Slashdot Mirror

They also looted a check cashing place, that helped people without the ability to get bank accounts get their paychecks cashed...a real horrible place that totally deserved it.

Maybe. That industry has its critics.

When people talk about the terrible things that happened to the African people in the US, I think they forget that the Chinese immigrants and Irish went through much the same things. Yet you don't have issues with the Irish (those evil red heads?) or Chinese doing these things, despite all the racism and slavery they dealt with.

Or maybe you just don't have knowledge of them? Check out the coal mining related strife in Appalachia. Lots of Irish and Scots-Irish involved there. No shortage of violence too. And check out the Irish riots in the US between Protestant and Catholic groups (let alone the violence in Ireland and the UK itself). Or the New York City Draft Riots. And yes, they did get involved with the KKK too.

Now the Chinese, well, they weren't let in the KKK, but they do have problems with their own gangs, and relationships with the authorities. And, of course, examples like the Boxer Rebellion, show it didn't just come from moving to America. (And there's also the Japanese/Korean/Chinese racism, and the Chinese/Malay, and the intra-China racism.)

And hey, remember those riots in Vancouver? Why was whitey so upset at losing a hockey game?

First, over 2000 psychiatrists and other mental health professionals disagree with your claim. They had no problem signing a petition about Donald Trump's effect on people's mental health, even though they had not examined either Trump or the public.An opinion is NOT a diagnosis.

Do a search for "psychiatric evaluation of hitler" (hello, Godwin). You'll find many psychiatrists who freely give psychiatric opinions of Hitler without ever having met, never mind examined, the man. The same for many dead people. You don't see their estates suing, because they'd lose.

Also, there have been cases of psychiatrists being called as rebuttal witnesses without having examined the accused. We had one recently here.

The US has been doing psychological and psychiatric profiles of foreign leaders since at least the 2nd world war - without the subject's knowledge or consent, and without ever having met the subject.

The so-called "Goldwater Rule" is unenforced, and unenforceable.

Given that no one seems to bat an eye, I assume that the general opinion from Russia, China, Japan, and the US (at minimum) is that NK meets this level of stability in some fashion.

Not necessarily.

IMHO, it's not so much that nobody bats an eye, it's that nobody wants to take on the expense/mess/loss of life/headaches that regime change in NK would entail. Think about the logistics involved. NK's infrastructure is notoriously weak to begin with. They just had a famine a decade or so ago that killed millions. In the best of times they have a hard time feeding themselves. The whole country is held together by duct tape as it is. It would take any militarily capable western country a week or two to dismantle, tops. It wouldn't have to be the USA that does it - I'd bet France could do it over a long weekend without breaking a sweat.

So, you add to that the entire population is brainwashed to think that the supreme command of NK are essentially living divinities, and the rest of the outside world are bloodthirsty savages out to get them. Humanitarian efforts to help the citizens post-regime change would be rejected. They would think the aid workers were there to kill everyone, since that's what they've all been told since birth. It would be similar to the mass suicides on Okinawa. But worse, because it would be an entire country instead of a single island. Millions of civilians would die.

It would be a humanitarian disaster of a scale not seen since WWII, and nobody wants that mess on their hands.

. . .they haven't outsourced the college administrators first. Given the massive administrative overhead of most colleges nowadays, that would save some serious coin. . .

“When I was making a World War II movie called ‘Fury,’ we did this boot camp for a week, and Logan Lerman, who was the youngest actor of the bunch — I think he was 21 — was given grunt detail. We gave him a watch and he had to keep track of how long it took us to eat and get in and out of our gear. One day he came to me and said the watch has stopped, and I said, ‘You’ve just got to wind it.’ He came back literally 15 minutes later and said, ‘Wait, how do you wind it?’"

He's right. Early Arabic is a wonderfully ambiguous language; something that is a valuable asset to any religious text.

Unfortunately, there are 3 problems:

1. Sony isn't forward thinking. Aside from taking a risk on the PlayStation, they make their bread and butter from insurance, not electronics.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05...

