Slashdot Mirror

The press will actually investigate and report on a Trump Administration.

An NBC reporter tried to press him for details about his statements during this press conference, and was told to "be quiet" when she tried to catch him dodging the question. The response from Trump supporters? She was "rude," referring to her as part of the "bully media," and that she was "yakking on." He's taken time out to call a reporter "sleaze." When a reporter pressed him on not following through with his promise to donate to vets he responded by calling the reporter "a nasty guy." Or remember Jorge Ramos? Trump told him to "sit down" and ejected him from a press conference.

Trump's supporters eat this up and heap praise upon him for "standing up to the media." As President that wouldn't change, and I'm sure he'd have press credentials revoked on a regular basis.

Current Yahoo shareholders will keep the company's lucrative investments in Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba and Yahoo Japan. They will be spun into a separate, yet-to-be-named, publicly traded company. The deal also excludes some patents and Yahoo's cash.

In short, the deal doesn't include Alibaba shares, which are the lion's share of Yahoo!'s value. So, mentioning the $125B value in the summary, not clarifying what the deal is, but saying the deal is for $5B, is ...pretty typical for a Slashdot summary.

https://reason.com/blog/2016/0...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/2...

Yes, she was able to keep her phones. Sometimes the DYKWIA superpower can be used for good, not evil.

https://reason.com/blog/2016/0...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/2...

For what it is worth, I understand your point, and I agree that there is a difference between the written law and how it is enforced...

And yes, cops DO use too much force, they look almost military these days...

Did you see this?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/21/...

The black man was laying on the GROUND, face up, hands in the air, and they SHOT HIM ANYWAY?

What the fuck? That man's rights were violated six ways from Sunday... I'm all for backing the cops, but this stuff has to be stopped... It erodes the support of police and causes some people (in this case black people) to fear cops and I can see why.

Yes, Dick Cheney outed Valerie Plame who was an undercover CIA agent at the time. We know this because Libby's own notes state Cheney told Libby about Plame. This was after her husband showed the yellow cake memorandum to be fake which of course upset the Bush administration because it couldn't use that lie as justification to invade and occupy another country.

Further, here is Representative Tom Davis talking about classified information when Valerie Plame testified before Congress about how much damage Cheney's leak caused the U.S.:

"No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified, just as no one can be prosecuted for unauthorized disclosure of information that no one ever said was protected," Davis said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITI...

The "coup" was most likely covertly triggered by Erdogan

While I thought this at first, It would have had to have been quite an engineering feat though without the truth getting out. I saw the coup-backing military shooting protesting civilians in Ankara live on Periscope. It looked pretty real to me. Erdogan would have had to convince a lot of military people that the coup was real.

The most interesting headline is Military crew sent to nab Erdogan told they were after a terrorist.

People are losing their homes over unpaid tax bills that, in some cases, add up to just a few hundred dollars. Outdated state laws that allow local governments to sell tax liens on delinquent properties to investors(...)

I have no idea.

Is there any alternative to Clinton or Donald? Having maybe a third or fourth political party in the system to get some alternatives? Fat chance, tried before several times, cannot even get into TV discussions, why? Status quo benefits the delusionary folks making the rules or pulling the strings to leave the status quo intact so things keep running as smooth as they are for decades or centuries - for the people by the people....

Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson is currently polling at around 13% in some polls like CNN. 15% is the threshold for getting into the debates. Unfortunately, you need a 15% average on 4 national polls, and most don't include him. Jill Stein is currently at about 5%. The difference between her & Johnson though is that Johnson will (most likely) be on the ballot on all 50 states, whereas Stein won't--last I recall it would be something in the low 40's. For someone like Johnson to get into the debates would be huge, because it would greatly increase his support. Stein won't be able to get close to 15%, even with the influx of Bernouts that are flocking to her campaign. Most of them are supporting Hillary, with smaller numbers going to Trump & Johnson.

Mah daddy paid good money to buy that beachside McMansion, we don't want you proles cluttering up our beach.

