Slashdot Mirror

Always a difficult issue, annexing territory with approval of the population.

Not difficult at all. First of all, how do you even know, there was an actual "approval of the population"? Residents of an occupied territory "voting" in support of the occupying power — is that really that convincing to you?

But even if a respectable proportion did sincerely want Russia to come over and "protect them". Imagine Mexico "reinforcing" Southern California and Arizona... Why? To protect the Spanish speaking people from the imminent threat of "Nazis" — like Donald Trump and Joe Arpaio... And claim "historical ownership" of the lands going back to Santa Anna.

Will you really have any difficulty deciding, whether it was an "invasion" and seek a different term? What if they promptly organize a referendum on whether to join Mexico — will you accept its results?

we can still talk to them and respect them on the international stage

No, we can't. Russia delenda est. The country — since long before Lenin — is a constant threat to liberty and peace world-wide with nothing especially valuable to justify it... There is definitely nothing to "respect" them for — not even their lousy weaponry.

Here's a story from 2014 about the same thing. I got bit by this bogus behavior around this time, too. I can't remember what the extension was, but whatever it was was something very useful that I probably don't miss now that I can't remember it.

How many so-called christians are still arguing against same-sex marriage? About wanting to be able to legally discriminate against gays and lesbians? About wanting to tell transsexual women they have to expose themselves to danger by having to pee in men's bathrooms?

Also, the 2015 Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shootings left 3 dead and 9 wounded. The killer was a delusional fundamentalist christian, probably stirred up by all the anti-planned parenthood hype the fundies have been pushing. So whether he was "really" a christian or not, fundie christians have to bear much of the responsibility for the killings. Same as they do for other violent acts. Same as the pastor calling for hunting permits

You're also being totally ignorant about all the killings done by Christians in Uganda - pushed by American evangelicals. And trying to export it to other parts of the continent, including South Africa.

And the baptist minister who, during the election campaign, said to kill the gays as the cure for AIDS. And of course, there's the rampant pedophilia in many Christian churches. More of his rants here. A chip off the old Westboro Baptist block.

Freedom of speech is not a license to foment hate. Fortunately, other countries are banning such stupidity.

...and making all good looking girls wanting to have sex with me I would consider buying it for that price.

All you need to do is buy the $1200 iPhone 8 & then add the $1000 I am Rich app.

Justice Dept rescinds order phasing out private prisons. Feb 23.

The voter rolls are public information that states may or may not make easy to get. They're normally available to anyone who follows the rules and pays the fee.

Or there's what California does.

A single, instantly updated list of registered voters in California became reality on Monday, as two final counties plugged in to an electronic database mandated by a federal law enacted in the wake of the contentious 2000 presidential campaign.

In other words, a database that was long overdue.

"they are much more environmentally friendly" With regards to CO2 they are a bit more friendly but due to emissions controls being lax for 2 wheelers they can be worse than cars, often a lot worse, Mythbusters covered it, pointing out that cars have had decades of ever tighter controls whilst motorbikes have had it easy.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

I wish out here in California (State Motto: we haven't taxed enough until everyone is on the public teat), we're spending hundreds of billions on high speed rail with no plan for a route, ensuring that people here illegally get better benefits than legal State residents, and for every dollar you spend on roads we spend $4.70. Even though our gas tax is supposed to be used exclusively for roads, much of it is spent on non-transportation issues. So we also raised our gas taxes but I fear we'll see most of that go to the general fund and not to what it's supposed to support...

Do we get much tourism from those countries?

The "Trump Slump" is affecting all international tourism to the US.

http://time.com/money/4687114/trump-slump-foreign-tourism-us-immigration-travel/

Two things -

First, You didn't answer the question that was posed. If you had answered it I think we would find remarkably little tourism from Syria and Yemen to the US, for example. Second, the answer that you did give "somehow" omits a long running important factor in the outcome. I'll give you a hand:

2015 - Will a Strong US Dollar Scare Away International Tourists?
2016 - How the strong dollar is hurting American tourism
2017 - Strong dollar, travel ban threaten California tourism, UCLA forecast says

Your "moderate" setting seems to be calibrated a little too close to "anti."