2. Almost every time Sony tries something proprietary the market tells them they aren't interested.
https://www.fastcompany.com/12...
http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

In fact, except for BluRay, Sony has lost every format war they've ever fought.

* BetaMax/VHS (VHS crushed beta),
* NT casette/microcasette (nobody remembers NT casettes),
* MiniDisc/Flash (held on in Asia, but flash and HDD and CDs won),
* DAT/CD (DAT never made it beyond professional use),
* MMCD/SD (MMCD abandonned, SD became DVD),
* VCD/DVD (VCDs saw some use, but DVD came out two years later and started killing it),
* MemoryStick/MMC/SD/CF/Xd/etc (SD won, even some Sony products use SD rather than MS, CF only sees some professional use),
* ATRAC/MP3 (ATRAC never saw much adoption outside of MiniDisc),
* SACD/DVD-Audio (made irrelevant by digital distribution).

3. Sony is a hardware company -- they really don't understand software.

Whether it's Monsanto and RoundUp-resistant weeds, or bananas and Panama disease : Nature adapts, while man-made genes don't. If humans modify their genes, the "most-popular genes" will become a larger and larger portion of the population, leading to a lack of genetic diversity, making for a wonderful opportunity for some disease to conquer them all, or some natural change to make it difficult for that portion of the population to adapt. As it's been said before, "Nature finds a way."

Correct; you could google it yourself, instead of asking me to.

And I would find one misleading news story. How is that evidence of a large-scale, government-controlled desinformation campaign?.

About 258,000 results (0.49 seconds), according to Google over here. Doesn't Google work over there?

Here's the first page, with sources ranging from The New York Times to The Guardian to Der Spiegel::
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
http://khpg.org/en/index.php?i...
http://www.dw.com/en/german-me...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...
http://uaposition.com/kharkiv-...

You made a claim, you have flimsy evidence to back it up.

Since you're unwilling to look at any of the 258,000 results, I doubt that anything I can post is likely to affect your position.

"Digging keys out of a physical chip takes insane resources and skill."

I'm not trivializing the task, but don't let yourself become flummoxed by silicon. Any chip can be disassembled. The best example I can post was about the two Cambridge guys who sanded the top off a smart card chip, exposing the circuit. They then used a microscope and a flash lamp to turn individual transistors on and off. The basically told the circuit to read out the key for them.

Source.

Not trivial, but not impossible.

Thanks for that perspective. It seems your signature link is past its "use by" date. Maybe time for a fresh one.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/blog...

Okay, but that's not "clearly hiding" in my book, in part because it's indistinguishable from carelessness.

I would agree, except for the signed affidavit that she executed after her security training. She actively disregarded her training.

Public? Please elaborate. Her address wasn't a domain registered with the gov't, I'd note.

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

The classified system is typically NOT called "email". You are correct that classified material should have gone through this unnamed system, but that's a different issue than general (unclassified) office email versus a home server.

Which is even more evidence of gross negligence.

Instead, you should be talking about systems designed for classified communication versus systems NOT designed for classified communication.

I think we're on the same page here - Clinton, and much of the State department that communicated classified info on non-classified systems, should be prosecuted for gross negligence.

A Russian disinformation campaign has already been in full swing in Germany for over a year.

Funny. I live in Germany. Show me this information war, because I don't see any sign of it.

OK. Look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.htm

A Russian disinformation campaign has already been in full swing in Germany for over a year. Russia has identified Germany as the key player in European politics and foreign policy and Russian internet trolls are flooding the comment sections of German news sites with pro-Russian propaganda while trying to sow distrust in German institutions, the government and mainstream German media.

That's well documented.

  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-troll-army/375932/

or here http://euromaidanpress.com/201...

or here http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...

A Russian disinformation campaign has already been in full swing in Germany for over a year.

Funny. I live in Germany. Show me this information war, because I don't see any sign of it.

OK. Look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/29/world/europe/russia-sweden-disinformation.htm

A Russian disinformation campaign has already been in full swing in Germany for over a year. Russia has identified Germany as the key player in European politics and foreign policy and Russian internet trolls are flooding the comment sections of German news sites with pro-Russian propaganda while trying to sow distrust in German institutions, the government and mainstream German media.

