Slashdot Mirror

Calexit? Over your dead body. Its time we break the sillycons and take their assets until their tax bill is paid in full.

Apple's tax bill is paid in full, the same as president-elect Trump's. The evidence clearly indicates both Silicon Valley, and our next president, took liberal advantage of a deeply flawed tax system to avoid paying many millions in taxes.

Please -- feel free to break Mr. Trump, and take his assets too. I bet though, in four years from now when everything is said and done, that neither the Donald or Apple will end up paying any more in taxes than they are now.

Calexit? Over your dead body. Its time we break the sillycons and take their assets until their tax bill is paid in full.

Apple's tax bill is paid in full, the same as president-elect Trump's. The evidence clearly indicates both Silicon Valley, and our next president, took liberal advantage of a deeply flawed tax system to avoid paying many millions in taxes.

Please -- feel free to break Mr. Trump, and take his assets too. I bet though, in four years from now when everything is said and done, that neither the Donald or Apple will end up paying any more in taxes than they are now.

And yet the folks committing violent acts and mayhem in American cities are leftists.

Nope. Right and left. Crazies on both sides.

I haven't seen the KKK, the Neo Nazis, or the Skinheads doing this for the last 8 years whilst Obama has been President.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Look here: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06...

"Last year, for example, a man who identified with the sovereign citizen movement — which claims not to recognize the authority of federal or local government — attacked a courthouse in Forsyth County, Ga., firing an assault rifle at police officers and trying to cover his approach with tear gas and smoke grenades. The suspect was killed by the police, who returned fire. In Nevada, anti-government militants reportedly walked up to and shot two police officers at a restaurant, then placed a “Don’t tread on me” flag on their bodies. An anti-government extremist in Pennsylvania was arrested on suspicion of shooting two state troopers, killing one of them, before leading authorities on a 48-day manhunt. A right-wing militant in Texas declared a “revolution” and was arrested on suspicion of attempting to rob an armored car in order to buy weapons and explosives and attack law enforcement...
"“The threat is real,” says the handout from one training program sponsored by the Department of Justice. Since 2000, the handout notes, 25 law enforcement officers have been killed by right-wing extremists, who share a “fear that government will confiscate firearms” and a “belief in the approaching collapse of government and the economy.”"

More:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/07/01/why-racists-burn-black-churches/
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/vegas-cop-killers/two-cops-three-others-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/06/arson-churches-north-carolina-georgia/396881/
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/03/500496061/fbi-investigating-burning-of-black-church-painted-with-vote-trump

No, instead he was doing business with an Iranian bank which funds terrorists while the U.S. had sanctions on Iran.

He also was deliberately doing business with Cuba while the U.S. had sanctions on the country.

But of course when President Obama lifted most sanctions on Iran and Cuba, that was a travesty and Republicans were outraged. Wonder why they're keeping their yappers shut about Trump dealing with a terrorist bank and that commie nation to the south? Hypocrites.

Ah, common problem. You don't want to deal with it.

Not the first time. After all, if you claim it isn't something you've seen, it doesn't exist.

Too bad for you, it is a real problem.. Documented even.

I know, I know, you want to pretend to be above it all. But you can't help but make yourself look bad when you make such blatantly untrue statements.

Citation for the registration requirement, please.

Is this what you're looking for? Here's the NY Times

Hey now, don't sell Hillary short! She also sold out to the Russians for $100 million, so she's already proven she's for sale to the Russians AND to Goldman Sachs!

A mole you say? That may be. On the other hand, we had outright buying of the other candidate to the tune of $100+ million dollars. I guess you'd prefer an out-and-out bought President, rather than one whom had significantly less contact with Russia than the bought one, and who has zero documented ties to Russia... Take the guaranteed, documented criminal rather than the one who you think might have done something wrong?

Mr Obama says: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defence, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."
Mr Medvedev replies: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you "
Mr Obama retorts: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
And Mr Medvedev finishes: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

You just elected a Russian mole.

Sure. Because Kremlin says so... Except, they don't even claim that... It is all a product of hypotheses, suggestions, and unsubstantiated — usually anonymous — claims.

Meanwhile, a few facts about Clinton's recent past:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine (and, correspondingly, to Syria).
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset".
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

The only thing, that can be done to address the above accusations by your kind is down-modding them — facts are stubborn. So, apply some Vaseline, charge your Prius and head for Canada as you promised.