David Geffen is still a twat.

McDonalds didn't do it on their own — they were pressured by "anti-porn" zealots.

You mean anti-porn zealots like these?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/...

That's the party of Trump, by the way.

the religious right doesn't have the influence it did years ago.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/...

July 14 2016: "France will not extend the state of emergency imposed after last year's Islamist militant attacks in Paris in November beyond 26 July"

July 15 2016: "Terror attack kills scores in Nice, France"

July 16 2016: "France extends state of emergency"

'The declaration of a state of emergency empowers the prefect whose department is wholly or partly included in a constituency in Article 2:'

1. To prohibit the movement of people and vehicles in places and times fixed by decree;
2. To establish, by decree, areas of protection or security where the presence of individuals is regulated
3. To prohibit the stay in any part of the department to any person seeking to hinder in any way the action of the authorities

.. The Minister of the Interior may impose the house arrest, the place it determines, any person residing in the area set by the decree mentioned in Article 2 .. in any case, the arrest will have the effect of creating camps would be held the persons mentioned in the first paragraph

I. - The decree declaring or law extending the state of emergency may, by an express provision conferring on the administrative authorities mentioned in Article 8 the authority to order searches anywhere, including a home of day and night ..

II. - Minister of the Interior may take all measures to ensure the interruption of any online public communication service leading to the commission of acts of terrorism or glorifying.

.. The Minister of the Interior, for the entire territory is established the state of emergency, and the prefect, in the department may order the temporary closure of theaters, pubs and places of any meeting Nature in areas determined by the decree provided for in Article 2. ref google granslate

(CNN)Racial abuse is on the rise in post-Brexit Britain, a Conservative British MP said as police confirmed they were investigating several racially motivated crimes.
Anti-immigrant leaflets saying "Leave the EU - no more Polish vermin" were put on cars near a school, local police said, the day after the country voted to leave the European Union.

On Sunday, the Polish Social and Cultural Association in Hammersmith, west London, was allegedly vandalized with a racist slogan.

Tesla has finally released the results of what happened in Pennsylvania.. It seems that the autopilot warned the driver because his hands were not on the steering wheel. The car warned him repeatedly and it was the driver who grabbed the wheel and caused the crash.

In another accident, the driver was driving the car on an undivided mountain road which is not recommended. The driver's hands were not on the steering wheel. The car alerted the driver repeatedly to put his hands on the wheel. The driver claims it's because the alerts were given in English whereas he spoke Mandarin. Autopilot is supposed to be used on divided roads with clear visibility and the driver is supposed to keep their hands on the wheel.

Maybe they should require drivers to take an autopilot test to show that they understand it before enabling it. Like autopilot on a plane it still requires that the driver pay attention and have their hands on the wheel and be ready to take over.

My car is an early model S before the hardware for Autopilot was available.

From a CNN report:

A Tesla spokesperson released a moment by moment description of what happened in the 40 seconds before the crash.

After 15 seconds of what was described by Tesla as "visual warnings and audible tones," the autopilot began to disengage because the driver's hands were still not on the wheel.

About 25 seconds before the crash, "Autosteer began a graceful abort procedure in which the music is muted, the vehicle begins to slow and the driver is instructed both visually and audibly to place their hands on the wheel," according to the company.

Tesla said the driver responded 11 seconds before the crash by retaking the wheel, turning it toward the left and pressing on the accelerator.

"Over 10 seconds and approximately 300m later and while under manual steering control, the driver drifted out of the lane, collided with a barrier, overcorrected, crossed both lanes of the highway, struck a median barrier, and rolled the vehicle," according to Tesla's account.

So, the man never made the decision to disable autopilot. Instead, the car turned off the autopilot on its own. So, Musk could say with a straight face that autopilot was off. But how can a safety mechanism be allowed to turn itself off under any circumstances? Talk about the exact opposite of fail-safe.

