Slashdot Mirror

How's that #Resistance working out for ya?

Trump Approval Jumps As Attacks From Critics Backfire; Trump Now More Popular Than FBI: IBD/TIPP Poll

Increasingly bitter and aggressive attacks on President Trump managed to bolster his approval rating, which climbed 5 points to reach the second highest level of his presidency, the latest IBD/TIPP Poll finds.

And 3/4 of EVERYONE now thinks the media deliberately and routinely pushes purposely-fabricated stories

You working for Trump?

Right...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...
https://www.investors.com/poli...
https://www.bizjournals.com/sa...

Really? I don't even know where to start.

Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it - https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.

Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation? Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on.

So, what in the WashPo indicates anything was wrong, other than 1 $500K donation in 2010? And the only thing wrong there appears to be clerical. And you don't think the IRS audited them? I know they audited them again in 2016, at the behest of 64 Republicans. Where are those Republicans when it's time to audit the Trump Organization charities? As for them taking money - please provide proof. That they take money for speaking? Yes they do. As does every other single ex-president. Uranium One - again, provide proof. I've seen a lot of accusations, zero proof. And that's the problem.

Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.

https://www.investors.com/poli... https://www.theatlantic.com/po... http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

A reference to an editorial that links to another set of editorials? That's the best you can do? In fact, your second link proves that there was nothing untoward with the Uranium One deal. If anything, it shows extreme partisan bias being wielded to denigrate a potential candidate. (After all, where's the investigation of the other 8 departments that approved U-One, or even the assertion that Clinton swung the vote somehow, or influenced the other 8?)

How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...

Ah yeah, Gruber, the self-important self-grandizing model that Gulliani is out-grandizing.... Anyone that didn't get the message that the healthy would pay in to help lower (subsidize) the costs for the unhealthy should probably be in a mental ward. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it at least attempted to address the healthcare issues for the people, no matter how badly. The then existing system was setup to only support healthy people and maximize profits. Not really a healthcare solution.

The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.

The only argument I have with your statement is that Hillary was not disbarred. Facts are important. And FWIW, back in 2000 or so, when people said Hillary would make a run for president, I pointed to the TV and stated that the only way Hillary would be elected is if someone like Trump, standing next to Bill and Hillary, was her opponent. I really do wish I'd bet on her presidential run. Make no mistake about it, the only reason she lost to asshat Trump is because of large amounts of disinformation floating about the rather fertile minefie

Further, it's clear she used her position for financial gain. Very clear. At the expense of the United States.

Is it? Is it really? Want to provide some proof of that financial gain? After all, if it's so clear, you should be able to provide whatever's needed for those hapless FBI guys so she can be charged tomorrow, right? TBH, I'm sick of you conspiracy nutjobs (both sides) that just keep on repeating some tripe you heard in one of your echo chambers. Put up some real documentation or shut up.

Really? I don't even know where to start.

Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it -
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.

Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation?
Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on. Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.

https://www.investors.com/poli...
https://www.theatlantic.com/po...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...

The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.

A Republican would already be years into his prison sentence by now if he did what she did at the same time.

Well, Trump's still going, and it's been documented that he's benefiting from his elected position. (His hotel in DC alone has a 50% increase in revenues since the presidency started, along with the sudden large number of legal actions in China going his and his family's way post election) I think you'll see more unsavory stories as administration actions are traced back to those that benefitted from them. Zinke is my personal favorite for next indictable current administration official. His actions as EPA head and interactions with lobbyists are billowing smoke. All that's needed is to find the fire.

Interesting. So what law has Trump broken because the Democrats would love to know of an actual law he's broken instead of the fake one - collusion. They've tried emoluments, other things that are very obscure and haven't been complained about in the history of the country. One by one they've been ruled to be not a concern. They're trying to conduct a coup. Just like they tried to do with Nixon.