The Beautiful Wickedness finally had some water splashed on her, and us, the deplorable munchkins, are rejoicing.

You just elected a Russian mole.

Sure. Because Kremlin says so... Except, they don't even claim that... It is all a product of hypotheses, suggestions, and unsubstantiated — usually anonymous — claims.

Meanwhile, a few facts about Clinton's recent past:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine (and, correspondingly, to Syria).
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset".
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

The only thing, that can be done to address the above accusations by your kind is down-modding them — facts are stubborn. So, apply some Vaseline, charge your Prius and head for Canada as you promised.

The Beautiful Wickedness finally had some water splashed on her, and us, the deplorable munchkins, are rejoicing.

Story.

At least he wasn't taking bribes from Russia to set State Department policies like some other candidate was (It was Clinton). Yep, she took bribes from Russia while Secretary of State to do what they wanted.

Now what was that about sinking?

Not working full time is the underemployed stat. I am very sure about these issues with BLS stats. My research professor for my grad degree did work in econometrics and always commented that the BLS unemployment series was manipulated to hell and back.

But what the hell do I know, not like the labor force participation rate is at historic lows... wait a minute, they are. At least, we aren't seeing a downward sloping Labor force participation rate that walks in step with a downward U3 and U6, indicating discouraged unemployment over 12 months. Oh wait... we are. Not like we are seeing increases in food stamp and public housing... oh we are.

I am not the first to notice this problem with unemployment rate.

Story showing Clinton took bribes from Russia to approve sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia.

Not sure how anyone in the government taking bribes could possibly be worse than that. The woman he ran against demanded a 30% kickback for money she doled out from the government. I find it amazing that I know her kickback percentage because she did it so frequently. And here you are complaining about the one running who doesn't have a history of taking bribes for setting US policy.

If you supported Trump kindly go fuck yourself, and I'll take the moderation results of this post. If not then I apologize to you, but not the man who decided to run a campaign based on sowing as much hatred as absolutely possible.

This is what happens when you run that kind of campaign.

We didn't protest when Barack Obama was elected. Twice.

Here's some observations about the protests:

• Pre-printed signs,
• Cash to pay protestors
• Crowd Warm-up pro
• Professional inciters
• Alert media to get it all on TV

You're being manipulated.

One
two
three
There were quite a few protests in 2008 and 2012, and they had the above list in effect.

Okay, so I think the "kill list" really is pretty bogus, but the problem is you're using that to invalidate some real scandals.

Hillary really did work to evade the Presidential Records Act, then lied to Congress about it (see also: 18 U.S. Code 1001). Here's what the FBI found. Why didn't they charge her? Because she's was the Democratic presidential candidate and the charges go up to a Democratic-controlled DoJ. Guess what they'd do with the charges? Oh, right.

If you don't like that summary clip, you can watch this 3 hour hearing.

Here's her and Colin Powell discussing how to cheat the act. Kinda puts a new spin on why Powell endorsed Hillary, huh? Feel free to prosecute them both, it's only fair.

Source (click 'view original PDF')

C06125520 UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016

Re: Question
From: Colin Powell [redacted] [RELEASE IN PART B6]
To: Hillary Clinton hr15@att.blackberry.net B6
Subject: Re: Question

I didn't have a BlackBerry. What I did do was have a personal computer that was hooked up to a private phone line (sounds ancient.) So I could communicate with a wide range of friends directly without it going through the State Department servers. I even used it to do business with some foreign leaders and some of the senior folks in the Department on their personal email accounts. I did the same thing on the road in hotels.

Now, the real issue had to do with PDAs, as we called them a few years ago before BlackBerry became a noun. And the issue was DS would not allow them into the secure spaces, especially up your way. When I asked why not they gave me all kinds of nonsense about how they gave out signals that could be read by spies, etc. Same reason they tried to keep mobile phones out of the suite. I had numerous meetings with them. We even opened one up for them to try to explain to me why it was more dangerous than say, a remote control for one of the many tvs in the suite. Or something embedded in my shoe heel. They never satisfied me and NSA/CIA wouldn't back off. So, we just went about our business and stopped asking. I had an ancient version of a PDA and used it. In general, the suite was so sealed that it is hard to get signals in or out wirelessly.

However, there is a real danger. If it is public that you have a BlackBerry and it is governmend and your are using it, government or not, to do business, it may become an official record and subject to the law. Readingi about the President's BB rules this morning, it sounds like it won't be as useful as it used to be. Be very careful. I got around it all by not saaying much and not using systems that captured the data.

