Slashdot Mirror

How would you end the cycle of poverty?

Why, obviously, I'll outlaw it!

Serious question.

Seriously? What poverty? Burmese migrants sneak from Myanmar into neighboring Thailand for better life. Thais themselves are happy to go to Israel for fruit-picking now that Israelis are loath to allow Palestinians, who used to work these agricultural jobs, to enter the country. And many Israelis are more than happy to move to the US. In other words, poverty is relative. In absolute terms, a homeless in New York is better off than a "middle class" North Korean.

The inequality within a society will be with us always. Even when we move beyond the much-denounced "scarcity", people who are smarter and/or more driven than others will still appear ahead — if not by wealth, then by some other measure, quantifiable or otherwise. It is just as inescapable as are differences in good looks, agility, or stronger muscles, .

For the absolute poverty, (a close approximation of) Free Market Capitalism is the best prescription, as the US has been demonstrating for at least a century already. But, to avoid arousing US-haters too much, let's consider other, less controversial, examples:

• Soviet Socialist Republic of Estonia vs. Finland
• East Germany vs. West Germany
• North Korea vs. South Korea

In all three of the above examples, the peoples — hitherto identical in culture, religion, language, natural resources — lived for some decades under Socialism/Communism and Capitalism respectively. In fact, Estonia is better endowed than its sibling by climate and land-fertility — and yet, Capitalist Finland produced Linux, Nokia and the best snow tires in the world, while Estonia... Well, not so much.

It is not even about Democracy necessarily — both Cuba and Chile, the fourth pair I might add to the above, have lived under dictatorships for a while. But Pinochet had the wisdom to choose Capitalism and so left his country Latin America's top economy, while Cuba remains a shithole.

Stick to Capitalism, dude — but don't let it become Crony Capitalism (a guinea pig ain't a pig) by giving government so much control over the production, the manufacturers and service providers start trying to satisfy government officials, rather than actual customers.

Clinton won the vote without the superdelegate vote so in fact we do know that Sanders would not have won. There was no rigging of the election.

I personally know of two Bernie suppporters who didn't vote because the press claimed from the beginning that the results were a foregone conclusion due to the superdelegate vote. The news from April and May were rife with interviews from people who were voting for Clinton simply because they felt that, although Bernie was the better candidate, they had been told repeatedly in DNC sponsored ads that Bernie couldn't win a general election (We heard that same crap about Trump from the other side, and he still might win in spite of himself). In short, It is my considered opinion that Sander would have won had the superdelegates withheld their votes until after the general election. This is Not just My opinion

Granted, no one can know what would have been, but when voters are staying home, or otherwise voting for a different candidate because the establishment has told them their pick cant win anyways; when voters are not even being given the chance to hear about a candidate because the DNC has picked their winner and wont even release the party roles so that the candidate can reach primary voters and likely donors; When DNC executives are actively contacting large party donors and telling them not to give money to a candidate: Its hard not to think about how much that candidate has been screwed. This is the real reason people hate Hilary. Not because she is a bad person, but because bad people and corrupt people made sure she would get the nomination. It was handed to her as though it were somehow her due.

The most telling aspect of this election: Nearly every single person Sanders spoke to in person voted for him. The same cannot be said of any other candidate.

Just as the oppressed Blacks can not themselves be racist, women can not possibly be sexist.

Sadly for you, Hillary spent piles of cash pushing back against users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, etc who were probably unaware they were being trolled by her paid shills. She ran quite the troll outfit against Bernie.

Actually, the modern era of well-funded underhanded internet tolling BEGAN with Clinton 1.0 in the 1990s when BillClinton could not keep his hands off the intern, or the secretary, or the campaign worker, etc. Various Democrat supporters ponied-up lots of cash and started a whole bunch of left-leaning internet-centric operations to trash Clinton opponents, distract the public from the scandals, etc. This is where MoveOn.org (as-in "move on, already! Bill's babes were ASKING for it! the economy is good! The Federal prosecuters are a bunch of sex-starved prudes!, the women accusing Bill are the sort you get when you drag a $20 bill through a trailer park!...") originated. It's also where the most-famous opportunistic phoneys in American politics got their start. Both David Brock and Arianna Huffington pretended to be conservatives for several years to learn about their enemies then they took off their masks and launched huge anti-GOP online empires. That was the beginning of the new era of hyper-spin in politics. In the era of Nixon, the president tried (and failed) to "spin" by going before cameras and saying "I am not a crook". In the era of the Clintons, the president was saying (and getting away with) "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is'" and even the most-basic facts in ANY argument became negotiable/debateable.

As a cherry on top of this super-sized hypocrisy sundae, a huge number of the left's online trolling outlets are funded at least partially by George Soros, AFAIK the only man on the planet who has bragged that his time as a NAZI collaborator (yup, an actual servant of THE Adolph Hitler) was the happiest time of his lfe and he is prod of what he did (he's working hard to finish Hitler's dream of eliminate the sovereignty of the US and the UK and submerging the west into a global tyranny).