Also: http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

The company's CEO argues their technology deters crime by demonstrating to bad neighborhoods that police will respond quickly to gunshots.

Showing up is the tip of the iceberg. Communities of color suffer the paradox of being over-policed for trivial shit (jaywalking, open container, etc) and vastly under-policed for serious crimes like assault, rape, robbery and murder. The cops are happy to take the easy "wins" that barely matter, but even when they do respond to calls for serious crimes, there is rarely any follow-up. That's a big factor in the "don't snitch" attitude - talking to the cops doesn't help but it makes you a target for the criminals. Best to keep your mouth shut and hope "street justice" deals with it.

Shot-spotter isn't a solution for crime, its a solution for police public relations. Shiny high-tech gizmos play well in the news especially if they net a couple of "trophies," but actually stopping crime takes boring old police work and the manpower to back it up.

In the United States, there are some exceedingly narrow limitations on the freedom of expression outside the public airwaves (which I will not address because frankly I don't know much about them). One of the exceptional few them is outlined by Ohoio v. Brandenburg: "Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."

In order for speech to not be protected by the first amendment under Brandenberg, it must pass both requirements present in the last few words of the quote. You will note that generic death threats almost never pass this test. You will further note that this is nothing nearly like the overused "fire in a crowded theater" platitude that is quite wrong.

The correct response to speech you dislike is more speech (i.e. your own) or taking advantage of the numerous technologies available to personally block out speech you find disagreeable (freedom of expression does not require that other people listen).

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. You have to pay for that. If however you are an interested layman, like myself, I encourage you to read several articles published by noted First Amendment advocate and actual lawyer for same (in addition to his usual criminal defense gig) Ken White, who operates the lawblog "Popehat".

Cutting taxes is not giving.

It is, when those taxes were paying for services received, and instead of paying for them through taxes, you issue bonds which those wealthy snap up.

They double-dip, you know.

And, let's be real the taxes are not on the 0.01 percent. They are on the 10%.

You could confiscate 100% of the 0.01's money. Kill them for good measure. And you still would only have enough money to run the US Government for 4 months. (And that's assuming you get market share for their stocks. Obviously you would not as who would buy stocks under such a situation.)

So, people play the old bait and switch: look at the evil gaziollionaires. They need to pay their fare share - and since their money isn't enough they raise taxes on everyone.

Or we could do this.

You're just being stupid, raising a pointless strawman argument that does not resolve differences or explain anything, but merely makes you look irate.

Have you read what's happening in CT? They followed the plan of tax the rich. Ooops. How's that worked out for them?

Have you read what's happening in Kansas? They followed the plan of handouts to the rich. How's that worked out for them?

Sorry, but you can believe the lie brigade about CT if you want, KS is still a failure. It's a logjam due to partisan politics.

That's eithe false or meaningless. If you want to understand what you're talking about, here's a quick explainer:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion...

Well, building skyscrapers in an area that has a very active seismic fault nearby might not be the best of ideas. The cost of earthquake fortifying is neither cheap nor a guarantee. As outlined here, people on upper floors might experience up to 4g of acceleration during a major quake. As the engineer in the article states "Perhaps that's how it works in a real estate deal, but there are some things you can't negotiate. You can't negotiate with God or Isaac Newton."

Sorry, but what public good is Elon doing? I mean sure, everyone loves electric cars and flying to Mars is a great goal, but its not like he is solving world hunger or bringing peace to the middle east. In fact you could argue he *us* a detriment to us all... since he has taken almost $5 Billion of government subsidies to do what he is doing (and is still not profitable at that).

The guys is clearly a genius, but public good? Not so much.

Really? The judiciary "leans conservative" so soon after 8 years of Obama appointments? Of the last 24 years Democrats have had 16 years of making appointments and 8 years of obstructing Republican appointments as best they could.

That's just so wrong, that it is a lie.

Republican obstruction of Obama judicial appointees was unprecedented.

