Slashdot Mirror

We are NOT trying protectionism, that is what the rest of the world has been doing for literally forever... We are moving to fair trade around the world. Let me educate you my fellow slashdot citizens: The US during the cold war set up trade deals to foster freedom and democracy around the world. We essentially used our economy to subsidize other free countries to help them grow and stabilize many regions. The cold war ended over 25 years ago, but the lopsided trade deals remained and many of our trading partners have further pushed their unfair trade advantages with the US to further extremes. The American people have been hurting ever since the dot com bubble burst and the 9-11 terrorist attacks drained ~$3 trillion from the US economy, with the war on terror draining another ~$3 trillion, with the rest of the world offering only token support while they grow fat on their socialistic benefits, made possible in large part by the US subsidizing their national defense with our military and subsidizing their economy with lopsided trade deals. The US citizens have looked around the world and collectively said WTF, no more of this bullshit and elected Trump to do what every other leader of every other country around the world does and is expected to do: put his own country's interests first...

Fact: The labor participation rates under Obama were the lowest they have been in 40 years (since Jimmy Carter).

Inflation has been created by the Fed lending the federal government trillions of dollars (more than half to most of the $12T of debt that Obama racked up in his 8 years, we don't have accurate numbers because the Fed or treasury won't release them). My guess is Trump won't release them either for fear of panicking the markets and destroying the economy even further thanks to Obama.

Median income growth was -2.3% in the US (that is just a hard fact) over the 8 years since Obama took office. That might not seem like much, but under Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan's presidencies that number was around 4% PER YEAR, that means than in either 8 year term you could expect to see your income rise by 37% on average if you were between the ages of 25-39 (where most of the middle class' bump up in income). Beyond that, if you use a real CPI, based on the things that real people buy, real income is down much more than 2.3%.

I know personally that 10 years ago I could buy more with my dollar than today, and the things I bought weren't cheap Chicom knockoffs from once proud companies that have been bankrupted by the flood of cheap junk competition from China. Probably 50% of our landfills today are filled with junk from China that was a "better deal" but only lasted 6 months before falling apart.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...
https://www.brookings.edu/blog...

Ben Shapiro

In his own words:

Donald Trump’s nomination has drawn anti-Semites from the woodwork.

I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber.

And here's a breitbart piece on the subject...

He has started playing the victim on Twitter and throwing around allegations of anti-semitism and racism, just like the people he used to mock.

Ben, no one hates Jewish people.

It truly is. Read this for a damning expose of the smoke and mirrors the climate scientists are putting up to try to protect their comfy jobs and all expenses-paid climate conferences.

A really nice article in National Review pointed this out last week - http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Except, back in reality, the Democrats are fighting DeVos because she's actually unqualified and appears corrupt enough that it's possible she might not get approved. Democrats may greatly disagree with Sessions, but I don't know of any evidence that's he's unqualified. People are certainly calling their senators about him, but there's no real hope of Republicans voting against him.

(The actual argument of that article seems to be "obviously charter schools are better, so the Democrats are acting against their own interests just like they accuse Republicans of doing". Ignoring, of course, the real-world evidence that charter schools as a national policy would be a disaster for the education of the children of anyone who isn't wealthy enough to send their children to private school.)

On both sides of the aisle, the social issues are for the activists and the idealogues. Politicians pay lip service to them and then take no action on them in office. (Well, until now)

What gets the politicians moving is not social issues. It's money. Money from corporate donations from these big tech companies. (What side gets most of that money?) The manpower of the ground game in election races that keep them in power.

Both parties pretend to care about social issues, but all they really care about is keeping themselves in office and their parties in power.

A really nice article in National Review pointed this out last week - http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Best thing is you look at the data yourself; that's what I did.

Academic studies find the same thing; here is a good summary: http://townhall.com/columnists...

Here is another article debunking other claims of strong racial bias: http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Misattributing the problems of African Americans to systemic racism is really dangerous. It's like insisting your doctor treat you for cancer when you're really suffering from heart disease.

If it weren't for the latest tech bubble keeping them afloat, California would be completely screwed.

California has:

* High state income taxes, and overall it's one of the highest taxed states in the country.
* Over $1.3 TRILLION in government debt, much in underfunded public employee union pension obligations.
* A regulatory and legal climate that stifles growth and drives businesses out of the state to lower tax, lower regulation, lower cost states like Texas.
* Schools that are some of the worst in the nation.
* Some of the worst roads in the nation, despite having some of the highest gas taxes in the nation.
* Widening income inequality, driven by coastal elites enacting policies that make it increasingly difficult for the poor and middle class to earn a living in California.

San Francisco is an extreme example of the case, since their land use regulations are even worse than the rest of California, and their rent control policies make it so hard to evict tenants that building owners choose to let properties remain vacant because it's all but impossible to kick a tenant out if you want to sell the property.

People can't afford to live in San Francisco because the city and state governments have made the decisions that make it impossible for them to live there.

Story that I found looking to see how accurate your claim is.
Some cool numbers...
Since 1989 $32 Billion in Federal grants to AGW scientists (dwarfing any amount people claim anti-AGW gets from "big oil")
Mann, 1 person, has gotten $6 million, $500k while UNDER INVESTIGATION for fraudulent research.