You will find DS driving you crazy if you let them. They had Maddy tied up in knots. I refused to let them live in my house or build a place on my property. They found an empty garage half a block away. On weekends, I drove my beloved cars around town without them following me. I promised I would have a phone and not be gone more than an hour or two at Tysons or the hardware store. They hated it and asked me to sign a letter relieving them of responsibility if I got whacked while doing that. I gladly did. Spontaneity was my security. They wanted to have two to three guys follow me around the building all the time. I said if they were doing their job guarding the place, they didn't need to follow me. I relented and let one guy follow me one

[REVIEW AUTHORITY: Geoffrey Chapman, Senior Reviewer]

UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09/08/2016

-----

C006122520 SIFIE UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2016-11013 Doc No. C06125520 Date: 09

The "not in the work force" number includes only healthy citizens, age 16-65. So your argument about your parents and daughter is invalid.

Additionally, the number is now at the highest percentage since it was first calculated in 1978. In other words, the labor participation rate (i.e. the percentage of people who are of age and wish to have jobs) is at its lowest rate since 1978 (when it was first tracked).

U6 unemployment, on the other hand, does not include anyone unemployed longer than 12-26 months (depending on whether they try to find a job or not). This means they fall to those no longer in the labor pool. That number has grown by 14.4 million people under Obama.

See here:

Labor Participation Rate

No other president since 1980 has presided over such a steep decline (3.4%) in the participation rate, and George W. Bush was the only other president with a net decline (1%). (Note, the graph can be adjusted to include data from before 1978 which has been retroactively calculated, and which is lower, because of the low participation of females in the work force prior to the late 1970's / early 1980's.)

That 3.4% drop indicates 14.4 million more people out of work, and off the unemployment rolls. Typically about a 250,000 job change is needed for 0.1% of unemployment rate change. That would indicate another 5.76% of unemployment to add to the U6 number of 9.5% giving a grand total of 15.26% unemployment, right in line with the original poster, and also a good indicator of why those 15.26% of people, who kept hearing about this great "economic recovery" going on probably swung from blue to red in the election.

Unemployment rates
Vote Swing Map

Look at where the growth in red votes came from in this election. Blue-collar working class states. You know, the ones who get ignored compared to those shiny city slickers that Hillary campaigned to, and who showed up at Trump rallies just in time to be called "deplorable" and "irredeemable" by Hillary. These aren't racists, or fascists, or any of the other names that get used for Trump supporters, they're people who were sick of being ignored. Trump didn't ignore them. Hillary did. Hillary literally did not visit Wisconsin after the primaries since it was "in the bag" for her. Trump did. Guess who won?

What he said is that a lot of the things she was promising to do as President were things she ALREADY COULD HAVE DONE during her 30 years of public service, but hadn't bothered because she is one of the least effective politicians to ever hold an office.

Funny you should mentioned that. NY Times article ran an article that started off with that scenario from Trump and ended with Senator Hillary Clinton voting to close the loophole that he used to avoid paying taxes for 20 years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html

Well, according to this Trump has 47.5% of the votes and Clinton 47.7%. That's practically 50-50. You don't have proportional representation in the US, and Trump won in your system, but I don't think MINORITY and MAJORITY are appropriate terms here.

Also I don't believe for a moment that every voter in each camp said exactly the same things about the other camp. The US is much more diverse than that, even if the political system does a very poor job in representing that diversity.

The only small consolation is that Clinton is forecast to win a scant victory in the popular vote once all ballots are counted: http://www.nytimes.com/electio... as of slightly after midnight election day she is forecast about 1.3% lead.

Fortunately it's not the popular vote that matters.

TFTFY

The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending - restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.

Thank him for the huge inequities that exist today.

Four years we get to listen to his pedantic bullshit.
And in four years, we have to sit through another goddamn election season where he's a candidate.
I fully expect him to appoint every conservative wingnut he can find to positions of power.
We're going to try trickle down economics one more fucking time.

I don't know about trickle down economics (btw - The Reagan years created the biggest "boom" in US economics in history - NYTimes Article), but we can only hope that he'll lower the corporate tax rate significantly in America.

If you have payed attention to some very intelligent economists and pay attention to what is happening here, you'll find that: when you raise taxes, people leave. Look at Chicago, corporate inversion, etc... driving business away from our country ultimately kills jobs and eventually moves tax $$ elsewhere. Forcing business to say (or penalizing them to leave) is nothing short of control... The US was formed on the basis of freedom, not large government control. Want jobs? Want an eventual higher GDP? Want actual innovation and opportunity in the US? Lower the corporate tax rate.