That's well documented.

  http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-kremlins-troll-army/375932/

or here http://euromaidanpress.com/201...

or here http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...

NYT already pointed out how she made millions in bribes dealing with Russia while she was Secretary of State.

I'm a bit confused on why they keep saying Trump is working with them when they have already bribed Hillary. Her more important things is importing more potential terrorists for millions more in bribes to her. Don't worry, this time she will make sure no one finds out about the private email server.

"more important work to do." lols

It is quite probable that nature itself is trying to curb our own population growth in some manner.

Says the western elitist who uses 30 times the amount of resources of the poor third worlder he wants to target for eugenics.

According to this article http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/us/politics/e-cigarettes-vaping-cigars-fda-altria.html it's the tobacco industry lobbyists that are trying to undo the FDA ruling because "big tobacco" owns a big chunk of e-cig / vaping products.

Agreed!

They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.

Do you think your numbers are accurate? Or perhaps you can explain why other examinations don't agree with your conclusions. Surely you can show your own numbers are more valid than independent examinations. If not, it means you are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent.

The real truth is, you have zero credibility when it comes to talking about the Clintons. And it's your own fault. You've been too hysterical and partisan, you could witness an actual homicide, and the jury would laugh when you took the stand.

No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?

Hey, if you want to lock up former Presidents, stop handing out pardons.

Propose a law that the President and their spouse has to live on a stipend, in a confined chamber, where they pray for America, then I'll believe you give a crap.

What are the Left's success-stories exactly, again?

Well, obviously places like peaceful, socialist Norway. You know, a place that would NEVER do anything a Trump-like person would like. Except, you know, realize they ALSO need to build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...

In that she mimics another very old person who was President for 8 years- Ronald Reagan. Of course, it turned out a couple of years later, he had a pretty good excuse.

Very true in rural, conservative areas of the US.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/upshot/new-geography-of-prisons.html

Seriously? Are you really going to try to blame a 6000 year old 'shit show' on four or five years of bad press? Destabilization just happens to be good for business, though not so much for the Russians.

An alternate view, but the article you link does somewhat contradict itself. It says the NYT article, to prove that Assange's motivation is to benefit Russia, "required ignoring the evidence of the other potential source of motivation for Julian Assange — such as that Hillary participated in an aggressive, and potentially illegal, prosecution of Assange for being a publisher and Chelsea Manning for being his source"-- and then immediately following that sentence, it posts the quote from the article itself that goes over these other potential sources of motivation.

In fact, the actual the NYT article in questionsays the opposite: it says that making the Russians look good isn't Assange's motivation. Benefitting the Russians is simply a side effect of leaking material that was provided by the Russians to leak.

" a New York Times examination of WikiLeaks’ activities during Mr. Assange’s years in exile found a different pattern: Whether by conviction, convenience or coincidence, WikiLeaks’ document releases, along with many of Mr. Assange’s statements, have often benefited Russia, at the expense of the West. Among United States officials, the emerging consensus is that Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks probably have no direct ties to Russian intelligence services. But they say that, at least in the case of the Democrats’ emails, Moscow knew it had a sympathetic outlet in WikiLeaks, where intermediaries could drop pilfered documents in the group’s anonymized digital inbox."

It's a pretty fascinating article. I do suggest reading the actual article, instead of just the slashdot summary, which slightly emphasized the anti-Assange parts and doesn't go into a lot of the rest of the article, which does go into other things.

But, here was one section that I found interesting: a leak that apparently WikiLeaks didn't publish:

WikiLeaks was just getting started in 2006 when Mr. Assange, an Australian national, sent a mission statement to potential collaborators. One of his goals, he said, was to help expose “illegal or immoral” behavior by governments in the West. Mr. Assange made clear, though, that his main focus lay elsewhere. “Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia,” he wrote. Shortly after releasing the war logs in 2010, Mr. Assange threatened to make good on that promise. WikiLeaks, he told a Moscow newspaper, had obtained compromising materials “about Russia, about your government and your businessmen.”