What a crock of shit. According to this logic, commercial flight should be the most dangerous form of transportation.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL...

What makes you think pilots are immune? Its just that at 10,000 feet over the atlantic the sky is pretty empty.

That said, they have all kinds of stuff to help them stay engaged. Paperwork and reports. Communications. A co-pilot, and flight crew to interact with. Plus its, you know, their job... so they are trained, and if they can't do it, they get fired.

Unlike a Tesla owner which only has to buy the car, doesn't have any training, and doesn't have anyone watching him drive to prevent him from being tempted.

Plus pilots working on paper work and checklists, go for walks and stretch their legs, they play cards, solve puzzles, and other activities that all would not be compatible with the requirements for driving a Tesla.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/1...

They went bankrupt because of those 22,000 people striking over pay. The company couldn't afford the people, and the new company that bought out their IP/Trademark went with automation instead of unskilled labor.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/1...

Citation Given.

N/T

since when is that a bad thing?

i'm all for anything that pulls people away from facebook, even if it means every so often one wanders off a cliff looking for a pokemon.

Arizona reporting in: just lost another one...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/1...

Ha ha, that's rich.

Consider the USA very carefully:

You have killings.
Mobs.
Torture.
Unsafe water.
Corruption.
And at least one of your presidential nominees is a Total Nutjob!

So what's wrong with India exactly?

Let's see how I do...

Murder: In the US, there is the 2nd amendment right, enshrined in the Constitution, which gives everyone the right to own a gun (or, indeed, as many guns as they can buy). It's fair, everyone can have guns, even people who mow down defenseless children by the dozen. It's what the NRA wants.

Mobs: Admittedly, that is a problem, mobs generally don't behave rationally. Though most protests start out aimed at government groups or companies that are damaging their rights, rather than singling out and murdering individuals for perceived slights against a book they've read.

Torture: This, too, is a toughie. It was (is?) a program by the Bush administration and CIA to extract information from suspected terrorists. While morally and legally wrong, they at least tried to limit it to people who may have performed real world actions, rather than supernatural powers. If the witch floats, she's a witch, and if the witch drowns, she wasn't a witch?

Unsafe water: According to the Republican leaders, the EPA is in the way of business, so they've spent long years bleeding the EPA of ability to enforce the law, issue warnings and hold people accountable. That is a problem.

Corruption: Yep, the financial system is broken. Yep, the police are rarely held responsible for murdering people, destroying evidence, lying, et cetera.

Candidates: Our choices are horrible. We have a crazy, erratic liar who says whatever thought pops into his head and a consistent liar who is desperate to say whatever she thinks people want to hear as our only choices. But, at least neither of them have been implicated in the mass murder of thousands of their own constituents.

All in all, shitty as both places can be, the reality is still that a much better, safer life is still possible in the USA. Maybe not for long, but at least for your lifetime, maybe.

If you support Hillary, you're supporting Hillary. It's obvious. If you give your approval to candidates like that, you're going to get candidates like that.

So Hillary is one of "the most corrupt and reprehensible people imaginable"? Citation needed.

She has been under investigation almost continuously for more than 20 years by both legal authorities and very rich political opponents. During that time, the only thing which has been proven is that she sucks at email security. If she had done anything serious, SOMEONE would have sold out and given proof.

She doesn't do much obviously illegal (the email security breaches would have gotten anyone else fired or in jail), she helps out her friends, and knows more dirt on people than J Edgar Hoover. Why would anyone sell her out? This doesn't mean she is an ethical person and the sheer volume of suspicious activities specifically involving her and not other people in similar positions, say, Condoleezza Rice or almost everyone else I can think of actually, should raise some suspicions. There is simply a tremendous volume of things to overlook. One of my favorites is the security trader who donated at least a million and got appointed to the ISAB. Nobody knew why he was there and he resigned as soon as reporters started asking questions.