The judicial confirmation rate under the Republican-controlled Senate is less than half of what it was when Democrats held power under George W. Bush. There are so few judges that it’s hurting the country.
It’s Not Just Merrick Garland: Republicans Are Blocking So Many Nominees It’s Caused a Judicial Emergency

The Times editorial board accurately describes the severely deteriorated state of federal judicial selection and suggests that Republican obstruction during President Obama’s two terms in office is substantially responsible for the 100-plus current vacancies.
Anti-Obama Republicans have created a judicial emergency

Since taking control of the Senate in early 2015, Republicans have confirmed only 17 federal judges, a historically low number. The Senate confirmed just 11 judges in 2015, the fewest since 1960. There have been only two appellate court judges approved since Republicans took control, with seven appeals court nominations left pending. If the Senate doesn’t confirm any appellate judges this year, it will have confirmed the fewest since the 1897-98 session, when there were just 25 circuit court judges nationwide, compared with 179 now.
Senate Republicans Are Breaking Records for Judicial Obstruction

I swear, I don't know why people keep modding you up. Every god-damn thing you post is just a manipulative life.

http://www.latimes.com/busines...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...

P.S. Learn to use he shift key, motherfucker.

So in other words, you're just talking to hear yourself talk?

If I wanted to hear myself talk, I wouldn't be writing comments on Slashdot. However, I do have a YouTube channel. Once I figured out my angle for vlogging (which won't be anytime soon), you too can hear me talk as well. Don't forget to comment, like and subscribe. Thank you for giving me another opportunity to promote my personal brand.

I can't wait to read the next article about the grid [...]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-power-grid-20170315-story.html

It does mean exactly that. Walmart has to pay all of those workers back pay, and reinstate them according to administrative judgment submitted to the NLRB last year.

Total vehicle sales last year 88.1 million units. http://www.businessinsider.com...

In the U.S. 156,000 EV's were sold http://www.fleetcarma.com/ev-s... Mostly to people in CA who got tax breaks for buying them, or the well heeled San Francisco crowd no doubt. Certainly not the farmers in the San Joaquin valley.

Total US Vehicle sales 17.5 million units. http://www.latimes.com/busines... Biggest growth segment, SUV's and pickup trucks.

EV market penetration in the U.S. 2.2%. Yeah these things are going to take over like tomorrow.

There was a 2015 Supreme Court ruling* that specifically addressed this, with arbitration, involved DirectTV, and a DirectTV clause that said "except where overruled by State". They ruled that Federal Law overruled California's** AND thus the exception clause in DirectTV's contract!!!

When it comes to Telecoms it's been extremely rare in the past 30 years that the politicians don't favor big business. Telecoms hate state by state regulations... unless it protects them against competition.

We had a very brief stint with Mr Wheeler as FCC chair. But something he swam upstream for years against a Republican majority is being washed away in mere months under Ajit. With Republicans owning the government there is no chance the arbitration issues will get corrected. They are also working on gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which is the only other organization that can address the issues via the unfair consumer contracts angle. I guess consumer contracts will get far worse in the next 4-6 years before the pendulum swings back and gets to partially fix it.

* = http://www.latimes.com/busines...
** = States rights... I only need them for stuff my party doesn't like!

A drink or two a week? That's light drinking. I think you must move in social circles where people rarely drink at all.

In southern Germany, for example, it's not at all unusual to have a beer with your lunch, and another with dinner. In France or Italy, it will be a glass of wine - about the same amount of alcohol. That's 1-2 drinks per day, every day. Plus a couple of extra drinks with your buddies on Friday or Saturday. That's average, or moderate drinking in cultures where alcohol is a normal part of life. I'm typing this in the evening, after work, while sipping my second beer of the day.

As in all things in life, there's a trade-off. Alcohol helps people relax after a stressful day. It also has a few health benefits (or some of the other things contained in drinks do). However, it's also not great for your liver, and possibly your brain, and alcohol abuse is a possibility. Life's a bitch, and then you die.

Heck, you can die from drinking too much water.