But Mr. Assange’s life was soon upended. On Nov. 20 of that year, an international warrant was issued for his arrest in connection with allegations of sexual assault in Sweden, which he denies. Eight days later, WikiLeaks’ release of a cache of State Department cables cast unvarnished — and unwelcome — light on the United States’ diplomatic relationships.

...Mr. Assange, asked soon after by Time magazine whether he still planned to expose the secret dealings of the Kremlin, reiterated his earlier vow. “Yes indeed,” he said. But that promised assault would not materialize. Instead, with Mr. Assange’s legal troubles mounting, Mr. Putin would come to his defense. ...One day after Mr. Assange’s arrest, the Russian president appeared at a news conference with the French prime minister. Brushing off a questioner who suggested that the diplomatic cables portrayed Russia as undemocratic, Mr. Putin used the opportunity to bash the West.

Wait, what? In 2010 WikiLeaks was going to publish materials “about Russia, about your government and your businessmen”... but never did? What happened to that leak?

“I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day . I think the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.“

Source: http://articles.philly.com/199...

Trump was asked about the book this quote was from during a 1997 playboy interview, and stated that what the book said was "Probably true", which in Trumpian means "Yeah, but I won't full on admit it"

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

No one actually has to "hack" anything -- just get the thought out there. No matter who wins, stories like this will be cited by the losing side as "proof" the election was "rigged" or "hacked", and that the winner didn't win legitimately. I can think of few things more damaging to the democratic institution.

See also:

A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories

I am not sure how old you are but that is the story of one of the first cable companies as well.

It wasn't just cable companies -- the first cable channels distributed widely often had significantly reduced ad time (commercials maybe every 30 minutes or every 15), or no effective advertisements at all. (Well, even the ones without ads might run an ad for other programs on their channel or related ones every 30 minutes or hour or something, or sometimes between movies.) Here's an article from the New York Times in 1981 speculating about how cable TV will be transformed if it's "invaded by commercials."

I haven't seen any evidence that the wiping was done during the email investigation; do you have a citation that says otherwise?

It wasn't done during the FBI investigation, but it seems to have been done after the State Department requested her emails pursuant to an investigation by the House about Benghazi.

According to Clinton's lawyer, the emails must have been deleted sometime between December 5, 2014 and March 27, 2015. That article is from last year, so perhaps they've managed to narrow the window further.

As discussed in the New York Times timeline on the investigation, the select committee in the House to investigate Benghazi was formed in May 2014 and began negotiating with Clinton in July 2014 to obtain all of her emails. The State Department turned over "a handful of emails from Mrs. Clinton, all from her private account" in August 2014, and the House committee requested the remainder of the emails. As noted in the Politifact story above, Clinton's lawyer said the "review" of Clinton's emails to separate personal correspondence, etc. happened in fall of 2014. Clinton apparently finally turned over (what she claimed to be) the remainder to the State Department in December (almost two years after leaving office), after which she deleted the rest. On March 10, 2015, the New York Times reported that Clinton had deleted 32,000 emails. After finding classified information, the FBI began its investigation in July 2015.

So, yes, the emails were deleted before the FBI investigation began. But they were deleted after repeated requests to turn over all her correspondence by the House committee.

Personally, I have my doubts that there was some sort of "evil memo" smoking gun to be found in this mass of stuff, but the fact is that the server was wiped AFTER an investigation (at that time limited to Benghazi) and official government request for all her email happened. It at least has to go in the "somewhat shady" category that Clinton only gave paper copies of emails and wiped the server clean at this point. (Why they were delivered on 55,000 pages of paper is still unclear, but it would have potentially erased a lot of metadata -- the redigitized email I've seen had no detailed headers. Oh, and the redigitization process required more than 2400 man-hours of work.)

It seems more likely (to me) that if there were anything "shady" going it, it was probably to delete personal correspondence -- rather than State Department business -- that would make her look really bad if it ever got out. But I guess we'll never know.