We're going to boot 20 million people off of their health care, and institute health savings plans instead (great if you live well enough above your means that you can afford to set money aside).

It seems ObamaCare booted millions of people off of their healthcare too, and cost them a lot more to find other healthcare. My apologies for lack of citations, but this should be quite easy to Google and verify. On top of that, the US was "forced" to purchase health insurance. A law which makes you have to purchase something? Since when did the government have that right to make you do that or pay? That's not America to most people who've lived long enough. A government should never have had that kind of power.

We're going to ignore the Paris Climate Accords. The EPA will be left in tatters.

This has yet to be seen, and it's too hard to call at this point. Honestly, I am not near as versed to address this as I am in many areas, so I will leave this alone.

We're going to waste half a trillion dollars building a fucking wall, to address an immigration problem that is nowhere near our top concern.

I think we all know this isn't going to happen. Truly I believe a policy like this will never pass. Politicians want to be re-elected, etc. Perhaps Trump will try, but it's simply not a feasible thing to do. The sentiment seems to be "people should come here legally" just like it is in virtually every other country on the planet. I dno't believe there is anything wrong with taking care of our own first. Perhaps that makes me a bad person, but in my years of living, I don't know many people (if any) who don't live this way with their own families, business, etc. Do you?

We're going to defund the Department of Education.

Please help me understand the problem with this? Education was always meant to be run by the states/local government. Perhaps it doesn't allow for a standardized "one size fits all" education, but is that what it's supposed to be? Choice seems to matter to a lot of people. I think what's happened over the last several years is that choice of far too many things has been eliminated. Want diversity? Keep the power from shifting to a single government.

(another thought on centralized power which was the trend for the last decade-ish)

If you give that kind of power to an administration you agree with, it's great while it lasts. But people don't seem to understand that eventually an administration will take power which doesn't agree with you. Then you've pretty much screwed yourself. The US was founded on principals which tried to never let this happen. It's what had allowed for such succ

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/...

The only small consolation is that Clinton is forecast to win a scant victory in the popular vote once all ballots are counted: http://www.nytimes.com/electio... as of slightly after midnight election day she is forecast about 1.3% lead. Unfortunately it's not the popular vote that matters.

What could go wrong with this idea? No political body with an agenda would ever desecrate the moral sanctity of a 'fact checking' organization, pretty far fetched to say the least - about as as likely as the NYT, WP, NPR, ABC, NBC, CBS, LAT, and the BG taking sides with the Democrat Party to elect a grifting granny who facilitated the sale of 20% of US uranium (the stuff they make atom bombs out of) to a Russian holding company while pocketing millions of dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

Sheesh, the next thing people will say is a news organization would stoop so low as to feed debate questions to the candidate they wanted to win.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11...

The best thing is obviously to allow the state to control the facts, for that matter these web browsers are just dangerous and we should probably have to have a license to even use one, let alone a web server.

And she made hundreds of billions for her associates. Her legacy cannot be disputed.

Google has been harassing me every I look: Youtube, my phone, my tablet -- "do you know where to vote?" "look up your polling place?" etc... etc... etc...

Simply put, responsible citizens do not need such help discharging their duties. We know, there is a vote, we know where it is. We've registered to vote long ago and made arrangements with baby-sitters etc. to visit the polls — or requested absentee ballots.

But such folks tend to vote Conservative (or should I say KKKon$ervative?), so, for the Illiberals to win, they need to prod the less responsible with signs, TV-commercials (ranging from "Chose or Lose" to "Vote or Die"). Such people need help registering to vote — and some even need to be reassured, they would not be prosecuted for voting illegally (a claim, Snopes bizarrely called "false").

Throughout human history, people have fought and died for the right to vote — world-wide. Whoever does not cherish that right already, should not be encouraged to take part in the country's governance.

In Trump's defense, Atlantic City is failing as a whole and dumping his casino was the best thing he could have done.

Sure. Although I'm not that covers it. From: A Look Inside Donald Trump’s Failed Taj Mahal Casino:

Though Trump Entertainment Resorts was losing million, Trump personally profited during his tenure, partially thanks to a deal that had his flailing casinos buying up Trump Ice bottled water. Trump walked away having pocketed roughly $82 million during his time there.