I looked up the definition of "evil" on M-W and found two definitions. The two candidates seem to be particularly well suited to the roles.
a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked
b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct

I know it's embarrassing to you when the head of the Democrat party, in her role as the Speaker Of The House and the person who is completely in charge of the legislative agenda surrounding the bill in question gets up at her podium in an official press event and says that to you and me and everyone else on video ... I know you find that awkward.

Find what awkward? Your continuing decision to lie about it?

No, nor more than I do the lies about Shirley Sherrod.

Nothing awkward for me. It's curious that you bother, but not awkward for me.

Why would you think that? Are you somehow confused about what words mean, or do you just have no understanding of people's actual feelings?

If anything, every time somebody brings it up, I know it means they have nothing of substance to actually say.

I suppose I might feel chagrin though, that instead of healthy discussion and debate, we get lies.

And I understand that your instinctive liberal reaction is to wish the facts away so that you can pretend the person in charge of the congressional process of writing and handling that bill didn't actually say those words and cheerfully in many other settings convey the same sentiment. I know you wish that hadn't happened. But lazily attacking the person who reminds you of that, doesn't that ever get to you? Don't you ever wince when you try that craven bit of juvenile ad hominen in an effort to alter reality?

You're expecting me to put much effort into it, when it's been a debunked story known for years?

You might as well expect me to care about Romney's claim about an "act of terror" in the presidential debates.

But seriously, you've got nothing but ad hominem, that's why you can't defend your own words or ideas, but have to offer lies.

I know, you want us all to believe that you consider the Congressional Record to be a concoction.

Oh, you want to know who edited the Congressional Record? But I guess if you don't intend to make factual statements, you wouldn't want them to be kept.

The question is, who do you think is so dumb that they'll fall for your lazy attempt to distract? The bill in question was a disaster from conception to execution. The principal players involved in ramming it through knew that, lied about it repeatedly, and are well aware of the damage it would do and has done. Just like you. You will now once again try to tap-dance around the actual facts on the ground, and try some more childish foot-stomping. Carry on!

You're the one not talking about an actual bill, or offering a countering proposal, but spending a considerable amount of effort to belabor us with nothing more than an empty, long-discredited, shameful attempt at castigating Nancy Pelosi for a speech that you so desperately need to take out of context.

Unfortunately for you, the real speech can be read, go ahead, take your time:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered a speech this morning at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties (NACo). This year marks the 75th anniversary of the organization. Below are the Speaker’s remarks:

“Thank you, President Valerie Brown [of Sonoma County, Calif.] Don’t we all take pride in Valerie Brown recently being named County Official of the Year for her advocacy on behalf of all of America’s counties? Thank you, Valerie. Her

Never ever believe anything you hear... and only half of what you see.

It would be nice if we were all capable of being skeptics to the truth. Unfortunately, we're not physiologically built for that. As Wired Magazine explained so well in an article back in 2009, our dorsolateral prefrontal cortex filters out information it determines to be unnecessary, including information that does not agree with our perception of the world. The vast majority of people do not understand this, so they naturally prefer to listen and associate themselves with information that only reinforces their world view, rather than challenge it.

So, yes, if the leader of a British political party says that being an EU member has a bad return on investment, and enough people feel that is true, then the society will not challenge that viewpoint. Even when individuals like John Oliver thoroughly debunk those perceptions, those opposing viewpoints are dismissed quicker than you can type "> /dev/null". And it's why, no matter how many times Donald Trump praises the leadership qualities of despots, he still has a much stronger chance than he should at becoming president. All it takes is enough people to "feel" that he's the better candidate.

For contrast, here's what Donald Trump said recently

[Referring to problems within the Veteran's Administration] "I will pick up the phone and fix it myself"

Wow, really, every time?

Oh wait, he's going to define "addressed" as "Hey, we told you we can't help you" isn't he?

Besides, the law and order candidate? Him? Yeah, his idea of law and order ended up with false convictions for multiple people. Yay? And his life? Oh my, it's so full of completely honest endeavors and nobody is suing him right now for his disreputable business at all.