Unless you're clearly up to no good, you don't have to worry about spyware like this.

You mean up to no good like Angela Merkel, Chirac, Sarkozy and Hollande the last three French presidents, and 35 world leaders?

But of course you don't need to be a celebrity or a politician to be up to no good. You could be trying to help people through a humanitarian organization like the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, , or you could just have said something bad about the government of a minor island, etc.

And even if you're not one of the above 'bad people', you could simply be one of the 90% of people who are collateral surveillance victims. So no, you don't need to be up to no good to be under surveillance and that's something to be concerned about.

Because the real predictions are only going to be proven after it's too late to do a damn thing about it

Will that ever happen? You say, it will. But you have no proof — you are asking me, and the rest of the civilization, to take it on faith.

Something tells me, you'd dismiss as a fool (or worse) anyone telling you to repent before it is too late and you died before absolution. And yet, you are telling me the same thing about climate: believe in it, before it is too late.

Maybe, I'd be willing to listen to the authorities, to which you appeal — if they were authorities. But they aren't scientists either — no meaningful falsifiable statement has been made by them, that has not been falsified in due time... Off, off with you — 21st century shamans...

Who would let the chinese build a nuclear powerplant in their country? Wow. Just wow.

Wow?
The same people who would let the Chinese build a critical bridge.

The thing is if you start 20 businesses and 17 of them go bankrupt, you are still doing ok as a businessman.

If they still go bankrupt after stiffing your sub-contractors and/or getting an illegal $3.4M loan from your father (excerpt below) to pay the bills, then you're not doing so OK. Furthermore, does that sound like someone you'd like to do business with - or run your country - or be head of the free world?

In December of 1990, a lawyer for Fred Trump walked into Trump Castle in Atlantic city and, according to reports at the time, deposited a check with the casino for $3.36 million in exchange for chips. Instead of using the chips to play in the casino, the lawyer left.

The result: an interest free loan to Trump from “Daddy-O.”

The loan scheme was ultimately found to be illegal, btw, and Trump kept the money but had to pay a $30,000 fine. That's a pretty good return on investment for breaking the law. Oh, and then this happened:

Fred Trump would make further payments to his son, and Donald Trump ultimately settled his debts.

More info: trump father illegal loan

Not failed to scrub. Purposefully didn't scrub. Just like they didn't scrub anything when they doxxed every female voter in Turkey recently.

The only thing they've scrubbed of late is their own antisemitic tweet.

Not failed to scrub. Purposefully didn't scrub. Just like they didn't scrub anything when they doxxed every female voter in Turkey recently.

The only thing they've scrubbed of late is their own antisemitic tweet.

Are you proud of being a "citizen" and do you "brown bag" your lunch to avoid unhealthy fast-food joints? According to the City of Seattle, you're racist. http://dailycaller.com/2013/08...

And if your "brown bag lunch" contains a peanut-butter-sandwich, you're potentially in trouble in Portland. http://www.dailykos.com/story/... So yeah, I agree with parent post. If I wwere a white guy in the vicinity of a minority employee, I'd STFU and keep ineteraction to a minimum to minimize my risk of being hauled before some "Civil Rights Tribunal" for an off-the-cuff remark.

Fuck that piece of shit. Seriously. Fuck her right in her stupid fucking ass.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

How does anyone believe a word out of her mouth, much less support her being our president? Those lying sacks of shits we call the Clintons are terrible for this country.

Isn't this another form of payola? Isn't the principal the same, where a company influences people promoting a product with money? I don't see the difference between a 1950's DJ pushing a song after getting paid by the record company while the listener doesn't know it's being promoted and a 2016 overenthusiastic Internet reviewer getting paid by the company making the product while the reader doesn't know it's being promoted. Same marketing mechanism, same ethical problem, same net result.

Of course, you know paying online reviewers will never be made illegal because politicians are now doing this in droves!

The irony is that this is still alive today.

Benghazi has been "resolved" 7 or 8 times, and the best they can come up with is "you're foresight should have been 20/20 just like our hindsight. and BTW, please ignore the disparity with the Bush administration's 90 odd dead at embassies".

she was branded a congenital liar, but that doesn't actually make it so.
they've simply repeated it for so long people accept it as truth.
the simple fact is she's probably the most honest politician to ever run for president, with the overwhelming majority of her statements being factual.
compared to someone like Trump who mostly speaks falsehoods...yet somehow she's the "liar". that's not to say she isn't also very aloof; but then I'd somewhat expect that of someone who has withstood baseless attacks for 40+ years. after dealing with the same BS for that long you'd probably stop caring what they say and think about you too.

this guy states it rather more eloquently:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted ( without any apparent evidence ) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

I am no political historian, but as far as I can tell this short essay was the birth of the “Hillary is a Liar” meme. Now to be clear, most conservatives already strongly disliked her. They had been upset with her for some time because she had refused to play the traditional First Lady role. And they were horrified by her attempt to champion Universal Health coverage. But if you look for the actual reasons people didn’t like her back at that time, you won’t see ongoing accusations of her being “crooked” or a “liar”. Instead, the most common opinion seemed to be that she was a self-righteous leftist who considered anyone with other views to be morally inferior. In short, the prevailing anti-Hillary accusation was not that she was unrelentingly dishonest, but that she was just intolerably smug.