So, it appears that if you are pro-AGW enough there is plenty of money and easy to get rich from Federal grants.
Glad you made me look it up. I like looking up claims from liberals, I tend to learn a lot doing that.

Second Story saying AGW gets $22 billion a YEAR. Wow, to be so poor that you had to rely on such a tiny amount. NASA budget is less than that. We spend more on AGW research than NASA, those poor poor scientists.

lol

Those instructions have weight on the federal level and thus no bearing on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of the EC vote. If TX considers you an outlaw, that's no skin off my back. I don't live in TX. If you're a big fan of "citizens of states first, union second" sort of thing, you really can't expect the rest of the union to instantly recognize your own state's pet ideas about what is and isn't legal.

Besides, twenty-one states have no restrictions whatsoever, which is probably enough to swing it. I'm not going to look it up and add it all up just to confirm for some random slashdotter because, like I said, this is an exercise in intellectual honesty and snowflake-proclivity, i.e. if you're going to insist "rules are rules and we're a union of states and not individuals" do you ACTUALLY mean that?

Don't worry, mi is a known liar, fraud, and all-around fuckwad. But I already have done the work for the electoral college.

First, you want a reference to tell you the states with pledges.

Of those, Trump won Alabama (9) Nebraska (5) Alaska (3) North Carolina (15) Oklahoma (7) Ohio (18) Florida (29) South Carolina (9) Tennessee (11) Maine (1) Utah (6) Michigan (16) Mississippi (6) Wisconsin (10) Montana (3) Wyoming (3).

That's 151 pledged votes for him. Easily short of 270. Of course, I could have done it just by pointing out that Texas, does not have pledged electors, and it alone has 38 votes, enough to swing it. since he has 306, and well, that's obviously higher. Posted anonymously so you don't have to credit me each time you point out the numbers.

Not that this matters, the question as to whether the states can rescind an electoral vote is still up in the air, and not all of those do that. They penalize them, but Congress still counts them.

While it's not an exact match, Trump and Bannon are best described as mercantalist. Mercantilism is an antiquated and discredited economic theory and practice largely abandoned in Europe after the 18th century.

Among the flaws in that system is that it trades visible gains for hidden losses. (Over at the National Review, Kevin D. Williamson cites Frédéric Bastiat on that point in a great analysis of Trump's Carrier deal). An interesting thing about China luring away talent is that it draws attention to that loss of talent, making it less hidden.

To answer your question the political agenda of the SPLC is simple,it is to promote themselves so they can get more money.

After all if they don't have a new "bogeyman of the day" to shill for the press, why the press won't write about them anymore, and gasp! They might not be able to get those big fat donation checks anymore! You see the flaw in your logic is assuming its automatically a black/white issue and that one has to be beholden to a single political party, when looking at your typical SPLC list its pretty obvious they hate all religions and religious groups equally but their biggest goal is to label damned near every assembly of more than 4 people as a "hate group" so they have someone new to shill to the press because in the end? Their biggest desire isn't the favor of a political party, its good old fashioned money money money.

Of course, Hillary has refused to accept election results before:

Hillary Clinton in 2002: George W. Bush Was ‘Selected, Not Elected’

At a private fund-raiser in Los Angeles for Democratic Sen. Jean Carnahan of Missouri, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told the crowd that President Bush merely had been “selected” president, not elected.

Typical hypocritical liberal 1%er. Hillary! sooo wants to disarm the populace - but you'd better not ask her and her husband to give up their armed guards.

Yes, we can clearly see where Trump's conflict of interest are, and thanks to his blind supporters, he doesn't care either. Trump's questionable business ethics is legendary.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

I don't have problems with technocrats, some are career politicians. As long if they are honest and competent, why not. However, Trump is neither honest nor competent. Trump is just a self promoter who is good at selling his brand. Over the years, his year of hustling for a quick buck has gradually diminished his technical skills. Let's not forget, Trump is one of the loudest birthers. Trumps lives in his own grandiose narcissistic TV reality world. Too bad for us, he just pulled off his biggest con. His world is now our reality. Fuck!!!

There has been way more than a few dozen cases of election fraud.

There were as more than 1,000 cases in just Minnesota in 2008. It is practically certain that fraud tipped the election and provided the path to Obamacare.

Can we care about troubling issues regarding abortions even if they aren't 9th month abortions?

More Black Babies Aborted than Born in New York City

The people of the United States made the best choice for president of the choices available.

Don't blame Clinton. The Democrats just lost.

am really worried that Trump will start WW3,

With who, the Russians, or the Chinese? Trump has repeatedly indicated he would normalize relations with Russia, has backed away from militarily supporting NATO allies who don't meet their 2% GDP military spending commitments, and (to my knowledge) has not advocated a No-Fly Zone in Syria.

Contrast with Clinton, who has repeatedly indicated she wants regime change is Syria, at the very least a No-Fly Zone in Syria....even though the airspace of the Syrian government is rather actively protected by the Russian military.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
http://www.ibtimes.com/will-us...