(And that's not even getting into the perils of giving veterans such special treatment, why shouldn't ALL Americans have a hotline to the White House? Huh?)

Look at Hillary's positions and see if they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of goodness.

Look at Trump's positions and see if they describe specific changes and actions.

Hillary is "stay the course", and Trump is "make changes".

Promises, promises.

Trump's changes are the kind of bombastic rhetoric that won't even work, yet you continually shill them out as concrete and definite.

How much is he paying you, or are you just shoveling the shit for free?

Not to mention that Obama has actually deported more immigrants than any president - ever (bet you didn't know that) and that net Mexican immigration under Obama is NEGATIVE - more people have left the US for Mexico than has entered the US from Mexico during Obama's administration.

Methinks you are misstating facts. While Mexican immigration under Obama is negative, that does not mean that Obama is deporting more. More Mexicans have left the US because of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

If you want to argue that immigration policy is too lenient - then you can have that debate, we may not agree but there is room to debate. What you do NOT get to do is pretend Obama has been more lenient than any president since the current immigration act was signed into law by Reagan since that is absolutely not true. Fox news has been lying to you.

The immigration act may have been signed into law by Reagan, but we're talking about Obama's executive order granting amnesty to any who illegally entered the US as children plus their immediate families. The same executive order half the Supreme Court deems unconstitutional.

I would love to discuss immigration policy. I am pro-legal immigration. Myself and two siblings married people who legally entered the US. I am vehemently against illegal immigration. I don't believe we should reward people for breaking the law. I welcome guests through my front door, but anyone climbing through a window will not get a warm welcome.

As for Fox news, I don't watch it. All news outlets show too much bias. All twist statistics to support their preconceived notions.

But hey, it's OK we're still running a real deficit of $1.4 trillion, annually

Nah.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/1...

Clinton: It's 'Heartbreaking' When IT Workers Must Train H-1B Replacements

For contrast, here's what Donald Trump said recently

[Referring to problems within the Veteran's Administration] "I will pick up the phone and fix it myself"

Look at Hillary's positions and see if they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling of goodness.

Look at Trump's positions and see if they describe specific changes and actions.

Hillary is "stay the course", and Trump is "make changes".

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/...

Sorry, I missed out the slavery link. Not hard to find either...

Ha ha, that's rich.

Consider the USA very carefully:

You have killings.
Mobs.
Torture.
Unsafe water.
Corruption.
And at least one of your presidential nominees is a Total Nutjob!

So what's wrong with India exactly?

All the money in the world couldn't get me to a third-world country like India. The honor killings, mobs murdering people suspected of eating beef, thousands being tortured and executed on suspicion of being a witch, 80% of their rivers choked with raw, untreated sewage, rampant corruption, modern slavery, and their prime minister is a nutter are all things I try to avoid.

Yes, dumb story.

Should have gone with a 'Is the Olympics a huge waste of money?' angle: http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... http://www.businessinsider.com... http://money.cnn.com/gallery/n... http://www.thenational.ae/spor...
Answer: No, if you're a pork-barrelling supplier, a politician or Olympic hanger on partying at the tax payers expense. Yes, if you're one of Brazil's poor threatened with poverty http://riotimesonline.com/braz... crime http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/o... and disappearances http://www.ibtimes.com/road-ri...

I mean get the imagination on that crazy guy. It isn't like people have figured out to use the thing to lure victims for other crimes. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/...

On Tuesday, the law enforcement agency issued an alert that "all Symantec and Norton branded antivirus products" could allow hackers "to take control" of a computer. link

I'll see your few scholarly research papers, and raise you several violent protests that you have missed. Even leftists have to worry about leftists, as I stated.

Further, I can show that leftist people and groups support the protests.

Well, one way to reply to a post calling out confirmation bias ... is to double down on the confirmation bias.

You have a funny term to refer to what would properly be labeled as 'observation of leftists, on social media and in real life'.

