Slashdot Mirror

The data walked out from a US political party. Its an internal US issues, like the Pentagon papers or other released to the US media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Julian Assange: 'A lot more material' coming on US elections"
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07... (July 27, 2016)
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... (15 December 2016)
"..at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers"

SW (the only person there was a rape charge concerning - there were only lesser charges concerning AA, and the statute of limitations has expired on them) did indeed only seek to force Assange to get an STD test - but she was telling people (including before going to the police, including before she met AA) that she had been raped. According to the witness statements, she didn't want to become embroiled in some big public mess with the public heaping negative attention on her (like, by the way, the vast majority of rape victims - the reason that rape reporting rates are so low), and so only tried to force the STD test issue. Yeah, that didn't quite work out.

Regardless of the initial goal of trying to stay out of the public spotlight, now that they're being trolled, doxxed, and receiving rape and death threats from Assange fans (one actually fled Sweden for a few years; both have to keep very low profiles due to all of the hostility), that option no longer exists. After the case got out into the open, both women secured legal representation which has consistently sought Assange's prosecution. Upon hearing the news of Sweden giving up hope of ever getting Ecuador to give up Assange and dropping the case, SW's lawyer was shocked:

Elizabeth Massi Fritz, the lawyer for Assange's accuser, criticized the Swedish authorities' decision in a statement to CNN. "It is a scandal that a suspected rapist is able to evade the judicial system and thus avoid trial," Fritz said. "Evidence in the case is available and that evidence should have been tested in court."

Fritz said the process had dragged on for too long and that her client was "shocked" by the decision to drop it now. "To conduct a preliminary investigation for so many years and today make a decision to close the investigation is something I am very critical of," she said.

Fritz also called for a review of parts of the judicial process, including how Sweden tries suspects who deliberately avoid court for years.

"He has acted like this consciously and his fear must be that he is afraid of being sentenced for rape. Nobody wants to be sentenced for rape because it's a terrible and humiliating crime,"

Elizabeth Massi Fritz is the second legal representative that SW has retained; she switched from the first one, Claes Borgström, because she felt that he was more focused on self promotion than bringing Assange to justice.

In short, trying to pretend that SW and AA don't really want Assange prosecuted is pure nonsense.

You don't have a sense of humor anymore? People aren't supposed to be able to laugh?

As usual, when right wingers criticize the left, they describe themselves.

Right winger vs black lives matter
Trump voter vs man of Indian descent.
Effects of Christians insisting Muslims are dangerous

If it was all just turnabout for Benghazi/birth certificate/whatever then that'd be one thing, but so many idiots seem to honestly think Trump's election is the literal end of the world that it's getting sad and tiresome. (I suppose it's the media's fault mostly for whipping them into such a state, but it's not like they didn't already want to be pissed off and terrified)

a hot head who is already starting to cry like the bitch he is

Uhh, you seem to be confusing "fighting back" with "crying like a bitch". I know it's something Obama would never do, but you ought to get used to it.

That's the reason I mentioned the entertainment system, this has 'probably' happened for in-flight: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05... so why not cars? Easy mitigation/prevention of course, but hey, that's extra work that cuts into profits.

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

Obama created the Consumer Finanical Protection Board (CFPB) and they are the agency that went after Well Fargo (after a banking employees union identified the problem).

Of course the republicans hate, hate, haaaaate the CFPB because congress can't neuter it like the way they neutered all other enforcement agencies - by starving them.

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent... Racist, racist, racist!

Same reason you can't go to China

WTF?

Not according to the FBI http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/09/...

Your explanation of the evidence makes no sense.

They were almost successful in Somalia:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/africa/somalia-airplane-explosion/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daallo_Airlines_Flight_159

Alternative Facts maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/politic... http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/... https://www.usnews.com/news/ar... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Comey has found NOTHING after over a year of trying to prove a link between Trump and the Russians.

It hasn't been a year yet (July or August of 2016 is when the investigation started) so it hasn't been over a year.

There are plenty of links between Trump and Russia when you look at the folks on his campaign and their own connections. Roger Stone bragged on several occasions he was in communication with Guccifer 2.0 and knew when the next batch of emails was going to be released. Guccifer 2.0 is part of the Russian intelligence services.