GDP is doing very well, we're #1 again in the world. Consumer confidence is way back up. Unemployment is at a 43 year low. Black people are doing better than they have done under ANY Democratic President. Things are working a whole lot better. He's even bringing peace to the Korean peninsula. Something Obama really wanted to do and failed. He's putting politicians to shame all the way back to at least Eisenhower. Probably more like Lincoln. I thin

TDS also encompasses rooting for America's failure, placing blame on America, etc. as a way to indirectly attack Trump by reflecting America's failures onto him.

See also Bill Maher rooting for a recession or liberals rooting for nuclear war with NK purely and explicitly because they don't want Trump to get credit for doing something good.

You are not alone.
https://www.investors.com/news/technology/trump-reportedly-mulls-nationalizing-5g-wireless-networks-att-verizon-fall/

BULLSHIT. What about the Obama Election app that was downloaded more than a million times that harvested the data of all the users contacts? That puts the number around 190 million for Obama. https://www.investors.com/poli... That doesn't even count Obama's doing the exact same collection of data from people that signed up for Obama's campaign through facebook. Obama's campaign pulled the users contact list justs like Cambridge.

Nah, My long guns, e.g. shotgun's primary purpose is to dove and pheasant hunt. My 30-30 rifles primary purpose is to hunt white tail deer and caribou. My .22 pistol is for fun and target practice. I don't even shoot human silhouette targets with any guns or my bow.

Now a short shotgun or higher caliber pistol is for self defense or as you put it to potentially kill people. I would classify that as self defense since I'm not going to go shoot anyone that isn't threatening my life or that of my family. I even draw the line at property, that can be replaced. I have always carried the same 9 mm that was my service weapon and I certify every year with it to retain my concealed carry permit. I've never had to draw it in the line of duty or otherwise, but I am trained and convinced that in the worst of circumstances I could and would kill a 'bad' guy to save my own or another's life.

Come to think of it a car is far more dangerous to people than a gun is and you're far more likely to get run over than shot. I am very much for gun regulation, background checks and denial to felons that use a gun inappropriately, and certainly of those that are mentally unstable, but data from the most intolerant gun cities such as New York and Chicago fail to support how out lawing gun ownership prevents gun deaths.
https://www.investors.com/poli...

following the misuse of user data by Cambridge Analytica

The same "misuse" occurred in 2012, when it was hailed as Obama's genius and "mastery of Big Data". I don't understand, why anyone would use Facebook — and allow them to sell one's data — but to be suddenly scandalized by Cambridge Analytica's use of it is just blatant hypocrisy.

encrypted self deleting emails

What is this, Hollywood? No email on my system is getting deleted unless I delete it: "self deleting" emails aren't a thing. And *every* email today is, or should be, encrypted - or do you think they travel between the server and the client in plaintext?

Much of the rest of your post is similarly vague and hyperbolic. For example:

Did obama's campaign use fake web logs, fake news articles, and other knowingly factually incorrect sources, in a highly targeted approach to misdirecting unsuspecting undecided voters?

Yes. For example, any story that describes a gun used in a public shooting as an "assault rifle" is factually incorrect, and the Obama campaign was certainly sophisticated in the way it targeted undecided voters. Sending such a story to someone qualifies as "misdirecting". And if they trust the source, they qualify as "unsuspecting".

Of course, many voters don't trust news sources. But they *do* trust their friends. So the Obama campaign's app provided users with the means to spam their friends with pre-written campaign messages, appearing as having been written by that user. (See details.) That's not quite the same as pretending to be the user when messaging their friends, because the user still has some minimal engagement (pressing the button to send the message), but it's awfully close to impersonation. This is a form of scumminess that the Trump campaign hasn't exhibited - though, to be fair, it hasn't had the means to do so.

You do actually make some significant points. The Obama campaign, to my knowledge, didn't employ any foreign nationals for data collection. And its practices - particularly scraping the details of the friends of their app's users - would violate the current Facebook TOS, but was permissible at the time. But you detract from these points by including vague and hyperbolic statements like the ones I've criticised above.