High crime, high taxes, high cost of living, high cost of _public_ education, high pollution in big cities, classic big government everywhere. Lefties are ruining everything.

Knowingly exposing others to HIV should no longer be a felony, state Senate says

Oh, yeah. I really want my safety to be weighed against someone's profit margin in a spreadsheet somewhere.

While I probably agree with you in this particular case (though I haven't read all the details), and I'm generally suspicious of relying on businesses to audit themselves, this policy isn't always true in general. Government can also have bad motivations and conflicts of interest.

Take the TSA and airport security for example. Before 9/11, airport security was mostly a private affair, and it generally functioned well. 9/11 wasn't even really a failure of airport security, since the hijackers actually only took approved items through security. Compare that to the TSA, which routinely tends to let 90%+ of dangerous materials through.

(A few internet searches for reports from the 1980s and 1990s indicate failure rates to detect weapons, etc. in FAA audits of only 10-20%, instead of 90% for the TSA now. That's despite reports back then criticizing low pay and frequent turnover as obstacles to better detection rates -- and yet they did SO much better than the TSA does now. In 1987, it was a huge scandal that 20% of weapons got through FAA testing, leading to significant changes that ultimately reduced that number to ~10% in the 1990s. The TSA has rarely managed to FIND more than 20% of weapons in any audit since it has been created; the highest rate I could find in any TSA audit was a 30% success rate.)

Airports and airlines who funded security had a strong motivation before 9/11 to prevent hijackings, since they affected public perception of flying, and they knew any such events could have severe repercussions to their bottom lines. (On the other hand, there was at least some regard for efficiency in choosing security methods, because there was limited funding.)

But the government? It has basically little motivation to implement effective security. Why? Government is not only interested in protecting citizens -- it has a conflict of interest because it likes power too. Government also knows that fear is a strong motivator to get people to the polls. A minor breach will be motivation for more power and more control, along with allocation of billions more from the basically unlimited "taxpayer checkbook" to pay to 3rd-party cronies in pork-barrel spending. A major breach would lead to Patriot Act 2.0 (or 3.0 or whatever we're on now), with even more powers and less government oversight. Sure, there might be minor disgust among voters immediately for security failures, but that will turn around in a few months with Patriot Act 2.0 and the right rhetoric.

I know this sounds quite cynical, but how else can you explain the existence of the charade that is the TSA, with its high costs and repeated 90%+ failure rate in just about every security audit it has been subjected to? The government either knows the number of actual motivated terrorists who want to bomb planes is so low that they won't even attempt to get through such a weak net, or the government just figures, "Meh -- it's win-win either way for us."

Sometimes businesses who actually are invested in something might actually be more motivated to "do the right thing."

The units built into the seat backs will serve. And now, with more convenient spacing, it will be much easier to reach the touchscreen. The tray table, which is now jabbing your chest, will be the keyboard.

Maybe Obama just misunderstood the TPP.

Hillary was at times proud of her work on TPP, at other times was dismissive of it, and even occasionally forgot she worked on it...

It was a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or in this case, a self-negating prophecy - the media coverage itself influenced the poll the media was relying on to predict the election. All the negative press reporting about Trump drove his supporters underground, and they began concealing the fact that they were voting for Trump. The one poll which attempted to account for this correctly predicted Trump would win.

Hillary lost the 2008 election because Obama played a better numbers game than she did. She should have won the 2016 election but didn't do enough to keep Trump from winning the three states he needed to get into the electoral college. If she runs for 2020, then there is no cure for stupidity.

Wrong.

Democrats didn't get blindsided by Wisconsin and Michigan going for Trump.

Remember Obama was in Michigan campaigning for Hillary the day before the election. So Hillary losing those states was not a surprise to Democrats - they knew they were in play.

And they deliberately kept Hillary out of them.

Hillary didn't campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan because every time she went there she lost votes - she's that horrible a candidate.

Biden should run in 2020. The Onion articles would be epic. This country needs to laugh again.