Flynn, well, we know about his numerous ties to Russia and that he lied about not having any.

Carter Page, who at first said he never helped the Russians with classified or other such materials, then changed his tune to "no comment" when asked about the investigation into his dealings with Russia, and now is saying, "No I'm not going to hand over evidence of my dealings with the Russians so you can hang me with it."

As we saw a day or so ago, Eric Trump bragged that it was Russians who were financing his father's golf courses during the Bush recession. This on top of other financial dealings Trump has with Russia.

Then today, the Senate committee investigating collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign has asked the Treasury Department's criminal division to hand over any and all documents related to Trump, his campaign and campaign aides.

That doesn't sound like "nothing important".

Comey has found NOTHING after over a year of trying to prove a link between Trump and the Russians.

It hasn't been a year yet (July or August of 2016 is when the investigation started) so it hasn't been over a year.

There are plenty of links between Trump and Russia when you look at the folks on his campaign and their own connections. Roger Stone bragged on several occasions he was in communication with Guccifer 2.0 and knew when the next batch of emails was going to be released. Guccifer 2.0 is part of the Russian intelligence services.

Flynn, well, we know about his numerous ties to Russia and that he lied about not having any.

Carter Page, who at first said he never helped the Russians with classified or other such materials, then changed his tune to "no comment" when asked about the investigation into his dealings with Russia, and now is saying, "No I'm not going to hand over evidence of my dealings with the Russians so you can hang me with it."

As we saw a day or so ago, Eric Trump bragged that it was Russians who were financing his father's golf courses during the Bush recession. This on top of other financial dealings Trump has with Russia.

Then today, the Senate committee investigating collusion between Trump and Russia during the campaign has asked the Treasury Department's criminal division to hand over any and all documents related to Trump, his campaign and campaign aides.

That doesn't sound like "nothing important".

From looking at the other stories, apparently the number of scientist dismissed (in the story here listed as "at least five") is nine.
From http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/... :

"An EPA spokesman told CNN there are a total of 18 positions on this particular advisory board, and nine of those scientists were not renewed following the end of their three-year term."

1) Taxes - As someone fairly educated on economics, Clinton had zero tax/economic policy. I wish she did, so I could compare.

Here, let me take two seconds to google that for you:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...

It's certainly fair to disagree with any of Clinton's policies, but to say she had none is either disingenuous or misinformed. Clinton had a huge policy shop - it just never caught much if any press attention. Maybe that was her fault for not pushing them more - perhaps the advice of campaign consultants to avoid her tendency to "wonk out" and glaze people over with details maybe.

while Trump was clearly against central federal involvement to the level that we had achieved over the previous 16 years.

The flaw in your logic here is that removing all of that doesn't improve the situation, it makes it worse. Getting rid of an inefficient or messy solution to a problem doesn't get rid of the original problem.

Clinton framed this issue as nothing more than "Trump is against immigrants." Why couldn't she just propose a comprehensive low-wage immigrant worker program? I mean, that is what the country ultimately needs. I would have voted for her if she had such a plan. She did not.

Her policy was a bit more than that. Again, I suggest using a search engine rather than accepting what others are telling you (whether on social media, or from various news shows/sites) without question. As for why she couldn't, I would suggest that given the history of both her and her husband, she would be entirely willing to entertain a reasonable (and widely supported) compromise. The Clintons have never been ideologues, and that's partly why they take lots of flak from the Left, because while they're on the left, they're also more than willing to throw whatever pet cause under the bus in order to champion a policy they think is going to attract majority support.
Trump, meanwhile, has shown zero inclination to any sort of compromises from an absolute hard line position, either on the campaign trail or now that he's in office. Furthermore, his past history has not been that of a compromise type, but rather someone who is adamant about getting his way, and using hardball tactics to get it. Now, if you want the policy he's pushing, then sure, that's a good thing - but I would argue that he's only going to cause us vastly greater problems for a variety of reasons, but that would be an entire thread of its own, so I'll skip it.