Apparently I get to represent all liberals now

Only if you are unable to parse my phrase, "Should I follow suit, ...", which limits the following phrase to a hypothetical question. But I guess such subtlety is wasted on leftists. (See, that is using your inability to read to claim all leftists are ignorant as well.)

(or at least the ones you don't like, with that bit of no-true-scotsman mixed in under cover of "I didn't mean everybody").

I'm not allowed to clarify my point that you have such a hard time understanding? Considering my original post was simply comparing attitudes and actions of nondescript left-wingers and right-wingers in the post I replied to. Since I wasn't the one who established the general groups under discussion, I certainly feel I have the right to make that clarification. Sorry if that upsets you.

Let's get back to your original claim, which can be distilled to 'liberals conform more than conservatives'.

Oh, wait a minute. I begin to see your problem. After writing all that above, I realize upon re-reading this line, that you simply are trying to argue the wrong claim. You think it is a discussion of whether one group or the other conforms to the expected norm. But that wasn't Ungrounded Lightning's argument, nor mine. UL said that those on the left "apply social pressure to each other to conform", and in response to (I assume) your question about right-wingers, I voiced my support of UL's argument, and provided an example.

I stand by my claim that leftists do much more to force their views on society, even on other leftists, than rightists do. That has nothing to do with whether right-wingers (AKA conservatives) by their nature want to keep things the way they are (also known as 'to conserve', funny how that is implied in the label 'conservative').

You are arguing the wrong case.

I'll see your few scholarly research papers, and raise you several violent protests that you have missed. Even leftists have to worry about leftists, as I stated.

Further, I can show that leftist people and groups support the protests.

Well, one way to reply to a post calling out confirmation bias ... is to double down on the confirmation bias.

You have a funny term to refer to what would properly be labeled as 'observation of leftists, on social media and in real life'.

Apparently I get to represent all liberals now

Only if you are unable to parse my phrase, "Should I follow suit, ...", which limits the following phrase to a hypothetical question. But I guess such subtlety is wasted on leftists. (See, that is using your inability to read to claim all leftists are ignorant as well.)

(or at least the ones you don't like, with that bit of no-true-scotsman mixed in under cover of "I didn't mean everybody").

I'm not allowed to clarify my point that you have such a hard time understanding? Considering my original post was simply comparing attitudes and actions of nondescript left-wingers and right-wingers in the post I replied to. Since I wasn't the one who established the general groups under discussion, I certainly feel I have the right to make that clarification. Sorry if that upsets you.

Let's get back to your original claim, which can be distilled to 'liberals conform more than conservatives'.

Oh, wait a minute. I begin to see your problem. After writing all that above, I realize upon re-reading this line, that you simply are trying to argue the wrong claim. You think it is a discussion of whether one group or the other conforms to the expected norm. But that wasn't Ungrounded Lightning's argument, nor mine. UL said that those on the left "apply social pressure to each other to conform", and in response to (I assume) your question about right-wingers, I voiced my support of UL's argument, and provided an example.

I stand by my claim that leftists do much more to force their views on society, even on other leftists, than rightists do. That has nothing to do with whether right-wingers (AKA conservatives) by their nature want to keep things the way they are (also known as 'to conserve', funny how that is implied in the label 'conservative').

You are arguing the wrong case.

The shootings were a muslim plot. The thing was with the video of Philando Castile and so on many whites were beginning to see that there is real injustice in the way that some police deal with minorities. There could have been a coming together and a call for improvement. Of course the muslims don't want this. Following the teachings of the hateful warlord Muhammad they want to drive people apart, attract black Americans to their own violent cult.

what about having real qa & not end users and your own coders be the testes?

And the QA needs to have the rights / means to change settings and set up the environment in different ways to test out different things. Helps to have people with a QA / testing mind set there.

For some things changes how things work from an standard / the way it has been for a long time to a new default can seem like an bug / lead to bad stuff happening. Like the Gear shift confusion issue that can kill people where was QA on that one? Or did the designers thing that the old way needed to change and did not take testing in put?

https://consumerist.com/2016/0...