Wait, I thought Trump was going to be comedy gold for comedians and late night TV hosts? The Onion articles on Uncle Joe were pretty epic though. :-D

That would be boost phase. Where is/was that laser armed 747? Parked in theory.

Yeah, it was parked, but laser work is still in progress. http://www.latimes.com/busines...

Then again, the concept of a "joint vacation period" or "Fellesferien" is a thing here: http://articles.latimes.com/20...

That's fellesferie. Haha

I'm required to take 3 weeks off by our labor laws in Norway.
That takes the blame away from the worker and puts it on the government as far as the company would be concerned.

Then again, the concept of a "joint vacation period" or "Fellesferien" is a thing here: http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Story from LA times. When you go to get ID or a driver's license you are registered to vote automatically, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown (D). Hmm, how about that.

Wow, its like they wrote a story 2 years ago to refute your sentence exactly. How did they know 2 years ago you would say that?

That story never happened.

True story. But let's look at the historical context of that story from the L.A. Times.

The Leventhal study estimates Japanese investment in U.S. real estate last year at $5.06 billion, down from the $13.06 billion spent in 1990. The peak year for Japanese investing was 1988, when they spent $16.54 billion on U.S. properties.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-02-21/news/mn-2588_1_japanese-real-estate

As for the Chinese, they're outspending the Japanese on real estate.

The Supreme Court is also cracking down on gerrymandering where the GOP is using race to try to force all the black voters into a small number of districts to minimize the number of congressional seats they can have.

There is not, and has never been, any evidence, large or small, connecting Donald Trump to Russia,

Shut the fuck up.

http://time.com/4433880/donald...
http://www.politico.com/magazi...
http://www.latimes.com/politic...

hmmm...let's see what mr Gates himself said...

"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though," Gates told an audience at the University of Washington. "And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Monitoring is just the boring half of the automated process. Employees who fail to perform will be directly disciplined by an avatar of Vice-President Dalek, a special AI embodied in one of Knightscope’s model K12 (H.R. Edition).

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

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

So, are there any TECHNICAL reasons why the SLS booster is better than the booster for the Interplanetary Colonial Transport? While, it has been under development for (far) longer and cost much more, as the delays keep piling up it might not get finished before the ICT. Like, is it safer? (though I doubt it with the use of solid rockets in its heavy version).

No. There are no technical reasons. There is a military reason.

SLS, and Constellation and Shuttle before it, exist for the purpose of pretending that military spending isn't military spending. They are there to continue funneling money into ATK, maker of the solid fuel rockets. Why? Because the other name for a solid fuel rocket is 'ICBM', but the Air Force hasn't been allowed to buy new ICBMs since 1978, when the production run of the Minuteman III ended. The START treaties started requiring reductions in the number of missiles allowed by the US and Russia. They've been maintaining their current fleet of Minuteman III missiles, which were first deployed in 1970. Without Shuttle and Constellation and SLS, ATK may have lost the expertise to build solid fuel rockets of the required size, which would have been a strategic loss.

The Air Force is trying to convince Congress to spend many billions to replace all of the Minuteman III missiles. Solid fuels have a long shelf life, but still limited. The Air Force spends billions and does regular test launches to make sure they still work[1], but they're worried that they're reaching the end of their useful lives.

Donald Trump is already convinced that they need replacing, as evidenced by his public speeches and by his administration's budget proposal. Getting Congress to agree is the hard part. If they succeed, watch the solid fueled booster requirement for SLS silently vanish. If they fail, which is far more likely because of the terrible optics of "we're going to spend tens of billions of dollars to build new nuclear warhead delivery systems", SLS will continue to muddle along, absorbing silly amounts of money to build a rocket nobody needs[2] as slowly as possible.

----
[1] They do. America's dick is still bigger than North Korea's dick. Yay. </sarcasm>
[2] At that price.

To underscore this is a reference:

http://www.latimes.com/politic...

Just incredible how this administration is basically trying to re-write history...

Whether or not it was a DDoS attack, the thing is, this already happened in the past, for the exact same reason. So regardless if there was a DDoS attack or not, the website would've come down the same way:
http://www.latimes.com/busines...

