviews, top Dems denied knowledge of payments to firm behind Trump dossier

Sitting next to Podesta during the interview: his attorney Marc Elias, who worked for the law firm that hired Fusion GPS to continue research on Trump on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC, multiple sources said. Elias was only there in his capacity as Podesta's attorney and not as a witness.

On Tuesday, that law firm, Perkins Coie, wrote in a letter that it had retained Fusion GPS as part of its representation of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. The disclosure of the Democratic funding source for Fusion GPS is raising new questions for the congressional Russian investigators.

Note also that Perkins Coie hiring Fusion GPS would have been required to be reported to the FEC:

Hillary Clinton's Campaign Wasn't Honest About Paying for Trump Dossier

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has been hit with a new complaint that alleges it tried to cover up the fact that it helped pay for the infamous "Trump Russia Dossier."

The Washington-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said in a Wednesday complaint to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) that Hillary for America and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) broke campaign finance law by trying to hide payments related to the dossier...

Note that those are CNN and Newsweek - hardly right-wing news outlets.

That's not even getting into how Robert Meuller's FBI helped hide the bribery in the Uranium One deals that netted the Clinton's $145 million dollars....

You forgot to mention the meeting between Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and Bill Clinton... which happened 5 days before Hillary Clinton testified.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-224972

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/08/07/documents-show-doj-was-in-panic-mode-after-loretta-lynch-meeting-with-bill-clinton-was-exposed-n2364588

https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/06/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

... just not in the places she needed them.

Just watched 'The Australian interview' where she describes the bitterness of realizing millions of people hate her, which she blames on an misinformation campaign conducted mostly on Facebook. In her eyes, she won the public debates so the people should have voted for her. She was criticized for being 'soft on herself' with an example being her abusive attitude towards Trump supporters. Her attitude was 'Look at which people Trump cares about now (eg. neo-nazis): I was right'.

Good God, Hillary has turned into a delusional harpy.

Just. Go. Away.

Hillary is an inveterate liar with horrible political instincts - just go through the different versions she went through over her email server. First there wasn't one. Then there wasn't any emails on it. Then there weren't any classified emails on it. Then there weren't any emails marked classified. And so on, keeping the story alive for a whole damn year, because every few weeks more evidence would come out that proved Hillary's previous statements were, ummm, inconsistent with the facts as they were now known. In short, she repeatedly lied about her email server. Period.

Do you really think Hillary didn't go to Michigan or Ohio or Pennsylvania as the election approached because she didn't know what was happening? Like hell she didn't - she knew. Obama even spent the day before the election in Michigan campaigning for Hillary. Do you think Obama would have spent the Monday before the election in Michigan if Democrats didn't think it was critically important?

She KNEW the Rust Belt states were going to be close.

So why didn't Hillary go? Because when she made appearances there, her support DROPPED. (I actually saw an analysis of that phenomenon a few weeks after the election - unfortunately I can't find it now.)

NOBODY TRUSTS HILLARY. Period.

NOBODY LIKES HILLARY. Period.

They vote for her because the agree with her politics, unlike Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, truly personable and likeable people. And those two likely got a lot more votes because of that. Hillary will never get those types of votes - with Hillary, you vote for the policies, not the person.

Hillary has been a public figure for 25 years. A mere $100,000 spent on Facebook ads fully 24 years into her public life didn't change an entire nation's opinion about her.

Hillary was probably the ONLY Democrat who could lose to a blowhard like Trump. The only reason she won the Democratic nomination in the first place was because she'd bought off the entire Democratic Party apparatus, and after Obama surprised her in Democratic the caucuses in 2008, HIllary had her thugs in place to squash Bernie in Iowa.

Seriously - if you could pick any one Democrat to be President, would Hillary REALLY be your first choice?

Just Catching Republican'ts with their lying pants down chimp.

Same thing. AFTER the hypocrisy of course.

Looks like EVERYONE but you knows this is a desperate act by Republican'ts to change the story on Treason by Trumpies

A common meme is: "The Republicans already tried to look into this and couldn't make anything stick. So clearly Hillary Clinton was innocent and the Republicans are just digging for dirt and hoping to find something." Variations on this have already been posted in this discussion.

What's extraordinary here is that the Director of the FBI intervened personally on Hillary Clinton's behalf. He wrote a draft of his speech exonerating her before the FBI ever interviewed her. Her aides were given broad immunity, which is usually used to compel people to talk[1], but then they were allowed to just say things like "I don't remember". Hillary Clinton, or someone working for her, wiped her email server after a subpoena was issued requiring her to hand it over to Congress, and there were absolutely no consequences from that. A usual FBI investigation would collect as much evidence as possible as early as possible, but that wasn't done in this case... the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin copies of Hillary Clinton emails were found during an investigation of Weiner, but they should have been found earlier. When the FBI is actually investigating they are thorough about collecting evidence. They should have grabbed every computer Hillary ever touched, and as Huma Abedin was an aide to Hillary, every computer Huma ever touched. (They could have copied the hard disks and given the computers back right away.)