After the Safire piece however, this all changed. Republicans, who learned from Nixon never to let a good propaganda opportunity pass if they could help it, repeated the accusations of mendacity non-stop to anyone who would broadcast or print them. And if you doubt the staying power of Safire’s piece, type the phrase “congenital liar” into a Google search along with “Hillary Clinton” and see what happens. To this day, that exact phrase is still proudly used by many on the right. This, even though Safire was eventually proven wrong about everything he had written. And despite the fact that he stated himself that he would have to “eat crow” if she were ever cleared, Safire never apologized or even acknowledged his many errors once that happened. Because as we all know, swift-boating means never having to say you’re sorry.

in short: the butthurt is strong today.

I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for.

Thank goodness, can you imagine if that was allowed to happen again AND the man behind it was still within spitting distance of the Presidency?

Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane.

Yes, it is, an insanity, a subtle and tempting one, but an insanity nonetheless.

They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.

Not on the surface no, but there's been a long history of calls for "law and order" to conceal a deeply vicious cycle, especially against immigrants and yes, even terrorists. Yet have you noticed similar treatment of justice among other laws or sentiments that reflect a true concern? Do they ever speak against those who abuse and mistreat immigrants? Do they seek to have any other laws enforced?

Or are they like, Trump who says:

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy—really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights. They didn't talk. They were a terrorist—it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist? You go to Iraq. It's like Harvard. Okay?

Yay for despotism, right?

I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.

Why would you say that? What have you read? Do you understand what the Left or the media thinks? Or were one of you the people that believed everybody thought Trump would never win? I'd thought he'd never actually run, but win?

But sure, blaming the PC Police is pretty common on the Right. It's the bogeyman that lets any idiot say whatever they want, and get the crowd to cheer, because those damn PC-sticklers will be offended!

He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.

Oh wow, he got one right. Or so he believes

I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for.

Thank goodness, can you imagine if that was allowed to happen again AND the man behind it was still within spitting distance of the Presidency?

Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane.

Yes, it is, an insanity, a subtle and tempting one, but an insanity nonetheless.

They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.

Not on the surface no, but there's been a long history of calls for "law and order" to conceal a deeply vicious cycle, especially against immigrants and yes, even terrorists. Yet have you noticed similar treatment of justice among other laws or sentiments that reflect a true concern? Do they ever speak against those who abuse and mistreat immigrants? Do they seek to have any other laws enforced?

Or are they like, Trump who says:

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy—really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights. They didn't talk. They were a terrorist—it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist? You go to Iraq. It's like Harvard. Okay?

Yay for despotism, right?

I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.

Why would you say that? What have you read? Do you understand what the Left or the media thinks? Or were one of you the people that believed everybody thought Trump would never win? I'd thought he'd never actually run, but win?

But sure, blaming the PC Police is pretty common on the Right. It's the bogeyman that lets any idiot say whatever they want, and get the crowd to cheer, because those damn PC-sticklers will be offended!

He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.

Oh wow, he got one right. Or so he believes

I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for.

Thank goodness, can you imagine if that was allowed to happen again AND the man behind it was still within spitting distance of the Presidency?

Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane.

Yes, it is, an insanity, a subtle and tempting one, but an insanity nonetheless.

They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.

Not on the surface no, but there's been a long history of calls for "law and order" to conceal a deeply vicious cycle, especially against immigrants and yes, even terrorists. Yet have you noticed similar treatment of justice among other laws or sentiments that reflect a true concern? Do they ever speak against those who abuse and mistreat immigrants? Do they seek to have any other laws enforced?

Or are they like, Trump who says:

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy—really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights. They didn't talk. They were a terrorist—it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist? You go to Iraq. It's like Harvard. Okay?

Yay for despotism, right?

I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.

Why would you say that? What have you read? Do you understand what the Left or the media thinks? Or were one of you the people that believed everybody thought Trump would never win? I'd thought he'd never actually run, but win?

But sure, blaming the PC Police is pretty common on the Right. It's the bogeyman that lets any idiot say whatever they want, and get the crowd to cheer, because those damn PC-sticklers will be offended!

He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.

Oh wow, he got one right. Or so he believes

I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for.

Thank goodness, can you imagine if that was allowed to happen again AND the man behind it was still within spitting distance of the Presidency?

Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane.

Yes, it is, an insanity, a subtle and tempting one, but an insanity nonetheless.

They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.