If you are concerned about a war with China, check out the articles below. Basically, Clinton is the one who wants to play hardball, but without operating from a position of strength. That's a good way to have the Chinese call your bluff. While Trump wants a stronger presence is Asia specifically to show China he's serious, he's quoted as saying he would reject a nuclear first strike. He has also expressed a greater willingness to diplomatically engage with China on the subject of North Korea.
http://www.voanews.com/a/advis...
http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/...

Facebook is well known for being influenced by and acting in accordance with SJW values. Now they are caught in fratricide, much like is occurring on campuses now. It probably is a lot more fun dishing it out than receiving.

The Left Realizes Too Late that Political Correctness Is a Virus

Then LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed, and enforced it, which caused the racists in the deep south to switch to the Republican party... but the racists remained in control.

False.

The “Southern Strategy” Debunked Again

You should think about it - LBJ got the Civil Right Act passed with the help of the people that had passed the previous ones - the Republicans. The people that tried to block it were Democrats. What sense would it make for racists Democrats to bolt for the party that had been mainly responsible for passing civil rights legislation for a century? You've fallen for a narrative, not history.

The Party of Civil Rights

Also, this makes for an interesting wild card:

Is it prohibited to draw majority-minority districts?

No. Over 30 years ago the Supreme Court held that jurisdictions are free to draw majority-minority election districts that follow traditional, non-racial districting considerations, such as geographic compactness and keeping communities of interest together. Later Supreme Court decisions have held that drawing majority-minority districts may be required to ensure compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

So some employees felt strongly enough about Trump's posts to raise a discussion, and the company said "No". Zero conspiracy.

Here's what you're missing:

• Enough employees in high enough positions of power wanted to censor the posts that it had to be decided by the CEO
• They were only stopped because the target was Donald Trump, so they are already doing this to normal people who are not billionaire celebrities and major party candidates for the most powerful country in the world.
• Trump's position is not racist and does not violate TOS so it should never have been an issue to begin with

And yes, it is a conspiracy. Look into who the Institute for Strategic Dialogue is plugged into. And look at who is responsible.

You'd have to ask Haiti how far a Clinton Foundation assistance plan goes.

By what measure have the last 8 years sucked? Just curious, but please be objective and stick to the facts.

Stock market did well: http://www.macrotrends.net/135...
GDP slowly rising: http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
Unemployment steadily decreasing http://data.bls.gov/timeseries...
Steadily decreasing gas prices: https://blog.gasbuddy.com/Reta...
Believe it or not, decreasing crime rate: http://www.nationalreview.com/...
No major new gun control laws or other major trampling of the constitution
Many additional safeguards on disadvantaged segments of the population
And finally a reasonable record of kept campaign promises: http://www.politifact.com/trut...

To be sure not a perfect record; for example:
Middle East and Syria in particular - probably would have happened regardless
Relations with Russia and China - hard to say what could have been done differently
"Affordable" Health Care Act - although we couldn't live with what we had we should have done better. At least children are covered now...
Education - we owe our children and future more
Care for the environment - oils spills and global warming
Race relations and policing - Black Lives Matter

If you want to pin a failure on Barack Obama, blame him for not finding a way to reach out to congress - let's face it that situation is f'd up. Barack can't get an A on his report card because he failed that test. While maybe the most powerful person around, the president of the US certainly is not omnipotent. I challenge anybody to say they could have really done better.

Total load of bullshit

Somewhere, in a dark smokey room, Democrats are laughing their asses off that you keep buying their spin. Both parties are corrupt as hell, but Comcast in particular is in bed with Democrats. Your own link says this. But let's add this:

How Comcast Bought the Democratic Party
Lots of good reading

Forget the paltry $50k or $100k donated directly, let's examine the *millions* raised by Comcast for Obama and the DNC, and the "Comcast Foundataion" (sound familiar?) that channels donations to the needy as long as they support Comcast's initiatives.They are a dirty dirty dirty company (and not in a good way). A lone notable exception: Al Franken, who despite taking $15k from Comcast lobbyists still spoke out against them.

Having witnessed the Obama Administration spying on AP reporters and exploiting government agencies as political intimidation tools, encryption suddenly became a prime must-have for my computers. Government should NOT be intimidating political opposition and I don't want to be targeted for my lawful communications. When government cites criminal monitoring as a justification to hack into devices, I am skeptical knowing their history of intimidating lawful citizens. When Apple flipped the bird at the FBI over encryption back doors, I happened to be ready to upgrade so like so many others I bought an iPhone and a MacBook Pro.

Same thing happens when government is pushing gun control - lawful gun owners rushed out to purchase guns.

Especially when the majority of your net worth is the brand value of your name based on your feeling of its worth. Q.When you publicly state what youâ(TM)re worth, what do you base that number on? A: I would say itâ(TM)s my general attitude at the time that the question may be asked. And as I say, it varies. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/...

You may not, but the problem is that too many of the politicians you vote for do. HRC is on record many times this campaign saying she wants to see the "Australian model" implemented in the US. That means forced confiscation of all personally owned firearms under the guise of "buybacks." The buybacks are mandatory, and you go to prison is you don't comply.