4) Open source - Well, I mean "open". Trump talked to the press and anyone who would listen. Clinton gave canned speeches to small groups of supporters. She basically never gave press conferences.

Clinton has always had an uneasy relationship with the press, sure. That said, she did give press conferences - far moreso than Trump, yet she was the one who was criticized in certain parts of the media (particularly those that leaned right). Worse, Trump outright banned reporters from certain major media outlets whose coverage he didn't like:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/1...

My feeling is that Clinton phoned-in her tenure at State.

Based on what? Criticism on Fox or such? It's fair to disagree with the outcomes, and to suggest she could have done things differently, but it seems strange to me to suggest she spent her time not working.

ACA - I can do math. I have an understanding of models. The ACA is doomed by math. Clinton would not say the obvious. Why not?

The ACA isn't doomed by math any more than Social Security will run out in 203X. Since this is Slashdot, here's the requisite car analogy. If your engine is making a whining or knocking sound, do you throw up your hands and say

Easy: Hillary was corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, war-mongering, and a party-hack. Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice than Hillary.

As opposed to Trump who is corrupt (hiring illegal workers and not paying them as well as colluding with a foreign government during the election), has repeatedly shown his incompetence (I thought it would be easier), has lied since day one (Hillary's not in jail, Obamneycare wasn't repealed on day one, Mexico isn't paying for the wall, the swamp is filled almost to capacity and he's gone golfing more times in three months than Obama went in an entire year), has gotten several service members killed already because of his penchant to use the military without thought, and a hack of the highest order as shown by the chaos of his administration where one hand literally does not know what the other is doing.

So yeah, big difference between the two.

You forgot about ISIS. I assume Trump did too because they still exist, and I believe he promised they'd already be gone by now.

Easy: Hillary was corrupt, incompetent, dishonest, war-mongering, and a party-hack. Bozo the Clown would have been a better choice than Hillary.

As opposed to Trump who is corrupt (hiring illegal workers and not paying them as well as colluding with a foreign government during the election), has repeatedly shown his incompetence (I thought it would be easier), has lied since day one (Hillary's not in jail, Obamneycare wasn't repealed on day one, Mexico isn't paying for the wall, the swamp is filled almost to capacity and he's gone golfing more times in three months than Obama went in an entire year), has gotten several service members killed already because of his penchant to use the military without thought, and a hack of the highest order as shown by the chaos of his administration where one hand literally does not know what the other is doing.

So yeah, big difference between the two.

If there were any documented weird sexual practices in Trump's past, as opposed to vulgar locker room bragging, it would have been shouted from the rooftops and a 24/7 news item during the campaign.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/4Bw1rSF...

https://i1.wp.com/s-media-cach...

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/...

http://15858-presscdn-0-65.pag...

If you're leaving a state that has high unemployment and a ridiculously high cost of living, amd high taxes, going to a state with low costs, high pay, amd low taxes, recognize that those conditions were created by policies.

Well, turns outs out California is doing great. Unemployment is only 4.9%, lower than Texas at 5%. What a huge difference!

Of course, Texas has a history of poverty and failing schools as well as a dangerous obsession with bathroom inspections.

Even Texas's own governor admits that the state has a problem when it comes to transportation and congestion. And in fact, the California High-Speed Rail project is not light rail, but like the Houston-Dallas link a inter-city connection.

Furthermore, no, Trumpcare does not grant states more freedom. Of course, it turns out, somebody who voted for it admitted they didn't read it.

Maybe that's your problem? You didn't read it, so you couldn't find out what was in it?

Oh BS -

The CBO scored Obamcare several times - each time they "rewrote" the legislation (decreasing government funding times but increasing tax revenues) to get the CBO to score it as a "win". The whole thing was for political cover only and to get the talking points they needed "This'll save the government money! How can we lose?!" In reality the numbers mean nothing. Any budget goes wrong practically the first day it goes into affect (like any software schedule).

The truth is I know exactly how Obamacare has affected insurance and premiums - insurance carriers are exiting the Obamacare exchanges in many states because the carriers cannot sustain Obamacare plans without MORE government funding.

Did I get that from Breitbart and Alex Jones?

No - I got that from CNN

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/1...