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/2...

http://www.roadandtrack.com/ne...

Are you saying FBI Director did not recommend prosecution because he did not think DoJ would prosecute

That is, how FBI's statement is worded. The real reason, of course, was a polite request from the White House. Clintons and Obamas hate each other and that's why the investigation was allowed to proceed as far as it did.

But, without any other credible options for Democrats come November, Obama held his nose and asked (ordered?) the FBI to stop it... For the good of the Party.

Couldnt he have just recommended prosecution and lay the blame on the DoJ then? Am I missing something?

He likely wanted to, but that was not deemed good enough for the ruling Democrats. Loretta Lynch is already known as a highly partisan figure in cahoots with Clintons. So Comey was asked to lend his credibility to the cause.

The entire Federal government is now pulling for Hillary — not only because she is the Government Party's candidate, but because she is a vindictive bitch — another fact known since the 1990ies. If she prevails and becomes President, those who opposed her will find themselves rather inconvenienced. Whereas if Trump wins, nothing bad will happen — Comey, for example, will likely retain his job.

Unfortunately, as he is FBI director and NOT an AG, he himself cannot bring charges, it requires the AG office to bring charges.

Unfortunately, Lynch is a corrupt person as well:

http://www.redstate.com/califo...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/30/...

I can't imagine what made her think it was ok to do that, she should know better, and it makes the whole dropping the investigation look incredibly corrupt.

If you read the whole thing with all the exemptions, you will find it's hardly positive, which is indeed very typical of the democrats. Heavy on the rhetoric, very light on the action. ACA, anyone?

The republicans freed the slaves and desegregated the schools, and helped pass civil rights legislation (It couldn't have happened without them). What do the democrats do? Lock 'em up!

You should quit while you're behind...

. First cops have the us versus them mentality

I wonder why.

Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what.

Must be that whole law and order thing, huh? Would you really want law enforcement not be able to maintain control of a situation they are responsible for?

Tell a cop knocking on your door that he can't come in and what him flip out, kick the door in and pull a gun on you.

Have you tried this? I will bet you haven't. If you don't know what your rights are or what the police can do that is really your problem.

Why do cops get trials where a judge decides?

You do realize you can opt to waive your trial by jury for a bench trial? So, you mean to tell me that a cop, much like the tax collector who is disliked by most, wouldn't want to be judged by a random bunch of emotionally driven citizens? Color me surprised.

I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation.

I don't know enough about this particular event to have a full opinion, the initial video did not show the whole story, the second video doesn't tell the whole story. Apparently, Alton flashed a gun and threatened a homeless man, police were called and Alton was armed. Alton resisted arrest and while wrestling with him still resisting, Alton reached for the concealed firearm and was subsequently shot dead. I watched both videos, Alton was clearly not cooperating and although he was on his back both officers (not small men by any standard) were struggling to get him rolled over and cuffed and Alton was not having any part of it.

Perhaps you should watch the videos again. From the second one, the officer that's closer to the camera - the same officer that pulled his gun, pointed it at Alton's chest, and shot him at point blank range - was kneeling on Alton's left arm. You can see Alton's left hand past the officer, fingers spread.
Now let me just ask you an objective question: when one officer is kneeling on his arm so that he can't move how is it Alton's fault that he can't roll over?
As a follow-up question, shouldn't the officer kneeling on his arm realize that he's kneeling on his arm (it was clearly intentional), and therefore not shoot him for "not having any part" of being rolled over?

You'll notice, I hope, that these two questions can be answered with a simple understanding of physics, and not require any inferences about whether he was "clearly" cooperating or not.

All Alton had to do was kneel and put his hands on his head and keep his mouth shut. Tell the officers he is indeed armed and where the firearm is located. Allow the officers to cuff him and remove the firearm for the officers own safety. If Alton is a legal concealed carry permit holder he would know these things.