I haven't seen any evidence that the wiping was done during the email investigation; do you have a citation that says otherwise?

It wasn't done during the FBI investigation, but it seems to have been done after the State Department requested her emails pursuant to an investigation by the House about Benghazi.

According to Clinton's lawyer, the emails must have been deleted sometime between December 5, 2014 and March 27, 2015. That article is from last year, so perhaps they've managed to narrow the window further.

As discussed in the New York Times timeline on the investigation, the select committee in the House to investigate Benghazi was formed in May 2014 and began negotiating with Clinton in July 2014 to obtain all of her emails. The State Department turned over "a handful of emails from Mrs. Clinton, all from her private account" in August 2014, and the House committee requested the remainder of the emails. As noted in the Politifact story above, Clinton's lawyer said the "review" of Clinton's emails to separate personal correspondence, etc. happened in fall of 2014. Clinton apparently finally turned over (what she claimed to be) the remainder to the State Department in December (almost two years after leaving office), after which she deleted the rest. On March 10, 2015, the New York Times reported that Clinton had deleted 32,000 emails. After finding classified information, the FBI began its investigation in July 2015.

So, yes, the emails were deleted before the FBI investigation began. But they were deleted after repeated requests to turn over all her correspondence by the House committee.

Personally, I have my doubts that there was some sort of "evil memo" smoking gun to be found in this mass of stuff, but the fact is that the server was wiped AFTER an investigation (at that time limited to Benghazi) and official government request for all her email happened. It at least has to go in the "somewhat shady" category that Clinton only gave paper copies of emails and wiped the server clean at this point. (Why they were delivered on 55,000 pages of paper is still unclear, but it would have potentially erased a lot of metadata -- the redigitized email I've seen had no detailed headers. Oh, and the redigitization process required more than 2400 man-hours of work.)

It seems more likely (to me) that if there were anything "shady" going it, it was probably to delete personal correspondence -- rather than State Department business -- that would make her look really bad if it ever got out. But I guess we'll never know.

Please point out the parts where he is carefully refining and adding caveats to his view?

"Individual storms are hard to predict. And so as the ocean gets bigger and the sea surface gets warmer, you would expect more of these storms." Expectation is at the heart of statistics. If you suspect a new process favors an event, you expect that event to happen more frequently.

Let's not forget that he also basically said, "If you don't fix climate change right now, we'll have a descent into lawlessness with looters everywhere," too.

No, he did not. He actually said, "What'll probably happen is people will move, and then what's gonna happen to all that copper? Somebody's gonna show up to salvage or loot it." He makes no mention of a descent into lawlessness. This is exactly what's happened in cities where the major industry has closed or moved away.

While I wish his opening line was less absolute, you are being rather disingenuous by putting words in his mouth and ignoring the full context.

Another link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...

If only we had a place to put the waste. Something that wasn't closed because of politics.

Learn your history, fool! Stalin had so totally fucked up the Soviet Union, executed his best generals beforehand in his paranoid purges, killed millions in his famine especially in the Ukraine (where the peasants had to resort to cannibalism), that when the Nazis attacked Russia the Soviet Union was fucked. Stalin himself had expected to be shot by his own people. Instead the Allies shipped massive supplies and aid to the Soviet Union ($130 Billion!) to prop them up. The Soviets paid a very high price in human life in World War II, but if it wasn't for Western supplies they could not have done it http://www.historynet.com/did-...

In other news: How to win friends and influence people: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08... Now what does the US administration think the families and neighbors of these dead civilians are going to do?

Back at you.

Not at all, I'm not relying on that page at all, to put it expressly, I don't believe in it.

But I do recognize that there are folks with a vested interest in making sure their version of their story is believed. And that's why you believe it, isn't it?

Or do you not realize the signals you're sending?

This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it...

Oh, that's ok, you could have ASKED.

Oh wait, you went and got off on your own, without even paying attention to what I said or even asking first. And I do note you cut off two of the other issues I brought up. Well, actually, you cut of my own statement in the middle. That says a good bit. I suggest not doing that, if you don't want to create the impression of being deliberately misleading.