Most extraordinary of all: the Director of the FBI claimed that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Hillary Clinton as no proof of ill intent was found, yet the laws she broke do not require intent but only require proof of mishandling of data.

...prosecutors are not required to prove motive. [...] Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447209/hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation-grand-jury-subpoenas

Consider what happened to David Petraeus. He was guilty, but what he did wasn't even a tenth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did. But the Director of the FBI didn't whitewash the investigation for him, so his career was over. (By the way, he didn't go to prison, so he still got better treatment than the "little people" would get. Consider the case of Bryan H. Nishimura. I would say that what Nishimura did wasn't even a thousandth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did, but he was treated much more harshly than she was. Note that he wasn't charged with any "intent", just the mishandling of data.)

I'm pretty sure that if a member of the Trump administration mishandles classified data, he or she won't get the special treatment that Hillary Clinton got. But the Democrats will get a President elected again sometime in the future and I would like to get a precedent established that the laws apply to Democrats as much as to Trump and his staff. I know that the law is not enforced perfectly even-handedly in this country (or any country in the real world) but I am appalled at the epic whitewashing done on behalf of Hillary Clinton to protect

A common meme is: "The Republicans already tried to look into this and couldn't make anything stick. So clearly Hillary Clinton was innocent and the Republicans are just digging for dirt and hoping to find something." Variations on this have already been posted in this discussion.

What's extraordinary here is that the Director of the FBI intervened personally on Hillary Clinton's behalf. He wrote a draft of his speech exonerating her before the FBI ever interviewed her. Her aides were given broad immunity, which is usually used to compel people to talk[1], but then they were allowed to just say things like "I don't remember". Hillary Clinton, or someone working for her, wiped her email server after a subpoena was issued requiring her to hand it over to Congress, and there were absolutely no consequences from that. A usual FBI investigation would collect as much evidence as possible as early as possible, but that wasn't done in this case... the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin copies of Hillary Clinton emails were found during an investigation of Weiner, but they should have been found earlier. When the FBI is actually investigating they are thorough about collecting evidence. They should have grabbed every computer Hillary ever touched, and as Huma Abedin was an aide to Hillary, every computer Huma ever touched. (They could have copied the hard disks and given the computers back right away.)

Most extraordinary of all: the Director of the FBI claimed that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Hillary Clinton as no proof of ill intent was found, yet the laws she broke do not require intent but only require proof of mishandling of data.

...prosecutors are not required to prove motive. [...] Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447209/hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation-grand-jury-subpoenas

Consider what happened to David Petraeus. He was guilty, but what he did wasn't even a tenth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did. But the Director of the FBI didn't whitewash the investigation for him, so his career was over. (By the way, he didn't go to prison, so he still got better treatment than the "little people" would get. Consider the case of Bryan H. Nishimura. I would say that what Nishimura did wasn't even a thousandth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did, but he was treated much more harshly than she was. Note that he wasn't charged with any "intent", just the mishandling of data.)

I'm pretty sure that if a member of the Trump administration mishandles classified data, he or she won't get the special treatment that Hillary Clinton got. But the Democrats will get a President elected again sometime in the future and I would like to get a precedent established that the laws apply to Democrats as much as to Trump and his staff. I know that the law is not enforced perfectly even-handedly in this country (or any country in the real world) but I am appalled at the epic whitewashing done on behalf of Hillary Clinton to protect

A common meme is: "The Republicans already tried to look into this and couldn't make anything stick. So clearly Hillary Clinton was innocent and the Republicans are just digging for dirt and hoping to find something." Variations on this have already been posted in this discussion.

What's extraordinary here is that the Director of the FBI intervened personally on Hillary Clinton's behalf. He wrote a draft of his speech exonerating her before the FBI ever interviewed her. Her aides were given broad immunity, which is usually used to compel people to talk[1], but then they were allowed to just say things like "I don't remember". Hillary Clinton, or someone working for her, wiped her email server after a subpoena was issued requiring her to hand it over to Congress, and there were absolutely no consequences from that. A usual FBI investigation would collect as much evidence as possible as early as possible, but that wasn't done in this case... the Anthony Weiner/Huma Abedin copies of Hillary Clinton emails were found during an investigation of Weiner, but they should have been found earlier. When the FBI is actually investigating they are thorough about collecting evidence. They should have grabbed every computer Hillary ever touched, and as Huma Abedin was an aide to Hillary, every computer Huma ever touched. (They could have copied the hard disks and given the computers back right away.)

Most extraordinary of all: the Director of the FBI claimed that "no reasonable prosecutor" would prosecute Hillary Clinton as no proof of ill intent was found, yet the laws she broke do not require intent but only require proof of mishandling of data.

...prosecutors are not required to prove motive. [...] Clinton could have been prosecuted either for willfully mishandling classified information or for doing so through gross negligence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/447209/hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation-grand-jury-subpoenas

Consider what happened to David Petraeus. He was guilty, but what he did wasn't even a tenth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did. But the Director of the FBI didn't whitewash the investigation for him, so his career was over. (By the way, he didn't go to prison, so he still got better treatment than the "little people" would get. Consider the case of Bryan H. Nishimura. I would say that what Nishimura did wasn't even a thousandth as serious as what Hillary Clinton did, but he was treated much more harshly than she was. Note that he wasn't charged with any "intent", just the mishandling of data.)