Not on the surface no, but there's been a long history of calls for "law and order" to conceal a deeply vicious cycle, especially against immigrants and yes, even terrorists. Yet have you noticed similar treatment of justice among other laws or sentiments that reflect a true concern? Do they ever speak against those who abuse and mistreat immigrants? Do they seek to have any other laws enforced?

Or are they like, Trump who says:

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy—really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights. They didn't talk. They were a terrorist—it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist? You go to Iraq. It's like Harvard. Okay?

Yay for despotism, right?

I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.

Why would you say that? What have you read? Do you understand what the Left or the media thinks? Or were one of you the people that believed everybody thought Trump would never win? I'd thought he'd never actually run, but win?

But sure, blaming the PC Police is pretty common on the Right. It's the bogeyman that lets any idiot say whatever they want, and get the crowd to cheer, because those damn PC-sticklers will be offended!

He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.

Oh wow, he got one right. Or so he believes

I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for.

Thank goodness, can you imagine if that was allowed to happen again AND the man behind it was still within spitting distance of the Presidency?

Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane.

Yes, it is, an insanity, a subtle and tempting one, but an insanity nonetheless.

They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.

Not on the surface no, but there's been a long history of calls for "law and order" to conceal a deeply vicious cycle, especially against immigrants and yes, even terrorists. Yet have you noticed similar treatment of justice among other laws or sentiments that reflect a true concern? Do they ever speak against those who abuse and mistreat immigrants? Do they seek to have any other laws enforced?

Or are they like, Trump who says:

Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, right? He was a bad guy—really bad guy. But you know what he did well? He killed terrorists. He did that so good. They didn't read 'em the rights. They didn't talk. They were a terrorist—it was over. Today, Iraq is Harvard for terrorism. You want to be a terrorist? You go to Iraq. It's like Harvard. Okay?

Yay for despotism, right?

I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.

Why would you say that? What have you read? Do you understand what the Left or the media thinks? Or were one of you the people that believed everybody thought Trump would never win? I'd thought he'd never actually run, but win?

But sure, blaming the PC Police is pretty common on the Right. It's the bogeyman that lets any idiot say whatever they want, and get the crowd to cheer, because those damn PC-sticklers will be offended!

He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.

Oh wow, he got one right. Or so he believes

But radical Muslims blowing up other Muslims? Not a peep.

Drudge Report was all over the Istanbul bombing almost as soon as it happened. CNN reported too. As did Fox News...

Today — the next day — New York Times had their article. And Washington Post.

Are you taking your talking points from these dimwits, perhaps?

"Europeans are off the chart left. Socialism will never work."

Your fire and car insurance seem to do just fine with such a socialist ideas, so does the US postal system, military defense, highways, fire department, bridges, garbage collection, public libraries (Those are large houses of stone where people go to read stuff)

and a few dozen other ones.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Compare for example the treatment Hillary is getting due to her private email “scandal” to that of General David Petraeus. Hillary has been accused of hosting a personal email server that “might” have made classified documents less secure, even though the documents in question were not classified as secret at the time she received and/or sent them. (Side note: some government documents receive secret classifications “at birth”, while other can be retroactively classified as secret.) In order for Clinton to have committed a criminal act, she would have had to knowingly and willfully mishandle material that was classified at the time she did so. After months of investigation no one has accused her of doing that, and it doesn’t appear as if anyone will.

General Petraeus on the other hand, while he was Director of the CIA, knowingly gave a journalist, who was also his mistress, a series of black books which according to the Justice Department contained, “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions quotes and deliberative discussions from high level National Security Council meetings and [Petraeus’] discussions with the president of the United States of America.” Petraeus followed that up by lying to numerous government officials, including FBI agents, about what he had done. And lets not forget that according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, adultery is itself a court-martial offense. And I remind you that none of this is in dispute. Petraeus admitted to all of it.

Petraeus’ violations were significantly more egregious than anything Clinton is even remotely accused of. And yet Republicans and other Hillary foes are howling about her issue, wearing “Hillary for Prison 2016” t-shirts while insisting that this disqualifies her from public office. Meanwhile even after pleading guilty to his crimes Petraeus continued to be the recipient of fawning sentiments from conservatives. Senator John McCain stated that, “All of us in life make mistakes and the situation now, I hope, can be put behind him” Politico quoted a former military officer who worked with Petraeus as calling the entire situation “silly”. Prominent Republicans have already made it clear that they would call him back to work in the highest levels of government if they win the Presidency. And some are still attempting to convince him to seek the Presidency himself.

Why is Hillary Clinton being held to such an obviously different standard than Petraeus? Is it really only politics

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

In 2016, 8 years after he was no longer president, the "It's Bush's fault" is getting a little worn-thin, particularly when she was part of the government that sent us to war.

Oh, and Clinton's speech supporting her vote in favor:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Who knows, maybe Clinton's "indictment" could lead to war crimes charges for the Bush cabal? There is no statute of limitations on war crimes, IIRC.

In 2016, 8 years after he was no longer president, the "It's Bush's fault" is getting a little worn-thin, particularly when she was part of the government that sent us to war.