Here's a list of politicians talking about confiscating guns, just from a short period in 2013:

Hawaii legislature proposes gun confiscation
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/...

New York Assemblyman asks colleague not to mention that original proposed SAFE Act included confiscation
http://www.breitbart.com/Breit...

Missouri Democrats introduce legislation to confiscate guns
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-...

VA has veterans who cannot manage their own financial affairs declared prohibited persons unable to own firearms
http://www.humanevents.com/201...

NJ State Senator "We needed a bill that was going to confiscate confiscate confiscate."
http://www.politickernj.com/ba...

Oregon Legislator calls fears of gun confiscation a "paranoid delusion" and then states he is in favor of gun confiscation
http://www.examiner.com/articl...

Governor Cuomo says, "confiscation could be an option."
http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Feinstein suggests "compulsory buyback."
http://washingtonexaminer.com/...

CA assembly proposes confiscating 166,000 legally registered guns.
http://www.mercurynews.com/bre...

And the classic from 1995:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Do you notice any common political party among the people calling for confiscation?

Because "alt-right" is racist, because ... democrats say so?

Because we can examine their conduct and messaging to recognize what it is? The National Review and Rolling Stone did.

But Hillary's "Super Predators" and "Bring them to heel" comments aren't. Her (and her husband's) use of Confederate Flags wasn't racist.

Oh those, were pandering to racists for sure. So was Reagan's Welfare Queens, and Bush I's Willie Horton ads. News to you, for what reason? You've never heard of Dogwhistles? Lee Atwater could tell you about them. Clinton's actions were a deliberate and calculated strategy to pander to the scared whites who thought all Democrats were nigger-lovers.

Trump? I'm not sure about the calculated part, or even the deliberate, but racist, yes.

"Make America Great Again" is racist, except when Bill used it for his campaign.

No, it's not racist, it's just patriotic hogwash, I swear, it's like you can't identify and differentiate among the problems with Trump.

Here is the problem, as I see it. The most racist thing out there, is the whole DNC platform that expects black people to continue to vote DNC candidates, without so much as even pandering, simply by tossing out the race card over every little thing.

So it's not more racist for you to assume that blacks are incapable of making informed decisions and deciding that Democrats are serving their interests better than Republicans? That the only reason is because of pandering?

(And one wonders if you can even recognize the pandering to others in this country, let alone affirmatively identify it...)

It is obvious that crying Racism is the ONLY thing left the Democrats have with respect to Hillary's campaign. And that is, by itself racist.

No, the racism concerns are about Trump's campaign. Among others, including his tendency to bombastic proclamations like shooting Iranian boats on a whim, corruption (like the Trump university business and Pam Bondi bribes), and his lack of honesty. Plenty to criticize there, it's not just racism.

PS, your pulling out the "race card" card seems to be the only thing you have.

And the black community is starting to wake up to the pure racism of low expectations that the DNC has of them.

Wait, wait, since when did you get to speak for the black community? Or do you think Trump's "Go with me, what do you have to lose" is somehow persuasive?

Well, maybe if you're dumb enough not to realize how much the conservative agenda has driven affairs in this country in the past few decades.

Can't have voter ID laws, because the DNC says Black people can't figure out how to get a free voter ID. But that isn't racist.

Way to show you can't accurately identify a problem. The Voter ID laws are an attempt by the GOP to influence the electorate in their favor, by denying Democrats their right to vote by putting up needless barriers which the Republicans constantly scream is about a phantom problem with voter fraud. That they never explain why so many of them are in office if the elections can't be trusted is one question among many. Nonetheless, it is not, strictly speaking, against the law to make laws that are biased in a partisan manner. It is, however, illegal to take actions that racially discriminate against the right to vote.

Of course, since you don't know it, I'll explain something. The ID isn't about figuring out how to get one, though the fact that many state DMVs don't even seem to know they are supposed to provide them makes you wonder. But no, it's about the burden imposed, which is akin to the old stan

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

And you think that is "odd"?

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage

They aren't quite as bad as they started, but they still are trying to drive American society towards its vision, which is very different than that of the Founders.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

I'm curious, have you even investigated to see if there might be anything to it?

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican
Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
Moving Further to the Left

Lawyers are more liberal than general population, study finds; what about judges?

Do you think we need to cover unions? Civil servants?

And if you have the curiosity, you might find a surprise or two, or three.

Some places to find new perspectives:
National Review
Weekly Standard
Commentary
Reason
Instapundit
Dennis Prager / Prager U
Hugh Hewitt

Now? The right wing have always accused the ACLU of having a liberal bias.

And you think that is "odd"?

The ACLU’s Communist, Atheist Roots
The ACLU’s untold Stalinist heritage

They aren't quite as bad as they started, but they still are trying to drive American society towards its vision, which is very different than that of the Founders.

Then again, I'm not sure there is anything they haven't accused of having a liberal bias.

I'm curious, have you even investigated to see if there might be anything to it?

