Slashdot Mirror

Furthermore, you're citing a poem as evidence of... what?

The failure of your Moscow reform school to educate you on either Literary Analysis or American Civics?

Oh well, no worse than usual.

I heard the GOP is still trying to convince folks that Sutherland, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Pulse, and the Boston Massacre were all personally orchestrated by Hillary Clinton's secret underground pizza ring.

Meanwhile, nobody can deny that Roy Moore dated teenagers in the 1930s at the height of the Depression. Wait, wait, I mean, Roy Moore's inability to deny dating teenagers while in his thirties sends the GOP senators into a depression.

It's OK though, you are secretly planning to take your cyanide pill a week early.

heck I don't know. probably just making it up.

https://www.politico.com/story...
https://thinkprogress.org/stev...

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

https://www.npr.org/sections/t...

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/con...

---

https://www.childtrends.org/in...

In 2015, more than 1 in 6 U.S. children (18 percent) lived in households that were food-insecure at some point during the year, and 0.7 percent experienced the most severe level of need, where food intake is reduced and regular eating patterns are disrupted.[1]

https://www.nokidhungry.org/si...

Child Hunger is a Health Problem
While every American is morally offended by the existence of childhood hunger, pediatricians and public health
professionals see the tragic effects of this unnecessary condition graphically imprinted on the bodies and minds
of children;
â Hungry children are sick more often, and more likely to have to be hospitalized (the costs
of which are passed along to the business community as insurance and tax burdens);
â Hungry children suffer growth impairment that precludes their reaching their full
physical potential,
â Hungry children incur developmental impairments that limit their physical, intellectual
and emotional development.

---

Cause I'm just crazy that way.

Much of this could be addressed for *PENNIES* on the dollar yet republicans have been targeting poor children for over a decade now (it really started under bush JR).

Hello Ivan.

Top lawyers from Facebook and Twitter said that Russian-linked posts and advertisements placed on the social networks after Election Day sought to sow doubt about President Donald Trump's victory.

Facebook general counsel Colin Stretch told a Senate Judiciary panel that content generated by a Russian troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency after Nov. 8 centered on "fomenting discord about the validity of [Trumpâ(TM)s] election."

Everybody who reads the paper knows about that. But Christie's term ends January 16, 2018, and it takes a 2/3 vote in the Senate to expel Menendez. https://www.politico.com/story...

Ah, but that is the whole issue, for something that didn't happen, there seems to be a lot of evidence that it might have.

Ok, I'd like to read up on the evidence that suggests that there might have been an offer of sanction removal/reduction in exchange for rigging the election. Can you share a link please? Outside of a huge amount of conjecture, so far there has been very little evidence that I've seen, so I'm eager to be corrected.

You are confusing us following information coming out of an ongoing investigation with some kind of conclusion.

Not at all. Rather, it seems like the conclusion was drawn from day one, and ever since it's been a hunt for information to support that conclusion. To me this is very much like the Republicans and Benghazi, and in some respects the Clinton email server - settle on a conclusion and look for evidence to support it. In both cases it's wrongheaded and it's the opposite of a data-driven investigation.

Originally you pissed the question of why people were so much more interested in one, rather than the other. Well, here we are.

Well, sorta - you've shifted away from the two things I was talking about when I posted. The first was this notion that "Russia hacked the US election". The second was that people were rigging the Democratic primaries. The first is false, the second one is true. And yet the first one was in the spotlight for months while the second has received very little airtime - it's almost been swept under the rug (although it does get some coverage, e.g. https://www.politico.com/magaz...).

In parallel to, but independent of, the false story that Russia hacked the US election is the story about interaction between the Trump campaign and Russia. That one is interesting too, but I wasn't talking about it.

And so far that one isn't exactly turning up any evidence of anything illegal on the part of Trump either, although it's early in the process still. So far all that's really come to light is that Trump shows poor judgement and either hubris or naivete - but we've known that all along, right? Unfortunately being a jerk isn't illegal.

Once had vastly different consequences if it turns out to be true. I wish i could look at all of this and confidently say it didn't happen, but to my mind at least, there is enough here to keep weighing the evidence.

Awesome, I'd love to see some of the evidence that points to, say, treasonous behavior. And to be clear, hopeful conjecture != evidence, of course. Thanks!

Just because someone on the Trump campaign had contact with Russians means nothing

Not just "someone"

Epic Fail.

How much money did the Clintons get from Wall Street again? (asking for a friend...)

https://www.politico.com/magaz...
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/2...
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1...