From what I gather, Trump used the Cambridge data as an alternative to GOP data - in case his own party decided to shaft him. This was data bought without users consent.

Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data.

Just did a quick read here, no idea how accurate or biased the writeup may be.

TLDR; Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.

People signed up for it. Everyone seems to have forgotten or are too young to remember how Obama used social media for the first time in 2008 for a Presidential campaign. And with his first time, folks were very excited about him.

It's like what happened with Sanders in '16.

Cambridge, Trump and the Republicans did it behind folks' back.

Jesus Christ! And everyone who thinks it's the same between Obama and Trump? You have been fooled and lied to or are liars yourselves.

From what I gather, Trump used the Cambridge data as an alternative to GOP data - in case his own party decided to shaft him. This was data bought without users consent.

Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data.

Just did a quick read here, no idea how accurate or biased the writeup may be.

TLDR; Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.

So FB was actively complicit in gaving away for free to Obama, that a normal company would have had to pay for?

Hmm, did the Obama campaign report that as a political contribution-in-kind?

I'm going to guess "No".

From what I gather, Trump used the Cambridge data as an alternative to GOP data - in case his own party decided to shaft him. This was data bought without users consent.

Obama had a FB app that was optional and informed the users that it would gather data.

Just did a quick read here, no idea how accurate or biased the writeup may be.

TLDR; Trump bought data, Obama asked for it.

I think he was referring to the reactions over who used the data, not that is was used:
A former [Obama] campaign director, Carol Davidsen, tweeted that "Facebook was surprised we were able to suck out the whole social graph, but they didn't stop us once they realized that was what we were doing."

https://www.investors.com/poli...

He's an awful human being

And yet, you still have to call him "President" — and I smile every time I realize this. Imagining the expressions on the faces of your kind is why I for one started rooting for Trump, back when Jeb! was the favorite among Republicans.

But, of course, your spectacular hysterics, the exposure of your hypocrisy (such as the sudden love for the FBI and the NSA) are mere gravy on top of the economic boom, the actual energy independence), destruction of ISIS, and the bloodying of Russia's nose.

and should be removed

For that to happen, there must be proof — beyond reasonable doubt — of high crimes and misdemeanors having been committed by him. Seems rather unlikely, because — after 9 months of a Special Prosecutor busily prosecuting, you not only can't substantiate it, you can't even state a coherent accusation.

"Clueless", "narcissistic", "son of a bitch" (nice insult against his mother, BTW, congratulations) — these aren't evidence of a misdemeanor, much less of a crime. TFA does not help your goals of sabotaging the President in the slightest.

TRY to do better next time, or at least don't bother voting.

How interesting... So, you openly admit, you wish to disenfranchise all those, who vote differently from you... I wonder, what possible beef you can have with Russia...

You can be butthurt all you want

You certainly seem to be much more butthurt, than I can possibly wish you to be. Thank you for this post, it delighted me on a rainy afternoon. Have a great President's Day weekend.

That's actually the way pensions should be funded. Not as nebulous future payouts based on unrealistically optimistic projections of investment returns, which saddle future generations with debt when the actual returns fall short of those projections. It was literally Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today" ad infinitium. The Republicans caught a lot of flak for changing the requirement, but they correctly saw that the pension funds were being abused to shift debt from the present into the future (instead of giving the union a wage increase, you promise them a bigger pension). They changed the funding requirement to stop that abuse cold. You can no longer promise the postal union barrels of free beer in their retirement, and leave it up to future generations to figure out how to pay for it. You make the promise today, you have to pay for it today. This was crucially needed because without it, wage negotiations amounted to unions demanding the world, and managers agreeing to give it to them because they knew they'd be retired by the time anyone had to figure out how to fulfill their concessions.

Pre-funding the pension and spinning it off so the money is untouchable except by the people who are supposed to receive it prevents the possibility of pension bankruptcy. The way most pensions are set up (merely as a separate account within the company) leaves them vulnerable to abuse (embezzlement, underfunding) and bankruptcy. If the company goes bankrupt, the pensioners become merely creditors. They may not get paid until after other creditors, with the possibility of receiving only pennies on each dollar they were promised in pensions if they're far enough down the bankruptcy totem pole.