Survey: 7 percent of reporters identify as Republican
Republicans’ media bias claims boosted by scarcity of right-leaning journalists

Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement
Moving Further to the Left

Lawyers are more liberal than general population, study finds; what about judges?

Do you think we need to cover unions? Civil servants?

And if you have the curiosity, you might find a surprise or two, or three.

Some places to find new perspectives:
National Review
Weekly Standard
Commentary
Reason
Instapundit
Dennis Prager / Prager U
Hugh Hewitt

You can relax, there is no genocide occurring in Israel, it was foiled despite the intent.

Azzam's Genocidal Threat

An October 11, 1947 report on the pan-Arab summit in the Lebanese town of Aley,[9] by Akhbar al-Yom's editor Mustafa Amin, contained an interview he held with Arab League secretary-general Azzam. Titled, "A War of Extermination," the interview read as follows (translated by Efraim Karsh; all ellipses are in the original text):

Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha spoke to me about the horrific war that was in the offing saying:

"I personally wish that the Jews do not drive us to this war, as this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine's Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving to us from [as far as] India, Afghanistan, and China to win the honor of martyrdom for the sake of Palestine You might be surprised to learn that hundreds of Englishmen expressed their wish to volunteer in the Arab armies to fight the Jews.

"This war will be distinguished by three serious matters. First—faith: as each fighter deems his death on behalf of Palestine as the shortest road to paradise; second, [the war] will be an opportunity for vast plunder. Third, it will be impossible to contain the zealous volunteers arriving from all corners of the world to avenge the martyrdom of the Palestine Arabs, and viewing the war as dignifying every Arab and every Muslim throughout the world

"The Arab is superior to the Jew in that he accepts defeat with a smile: Should the Jews defeat us in the first battle, we will defeat them in the second or the third battle or the final one whereas one defeat will shatter the Jew's morale! Most desert Arabians take pleasure in fighting. I recall being tasked with mediating a truce in a desert war (in which I participated) that lasted for nine monthsWhile en route to sign the truce, I was approached by some of my comrades in arms who told me: 'Shame on you! You are a man of the people, so how could you wish to end the war How can we live without war?' This is because war gives the Bedouin a sense of happiness, bliss, and security that peace does not provide!

Or are you referring to the specious claim that there is some "genocide" of the Palestinian Arabs?

The Palestinian ‘Genocide’ Lie

Here’s the difference between us,” Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained on Fox News Sunday. “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.” It’s a classic talking point. It’s also objectively true, and that truth is very frustrating for Israel’s critics. . . . .

If the Israelis are, or have ever been, interested in genocide, they are utterly incompetent at it. As slanders go, it’s almost funny, like the old paranoid delusion that George W. Bush was simultaneously an idiot and a criminal mastermind. On the one hand, the Israeli military is supposed to be ruthlessly competent and determined to wipe out the Palestinians. On the other, the Palestinian population has grown more than 100 percent since 1970. The population in the Gaza Strip has grown nearly threefold since 1990. The Palestinians themselves expect the population to double over the next two decades. “Genocide” is a loaded political term, but under any remotely reasonable definition, shouldn’t those numbers be going the other way? It’s just a hunch, but if the Israelis

I've noticed that Hillary has a pattern of using the "most minimal" excuse that will get her by.

She was in great health until she had a 4 minute 22 second coughing fit, then it's "I have been talking non-stop for weeks, but I'm OK now."

She was fine until she had to leave the 9/11 memorial, then it's "I was feeling a little overheated, but I'm all right now".

That worked until the video of her collapsing as she's put into a van, then it's "I have pneumonia, but it's all right".

This tracks with other investigation into her actions, including the E-mail scandal:

• . She didn’t send or receive any e-mails that were classified “at the time.”
• . She didn’t send or receive any e-mails “marked classified” at the time.
• . She turned over all of her work-related e-mails.
• . Her use of a private server and e-mail domain was permitted by law and regulation.
• . All of her e-mails were immediately captured by @.gov addresses.
• . There were numerous safeguards against security breaches and “no evidence” of hacking.
• . She was never served a subpoena on her e-mail use.

...all of which she has said, occasionally under oath.

If the past is any prediction of the future, we'll have to wait a couple of months to find out if she was really sick or not.

They mostly ignore it because it doesn't feed into "Hills is the corrupt one" narrative they've been running. Remember, Hillary is a crook while Trump is a racist, if you're the New York Times anyway. Balance! The fact that Hillary isn't, and Trump is both, is a minor detail, to be swept under the rug.

That said, reports do surface here and there. Trump himself has boasted of bribing politicians on the campaign trail, so it's not like this is a secret. And rather a lot of people have been pointing at the media and asking them why they've barely mentioned Trump's IRS fine for bribing the AG of Florida (to get her to drop her charges against Trump U, which she did.)

Deliver evidence of a successful prosecution

That's an irrelevant strawman given that OP said "criminal," not "convicted criminal." You can read a fine example of that distinction here.

Oh, another cite: http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Now, I get it, and so does the author, that the prosecution was under (d) and (e) - but you'll note they *explicitly* stated that even if those thresholds had not been met:

“Section 793(f) has an even lower threshold, punishing loss of classified materials through ‘gross negligence’ and punishing failing to promptly report a loss of classified materials.”