Oh, and Clinton's speech supporting her vote in favor:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Gee, I wonder which jurisdictions have lower rates of home invasions?

Hard to say, home invasion is not necessarily a term in use everywhere.

There is data but you may consider it suspect.

When convicted criminals (burglars) are interviewed there's one thing they all agree on: getting shot by a homeowner is their number one fear. Getting caught is their number two fear.

Really? Can you post some?

It's just like the whole gun "debate". I say "debate" because it's only a debate when clear conclusions cannot be drawn from the facts.

Facts, as they say, are slippery things, especially when some sides make them up.

It's more like an article of religious faith at the altar of political ideology and a general "guns are icky" feeling when clear conclusions can be made and a "debate" persists. States which make it easy to conceal-carry have lower rates of violent crime. Mass shootings overwhelmingly happen in "gun free zones". Chicago, a city where it's nearly impossible to legally own a gun, has tons of shootings.

Actually, a lot of the pro-gun movement has its own ideology, and it's own "Guns are cool" feeling, because you know what? Crime has dropped across the country, mass shootings are rare incidents that don't really determine the events that concern us, and Chicago has lots of problems, including many revealed in a recent investigation of its police department.

I could go on and on but the point is clear: criminals who are willing to commit murder aren't afraid of being charged with weapons violations. Law-abiding folks who view criminal charges and jail as something that will ruin their life because they have a lot to lose, those people obey weapons restrictions. Those people tend not to be armed unless it is legal. Criminals don't want a gunfight in which they can easily die, criminals want an easy target. Conceal-carry means anyone is potentially armed so choosing a would-be victim becomes a lot more dangerous. This discourages crimes of opportunity which most robberies and the like are.

Despite popular belief, very few homicides are actually by criminals engaged in criminal enterprise. You're more likely to be murdered by somebody who has a relationship to you than a random criminal. FBI statistics.

Also the hypocrisy is amusing. The politicians who are all anti-gun always have armed guards. Isn't that something? Most people who are anti-gun are okay with police being armed.

You mean people draw a distinction between professionals and civilians? So??

This is strange because a police officer who shoots someone is almost never charged or held personally accountable. A private citizen who shoots someone can be guaranteed to be investigated and prosecuted if it was unjustified. Yet they're okay to have the parties with the least accountability holding the power of lethal force? This is a strange belief system and you can tell that it's strange because it has difficulty providing simple, clear reasons to justify itself.

Oh, you want to talk police accountability? Or even private citizen accountability? Sorry, but it's not the pro-gun movement that is doing that, instead they're the ones who are telling us POLICE are the victims of a massive conspiracy, at greater risk, and also pushing for laws to make citizens even less accountable.

But don't let any facts get in your way.

After all, you have your own religious faith to follow, right?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

The companies made unions the scapegoats for their own poor decisions.
Odd how the unions are still there though.
And the auto industry recovered (following a few bailouts).
And American cars are as good as ever.

http://www.examiner.com/articl...

Odd: Portland is consistently voted as one of the top places to live in America, with a thriving downtown, high rate of entrepreneurial activity, and a great place to raise a family.

Portland is far more liberal than Detroit ever was.
And its one of the best cities in the nation.

Detroit's problems wasn't liberalism.
It was the loss of its tax base.

As a result of white flight following the migration of minorities migrated to the area for manufacturing jobs, the tax base of the city decreased beyond sustainable levels, even while the city had outstanding obligations (pensions etc) to people who no longer lived there. the result was a migration of money out of the city; city dollars weren't being respent within the city, but in the surrounding area. its a problem almost every major metropolitan area has faced and had nothing to do with liberalism or democrats. Detroit (which has been recovering steadily the past few decades btw) was simply the biggest example of a problem that struck every major manufacturing hub regardless of party affiliation. pointing out Detroit while ignoring all the other parts of the rust belt that has similarly struggled and declined is simply ignorance.

I have no reports on whether or not this guy is also a flat-earther.

Just scroll down a bit and you'll find plenty of pro-hydrogen, anti-EV posts right here in today's thread.

When a ./ account is shilling for a point, are they considered a person, or are they a paid mouth for someone else's viewpoint?

Keep in mind, not all /. users are "real people" - they're accounts, some folks have multiple accounts, some are sold to highest bidders, and others are... managed: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

(keep in mind, that was 5 years ago, and now there are mulitiple such endeavors to essentially allow more "organic-looking" astroturfing).

I await your scientifically based paper that says that 89% of data collection stations aren't positioned right.

Too late for this tactics. Your fellow alarmists have already accepted the figure — and tried to defend their colleague's incompetence with the "weighting" and "adjusting".

All that was not kept was the CRU's copies of that data.

I hate to ask this cliche question, but "Are you stupid or a liar?" CRU have already admitted losing the data — irretrievably.

This may not prove that they are cooks, but your continuing attempts to deny it certainly makes you look incomplete...

I've already given you a couple of examples several time [...] Someone with a lawyer's mindset like you insists the forms be followed.