With a pre-funded pension operating independently (like a 401k or IRA), this cannot happen. The company made an obligation to pay Joe into his retirement, and they put the money to pay for it into his pension plan while he was working, thus insuring he gets paid even if the company ceases to exist. The only catch is instead of giving Joe a guaranteed fixed pension in his retirement, the pension should be defined as $x/mo being invested on his behalf while he's working, and his pension is whatever that works out to after compounding interest when he retires and begins collecting it (since his lifespan and investment growth is unpredictable).

Social Security has the same problem. The money you pay into SS is not being "saved" for your retirement. It's being used to pay current retirees (with a buffer of about a decade). Likewise, when you retire, the money you get from SS will not be money you put into it. It'll be money that the then-current generation of workers are paying into it. This happened because when SS was first enacted, the very first recipients got paid even though they'd never contributed a dime into it. (This is why SS is often accused of being a pyramid scheme, although that's slightly different.) If you want to guarantee SS solvency, you have to change it to a system that's pre-paid, like the USPS pension. Otherwise it could stay solvent or it might not, depending on inflation (cost of living), population growth, and increases in the average lifespan. Right now, there are about 2.9 workers per retiree. As that number goes down (due to decreasing birthrate and increasing lifespan), the risk of SS insolvency goes up.

More people die to automobiles then guns. /sarcasm Ban automobiles in the name of safety!

Banning a (common) tool just because a few idiots mis-use it is idiotic. i.e. My use case is not your use case.

The Paris Climate Agreement contains no enforcement mechanisms. That means it was created so countries could say they were doing something without having to actually do anything. We have been down this road before a couple times. So how is an unenforceable agreement going to "save the planet?" Its previous versions didn't.

You're taking it at face value. Even the UN admits the Paris deal is a fraud. Of course enforcement is a fraud. Of course the US is the only country required to actually do anything. Meanwhile China has more emissions than anyone yet gets special status. The treaty was all about virtue signalling and vague promises that were never intended to be delivered on while piling on the US. The only good thing about the US declining is that when the world police goes away the world will get to go to hell. Have fun with China calling the shots.

Citation: https://www.investors.com/poli...

https://www.investors.com/poli...

That's absurd. It's actually easier than just about any other dealing you will have with the government.

Assume you live in your current state. You were born in a neighboring state (pick one). Due to chaotic life events common to the poor, you've lost most of your possessions, including your expired driver's license, birth certificate, and all other forms of ID. You are living in a room you rent (no utility bills), and obviously don't have a vehicle.

This is not an uncommon circumstance for the poor, btw.

Now, look up what you would require to get state photo ID.

Still think it's easy?

I think that if you can't even get ID together then you've shown a *complete* inability to do basic tasks. Why would you advocate for such a person to vote? I take voting seriously enough to consider a minimum standard. While I agree that the minimum standard shouldn't be too high ID easily is met by that. Moreover, how do you suggest preventing fraud? What's to keep me from voting dozens of times? Or volunteering for voting booth duty and then filling in all the unclaimed ballots? Some level of fraud preventing is necessary to prevent things like having 3.5M more registered voters than citizens:

https://www.investors.com/poli...

Remember the outcry when 20,000 Coptic christian refugees his administration refused to grant visas to? Me neither.

Maybe because that story isn't even about visas, but about asylum applications (you do know the difference?) Maybe because that claim was made by Pamela Geller and thus staid in the fringe media where it belonged? Maybe because some "Coptic christians" were denied entry because they couldn't answer "Bible trivia" questions? Asked not by Obama, but by bible thumpers to weed out those not of true faith - or those who are actually Muslims who know that Christians have a better chance of getting through the process?

20,000 Coptic Christians want to know why Obama refused their visa requests

Remember the outcry when 20,000 Coptic christian refugees his administration refused to grant visas to? Me neither.

the mass market is what won things for Apple.