That link there? It's from 2014, despite looking exactly like past weekend. That was the moment when this matter should've been settled. No need for clowns with extremely punchable faces like Ajit Pai to try to reverse it in any way, if public comment even mattered. The public opinion has been heard on this, they are already ignoring whatever comments were made in the past. People don't need to be doubtful whether public comment is being heard or not... it clearly isn't.

Question is exactly the same, the fears are exactly the same of 2014, net neutrality did not change since then nor it's reasons to exist.
The companies along their greed to make more money on costumers also didn't change... if anything, it only grew.
Now they also have a whole lot more politicians in their pockets, people who are willing to go against public comments because they have their heads stuck in their asses. Remember people, it was only 3 years ago that the public outcry for net neutrality happened. All this administration is doing is reversing what people conquered. This would be unacceptable in any decent democracy, but here we are held prisioners by an administration that refuses to listen.

Fight for the Future has all the reasons to be suspicious about this, because pretty much anyone can claim that a website crash was not because of unpredicted access numbers but rather some coordinated attack of some form. But ultimately, the violation has already happened. When you have an administration that is this willing to bend over for corporations wishes, it doesn't matter if they revert something or not, they'll find a way to bend laws and turn a blind eye to violations. Net neutrality has ended as soon as Ajit Pai got the chair. Whether net neutrality crashes or not, I guarantee we'll be seeing problematic behaviours arising plenty soon.
It's not so much what's on paper, but rather the signals politicians send with stuff like these.

This isn't to say that the President doesn't have the power to fire the Director, but it hasn't been done before, and would be a very unusual step.

And by "hasn't been done before," you mean "was last done by Bill Clinton in 1993," right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

So... why are there still so many bushiness there? Why'd apple build there instead of buttfuck Tennessee?

You people seem so convinced that California is a dysfunctional socialist nightmare, but never seem to explain why it's economy is so huge. You likely think the state budget is still in the red (it's not, democrats gained power and sorted out the nonsensical tax cuts, the state budget has been doing well for the past 6 years or so). Meanwhile Kansas has been a conservative's wet dream and shit is so bad there the GOP is trying to decide between selling the state off for scrap or (shudder) raise taxes.

On topic specifically, "it's already taxed" by the federal government, not the state. Companies utilize both state and federal resources and should pay both. This sounds less like "California is fucking over the rocket industry" and more like "California is not willing to let the rocket industry fuck over the state as much as other states are begging to." POSSIBLY because California having by far the biggest state economy and having sufficient funding, is not as desperate to whore itself out like red states are.

Is it a good idea? I dunno, I don't have any numbers on anything in front of me. Neither do you. You know who might? California legislators. Maybe they even talked with the rocket industry directly through intermediaries like lobbyists or telephone calls to determine if it was a good idea. Maybe not, maybe this is just one crazy bureaucrat who saw a rocket and thought "No. Looks far too much like a penis. I won't have it happening in MY state tax free!"

Either way, your bumper-sticker sized economic wisdom doesn't square with reality here.

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

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

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

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

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

That's the real humans in this world.

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

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

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

Your mistress Hillary lost, get over it.

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

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

You must be completely naive.

Tesla would not be here today without government subsidies. In fact billions: http://www.latimes.com/busines...

And by the way, normally C-level executives would not be allowed to create start ups that could supply, buy from or otherwise benefit from transactions with the company they are employed by (and have millions of $ value of stock options in).

Yeah, no. Saying it's "made up" does not make it so: http://www.latimes.com/science...

"But the study authors say that there is now evidence that Neanderthals used pitch to fashion their own weapons. Pitch, they write, must be processed from tree bark in an environment without oxygen. While it's possible they did this by burying the ingredients beneath a burning fire, it remains a mystery exactly how they accomplished this feat, authors say. "The evidence of pitch production ... by European Neanderthals shows that those "elevated cognitive abilities" were not the exclusive domain of modern humans," the authors wrote."

Alternative facts, indeed.