And: How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions:

In one instance, The Times found, Mr. Trump pulled more than $1 million from his failing public company, describing the transaction in securities filings in ways that may have been illegal, according to legal experts.

The rest of the NYT article is pretty illuminating too.

The crackers thing is BS. Delhi has the pollution that it does due to both the number of cars/buses/trucks/... as well as the factories. The crackers are 1, maybe 2 days in a year, which would do squat in terms of pollution. Not to mention that in India, a lot of people have been moving away from fireworks under the pretext of being more eco-friendly.

And, in fact, the actual story says that the problem is not Diwali fireworks:
"images published by NASA suggest that burning of crops in the neighboring states of Punjab and Haryana could be the biggest reason why the air quality in the world’s most polluted city refuses to clear."
With a link to a NYT article discussing it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
and to interesting satellite images on the NASA website

You mean like Trump's foundation illegally paid Trump's legal bills, his personal bills and was used as he and his daughter's personal piggy bank?

Perhaps Trump should explain why the New York State Attorney General ordered his foundation to cease operations in New York because of its illegal activities.

Not to mention the "donation" the foundation gave to the Florida State Attorney General's campaign, also illegal, which oddly made the state's investigation of Trump's fraudulent University mysteriously go away.

In N.C. the feds struck down our law to require ID because it discriminated against those wanting to commit voter fraud.

So far, it looks like the only ones committing voter fraud are Republicans. From: Republicans and the Myth of Election Fraud

Many of these voter-suppression measures have become law despite clear evidence that voter fraud is practically nonexistent.

Recently, though, a fraud case did arise — though it wasn’t exactly the kind that Republicans have so loudly warned about.

Last week, around the time when Donald J. Trump was in Iowa, the Des Moines police arrested a resident named Terri Lynn Rote on suspicion of voter fraud, a Class D felony in Iowa. Apparently persuaded by Mr. Trump’s rhetoric that the “system is rigged,” Ms. Rote, the police said, cast ballots for Mr. Trump at two early voting sites.

In Florida, another crucial swing state where Mr. Trump has fumed about a vast conspiracy to rig the election against him, a poll worker in Miami, Gladys Coego, was accused of illegally marking ballots on behalf of a Republican mayoral candidate. She has also been arrested.

Apparently, NC has been trying especially hard to suppress Democratic voters:

Unfortunately, early voting in North Carolina has already demonstrated the need for greater voter-protection efforts. When the Fourth Circuit’s ruling late last summer required restoration of early voting hours, the chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party, Dallas Woodhouse, sent a memo instructing Republican members of local election boards to make “party line” decisions in early voting plans. These orders were sent — and to a large degree carried out — despite the court’s statement that using race as a proxy for party “constitutes discriminatory purpose.”

In your dreams. 538 has him at 35% probability of winning as I write this;

And that's only naively counting the electoral college. You think they are going to let Trump-the-Pussygrabber onto the highest seat in the land? Not likely. How many Republican party luminaries have already stated "country over party" and refused to back Trump? This many! This election is the perfect excuse for the electors to vote their consciences. If they need tom which is doubtful.

And then there's a disparity in the women's vote: currently standing near 50% in favor of Clinton.

There's no way Trump can win. None. You're just fooling yourself. Enjoy it while you can, because come Wednesday morning, we'll have a woman in the white house. And Washington will go on just as it always has, Republicans blocking every bit of progress they can, democrats fumbling around in a non-unified manner, and idiots like the tea partiers throwing monkey wrenches in everywhere they can, and all the while the lobbyists will be proffering handfuls of money to everyone in sigh, the president not fulfilling a plugged nickle's worth of the promises made on the campaign trail.

You come back here Wednesday, you'll see I called it exactly. If you can find this post after the load of butt-hurt moderation falls on it, lol

Trump media and doubles down on the loose talk and continual lies.

What bothers me even more is that he genuinely doesn't seem to care about the truth - any truth. Or, perhaps he doesn't understand that "truth" is something that actually exists. Does than make him sociopath or psychopath (or both)? [genuinely asking] (Oh, and he seriously doesn't understand how video tape works.)

Following up for the thin-skinned moderators who modded this "troll". From Beyond Lying: Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Reality:

Trump was denounced repeatedly for “lying” and at times the apparently more egregious “bald faced lying.” But that is not a sufficient description. Neither was the charge by the philosopher Harry Frankfurt that Trump was in fact a master of “bullshit,” which is distinct from lying in that the speaker is not just communicating information he knows to be false, but is unconstrained by any consideration of what may or may not be true.