How about CNBC - is that too "alt-facts" for you?

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15...

The truth is you have no idea what you're talking about.

Since when the service status of copper (active / abandoned / etc) have any impact on copper theft.

Well, there's this.

This was in the results of your search. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/1...

"At least we didn't cozy up to the religious right, spawn the TEA partiers, and elect a cheeto."

So instead of cozying up to the religious right (the group of people who founded, and fought and died to create the country that you live in and benefit from http://www.freerepublic.com/fo... ), spawned the Tea party (a grass roots set of peaceful organizations fed up with Washington politics and liberal overreach who left their protest and event grounds cleaner than when they arrive http://www.thegatewaypundit.co... ) and elected president Trump (the only non-politician citizen running for the office this last election cycle). Instead of doing all that, which you somehow think is horrendous, the left spawned:

-The sometimes violent/rapist Occupy movement that caused mass disruptions and cost large cities millions of dollars to clean up after http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
-The violent, rioting, police and law and order hating, racist Black Lives Matter group who were founded on a lie in Fergusun http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro... went on to inspire a man to mass murder police officers in Dallas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and generally hate law enforcement http://dailycaller.com/2015/08...
-The left has spawned violent riots over conservative speakers http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/...
-The left has disrupted and shouted down conservatives and their events and violently attacked Trump supporters. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2...

There seems to be a large contingent of rabid fascists on the left and an even larger cross section of lefies who are so secure in their moral superiority that reality cannot intrude. The fascist left had better tone it down or they may end up facing the national guard and lead bullets the next time they try to violently assault someone else's freedom to assemble/speak. The rest of the left had better start paying more attention to reality and pull their heads out of their collective echo chamber (or their asses, I can never tell which is which with them).

Based on this comparison, I will take the conservative approach any day of the week and twice on Sunday. You should focus less on name calling and more on staying abreast of actual actions committed by these groups, both left and right.

In the real human world you should prepare yourself to defend against attackers who don't respect other's body and safety.

The best defense is a good offense. A good offense disarms your opponent before they can hurt you.

Wouldn't you rather there not be any need to worry about being attacked in the first place?

Strangely enough, those that whine about "hate speech" are usually against having the means to defend against attackers, they'd rather everyone just be a victim.

Strangely enough, however, those that whine about the need to defend themselves tend to be hysterical, to the point where they spent 8 years desperately buying firearms for...no real reason. Panicky, idiotic people, who are so easily lead astray are the ones who make me the victim of their insanity.

That's the real humans in this world.

In the real human world you should prepare yourself to defend against attackers who don't respect other's body and safety.

The best defense is a good offense. A good offense disarms your opponent before they can hurt you.

Wouldn't you rather there not be any need to worry about being attacked in the first place?

Strangely enough, those that whine about "hate speech" are usually against having the means to defend against attackers, they'd rather everyone just be a victim.

Strangely enough, however, those that whine about the need to defend themselves tend to be hysterical, to the point where they spent 8 years desperately buying firearms for...no real reason. Panicky, idiotic people, who are so easily lead astray are the ones who make me the victim of their insanity.

That's the real humans in this world.

Who the fuck said anything about illegal? Not Trump's tweet, not anyone else. The only illegal thing I've seen is Comey lying under oath to Congress.

So you have to literally MAKE UP what Trump claims and then prove what you said he claims is false?

You are an outright liar and not to be trusted. Your comments are defamation of character with intention to smear reputation. This is why people support Trump. He is so evil and horrible the ONLY things people can say about bad about him are easily proven lies.

Your mistress Hillary lost, get over it.

Wow, no wonder you keep buying what this guy is selling. Obama ordering a wiretap of trump would have been illegal. From this article, "The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. ... Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President."

And then there's this article, which states, "By blaming Obama directly, Trump accused the former president of reaching into a federal investigation and signing off on an illegal wiretap, which is a felony." I'm so sorry to break it to you, but Trump accused Obama of committing a crime, with no evidence to back it up. I am not lying. This information is available for anyone who caress to look. You are apparently not one of those people.