By "won" you mean a 13% market share? Which is more or less where BBRY was a couple years ago.

Maybe he means the 104% smartphone industry profit share.

http://www.investors.com/news/technology/click/apple-iphone-grabs-104-of-smartphone-industry-profit-in-q3/

The problem with the 'basic physics' is that we still don't know whether that's all and what negative feedback loops we have missed, or what loops still don't exist but will suddenly occur when temperature rises one degree, or more. It's all very non-linear, which makes it very complex and difficult to model and even more difficult to accurately predict. If you call this vague generalities' then maybe they are, but I stick to it nevertheless.
My other problem with AGW is that Al Gore wants me to pay for it so he can earn money off of it, which makes his propaganda a bit suspicious, and then there is this.
To be honest, I think we are being played and I smell a rat which they are trying to hide behind a huge pile of incomprehensible 'science'. Incomprehensible at least for the normal person.

The NHS relies upon the ingenuity of the Americans creating new techniques and improving technology. That is why the latest greatest techniques are generally found in the US and not in England. Innovation costs money, or is that irrelevant to the evaluating health care systems?

http://www.investors.com/polit...

https://www.theguardian.com/he...

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/hea...

It is really good, until it is threatened by cost overruns. But who cares, it is someone else's money.

Unless your definition of the "the people" really means "Californian people" - the election results disagree with you:

http://www.investors.com/polit...

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
Trump: + 1.4 million

Trump won more counties than any candidate since Ronald Reagan:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/tr...

The "the people" did vote for Trump. Our country is a Union of independent states. To win the presidency, you must not simply win the popular vote - you must win a preponderance of states. Disenfranchising low population states is how you start a civil war.

Unless your definition of the "Average American" really means "Average City-Dwelling Californian" - the election results disagree with you:

By every other measure Trump won in a landslide.

http://www.investors.com/polit...

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
Trump: + 1.4 million

Trump won more counties than any candidate since Ronald Reagan:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/tr...

The "average American" did vote for Trump.

It is extremely *likely* that a high number of illegals *did* vote. http://www.investors.com/polit... based on research done here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

I have no issue if California and New York want to let undocumented immigrants screw up their own country. But I am very discouraged when they let it affect national elections.

I just read the paper, and it says that MAYBE 38 non-citizens voted in 2008.

the US people preferred Clinton.

California preferred Clinton. Clinton's overall vote gap was, what, 3 million votes over Trump? But her vote gap in California was 4 million votes. So judging by just the OTHER 49 States Clinton lost the popular vote. Why should the rest of the country be held captive by the far left political preferences of just one state?

http://www.investors.com/polit...
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/m...

Last quarter Apple had 104% of the profits. I wouldn't call Samsung "significantly profitable." http://www.investors.com/news/...

By every other measure Trump won in a landslide.

http://www.investors.com/polit...

Number of states won:
Trump: 30
Clinton: 20
Trump: +10

Number of electoral votes won:
Trump: 306
Clinton: 232
Trump: + 68

Ave. margin of victory in winning states:
Trump: 56%
Clinton: 53.5%
Trump: + 2.5 points

Popular vote total:
Trump: 62,958,211
Clinton: 65,818,318
Clinton: + 2.8 million

Popular vote total outside California:
Trump: 58,474,401
Clinton: 57,064,530
Trump: + 1.4 million

We are a union of independent states. You must win a preponderance of states to win the presidency. All states matter.

"Canaccord Genuity analyst Michael Walkley said in a research report Sunday that Apple captured 75% of smartphone industry profits in the second quarter. But that's down from 84% in Q1 and 91% in Q2 2015, he said.

Apple's share of smartphone profits fell because of Samsung's improving profitability driven by streamlining its product lines along with strong demand for the Galaxy S7, Walkley said. Samsung's strong results are expected to continue in the third quarter ahead of the September launch of Apple's iPhone 7, he said."