The fact that historically this kind of thing hasn't been prosecuted would have to be shown by a list of cases where charges were considered under (f), and then rejected, rather than saying "we've never prosecuted under (f)". Obviously, when a law is first written, it's never been used to prosecute anyone, so simply asserting that it hasn't been used isn't much of a defense.

I'd love to see any reference that shows the list of historical cases considered under (f) that were dropped in the same manner Clinton's case was dropped.

You're right they're all bad, however bad is relative.
I would contend that Hilary is obviously worse than Trump because she is blatantly corrupt (primary mechanism being the Clinton foundation), habitually lies on a level bordering psychopathy, and is not even eligible to get security clearance necessary to be president.
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
  At least one source has evidence that in fact she never had actually passed security clearance.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

She has already also clearly sold out the US many times to enrich herself/the Clinton foundation. Do some research for yourself into exactly why middle eastern countries like Saudi are donating millions to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump is a clueless pompous asshat but at least he isn't blatantly corrupt career criminal, and also I beleive he's clearly more of a patriot that Clinton, in that he would be far more likely to put the interests of the US first than she ever would, given she's already provably sold it out for her own benefit many times.

People keep saying this, but they have no reason to believe it. You only get prosecuted in a case like this, if they can show that you had intent to trade national secrets.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

https://www.marinecorpstimes.c...

http://www.politifact.com/trut...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

Looked it up: "adj: of or relating to a crime. Syn: unlawful, illegal, illicit, lawless, felonious, delinquent, fraudulent, actionable, culpable." I suspect that's exactly what the OP (and most non-trolls) think "criminal" means.

There's a very straightforward explanation here, by a career federal prosecutor. Spoiler:

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) : With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

And that's just taking Comey's story at face value and ignoring any less charitable explanations (as well as any of the more recent revelations since he made his statement).

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Perhaps you'd care to believe actual combat pilots who have flown the aircraft in mock engagements, and consider it substantially inferior to both the F-16 and the 1970's vintage F-15?

Or independent organizations contracted to analyze the program who report the performance specifications for the F-35 have actually been downgraded numerous times as costs have exploded. Ultimately, too many design trade-offs between the Air Force, Navy, and Marines, and a terrible design process, resulted in a mediocre air frame that is not good at anything other than harming U.S security interests and sucking up tax dollars?

This is a 1.5T dollar program that failed to deliver an acceptable result. The US better hope it never needs these in combat against a major world power. They will of course be adequate against people with no tech higher than tents in the desert... but so were aircraft we had in the 1950's.

There was a far better combination available in the F-22 for air combat and the A-10 for air to ground, but the US elected to halt the F-22 program, even though it now appears the F-35 will have the same unit costs for dramatically inferior performance. It is also dramatically inferior in capability and survivability vs the A-10, an aircraft you can buy ten of for the price of one F-35.

So you're saying that there's no truth to this story? Where's you're evidence? You have none? Then why should I believe your negative spin?

Always a clever tactic to demand an explanation and then triumphantly declare that the other person has none before any time has passed for replies to be made. Here, let me help you with that "missing" evidence. Have you missed the news for the past eight years? The F-35 program has been dogged at every step by cost overruns, test failures, design-by-committee creeping features, etc.

• * F-35 Fighter can't turn, can't climb, can't run
• * Trillion-dollar F-35 joint strike fighter can't even do dogfights
• * F-35 Program: a danger to US Defense
• * My favorite:How the F-35 could provide 23 years of free college for everyone

I could go on all day, but you get the idea. Just google "F-35" + "waste" + "failure".

I can't stand the KOS, but Primaries should be closed.

A frequently heard mantra - mostly after closed primaries helped Clinton - but it's not a justifiable one:

• 1) You can't hold an election at taxpayer expense and then tell taxpayers they can't vote in it unless they join your little club. It's a non-starter, but it's not the most brazenly arrogant attitude the party has. That would be:
• 2) Democrats have now spent the better part of 20 years screaming at everyone that will listen that independent Nader voters are responsible for Bush's election in 2000 - even if it's total bullshit. But it takes a Biblical sense of entitlement to tell those voters that they can't vote on a candidate in their primary, then savage them for not voting for their candidate in the general.
• 3) The two major parties are still the two major parties because they have colluded to exclude third parties on both a national and local levels. Which means, with few exceptions, that aspiring politicians must join the Dems or the GOP. Which means that the vote in the primary is just as important as the vote in the general election.
• 4) Being limited to candidates for one party limits a voters choices for ad hoc reasons. To go with #3, an otherwise right-wing voter in Pennsylvania who lost his job to NAFTA should not have been barred from voting for Sanders and against the pro-NAFTA-and-TPP Hillary. Just as an otherwise liberal hispanic voter should have been able to vote against Trump in the GOP primary because he's a flaming racist.

The party is selecting it's nominee, those not part of the party should not have any say.

Which would be a very reasonable position - if it was the nominee to chair the DNC. But not for the the President of the United States of America, who will represent all voters and the federal government.