Gee, you keep calling me "a lawyer" instead of simply posting in the — perfectly reasonable — format I requested.

Besides, are lawyers really bad? I don't see you objecting, when they are used to prosecute "denialiasts" — First Amendment be damned...

By my calculations the sea level rise from 1990 to the start of 2016 is around 80 mm, clearly greater than the projections from the IPCC in 2001.

Seriously? Do you even realize, what you posted? The "prediction" you cited is waay off — according to you! 80 mm instead of the predicted 50-60... What a way to prove validity of a scientific theory!

And it exposes a thing about you and yours — you seek not truth, but a confirmation for your pre-conceived notions. That is why you made this very blunder.

For you a good scientific study is one, that confirms global warming — preferably anthropogenic. It is your primary (if not the sole) criteria. You are no scientist today — even if you ever were...

And then I can not help but notice, that you chose to ignore my question about whether or not you have (less articulate?) collaborators here, who leave the arguing to you while modding me down and you — up. Such question-dodging confirms my suspicions — I'm dealing with a cabal. Whether you are tightly organized or loosely collaborating, I find myself bare-knuckled in a gunfight...

We know that Microsoft has paid shills. The game is to figure out who they are. The hard part is that so many naive people are rabid Microsoft fans, refusing to believe that their heroes can do anything wrong, or younger engineers who have been in the Windows monoculture since birth and so lack relevant breadth of experience.

Does a sockpuppet by any other name sound as shrill?

Two Words: Persona Management

Climate scientists are the same as "shamans" because you, on an emotional level, do not like their conclusions.

No, they are the same as shamans, because they seem unable to make a successful scientific predictions. Try to find and cite any — you'll see for yourself.

Here are the rules:

1. Each citation must contain two links: one to a prediction, the second — to the prediction coming true within, say, 80% of the predicted value (if it were quantifiable).
2. The two links must be several years apart from each other — lauding a prediction after it came true is not acceptable.
3. Each prediction needs to be marginally useful: things like "temperature will rise or fall" does not qualify.

I've been challenging various alarmists with the above and got nothing interesting back (except name-calling and down-modding)...

It's gotta hurt when you're literally stealing tactics of creationists.

Huh? Darling, it is you and yours doing it — using religious arguments to promote "action on global warming" — not me.

I have to say, if it is public posts, what's the problem?

The problem is that SnapTrends passes on the posts to school security, and school security passes on the posts to the police.

The problem is that school security, and the police, can interrogate students under coercion.

Students in a situation like that don't have a right to a lawyer, and they may not even have a right to remain silent.

Police are skilled at manipulating adults, to say nothing of children, into false confessions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the school police have been prosecuting normal childhood behavior as crimes.

As Slashdot readers could guess, they prosecute minority children disproportionately http://njdc.info/wp-content/up...

Example in point: Lazy "undercover cop" has a secret drug sting and nabs an Autistic student who likely has no idea what's going on: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Shit like this happens all the time - only in extreme cases like this (the school district tried to expel student after he graduated - only to ruin the student's life) where the situation is pretty clear, and the parents are super-engaged to fight does it come out in the light.

All part of the job for corrupt school administrators, cops, and even school district boardmembers who benefit and profit from the prison industry: https://www.aclu.org/fact-shee...

Is this a 50% tax on profits, or gross revenues?

In either case, I think a 50% tax makes many businesses not viable. Across the US we have huge unemployment issues, and many young people are unemployed. This is a negative situation, and is putting the social safety net at risk. Companies move where the taxes are lowest.

It appears that many small businesses pay much more in taxes than do the large multinationals employing the double irish with a dutch sandwich

Furthermore, the US already has worldwide taxation that leads to double taxation, whereas most countries utilize a territorial taxation system. Worldwide taxation leads to companies keeping their earnings abroad to mitigate the double tax when they return them to the US

High taxes, unemployment, and high welfare can create perverse incentives for people needing income.

I don't think a 50% tax is going to solve any of those problems.

In summary:
We need tax reform
We need territorial taxation
We need to address taxation for smaller businesses
We need something like basic income that is more equitable

Many are probably burnt-out Amazon workers already

Neat how the RWNJ's are ignoring the part where that's talking about prosecuting companies

Distinction without difference. The First Amendment protects us all. Of course, the totalitarian assholes seeking to prosecute opinions would start with the most prominent targets. But they'll get to the less known eventually. Right here is another such asshole, allowing his opponents to hear his sacred truth only once. If they aren't convinced the first time, they are "deliberately lying" and should be prosecuted: "why WOULDN'T we?" — he passionately asks.

What would such bigotry achieve? The serene unanimity as in Saddam Hussein's Iraq and today's North Korea, that's what. Scratch a "climate alarmist", and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath...

Same as the cigarette and asbestos industries spent decades denying that their products were inherently harmful.