"Samsung's share of smartphone industry profits improved to 31% in Q2, up from 22% in the first quarter and 19% in Q2 2015."

http://www.investors.com/news/...

Apple's profit share of the smartphone market was in steady decline, and Samsung and others were in ascension. The ONLY reason Apple is back up to 90%+ in Q3 is that Samsung's profit share evaporated in Q3 due to the recall expense. It's that simple.

"Sorry, yes."

> Apple has ceased to operate for profit

http://www.investors.com/news/...

Apple has about 12% of the market and is number two behind Samsung. Apple takes about 70% of the profit.

So what you're saying, is that iPhones are the most over-priced of all the devices. I don't know about you, but I don't see that as a selling feature....

Apple takes about 70% of the profit.

... I would argue that the "open source, changeable, free (do you mean as in beer or as in speech)" are not factors that most people care about. I think the majority of the smartphone users care about price and usability.

Why for the love of all that is holy would an end-user care about the amount of money the manufacturer makes? Apart from a dick-waving contest, of course? I would assume that the more money a company makes from my purchase, the *less* value I am getting from it.

The answer is obviously yes as Apple has about 12% of the market and is number two behind Samsung. Apple takes about 70% of the profit.

Apple has been losing share and profit, which I think is due to expansion in the lower price segment of the market and the improved quality of Android based phones. I would argue that the "open source, changeable, free (do you mean as in beer or as in speech)" are not factors that most people care about. I think the majority of the smartphone users care about price and usability.

Envirowackos are disappointed that Mathew wasn't worse

Reputation scarring? With today's attention span? Fucking please. A reputation destroyed today will be utterly forgotten about tomorrow.

Maybe; but I'll bet the iPhone 7 got a bit of an unexpected sales bump from the Samsung Explode-a-Phone...

Well, "the Street" seems to think so,

I would expect any future candidate to at least take their required national security training which she refused to do. Of course, if you didn't have the training, it's really easy to call handling classified information "a mistake", rather than a willful violation...

Yes, that's the spirit! Brush off all the lies — by smearing those, who bring them up, if necessary.

Whatever it takes, stick to your champion until the end, however bitter. If only other Clinton-supporters were as iron-willed as you, she'd have had no problem going through that glass ceiling without even so much as a headache...

Apple are sitting at either $55.3 billion or $233 billion depending on whether you count long-term securities. They must be doing something right in terms of profit if they can amass that much money.

Looks like Samsung about doubles Apple's smartphone sales.

Sorry, I take facts over your handwaving and rantings.

The ejection risk is to lightweight pilots ( < 136 lbs / 62 kg). The temporary solution thusfar has just been to ban lightweight pilots from flying it. Ejection is an inherently very stressful act on the body. For lightweight pilots on the F35, it's too stressful.

Only the F-35A has a 25mm cannon at all; obviously systems common to all aircraft have priority. The cannon is new - a lighter and more accurate version of the GAU-12/U. The schedule is for the gun to go online in 2017. It was on schedule last I checked.

As for the GP, I'll let actual pilots of the aircraft respond. And note that that is about dogfighting, an increasingly less relevant portion of an aircraft's activity. The whole philosophy behind the F-35 is to detect and engage targets from further away than they can detect and engage the F-35. Aka, if the F-35 is in a dogfight, it's already done something wrong to begin with.

Okay, here you go. Want another? ;)

-we have more allies than just Israel. and most of them were alienated by bush the lesser, and those relationships repaired by Obama.

W put together a coalition of 48 countries for the Iraq war. Most of those contributed little but they were signed on.

I'm really interested to hear which countries were alienated by W and when the alienation occurred. I Googled for "George W Bush alienated" and found this, which is an article saying that President Obama's administration is doing such a horrible job that it makes the W administration look good.