When the various party nominee's then run for the office in question. At that point it's open to everybody.

Only after you've closed off access to the most meaningful vote. Republicans had 17 choices for president before the general election. The Democrats had half a dozen high-profile candidates to choose from in 2008 - only one this cycle, due to the corrupt party establishment clearing it for Hillary. Whereas independent voters are left with the functional choice of the two most incompetent, unpopular candidates in living memory - or "throwing their vote away" on a third party.

That, or join the corrupt and insular Democratic Party, or the corrupt and insular GOP.

Open primaries allow the other side to choose the weakest candidate. Had the first 10 or so primaries been closed Trump likely would not be the nominee.

Trump isn't a sign of a problem with open primaries. Trump is a sign that the right is as fed up with establishment politics of the left, and that the unhinged Bircher/NRA/Tebaggerization of the GOP has fully metastasized.

. . . when one of our presidential candidates invited and approved of Russia and other countries to hack us.

That isn't actually what happened. Did you misunderstand it?

Maybe this will help:

Krauthammer’s Take: Trump’s Russia Comment 'Set a Trap That the Clinton Campaign Fell Into'

Charles Krauthammer said tonight that the Clinton campaign contradicted itself by calling Donald Trump’s request for Russia to locate Hillary’s missing e-mails a threat to national security:

Well, that was his parting shot, and it was a clever thing to plant, because it is an issue. But I do think there was something about his reference to Russia that, whether planned or not, was extremely clever. I’m not the first to point out that it set a trap that the Clinton campaign fell right into. In that statement that you showed from the Clinton campaign, it said you’re [Trump] is inviting a foreign power to invade our national security.

Now, these are the e-mails she deleted because they were supposedly private; these were the ones that were supposedly not work-related; these are the ones where she discusses her yoga lessons and wedding planning. So if that what was really in the 30,000 deleted e-mails, then there’s no national security to be involved at all. So the Clinton campaign ends up admitting that perhaps there really is work-related – if not classified – stuff in the e-mails that she deleted, which I think would be grounds for a charge of obstruction.

Whether or not he meant it seriously – it could have been sarcastic, it could have been sort of half-sarcastic as a way to plant the idea – the fact is that it leaves the Clinton campaign in a complete contradiction. If these are just private e-mails, then there is nothing to be concerned about. There is no espionage. There is no danger to national security that they will discover her yoga lesson schedule.

I'm also curious, do you credit Russia and other countries with having a time machines? If not, how do you think they will now hack into the US to get deleted emails on a server that isn't on the public internet? Or were you just trolling on Hillary's behalf?

even as a joke this is wholly unpresidential. So to sum it up, he clearly wasn't joking and even under this absurd excuse concocted two days after the fact Trump still loses points with this one, As simple as that.

Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies. Trump made a joke you don't like.

Yea right, vote Clinton I guess then.

P.S. The felonies she committed didn't require intent, but she is one of the few people for whom the Federal government will just make up reasons to not indict. "She didn't intend any harm" is no defense against 18 U.S.C. section 793(f).

P.P.S. Trump is kind of a clown. Hillary Clinton is a smart person who is evil and corrupt. I'll vote for a clown over a known corrupt person any day. I won't be thrilled about it but it will be a cold day in Hell before I vote for someone who should be in prison.

even as a joke this is wholly unpresidential. So to sum it up, he clearly wasn't joking and even under this absurd excuse concocted two days after the fact Trump still loses points with this one, As simple as that.

Hillary Clinton committed multiple felonies. Trump made a joke you don't like.

Yea right, vote Clinton I guess then.

P.S. The felonies she committed didn't require intent, but she is one of the few people for whom the Federal government will just make up reasons to not indict. "She didn't intend any harm" is no defense against 18 U.S.C. section 793(f).

P.P.S. Trump is kind of a clown. Hillary Clinton is a smart person who is evil and corrupt. I'll vote for a clown over a known corrupt person any day. I won't be thrilled about it but it will be a cold day in Hell before I vote for someone who should be in prison.

Well, for one thing, I can still openly say precisely what I think of our leaders in Washington without fear that I might face retribution.

Like Catherine Englebrecht thought she could?

“They probably have them. I’d like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them,” Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. “If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.”
- Wash Post.

The real estate mogul sought to distance himself from allegations that the Russian government hacked into the Democratic National Committee to benefit his campaign, which Clinton’s campaign manager suggested earlier this week.

“It is so farfetched. It’s so ridiculous. Honestly, I wish I had that power. I’d love to have that power, but Russia has no respect for our country,” Trump said.

I'd say Trump was at least half-serious. He said in no uncertain terms that he'd have no problem if Russia stepped in to do some dirty work on his behalf.

Of course, if the Russians actually deliver, Trump would owe Putin a favor. Ukraine, maybe? Disband NATO?

Dumb not-so-funny, off-the-cuff comments may be fine in reality TV, but they have consequences in international politics. An ex-KGB like Putin could make a predictable narcissist like Trump dance on a string. I'm talkin Godfather II, waking up next to a dead prostitute.