Cigarettes caused discernible harm. Perhaps, asbestos did too (if you snorted it). No real harm has been caused by "deniers" — whether they are right or wrong. And even Mr. Nye is not accusing them of such — only of hurting his feelings: "hurting my quality of life as a public citizen".

Look, Denialists, lets make a deal: you guys can all move out to the Maldives.

The islands of Tasmania and Kodiak stopped being peninsulas only a few thousands years ago. Are you going to blame the early humans' burning fires for that?

Is it, perhaps, the fault of ancient Egyptians and Greek, that some of their cities are under the waters of Mediterranean? No? Why not? Surely plenty of contemporary priests blamed the populace's sins for angering the contemporary gods...

I find your attempts to blame Maldives' difficulties on me about as justified. Curiously, some alarmists have taken the same religious attitude too.

Yes, they are. Otherwise the percentage of the "middle class" would have grown. And BLS has a lot more statistics than weekly income. Anyway, see here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

You're just rattling off an endless stream of progressive talking points and apparently can't decide what point you are trying to argue. I can tell you this: as an immigrant, I have had much greater economic mobility in the US than in Europe. And the belly-aching from people like you just strikes me as laughable.

No, and it actually can be proven. There is no correlation between US state GDP and income growth and the amount of regulations.

Actually, there is, and numerous studies have shown that, both at the country and at the state level. http://politicalcalculations.b...

If your goal is to return good old 60-s when rivers were catching fire from deregulated dumping, then I suggest you move to China.

Environmental disasters in the US and elsewhere have been due to government protecting big industries from liability in the past. That kind of environmental protectionism has been reduced over the last few decades, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, environmental regulations still provide cover for industry to harm people.

That's nonsense. None of these trends are "overwhelming", and the BLS statistics only account for median gross weekly income, a lousy measure of where people are "moving".

Yes, they are. Otherwise the percentage of the "middle class" would have grown. And BLS has a lot more statistics than weekly income. Anyway, see here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

It certainly has grown much less than it should, largely due to costly government mandates and taxes.

No, and it actually can be proven. There is no correlation between US state GDP and income growth and the amount of regulations.

If your goal is to return good old 60-s when rivers were catching fire from deregulated dumping, then I suggest you move to China.

Who do you think is going to pay, say, for ACA? Or new financial regulations?

And who would bear the risks and costs of financial deregulation and ACA repeal? Read my lips: "not the top 1%".

Here are four more times:

International Environmentalism: Flaunting White Privilege
Environmentalism is Political White Privilege
Whiteness and Sustainability: Reflecting on Race, Class, and Green Living
On Why the Environmental Movement is Failing to "Diversify"

The prols have noticed that "environmentalism" is an anxiety indulged almost exclusively by conformable white folk.

the constant checking of facts has brought it to a level that no religion can ever reach

Religion is quite explicitly not a science and deals not in facts, but in beliefs.

No, Science — and Scientists — ought to be judged on their own merits and record. If you must compare scientific disciplines with something, it can only be other scientific disciplines. For example, we know, that Psychology is less reliable than Physics, for example. And that Climate Science is yet to make a prediction, that is both meaningful and correct — indeed, it is already treated as religion by some of the more fervent adherents.

Well, if the law is from 1789, clearly they should have to unlock the phone using tools available at the time the law was written

By that logic, your speech is only protected if printed or actually spoken — the only means available, when the Bill of Rights was ratified.

And the Second Amendment only applies to muskets (but not to knives and swords for some reason).

Keep believing those right-wing talking points on debt. https://www.dailykos.com/story...

After nearly 240 years, someone has finally figured out how to solve poverty, higher taxes! I'm surprised nobody has thought of that before. The (Federal, not NY State) income tax rate has varied from 70% under Carter to 28% under Reagan. Was poverty solved in either case?

Here's a conservative perspective.

Here's a progressive perspective.

Have lower/higher taxes been tried before? Did it succeed? If not, how is this time different? What is your metric; how will you measure the impact of your implemented policy position on poverty?

Now, this is key: find the best counterargument to your position, and thoughtfully address the most difficult questions posed by that counterargument. Simply dismissing an opponent's view is an indication that you are uninformed.

Few of us are policy wonks who have the time to delve deeply into the details of a particular policy, so often we rely instead on analyses of think tanks, and opinion pieces. This is fine, but are you also sincerely coming to understand the counterargument? Fox News vs. The Huffington Post, National Review vs The New Republic. Can you make the counterargument? Can you go to a cocktail party and fool people that you are conservative/liberal when you are actually liberal/conservative? If not then you aren't doing it right.

This is a sympathetic article designed to sow confusion about this stuff. The article made the true but irrelevant statement that of a recent batch of emails not many were classified and those not Top Secret; it repeated Hillary Clinton's assertion that nothing she sent or received was marked classified, without discussing what is questionable about that assertion; it didn't mention how many Top Secret emails were found, didn't mention the satellite data or the discussion of the names of spies, and didn't mention that about 7% of all the emails were classified at some level. It also didn't mention that the State Department offered a Blackberry and Huma Abedin said that idea "doesn't make a whole lot of sense." But the article did spend several paragraphs talking about how well she is doing in the primaries.