If you're going to be confrontational, at least be right, but you're not even right.

Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites.

Which doesn't address what I said at all. I didn't make a distinction along racial lines, I said "that failure rates for those loans were not any higher than other loans (even commercial loans)" which refers to a different aspect of the problem. Perhaps you didn't understand what I meant by those loans? For that, you'll want to look at other documents.. But then, you should have asked first.

If you want to talk about racial policies, there is much of interest there, but hmm, no, I wasn't saying what you think I was, so I guess we should address that first, before moving on.

Can you admit you weren't even arguing with what I said, but over something else? If not, then stop here, and we'll go over it again.

(And seriously, the Center for Responsible Lending? That's a cringe-worthy name. Never trust somebody with a name like that, whether Honest Bob, the Committee of Public Safety, or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea)

The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.

Hmm, I'm not seeing an argument for the suffering being caused here, let alone it being increased by those actions, let alone the harming actions being from Democrats. In fact, I'd say the most harmful actions would be from financial institutions who you can read about.

It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race.

Oh no, you don't need to think of David Duke as hard-core. He's slick, but not hard-core at all. He's smarmy enough to be a bank officer though, and he'd have all the sound and justifiable reasoning lined up to validate his actions. And no, they'd worry about losing their bonuses, or being sent to Duluth instead, because the bosses wouldn't like it. Same reason they don't rep

In case you are truly curious, and not just trolling. Story Sorry, I can only find one of these in the NYT.

She got a total of around $600 million in bribes for giving out State Department favours. Some of them were likely reasonable, as you suggest, some of them border on treason, as the NYT story suggests. Any ONE of these would require appropriate disciplinary action, and in most government agencies would result in an immediate termination.

Some of the emails gotten by Judicial Watch via FOIA request show that some of her work related emails. not given to the FBI, were about these bribes. So that is what is so interesting. She has obvious conflict of interest, which should be punishable on its own, to the tune of $600 million, and some deleted emails that appear to confirm this, that she deleted calling them "yoga" emails.

So you'd like to believe. You'd REALLY like to believe it.

Back at you.

But then we look, and we see that failure rates for those loans were not any higher

This was a good opportunity to offer a citation, but, for some reason, you didn't do it... Maybe, that's because you are just lazy. Maybe, you knew to be posting an untruth and hoped, I would not call your lie. Fail. Here is a 2010 paper citing the following mortgage-failure numbers for 2007-2009: 790 per 10000 loans for Blacks, 769 for Latinos, 452 for Non-Hispanic Whites. The minorities, whom the Democratic demagogues, supposedly, tried to help, suffered the most from the "help". As usual.

It was blatantly stupid too. Racist or not, banks want to make money. Issuing loans is how banks make money. It would take a David Duke-like hard-core racism for a loan officer to lower his own bonus/commissions and reject a qualified loan-application on the basis of race. No one would do it — and none of the allegations of this happening en masse has ever been substantiated.

Now, don't be an asshole, and reply under your own name to undo the cowardly downmoderations...

Because... ? Trump Steaks? Vodka? Air?

By offending every voting bloc except white males, Trump has one and only path through the electoral college. He must win Florida (which can go either way), Ohio (no Republican has ever won the White House without this state) and Pennsylvania (which haven't gone Republican since 1988). If he loses any one of these states, it's game over. His support among white males is starting to weaken.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/donald-trump-white-men.html

I'm no fan of Trump, however unlike you, I can recognize he has been very successful at enough to be in a pretty good spot today.

As a politician, Trump is failure. George W., as the first CEO president, was a success in comparison.

Sure, eating healthier has its benefits, but not everyone is able to survive on a strict vegan, or even vegetarian, diet.