Olberman doesn't like Trump's politics, but I doubt he hates him. Anyhow, the scale is quite comprehensive, you don't have to accept Olberman scores, and can make up your own tally based on your view of Trump's personality.

At least nobody ever accused Olberman of being a child rapist.

Good thing for the Donald that Bill Clinton also was best buddy with Epstein.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

All the amendments are necessary and to varying degrees they all protect us and each other. Without the 4th amendment it would be trivial to quell free speech. Same with the 5th. Etc. They all matter. Before the 13th amendment black people were not protected by the 1st amendment and the 2nd actually worked against them. Before the 15th amendment women didn't enjoy full rights of the 1st amendment. They all matter.

The fact that black people were barred from owning firearms is one of the reasons the 13th amendment was passed.

The notion that the 2nd amendment is what protects your constitutional rights is a tired and idiotic argument. First, there are plenty of other thriving democracies that have far more restrictive gun control than the US.

Yeah, look at what a wonderful police state the rest of the world is turning into.

There is nothing special about the US that requires civilians to own guns to protect their rights. Guns are demonstrably not required to protect your civil rights. Furthermore the most successful civil rights movement in the US during the last century was largely a pacifist one. Guns would were mostly counter productive in securing and retaining civil rights. If you want to see what the civil rights movement in the 1960s would have looked like with lots of guns and weapons, see the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

Yet Martin Luther King Jr. almost always had people with guns around him for self-defense.

See the recent shooting in Dallas for an example of how counterproductive guns are in "protecting" your civil rights.

There were several armed protesters in the group who didn't shoot anyone.

Second, if the government decides they want to force you to do something, your little pee shooter isn't worth anything against a real army or police force. Individually it provides no meaningful protection.

Collectively they are not needed - get enough people together to protest and you don't need to shoot anyone.

Yes, that worked well in Tienanmen Square.

If you want to own a gun I'm right with you. I own firearms myself. But the only argument that makes any sense is that you own a gun because you like to own a gun... You aren't going to protect your family or property from real or imagined criminals.

Except when you do.

You don't need a semi-automatic or full automatic gun for any practical purpose. You own a gun because you like to shoot and/or hunt. Occasionally people need one for pest control. Nobody is going to take your gun away.

It sounds as if you would like to take semi-automatic or full automatic guns away from people. Several entertainers recently have advocated for Australian Style gun control which was enforced by mass confiscation.

Arguing against reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people and criminals is indefensible.

If someone is too dangerous to own a gun, why are they on the streets?

He came off as a useless trust fund baby on perpetual vacation.

That would be your projection, not his facade.

Mission Accomplished?

Ah, that line! It just never gets "old," does it? No older and not a bit more honest. Whoever turned that around was a master of duplicity.

The AWOL title really applies more to him as President than when he was consuming resources that would have been better used training someone who intended to actually work as a pilot instead of play around. If he hadn't turned up at all in that situation it probably would have been better for the country.

As to the pilot training, not as such.

One of the greatest faults of the Bush administration was in not countering the lies and smears being propagated against them in the media by Democrats and the Left. It is stunning that they didn't respond to some of the attacks being made. They could have learned much from the Clinton machine (as long as the Bush administration could have kept things more honest). Their lack of response ended up severly jobbling them politically with some very unfortunate consequences. The financial melt-down might have been avoided as well as several other unfortunate outcomes if they had been more responsive.

It's amazing watching you whip yourself into a frenzy over an image of me entirely of your own manufacture.

Accusations are not evidence. You can project your delusions onto whoever you want but you don't know me and my opinions do not define me no more than the opinions or delusions of strangers define me.

I am of half a mind to meet you in person to see how it is you manage to function on a day to day basis but the language you have used fits the profile of an SJW, and those kind are very dangerous and should be treated like the boils on society that they / you are.

So with that I am going to sign off with some good reading for you to check out.

Toodles.

http://www.nationalreview.com/...
http://www.philadelinquency.co...
http://www.therebel.media/_soc...

This last one is a good example of our conversation in regards to the co-opting behavior of Westen liberal nut-jobs.

http://wizbangblog.com/2015/09...

My guess is I have you spot on and it's probably going to piss you off more. At this point you have abandoned logic and reason and have spun yourself an imagined medical diagnosis of some random guy on the Internet and this conversation is bordering on entertaining for me.

Happy reading!

Yeah but distorting reality is not just about money with people, it's about power and ideology. I used ot think like you- I thought the consultations of disinterested experts would yield the best policy results. But look at what's happened in academia. There you have a petri dish of what can happen when experts are left to rule themselves. What do we have? We have a system which attacks real experts for wearing the wrong shirt at a press conference,

http://nypost.com/2014/11/17/t...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

the systematic silencing of scientific facts and researchers by a determined minority of "Stepford Students":

http://quillette.com/2015/03/2...

who can't even grasp the basics of logical consistent thought

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

and a "ruling class' of administrators who are either outright sympathetic to the minority of zealots or too cucky to attempt to stop them.

That is literally what academia has in fact produced in the way of an ordering principle for their own subculture, their society-in-a-petri-dish.

Do you really want ot export that to the larger society.,