There's no mystery because the plan to decommission the servers was put in place in March after the security research found the holes and got the FBI involved.
The plan was to implement recommendations made by the FBI and security researchers in March.
The suit was filed on July 3, the first server was wiped on July 7, and the lawsuit was served to the Kennesaw attorney's on July 10.
Here's a FOIA document of Kennesaw's UIT plans and sequence of events.
https://www.documentcloud.org/...

It's long, but it's obvious to anyone that's been in IT that the wipe is part of a planned upgrade and not the result of some plot.
One thing the news got wrong is that the data is not gone, it was moved to the new servers as part of the upgrade.

Also, the state is going to retrieve the FBI's forensic copy.
https://www.documentcloud.org/...

More info:
https://www.politico.com/magaz...
http://www.politico.com/magazi...

There's no mystery because the plan to decommission the servers was put in place in March after the security research found the holes and got the FBI involved.
The plan was to implement recommendations made by the FBI and security researchers in March.
The suit was filed on July 3, the first server was wiped on July 7, and the lawsuit was served to the Kennesaw attorney's on July 10.
Here's a FOIA document of Kennesaw's UIT plans and sequence of events.
https://www.documentcloud.org/...

It's long, but it's obvious to anyone that's been in IT that the wipe is part of a planned upgrade and not the result of some plot.
One thing the news got wrong is that the data is not gone, it was moved to the new servers as part of the upgrade.

Also, the state is going to retrieve the FBI's forensic copy.
https://www.documentcloud.org/...

More info:
https://www.politico.com/magaz...
http://www.politico.com/magazi...

You forgot to mention the meeting between Obama's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, and Bill Clinton... which happened 5 days before Hillary Clinton testified.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch/index.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/bill-clinton-loretta-lynch-224972

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/08/07/documents-show-doj-was-in-panic-mode-after-loretta-lynch-meeting-with-bill-clinton-was-exposed-n2364588

https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/06/hillary-clintons-email-the-definitive-timeline/

What Petraeus did was far more serious than what Clinton did. He set up a secret method of passing classified information to a person that he knew was not authorized to handle classified information.

Hillary Clinton engaged in a conspiracy to have secure data transferred to an insecure system. She had people who worked for her reading secure emails off the secure email system, and then typing a summary and emailing the summary to her personal server, so she could read the summaries on her BlackBerry. Later she said she never got anything that had been marked classified... which was technically true, as the typed summaries omitted any mention of classification.

She at least once had her maid go into the SCIF in her house and get a fax.

Her lawyer had possession of a USB "thumb drive" containing all of her emails.

This Politico article is a pretty friendly article to Hillary Clinton, trying to make the case that what she did wasn't all that big a deal, but it includes a section about the summaries of secure info being sent to insecure email address. The article claims it wasn't that big a deal because the State Department IT situation was so broken that people commonly did things like that just to get their jobs done.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-emails-2016-server-state-department-fbi-214307

For Clinton, she did not set up her server with a primary function of handling classified information, a comparatively small fraction of the documents on it were classified.

The only acceptable fraction is 0%. She had over 2000 email chains containing classified info, over 100 email chains that were classified at the time, over 20 of which were "Top Secret", and including things that any sensible person would know were secret like the satellite data. 22 emails were so sensitive that no part of them has been released to the public, not even redacted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/how-clintons-email-scandal-took-root/2016/03/27/ee301168-e162-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

Also, she had a duty to take care of secure info in a secure way, but in testimony she swore under oath that she had no idea what she was doing: she didn't know that the marking "(c)" might mean that a document was classified, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy#Classified_information_in_emails

And, most importantly, there was no evidence that she intended to pass classified information to unauthorized parties. Historically, there have been very different punishments handed out for people who miss-handled classified information, and those who conduct espionage. The difference is in the intent.

Note that Brian Nishimura was not found to have had any ill intent. He had copies of secure information on an insecure device, and that was game over for him. Yet he was treated far more harshly than Hillary Clinton was treated. Are you okay with that? I'm not.

And wonder why young people don't want to work for the government. http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/27/aging-government-workforce-analysis-000525

The Dems constantly try to dismantle charter schools because their outcomes are worse than public schools, and they also siphon funds away from public schools, bringing their results down too. That's what happened in Michigan when DeVos pushed charter schools, and that's what's going to happen now that she can push her agenda nationwide. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/betsy-devos-michigan-school-experiment-232399 http://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2017/06/18/charter-schools-profit-performance/393071001/

Why are we even talking about a couple of Facebook ads when today's breaking news is the Obama administration was investigating Russian infiltration of the US nuclear material transport trucking company in 2009, by none other than Mueller of the FBI. It eventually led to corruption, money laundering, kickbacks and extortion charges. Yet somehow at the same time, a $500k speaking fee to Bill Clinton and $145mil being donated to the Clinton Foundation, with Hillary Clinton as sec of state let the same Russian group by Uranium One and 20% of the US uranium supply. Obama himself said that there was nothing to be concerned about, but we know now the investigation was blocked by none other than Comey, and Dept of Justice Holder And the Russian involved had a plea deal and covered it up in 2014.