I don't think it matters what he does, the opposite side will always disagree with what he does and find holes to poke in it. It's like when the Election was over and Ford announced they were keeping a plant here because of what Trump had hinted at as trade policies. The opposition either ignored it and said it wasn't because of Trump even when Ford's CEO said exactly that in a news conference, they claimed it was always going to stay, or they claimed it wasn't that big a deal and that it wasn't that many jobs. Further to that point if anyone tries to give him credit for anything, the "but but but" police come out with a thousand excuses til sunday as to why he had nothing to do with it or suggest that the thing they are giving him credit for is terrible. Even worse was if you disagreed with the previous administration it wouldn't take long before someone claimed you were racist for having an opinion other than the president. That's why it's so funny to here democrats claim they are so interested in the freedom of speech and open dialog. They are about as open as a bank vault at midnight.

CNN pretty much said Ford did it as a vote of confidence in Trump's pro business stance and Ford said that the decision was not part of any deal with Trump: http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/0...

Tough day to be a Dickerson

That's the weird thing about the Trumpster. He's a big talker and most of the things that he says are BS, but he's probably made more progress with getting companies to bring US jobs back to this country than the Obama administration did in the last 4 years.

That doesn't mean that I like him or his policies, but I have to give credit where it's due.

Except the jobs are still leaving, based on Trade Adjustment numbers some 10,000 will have left in his first 100 days. While there have been a few headline grabbing saves to which I'll give him credit, he's trying to stop the tide from going out by yelling at it and threatening to pee in it if it doesn't stop. Here's a link from CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/2...

http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/... https://jordannix.files.wordpr... https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_... http://ibankcoin.com/activists... http://i.imgur.com/TZUj9c6.jpg http://static3.businessinsider... http://dbagus.com/wp-content/u...

If you're referring to the presidency, there was no gerrymandering as state lines haven't been redrawn in quite some time. And if you're talking about in congress, can I recommend you not cite an opinion piece.

Somebody who read the links would notice they include references to court cases (decisions of which are often termed "options" I might add) and were not limited to just the presidency. Not that the Electoral College isn't an example of the ability to distort an election through an arcane system of manipulation, influenced by the malapportionment of the House.

It might be what people call "fake news".

Yes, your assertion that it was simply citing an "opinion piece" would constitute "fake news" in my book, as you're simply not being honest or forthright.

It is after all a piece that ignores that dems held both house and senate in 2008 and managed to lose them to the republicans in 2010, or do they mean that the GOP gerrymandered when they didn't hold power?

What, you mean you're relying on some focus on the 2010 election, to ignore the impact of the gerrymandering in subsequent elections? But a look at the state-by-state results can still show gerrymandering. Not to mention how it was an election driven mostly by the GOP's lie-driven hysteria over the Affordable Care Act which they desperately tried to repeal for 6 years, failing continually, and when they were forced to admit they couldn't just repeal it by waving their magic wand, they ended up failing with Trumpcare?

Yeah, that's about as good as Donald Trump's analysis of Andrew Jackson. Except I might just be able to give Trump credit for simply being too dumb to realize how wrong what he was saying was.

Or should I give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that instead of trying to slyly avoid the problem with a lot of bloviation, you just couldn't bother to read what's been easily shown?

Just tell me, are you dumb, or are you a bullshitter?

Golly he should be impeached by now right?

Oh wait.. he's NOT ignoring that law.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/21/...
"The Justice Department concluded Friday that Jared Kushner serving in his father-in-law's administration would not be a violation of federal anti-nepotism laws.
"In choosing his personal staff, the President enjoys an unusual degree of freedom, which Congress found suitable to the demands of his office," wrote Daniel Koffsky, deputy assistant attorney general in the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, which serves as interpreter of federal law for the White House.
In essence, Koffsky reasoned that the anti-nepotism law covers only appointments in an "executive" agency and that the White House Office is not an executive agency within the law. He cited a separate law that gives the President broad powers to hire his staff.

That law authorizes the president to appoint "employees in the White House office without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compensation of persons in the government service."

Already happened. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/1...

The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth so this shouldn't surprise anyone. Here's what he said only a week ago:

"Rigorous science is critical to my administration's efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection."

"My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks," Trump said. "As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.