You can absolutely survive on a fully vegan diet, and humans have been doing it for millions of years. The American Dietetic Association released a statement to this effect. They are the United States' largest organization of food and nutrition professionals, and represents over 100,000 credentialed practitioners — registered dietitian nutritionists, dietetic technicians, registered, and other dietetics professionals holding undergraduate and advanced degrees in nutrition and dietetics.
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods.
http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/2009_ADA_position_paper.pdf

As for the article you posted. You need to look at the source of your information before jumping to conclusions. Nina Planck (who wrote that NY times article), like most journalistic writers, has several financial ulterior motives for attacking vegans. For every vegan feeding their baby apple cider and soy milk there are thousand equally moronic meat eaters being jailed for the neglect of their children. Does that mean anything about eating meat, or just neglect in general?

From Nina Planck's own website and wikipedia page:
-Ms. Planck‘s London Farmers‘ Markets sell, among other things, “organic & outdoor reared meat, game in season, dairy“ and fish.
-Her website invites browsers to “Learn why butter and lard are good for you and corn oil and soy milk are not.
-She lives in New York City with Robert Kaufelt, proprietor of Murray's Cheese Store
-In 2003, she returned to the United States as the director of the New York Greenmarket program; she was dismissed after six months:

Also, there are an estimated 100 million vegetarians in the world ranging from strict vegans to lacto-ovo-pescatarians and everything in between. In every single large-scale non-industry funded nutritional study, vegans always exhibit the lowest levels of chronic lifestyle disease such as cancer and atherosclerosis. They also have the longest life-spans worldwide. Look in to the traditional Okinawans and the Adventists for a start.

My Vegan Diet Almost Killed Me talks about orthorexia, which stems from "righteous fixation on healthy eating". Lets not forget Death by Veganism where two vegan parents were convicted of murder, involuntary manslaughter, and cruelty to their 6 month old child. Anecdotally, I have a vegetarian friend whose pediatrician told her she needed to start eating meat to promote the health and growth of her infant. The diet has worked well for her for years (decades?), yet when faced with breastfeeding, it just wasn't high enough on proteins the kid could use for growing up.

Everyone's body chemistry is different and we all have different dietary needs. You could have also pointed out those regions whose diets typically result in longer lifetimes (read: basically every diet that isn't "American"). As can be seen here:

The lower mortality from ischemic heart disease among vegetarians was greater at younger ages and was restricted to those who had followed their current diet for >5 y. Further categorization of diets showed that, in comparison with regular meat eaters, mortality from ischemic heart disease was 20% lower in occasional meat eaters, 34% lower in people who ate fish but not meat, 34% lower in lactoovovegetarians, and 26% lower in vegans. There were no significant differences between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in mortality from cerebrovascular disease, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, or all other causes combined.

From this study we see that an asian diet (lots of vegetables, some fish, very little red meat) is actually better that strict veganism.

While I haven't actually read all of the articles you linked, I would suggest that lowering the amount of deep fried foods, fatty red meat, and focusing more on fish and vegetables would be promote overall health for a wider number of people.

Perhaps not the right answer. The timing of the Turkish release was too political to ignore. Releasing what is basically a giant leadership smear immediately after the failed coup that many within Turkey blaimed on the CIA makes their motives extremely questionable.
I'd rather the question, are they are now directly under governmental control.

http://nytimes.com/2016/08/03/...

>>> "EPA "Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions"

For realz you are going to cite the EPA as having some sort of expertise on what is good for the environment?
Pro Tip: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08... Navajo Nation Sues E.P.A. in Poisoning of a Colorado River

In homes where both spouses work, the woman still ends up with more than the fair share of housework. Additionally, people who say that lifetime earnings are the same after adjusting for things like fewer years worked because of child and family responsibilities miss the point - overall earnings still are less, so less savings, etc. Caring for aged parents falls mostly to the woman - another financial hit, and emotionally and physically draining. And the more kids, the less equally the housework and child rearing is shared.

So, debate it all you want, but you're still wrong. The gender pay gap exists, and life actually gives us a pretty good controlled experiment, where the only variable is gender - the person stays the same in all other respects. Someone transitioning from female to male makes the same as their male peers. Someone transitioning from male to female makes less than other males or females.

Transsexuals’ experiences working both as men and as women can be framed as a kind of experiment that illuminates the subtle ways that gender differences and gender inequality are socially produced in the workplace. While transsexuals have the same human capital and pre-labor market gender socialization after their gender transitions, their workplace experiences often change radically.