Dearie, don't you understand? Laws are for little people.

James Comey can admit to leaking, and gets to write a book about it.

Reality Winner can admit to leaking, and gets to sit in prison, denied bail.

Wrong. During the campaign, the Koch brothers hated Trump, because he wasn't a swamp creature that could be manipulated. Kochs did everything they could to make sure Trump didn't win the primary. I think they even sat out for the general election.

http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://www.newsweek.com/donald...
https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

Wow, I didn't know whether to mod you +1 informative or -1 off-topic, since you are right, and you cited evidence and gave links (thanks!) ... but the whole discussion is off the topic.

So instead I'll just comment as AC.

Yes, the Koch brothers very specifically did not invest in the Trump campaign. I will point out, however, that they have funded Pence, and in turn he has been very supportive of them:

https://www.thenation.com/article/vice-president-mike-pence-would-be-a-dream-for-the-koch-brothers/

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/339283-pence-stops-by-koch-brothers-conference-in-colorado

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345449-pence-to-keynote-koch-brothers-event-in-august

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486253693/despite-ties-to-vp-pick-mike-pence-koch-network-still-refuses-to-support-trump

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/07/14/indiana-gov-mike-pence-has-close-ties-charles-kochs-money-network/87083956/

Wrong. During the campaign, the Koch brothers hated Trump, because he wasn't a swamp creature that could be manipulated. Kochs did everything they could to make sure Trump didn't win the primary. I think they even sat out for the general election.

http://www.politico.com/story/...
http://www.newsweek.com/donald...
https://www.vanityfair.com/new...

On the plus side I come from a short-lived family with poor genetics and I'm getting up there in years, so I'll probably be dead before the massive unemployment and chaos caused by the next industrial revolution.

No, your brain will be dug up, scanned, emulated, and placed in a bot. You can't run and you can't hide, dude!

In general seriousness, predicting the future is difficult and pundits and executives should stop trying. I am pretty sure, though that AI/automation will at least gradually crawl up the skills scale and take or reduce low-end jobs. People will be displaced, and if we don't do something about displacement, they'll riot or even worse: vote for ranting fools with attention deficits. The rust-belt enacted hair-raising revenge upon the Nation as it fell directly on swing-states. If we keep ignoring the displaced (or become one), unpleasant things will continue to happen.

You know that Clinton cheated, right? Got copies of the questions for the primary...all that jazz.

That's a bit of a stretch - someone sent her A question for a primary debate and even with that, she didn't really give a great answer.

Really? Donna Brazile admitted that she did it. But don't let facts get in your way.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

Even if we find comparable amounts of arable land, increasing CO2 levels causes most plants to produce more sugars and not much else more... so the relative nutrient content of food decreases. You wouldn't need Monsanto to mess with plants or any of the massive processed food industries to overload our diets with sugar, as plants will do that themselves.

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511

Give them credit by using their link - John Kelly's personal cellphone was compromised, White House believes

Bernie and Bannon are the only two really trying to get the average American to a better spot.

Those 2 names should never appear in the same sentence with an "and" between them. You're going to melt brains.

There was actually a lot of overlap, economically speaking, between what the two advocated. Mind you this was before Bernie sided with illegals per Democrat requirements. In his earlier independent days he had pointed out both that trade policies (TPP et al) and immigration were both hurting the middle class. Pretty inline with Bannon in terms of economics. Citations:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

Facebook admitted to promoting pro-Hillary and suppressing pro-Trump stories/outlets. Where is the investigation and media attention for that?

Comey admits to leaking classified information, gets a sweet book deal. Reality winner leaks classified information, sits in jail denied bond.

The DNC siphoned $60 million from down-ballot elections into Hillary's campaign to fight Sanders, which would appear to be a violation of FEC rules on its face(*).

Susan Rice unmasked wiretaps of Trump and advisors without a warrant, which was then leaked to the press.

Bill Clinton had an "on the tarmac" meeting with then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch while Lynch was investigating the E-mail scandal.

Hillary got $11,000,000 from the King of Morocco in return for a special-access meeting with the (then) Secretary of State.

Consider how much time and effort and taxpayer money has been spent on investigation Trump's Russia connection - and they're now looking at $50,000 of *ads* taken out by people from Russia. Compared to the amount Hillary spent? Or Trump spent?

I live in hope that some day our administration will grow some balls and start prosecuting people for blatant corruption - even though it may look on the surface like political reprisals against the losers.