What better way to advance scientific research and allow for honest inquiry and robust debate than to wipe from the record, the very research one claims to support.

P.S. He had no problem claiming climate change as the reason he needed to build a sea wall around his Irish golf course:

"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."

You laugh, but...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/africa/nigeria-spy-chief-suspended-after-cash-seizure/

llegal immigrants are just regular people, so you may know some of them without realizing.

NO, illegal immigrants are people who have NO LEGAL RIGHT to be in the country.

Yes, but I believe most people think "bad hombres", not "my neighbors".
Case in point woman who voted for Trump thinking only illegal immigrants with criminal records will be deported.

Maybe you think everyone should go, but many people assume a more nuanced definition will apply.

If they came here illegally then they by definition have a criminal record. This isn't fucking rocket surgery

llegal immigrants are just regular people, so you may know some of them without realizing.

NO, illegal immigrants are people who have NO LEGAL RIGHT to be in the country.

Yes, but I believe most people think "bad hombres", not "my neighbors". Case in point woman who voted for Trump thinking only illegal immigrants with criminal records will be deported.

Maybe you think everyone should go, but many people assume a more nuanced definition will apply.

What's with Slashdot and the recent unbalanced biased snippets that are being posted all the time?
If you are going to publish a story about something, why not post both sides?

From the article:
Leading the the (sic) critics was Professor Alun Hughes, associate director of the Medical Research Council Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing at University College London.

He said: "This editorial is muddled and adds to confusion on a contentious topic. The authors present no really new evidence, misrepresent some existing evidence, and fail to adequately acknowledge the limitations in the evidence that they use to support their point of view."
Dr Mike Knapton, associate medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said the claims about saturated fat were "unhelpful and misleading".

He added: "Decades of research have proved that a diet rich in saturated fat increases 'bad' LDL cholesterol in your blood, which puts you at greater risk of a heart attack or stroke."
Dr Amitava Banerjee, honorary consultant cardiologist at University College London, said: "Unfortunately, the authors have reported evidence simplistically and selectively".

His view was echoed by cardiologist Dr Gavin Sandercock, director of research at the University of Essex, who said: "This editorial is not founded on good evidence. There is no such thing as 'real food' - the authors don't define what it is so it's meaningless."

Here's another take:
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04...

Retirement? Most American's don't have enough money to go on a long weekend vacation. You can blame it on that "outrageous" $5 a day starbucks habit, but the reality is most people just don't make enough money to do much better.

http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/1...

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04...

Yet another bit of crookedry that would have right-wingers rioting in the streets if Hillary did it.

With all of the "rioting in the streets" we've seen over the past few decades, you somehow classify the behavior as the trademark of the "right-wingers"?

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04...

Yet another bit of crookedry that would have right-wingers rioting in the streets if Hillary did it.

Don't forget that the CEO of Mylan is the daughter of a Democratic Senator.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/24/...

It is of course a mere coincidence that this highly successful and entirely voluntary program, which has saved US consumers billions of dollars over its existence, far more than the actual program cost or cost to manufacturers, was also responsible for rating several of Don The Con's properties as being in the bottom 10% of all rated structures from an energy efficiency standpoint, just because those structures happened to be highly inefficient with their energy usage. That got the program on his Enemies List. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/25/...

[...] hell she could be a Clinton.

Or Carly Fiona.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/18/politics/carly-fiorina-debates-senate-run/index.html

Would these suffice?

Sharpest drop in 27 years

Year over year drop of 32%

September 2008: housing starts lowest since 1991

Third quarter drop of 20.5% in housing starts.

It should be self-evident if new housing construction plummets as it did in 2007-2009, all the industries who rely on housing construction would also cut back their production of products. It's the only time trickle down works.

Would these suffice?

Sharpest drop in 27 years

Year over year drop of 32%

September 2008: housing starts lowest since 1991

Third quarter drop of 20.5% in housing starts.

It should be self-evident if new housing construction plummets as it did in 2007-2009, all the industries who rely on housing construction would also cut back their production of products. It's the only time trickle down works.

No.
it takes 420,000 PER YEAR and the Clinton's are not currently in that class