Which was also noted as not actually going far enough.

Smokers For Trump!

.. in (large) part because it has easy access to the EU.

In part, sure. How much is debatable. The UK has been a global hub since long before the EU existed, and it still has the advantages I mentioned before whether it remains in the EU or not.

Many businesses are already working out plans to move operations to Amsterdam and/or Frankfurt ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07... ).

Says the article from just after the surprise result, like a lot of other articles from just after the surprise result. But talk is cheap, and in this case talk is also leverage for big businesses over a government on the back foot, so actions speak louder than words.

p>Remember that the UK has always had the most special deals and exemptions in the EU, mainly attained by being obstructive.

That and being a relatively valuable and powerful member, which gave enough influence to win concessions.

As for the rest of your last paragraph, you are describing exactly the sort of petulance I meant. It does not make sense, economically speaking or for long-term relations in other areas, for the remaining EU member states to be harsh on a Brexiting UK. It makes sense for all concerned to look for an alternative arrangement that is still of mutual benefit and is acceptable to all involved.

Unfortunately, so far, the attitude of some of the other political leaders in the EU, and in particular of Juncker and Tusk, seems far less constructive than it could be. Their behaviour since the result, as well as some of the other potential changes in EU direction post-Brexit that have been mooted by senior politicians from other member states, are enough to make some of us wonder whether the Leavers might have been right all along.

Try telling a Green that Nuclear Power is a vastly superior and cleaner alternative.

Actually, the "Greens" have been telling us that very thing:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/en...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

It is a global business and finance hub

.. in (large) part because it has easy access to the EU.

Many businesses are already working out plans to move operations to Amsterdam and/or Frankfurt ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07... ).

If the petulant children who seem to have been running the show lately on both sides of the Channel get to call the shots

Remember that the UK has always had the most special deals and exemptions in the EU, mainly attained by being obstructive. You're a fool if you think they'll get back what they now still have in terms of a deal. Forget about politicians for a moment: Even though some EU citizens are sortof sympathetic with the Brexiters, a large majority sees Brexit as betrayal (which is a source of unison among EU citizens, ironically) and believes the UK should be 'punished'. Politically, and democratically, it makes sense for the politicians of the remaining EU member states to be harsh on a Brexiting UK. Petulance don't enter into it.

Sure, they saved some money when they stiffed Russia for their gas bill, but not enough to be able to spend on frivolous things.

Considering how much money the Russian puppet Yanukovych stole from Ukraine before he fled into the arms of Russia, and how much Russia owes Ukraine for the damage it is causing by its invasion and support of the terrorists in East Ukraine, Russia is the one who is spending money on frivolous things it can't afford.

Since we now know how much money Russia is spending to support the terrorists in Ukraine, as well as its plans to try and destabilize Ukraine, it's no wonder you think Ukraine is poor for wanting to be out from under the thumb of Russian corruption.

Then again, with the continuing stream of dead Russian soldiers leaving Ukraine, Putin is having to dig deep to pay out death benefits to the families. Speaking of digging deep, how about all those unmarked graves of dead Russian soldiers sprinkled about Ukraine? How much to you think that's costing Putin?

How much would you bet that any work done to develop this is paid for by U.S. tax dollars so that it can all be funneled back to some big defense contractor?

Considering the theft Putin is perpetrating in Crimea by stealing people's property and businesses, perhaps you should be asking how many of your rubles are going into Putin's pockets and the pockets of his oligarch friends?

Your sig points out "nobody is always right." I suspect that every single news organization of any decent caliber, that has been around for much time, has people who think they have legitimate grievances. All of them seem to be made up of people, and in my experience, all people make mistakes.

I agree with this so far.

I'm not sure what the best way to resolve Hogan's fair complaint with making sure news organizations don't get shut down, but that WAS Thiel's stated goal here, if I'm not mistaken, was to shut down Gawker.

Here's the thing: Thiel apparently did want to destroy Gawker, you're right. However, it wouldn't have been possible for him to do so if they weren't making more than their fair share of mistakes. They might not have had to file for bankruptcy if they had taken the trial seriously from the start - Nick Denton's (allegedly flippant) comment about probably not publishing the sex tape of a four year old didn't do them any favors, and neither did refusing the initial order to take the tape down. All throughout, they acted unrepentant.