A legal concealed carry permit holder tried that in Minnesota last night. He's dead now. Need it also be mentioned that he was black?

The other recent shooting in Minneapolis was due to a frightened officer who panic'd. That was a truly tragic event, it never should have happened. The car was pulled over for a broken tail light. The driver was asked to produce his license and registration which is standard procedure. He correctly informed the officer that he was a concealed carry permit holder and he was armed. At this point the officer drew his weapon, again, standard operating procedure. What happened next is the bad part. The victim was complying but there was some form of communication breakdown and he reached to get his wallet and the officer shot him four times. This all took place in mere seconds. You never ever take your hands off the steering wheel and do not make any sudden movements!

I see... On the one hand, it was the victim's fault for not complying. On the other hand, it was the victim's fault for complying too quickly. Regardless, it never is the police's fault - either they were acting properly, or it was a "truly tragic event (that was still the victim's fault)".

I don't need to delve into your masturbatory fantasy about how traffic stops go for white people, but I do want to address this:

It's about respect not about an officers authority.

Your badge does not entitle you to free respect. In fact, nothing entitles you to free respect. And if you feel that someone is being "disrespectful" to you, so therefore you should get to kill them with impunity, then you are the one who should be sucking on that barrel, not them. We have the right, as Americans, to tell the officer to give us the ticket or whatever else they want and then fuck off back to the fuckstation and eat their glazed fucknoughts with their fuckbuddies in blue. Disrespectful? Sure. A crime worthy of instant execution? Fuck you.

Yes, the church did some horrible things throughout history,

They still are:

One case, and another, and a few more, and a few more, just for good measure. Even down under boys aren't safe. Nor are dogs.

Even the UN called out the Vatican for its systemic adoption of policies allowing priests to rape and sexually abuse tens of thousands of children.

But as always, these are just isolated cases.

Let's be honest here, if you had done any research on this whatsoever I wouldn't have to link to this because it has been discussed ad nauseum already. It's like asking for a citation that the original Mac came with a Mouse.

Cite on the lesser mortals. In particular you'll have to find one who was not actually trying to send classified info to someone who had no clearance, which has been illegal in the US since WW1.

Much of the Bush White House used email addresses on Bush's private gwb43.com server. This was originally set up by Rove and Dubya to coordinate the perfectly legal (and thus, by definition, legitimate) firing of eight Prosecutors who went after corrupt Republicans, and was designed to be FOIA and Records request immune. It auto-deleted all emails after a period of time.

While it's hard to find direct evidence of the server Powell used, he has admitted that a) he used a private address and b) he has no copies of the emails. He claims he never used it to discuss classified info, but that's more then a wee bit unlikely as much info is considered classified by somebody, and it's impossible to verify because all of them are gone. Nonetheless nonetheless he did have some classified info sent to his email address. Many of the Hillary emails that were declared Classified after the fact would be impossible to find for Powell or Rice because they were discussions with people who did not have state.gov email addresses because at the time the whole state.gov email system was just being set up.

"Law-enforcement agencies will also be granted access to any user's messages without any judicial oversight."

So....pretty much like it is here, eh? Wow, the Russians are finally catching up to us in state-approved surveillance, who would have guessed we'd be the leader in this field?

Remember all the propaganda about "commies" and the "unfettered power of the police" they used to warn us about? Well, it turns out it was actually the US government that was running wild with virtually no constraints. The only constraint was "don't get caught", and even when they did get caught, nothing really happened.

And now the police feel free to shoot anyone, any time, on any pretext or none at all. The latest example of this is Philando Castile, who wasn't doing anything worthy of being shot. His only "crime" was going out in public and allowing himself to be seen by the police. They asked for his ID, and when he reached for it, they shot him to death in his car, still sitting in the driver's seat next to his girlfriend.

As Jesse Williams remarked, "In the interest of time, would ye noble patriots please provide a list of infractions punishable by spontaneous public execution?"

Downloading his music? 10 years!

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10...