Problems with Hillary Clinton's claims that no material was marked classified:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/8/28/1416309/-Hillary-Clinton-s-Felony-The-federal-laws-violated-by-the-private-server
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/09/judicial-watch-hillary-e-mailed-classified-info-to-get-printout-without-any-identifiers/
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politics/hillary-clinton-emails-server-classified-ig-report/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

Names of spies discussed in insecure email, lives probably lost:
http://observer.com/2016/02/breaking-hillary-clinton-put-spies-lives-at-risk/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3413033/Hillary-s-emails-contained-classified-information-HUMAN-SPYING-State-Department-says-won-t-meet-deadline-publish-emails.html

Satellite data discussed in emails:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3196774/Hillary-s-emails-contained-secret-CIA-intelligence-satellite-info-panic-hits-Democrats-campaign-issues-4-000-word-explanation-s-innocent.html

7% of emails classified... 2079 out of about 30,000:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/new-email-release-brings-final-total-of-classified-clinton-emails-to-2079.php

"doesn't make a whole lot of sense":
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/18/state-to-huma-in-2011-your-boss-better-get-an-official-e-mail-account/

P.S. So Hillary Clinton wanted a mobile device that could be used for secure communications, and was told "nope, that's not secure, you can visit the SCIF just like everyone else has to do." So naturally she just used her own insecure server to send and receive classified information, so she could use her mobile device. Great.

If President Obama doesn't pardon Hillary Clinton, she will have problems fr

Pretty much every powerful political, military, and business leader in Central America had ties to the drug trade in the 80s.

And Reagan had ties to them all.

So the best you can say is Reagan gave tacit approval to the CIA flooding the inner cities with crack cocaine. The documents that survived Ollie North's "shredding party" confirm this.

And never forget:

"By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever."

Here's a list of them, too:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

"...the worst ever."

How many Russian trolls inhabit /. to mark this crap informative? Every single word is straight out of the Russian propaganda playbook. Not a single statement resembles reality.

'This is Karl Rove territory. The principle seems to be, "Whatever you do that is evil, blame your opponent for it first." I propose to call this The Rove Doctrine'. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Though this should not be surprising since there is no word for truth in the Russian language.

"Pravda". Although any linguistics expert will tell you that, if a language did lack a word for "truth", that would actually suggest that the speakers did not know how to lie.

The fact this St. Petersburg-based Russian troll used Russian insider as their source should be the clearest evidence this is nothing but blatant propaganda on the part of the Kremlin trolls.

'This is Karl Rove territory. The principle seems to be, "Whatever you do that is evil, blame your opponent for it first." I propose to call this The Rove Doctrine'. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

How many Russian trolls inhabit /. to mark this crap informative? Every single word is straight out of the Russian propaganda playbook. Not a single statement resembles reality.

'This is Karl Rove territory. The principle seems to be, "Whatever you do that is evil, blame your opponent for it first." I propose to call this The Rove Doctrine'. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Though this should not be surprising since there is no word for truth in the Russian language.

"Pravda". Although any linguistics expert will tell you that, if a language did lack a word for "truth", that would actually suggest that the speakers did not know how to lie.

The fact this St. Petersburg-based Russian troll used Russian insider as their source should be the clearest evidence this is nothing but blatant propaganda on the part of the Kremlin trolls.

'This is Karl Rove territory. The principle seems to be, "Whatever you do that is evil, blame your opponent for it first." I propose to call this The Rove Doctrine'. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Here are some primers:

Courtesy of Wikipedia:

Dominion Theology is a theocratic ideology that seeks to implement a nation governed by conservative Christians ruling over the rest of society based on their understanding of biblical law

Courtesy or DailyKos:

Dominionism, also called Christian Reconstructionism is, simply put, the belief that Christians must take over the planet, and only then can/will Christ return. It is the duty of the Church to take power, and use that power to establish “biblical law” across the globe over time.

As Gary North (previously mentioned) said "So let us be blunt about it, we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Licensed drivers kill far more people than do murderers who use guns (whether obtained and possessed legally OR illegally). The irony here is that you think you're making some sort of constructive point, when you're actually undermining what appears to be your agenda.

This has to be the stupidest thing I've read in a very long time, even on /.

Overall death rates involving motor vehicles and firearms are roughly equal, somewhat in excess of 30,000 per year in the U.S. (The motor vehicle death rate is comparable to other developed nations, while the firearm death rate is far higher.) If you want to talk only about "muderers who use guns", then the relevant comparison is firearm homicides (more than 8,000 in 2011according to the FBI), to vehicular homicides, which are so rare that it is difficult to even find statistics on them. A few hundred a year at most.

Aerosmith frontman asks Trump campaign to stop using song
Adele tells Donald Trump to stop pinching her songs for his campaign

When politicians use music without asking permission