More to the point - sex tapes are covered by additional laws relating to publication, while identities of government workers/operatives are not. Things that are in the "public interest" are okay, like telling people Anthony Weiner was sexting inappropriately, but publishing the images themselves would likely not have been. If Gawker had stuck to telling people that a sex tape exists, they would have been fine. That's the line we've drawn as a society. You can argue that they shouldn't be considered that different, but that's separate from this discussion.

I guess ultimately I'd say that Gawker got (partially) destroyed not because they made one mistake, but because they made a lot of them, flagrantly and without remorse until it was clear they would lose.

You miss the part where Donna Brazile was the person who fed Clinton at least two questions, right down to the information on the person who was going to be asking the question? Guess so. It's only been all over the media for the last week, and only picked up steam after CNN canned her and the boss of CNN publicly came out to blast her.

Even the New York Times which openly opposes Trump admits the FBI has looked into Russia-Putin-Trump ties and found NOTHING.

This is the same sort of big bold lie that the Democrats spread last election cycle about Romney being a tax cheat, which after the election Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) admitted was a lie but successfully helped torpedo Romney. Reid had told that lie on the Senate floor where he knew that the press would run with it but the Constitution would prevent him being prosecuted for libel or slander (he knew most Americans were too de-educated to know that he was gaming the system to fool them).

The Democrats are far better at being evil in election cycles than the feckless GOP. Every damn election cycle, Gloria Allred calls press conferences and announces that she is representing some poor young female "victim" (often multiple "victims") of a Republican and then after the election *POOF* they all scurry away never to be seen again (remember all the women she trotted out as "victims" of Herman Cain?). Keep voting for the dirtbags that the dirtbag propagandists tell you to vote for! It's been working really well, hasn't it?

I suspect there's a reason why all the super-rich in both parties and on Wall St who've been getting fat-and-happy are backing team Hillary with their money, their votes, and their activism - and there's NOTHING in it for the declining middle class or the stagnant lower class.

Leo I think wants to increase awareness for the issue to enable people like Elon to actually perform the transition to an emission free economy.

Humans do actually have an influence over earth. Maybe not as individuals, but certainly as species.

CFC has caused a hole in the ozone layer, and measures were taken to abandon OFC for most purposes, and now the ozone hole is getting smaller again: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

Also, some clues have been pointing towards a possible cause for a "little ice age" that struck europe during the middle of the last millenium and caused death and starvation amongst europeans to have been man made in some sense: http://phys.org/news/2011-10-t...

There is an overwhelming, if not almost universal, agreement that climate change is real. That has not been disputing in any proper and significant way for a long time. What the relevant parts of the scientific community are still haggling about is:

And that is the problem. Scientists are people. People have motivations outside of the work itself, such as getting a promotion or being socially accepted. Groups of people are more often wrong than not, and they usually have a consensus about it. In fact, history is full of these upsets.

In a world where a scandal like this exists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09...

How do you expect people to ever trust "the group"? Answer: they will not. And if bad consequences arise from that, well, the problem was that those who warned of those consequences were not trustworthy.

Obama only did it because they stopped taking money http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01... .

me personally, i don't give Obama a pass on anything including the FISA vote before taking the presidency.

that being said in this particular event of elections coming up... its not a question of Dem. vs Rep. the choice is not equal.

Classic Republican tactic # 1:

Accuse your political opponent of doing what you did and at the same time deny that it was you doing it.

Classic Republican tactic # 2:

Tell the same lie and just repeat it when you are called on it like you haven't been caught when you have been caught in a lie in front of everyone (Trump has done this 70% of the time!!!!)

Word of advice to the conservatives, if you are going to lie try making it believable and not something you did if it is an accusation of guilt! It makes you not only look like a hypocrite, it makes you look like an idiot!

Let me guess: it is OK when Democrats do it (which they have), but it would be horrible if the Republicans did it (which they haven't yet)...

Jesus fucking Christ, what are you smoking?

Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts

NSA warrantless surveillance (2001–07)

Obama only did it because they stopped taking money http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01... .

me personally, i don't give Obama a pass on anything including the FISA vote before taking the presidency.

that being said in this particular event of elections coming up... its not a question of Dem. vs Rep. the choice is not equal.

Putin wants Trump to be president.

Pathetic... Seriously... Are we supposed to believe, Trump will be better for Russia, than the alternative, who:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine.
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset"
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

You expect us to ignore all of the above and worry ourselves over "irregular pings" of a server with "Trump's name in it" originating from a Moscow bank?