I'm pretty sure that if a member of the Trump administration mishandles classified data, he or she won't get the special treatment that Hillary Clinton got. But the Democrats will get a President elected again sometime in the future and I would like to get a precedent established that the laws apply to Democrats as much as to Trump and his staff. I know that the law is not enforced perfectly even-handedly in this country (or any country in the real world) but I am appalled at the epic whitewashing done on behalf of Hillary Clinton to protect

Even more so since Congress claims ignorance that they didn't know that we had troops in Niger. Although the Pentagon claimed to have kept them informed. Which is it?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/23/politics/niger-troops-lawmakers/index.html

Here's an article of them pouring 4 billion into a reactor they had bankrupted on earlier. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/1...

Excuse me, but you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

First, some background. I doubt nukes will be used against the artillery aimed at Seoul, because only two North Korean artillery systems can actually reach Seoul from the DMZ - the 170mm Koksan and the 300mm rocket artillery. And the 170mm can only range some of Seoul. The rockets are also better for delivering chemical weapons, so they'll be the primary concern.

Fortunately these emplacements (500 or so, if targeting the long-range systems threatening Seoul) can be effectively engaged by a plethora of conventional firepower, and a goodly fraction of that deliverable via artillery (thus, almost instantly available as counter-battery fire.) DPRK weapons are dug into protected shelters called HARTs, meaning their locations are fixed, and known. Constructed bunkers will be proofed against shells of up to 203mm (8-inch) and ones dug into mountains or natural caves will be even sturdier. Fortunately, no matter how tough the bunker, they still need a "window" to fire out of, which must be a few feet wide and tall to allow the gun to train on targets (windage and elevation.) This is well within the accuracy margins of weapons like the M31 guided rocket, fired by the MLARS ("the 70km sniper rifle") or laser-guided anti-tank munitions, like the 155mm Copperhead shell, or GPS guided shells like the Excalibur. These weapons will handily penetrate any blast doors over said portals as well, since those will be far less sturdy than several feet of granite rock. Additionally, there's the Small Diameter Bomb, a small, standoff (60 nautical mile) GPS guided glide bomb that can penetrate up to three feet of reinforced concrete, or the Tomahawk missile, which has a penetrating warhead variant (TTPV,) and has been successfully employed against bunkers and caves in Afghanistan many times. These weapons in particular are available in mass quantity - the USS Michigan carries 154 of them alone. When you factor in other considerations - like the empirically demonstrated 25% dud rate of DPRK artillery shells and the questionable ROF sustainable by under-trained, underfed gun crews, as well as the overwhelming reconnaissance advantage enjoyed by allied forces (which will have drones overhead to laser-designate targets for pinpoint strikes,) it's clear that the military is not boasting when they say they can attack the DPRK without serious harm befalling Seoul.

The real problem is the DPRK's Short Range Ballistic Missile force (SRBM,) they have an estimated 100-200 TELs, and something on the order of 200 actual missiles. I'm prone to believe it's something like 100 TELs (Transporter Erector Launchers, the trucks that elevate and fire the missiles,) with a single reload for each. The DPRK has around 28 missile bases, (according to Janes,) which are essentially drive-in tunnel/bunkers to house their TELs safe from attack. These bunkers may welll be impregnable to anything but the 30,000 pound Massive Ordinance Penetrator, of which we've only a few. Fortunately, we needn't destroy the bunkers - we simply need to blow up the tunnel entrances, sealing the TELs inside where they cannot fire. This can be done with much lighter munitions; the usual bunker-busting bombs, but it greatly multiplies the number of targets. Assuming an average of eight tunnel entrances at each missile base, that's 228 targets to hit. This is doable, especially with the ability to sortie B-24s and B-1B bombers from America to make intercontinental attacks, carrying 12-24 JASSM bunker-penetrating stealth cruise missiles apiece. However, war planners might want much greater assurances that enough TELs will be wiped out to ensure SRBM attacks cannot penetrate the Anti-Ballistic Missile defenses of the ROK an

"They already had Clinton in their pockets with their massive contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and they knew Trump wouldn't be their sworn enemy based on his comments during the campaign. This was basically a no-lose election for them."

Well when you start with a false premise you can prove anything! Clinton is a proven hawk when it comes to international affairs and you have no proof in regard to your claims that Hillary was "in their pockets", just pure speculation. In fact it is well known that Hillary was very much in favor of far more US intervention in Syria, a firm Russian ally ( http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/... , http://time.com/4730416/syria-... , And Trumps take: http://time.com/4730416/syria-... is to bad mouth her position). Clinton also made it very clear in 2016 that Russia was not our friend ( http://time.com/4730416/syria-... ) where as Donald consistently stated the contrary.