-our military is in NO WAY in shambles

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-navy-doesnt-have-enough-ships-send-marines-crisis-zones-may-borrow-foreign-vessels-1990659

https://news.usni.org/2015/11/04/navy-half-the-carrier-fleet-tied-up-in-maintenance-other-5-strained-to-meet-demands

https://news.usni.org/2015/11/19/report-navy-and-marine-corps-strained-to-breaking-point-second-forward-carrier-in-the-pacific-could-help

https://military.id.me/aircraft/marines-forced-raid-military-museum-aircraft-parts/

"The U.S. Air Force is now short 4,000 airmen to maintain its fleet, short 700 pilots to fly them and short vital spare parts necessary to keep their jets in the air. The shortage is so dire that some have even been forced to scrounge for parts in a remote desert scrapheap known as 'The Boneyard.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/14/wiped-out-air-force-losing-pilots-and-planes-to-cuts-scrounging-for-spare-parts.html

http://dailysignal.com/2015/12/04/is-the-obama-administration-trying-to-wreck-the-military/

-labor participation is dropping regardless of anything any one does. it has to do with the boomers retiring, not the economy.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louisefron/2014/08/20/tackling-the-real-unemployment-rate-12-6/

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-but-the-real-unemployment-rate-is-9-8-not-5/

-inequality is horrible, but its not thanks to the current occupant, but rather the past several decades of structural issues in the economy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/income-inequality-obama-bush_n_1419008.html

-maybe you forgot, but the economy crashed a few years ago. of course stamps are up, and will remain up until people get back to where they were. that's what they are for

As a candidate, and then as President, Mr. Obama was quite willing to blame W for the economy. Mr. Obama didn't cut W any slack on the economy; why should I be more forgiving toward Mr. Obama than he was toward his predecessor?

And a robust economy helps people... "a rising tide lifts all boats." The Obama recovery is the worst economy recorded in modern times. It's nearly flatline.

They're "requesting" it in the same way that Vinnie from the mob "requests" protection money.

That's what the "strong state", that Statists constantly bleat about, brings.

It is inevitable. If you want the government to "take care" of you: educate your children, treat your sickness, punish the "evil corporations" for not providing you the service you want or even in a manner you want, ban the speech you don't want to hear, etc., they will become big enough to be able to destroy you for opposing them:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

Vinnie from the mob backs his question by a threat of illegal activity: he will break your knee and/or window, if you refuse. The government does not do that — armed with the leverage given to them by the electorate, they may audit your tax-returns back into Stone Age, confiscate your bank-accounts, cancel (or not renew) your business license (somehow, operating a business stopped being a right and became a privilege), open investigations into your business practices (sexual and racial discrimination, anyone?). All legal, all enthusiastically supported by the same sheep, who claim, the money they pay in taxes "buys civilization".

I hope you agree that even if the government "can" currently do that (given that it's unlikely to prosecute itself for its own crimes)

I ask you again: what crimes? Please, cite the law being broken.

it should cease doing so

Cease what, exactly? Asking people questions about other people?

Nobody has presented public evidence that ANY were clearly classified at the time she sent/received them.

Zilcho.

Irrelevant, and false: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest

Plus, some things are "born classified". They do not need "clear markings" to be classified, and she knew this.

Oh, and then there is the email in which she ordered someone to strip the classified markings from a document. Quote: "If they can't, turn into non paper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure." That's a smoking gun in my book. If you or I did that, we'd be in federal prison right now.

People get angry when they're being manipulated.

1. The temperature records show that we've been hotter than we are right now -- pre industrial revolution.

2. There is significant evidence that man has contributed to high CO2 levels in the last century.

3. AGW Nazi's claim we need to gas everyone (economically or physically) to reverse those man-made levels.

But this doesn't follow: it means that nature has often eclipsed man's industrial output. Essentially even if we wipe out all of man's affects on nature -- nature can still warm the planet beyond current levels.

AGW Nazi's will double-down and say we need to hurry up and gas the populace before nature changes her mind and goes warm again on top of man's contribution. But this is harder to accept when they themselves concede that the AGW Nazi policies are just a form of militant socialism.