Putin wants Trump to be president.

Pathetic... Seriously... Are we supposed to believe, Trump will be better for Russia, than the alternative, who:

• In 2010 abolished the anti-Russia sanctions imposed over their invasion of Georgia in 2008 — thus, predictably, inviting them into Ukraine.
• Criticized and mocked, along with other "Progressives", the very notion, that Russia may be hostile to the United States.
• "Reset"
• Routed billions of dollars worth of American investments into Russia's high tech — some of it with military purpose — while rewarding herself in the process.
• Has a history of taking bribes from Putin with who knows what other things remaining up his sleeve with which to blackmail her.

You expect us to ignore all of the above and worry ourselves over "irregular pings" of a server with "Trump's name in it" originating from a Moscow bank?

Just FYI, the anti-abortion position is not about controlling the bodies of women. It is about stopping murder.

If that were the case, they wouldn't resort to lying to women, forcing ultrasounds upon them, and concocting deceitful videos, in other words behaving even more deplorably.

And the pro-abortion position is not about freedom for the bodies of women, it is about murder too.

See, for example, the pro-abortion camp's reaction to a proposal in Italy not long ago to replace third trimester abortions with surgical delivery, incubation, and when successful, adoption.

I can find zero documentation of this proposal, but you know what? Third Trimester abortions are so preposterously rare, because they are risky to both the mother and fetus, more so than caesarean section.

Seriously, your purported proposal does not square with the real state of abortions in Italy, so I must wonder if you are lying for some reason.

I'll give you a hint, the pro-abortion camp was absolutely fucking outraged that anyone would suggest that we try to end a pregnancy (freedom for the mother's body) without killing the baby.

Sure dude, go ahead and show this happening. The fact is, third trimester is 28 weeks, which is after viability. You know, when pretty much nobody has an abortion, except in cases of extremity.

If you don't believe me, find one of your pro-abortion friends and ask them what they think of the idea. If they haven't heard of it before, you'll get to enjoy several seconds of stunned silence while their brains reboot, followed by angry sputtering (from most of them; a few think it is a great idea).

Ok, everybody thinks you're making up a story for some reason. IOW, you're a liar.

Why do you lie?

It wouldn't be surprising for Trump to have some kind of relationship with a Russian bank; that's not necessarily illegal.

Trump's tax returns really are something the public should have before even considering him. Trump owing a lot of money to say Russian banks may not be illegal, but it is something that can't be accepted in a president. An American president cannot have liabilities like that that could be used as a method to influence his actions. The only way we can know is to see them.

Seriously, Trump has consistently been consistent on I think one thing and that is being nice to Putin. (I think he has even flip flopped on the wall at one point.) Now, consider Trump's list of Insults. Seriously, the only ones that seem to be off limit for Trump are his family and Putin. Now, what are the logical reasons to explain this?

1) He actually admires Putin. This appears to be true, but also seems insufficient. Trump's admiration is somewhat limited by having most tied up in the mirror.
2) He owes a crap load of money to Russian banks and is afraid of Putin. That one is my guess. I doubt Trump is actively working with Putin.
3) Putin has dirt on him and is flat out being blackmailed and he really is Putin's Puppet. Possible. Putin has certainly shown the willingness to manipulate the US elections. I see no reason why Trump should be excused. His previous campaign manager might even be linked in here. I still think (2) is more likely. This kind of thing has too much risk and is not remotely subtle.
4) I don't credit Trump's saying Putin is better than Obama as anything Trump himself believes. That seems clearly to be just a way to bash Obama and such, without denying Putin.
5) It could be as simple as Trump's calculation that by being extra nice to Putin, that maybe he won't get hacked. Sure he gets some blow back with his apparent support, but not nearly what he would get if Putin hacked his organisation and dumped all the records and his tax returns online. This one fits pretty well. After all he choked when he met the Mexican President, and he was hardly scary. He must be quaking in his boots at the thought of Putin getting mad at him.

I'm still betting (2), but (5) fits as well, and neither is exactly mutually exclusive. For that matter, they could all be true in one way or another.

So, does anyone else have a seriously plausible explanation to explain Trump's behavior with Putin? I can't think of any good explanations for it, and, as mentioned, without his tax returns, we don't really know who owns Trump.

I had a Bank of America account for a time, and no doubt others have had bank accounts and such they wish they had not. Would you want one of those guys holding Trump's leash?

I don't.