Existing autobiographical and scholarly research demonstrates that for many MTFs, becoming women brings a loss of authority and pay, as well as workplace harassment and, in many cases, termination (e.g. Bolin 1988; Griggs 1998; McCloskey 1999; Schilt 2006a).

On the other hand, for many FTMs, becoming men can bring an increase in workplace authority, reward, and respect, as well as new job opportunities and promotions (e.g. Griggs 1998; Schilt 2006a, 2006b). Transsexuals’ before and after workplace experiences, then, can help make the hidden processes that produce workplace gender inequality visible.

And then there's this.

You're kidding right?
Surely you can't be that ignorant of Google's power?!

Here's a quick search to answer your question.

Google literally have the power to change leadership of entire nations and sway voters, and even make or break an entire company!

Google products are 100% voluntary, if you don't want to use them, then don't...

Err, no they're not.
You're Google's product and slave whether you like it or not.
It's easy (for a technical person) to simply not use facebook and block their 2/3 domains, but it's almost impossible to do that with Google, considering GoogleAPIs, Captcha, Doubleclick, Analytics, GoogleAdServices, GoogleSyndication, GTM, Plus, etc, etc.

You're kidding right?
Surely you can't be that ignorant of Google's power?!

Here's a quick search to answer your question.

Google literally have the power to change leadership of entire nations and sway voters, and even make or break an entire company!

Google products are 100% voluntary, if you don't want to use them, then don't...

Err, no they're not.
You're Google's product and slave whether you like it or not.
It's easy (for a technical person) to simply not use facebook and block their 2/3 domains, but it's almost impossible to do that with Google, considering GoogleAPIs, Captcha, Doubleclick, Analytics, GoogleAdServices, GoogleSyndication, GTM, Plus, etc, etc.

Story where Clinton received tens of millions in bribes to have the State Department approve the sale of 1/5 of US uranium to Russia. She took bribes to dish out State Department favors. Since this piece came out, the estimate is she made $145 million total in bribes from this deal.

Now go ahead and tell me there is noting on her. I have yet to hear a non-paid Clinton supporter tell me they are still supporting her after hearing this.
If you don't care about this, there is nothing Clinton can POSSIBLY do to lose your support.
The fact the DOJ and FBI haven't even looked into this, in fact the DOJ told the FBI not to, should tell you all about them you need to know.

What is interesting is that the Berkeley Earth project, organised by then-sceptic Richard Muller did a different, completely independent analysis of the temperature record. BEST automatically detected discontinuities in individual temperature records, split the record at each discontinuity, and then spliced all the continuous subrecords together again, merging them into a global temperature record. The result is basically indistinguishable from the other major reconstructions (which are also mostly independent, but use more similar methodologies). Muller has adapted his opinion to the data and now acknowledges that the manual adjustments were indeed justified and done with skill and care.

After all, if you have it on you, they can't track it! Heads explode when you compare this to the vitriolic hatred of economists for capital controls.

"Traces of cocaine" -- traces of cocaine can be found on almost 90% of circulating US currency.

Likewise, they can ask for your phone, sure, but if they ask you to unlock it they can fuck right off. And they in turn can choose to tell you, too, to fuck right off. It's the prerogative of a border agent.

Because repeatedly sending out abusive tweets directed at one person in particular should be allowed.

It is one thing to disagree with someone, criticize their actions or point of view, but to repeatedly and ad nauseum go after them because of their race, that is not something which, despite free speech, should be tolerated on someone elses platform.

As Twitter said when banning him:

"People should be able to express diverse opinions and beliefs on Twitter. But no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others."

But go ahead. Whine about how only one point of view was censored while completely ignoring the relevant facts.

As in many other cases, Drumpf is a raging hypocrite. In the real world, vote fraud is a republican thing. And they're not even subtle about it. One of their operatives, the CEO of Diebold, manufacturer of many of the voting machines in the US, went so far as to openly state his intention to divert votes to the republicans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11...