(*) FEC puts a limit on the amount any individual can donate to a candidate. Many donors gave the maximum to Hillary, and donated more to down-ballot candidates. Moving down-ballot money to Hillary's campaign is likely violating the "maximum donation" rule.

Well then, Trump and his apologists like yourself, will have nothing to worry about now, won't they...

I agree with this sentiment entirely.

I would *love* to have our two parties compete for leadership in this country, but by now I'm convinced that it's never gonna' happen.

I'm dismayed that we (the government, through our taxes) are paying for an investigation with negligible chances of finding anything, but at the same time I realize it keeps "them" busy and out of trouble.

I'm also dismayed that there's an apparent double standard in legal consequences, where James Comey can admit to leaking and gets to write a book about it, while Reality Winner (a commoner) sits in prison denied bond.

I think we may be seeing the death of the Democratic party, to be quickly followed by the death of the Republican party.

It used to be that "money buys votes", through advertising and endorsements, but the internet has managed to break through that barrier. Looking at the recent Alabama special election (to replace Jeff Sessions' vacant Senate seat), the "establishment" candidate spent about $137 per vote on the election, and still lost. Hillary Clinton spent about $1.4B against Trump's $1B and still lost.

No longer can people get away with outright lies - it's too easy to look up the primary source. No longer can people get away with puffery or exaggeration - it's too easy to look up the primary source. News sources who have previously survived on making exactly those sorts of techniques are becoming irrelevant.

We seem to be transitioning from "Republican vs Democrat" to "Populist vs Globalist".

Let them have their investigation, it doesn't really matter. They're not taking responsibility for their actions, they're not making any change to *themselves* to compensate.

They're not going to evolve, and we all know how that works out.

Actually the voting public didn't pick Hillary and further Bruce Spiva, a lawyer for the DNC, argued in its motion to dismiss that the party holds the right to select its candidate any way it chooses and is not bound by pledges of fairness. Further still the super delegates voted in many states for Hillary despite 10 and 20 point leads by Sanders. If super delegates weren't part of the formula, Sanders would have won hands down. The DNC chair resigned in disgrace over this, and small donor donations to democrats have hit historic lows, but there are no rule changes in sight and the DNC will just pick who they like, fairness or public voting be damned.

found online, not vouching for its accuracy

Independent verification of FBI Anon claims

1995: Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Izaac Herzog, and an unidentified Israeli representative meet to discuss the possibility of Bill Clinton pardoning Marc Rich in exchange for Rich funding the PLO, a Muslim terrorist organization committed to Israel's destruction.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/p...

Qatar would buy a stake in Marc Rich's company Glencore after his death, and Qatar and Glencore would operate in concert afterwards.

2000: Marc Rich associate Michael Steinhardt controls the DLC and Progressive Policy Institute.
http://www.deepcapture.com/200...

2003: George Soros and Morton Halperin placed John Podesta as founding head of the Center for American Progress.
http://www.discoverthenetworks... https://archive.is/Gb2FV

Under Podesta's watch, unknown persons placed accused Hamas fundraiser Faiz Shakir as Vice President of the Center for American Progress and chief editor of Think Progress. In 2011 Faiz Shakir and Wajahat Ali produced the report "Fear Inc." smearing national security analysts and political activists who oppose the Muslim Brotherhood, including liberal Muslims.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fp... https://archive.is/tOxwC

Online rumors have attempted to connect the art trading of John Podesta's brother Tony Podesta with Qatari art purchases of works by Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons who have been hosted by Qatar Museums.
http://qz.com/764975/qatars-oi...

The Podesta Group lobbyied for Qatar Petroleum in 2013.
https://www.desmogblog.com/201...

2004: The Awan brothers begin employment in the US Congress and will work under Robert Wexler, Xavier Becerra, Gregory Meeks, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and others before they are exposed as a spy ring in 2017.
http://www.politico.com/story/...

2005: Unknown persons placed Emad Shahin and Juliette Kayyem in the Dubai Initiative which produced propaganda to promote the Muslim Brotherhood using the name and reputation of Harvard University.
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvar...
Emad Shahin was convincted in absentia of aiding Hamas and Iran to overthrow the Egyptian government.
http://emadshahin.com/?p=1839
https://news.vice.com/article/...
Juliette Kayyem advocated for Qatari state television network Al-Jazeera and wrote "The War On Terror Is Over" to discourage continued resistance to al-Qaeda.
https://www.boston.com/bostong...
https://www.boston.com/bostong...

2005: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal paid Georgetown University $20 million to continue hosting John Esposito's Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which was originally founded in 1993 with a grant from PLO board member Hasib Sabagh

The left is standing up to Russia while the right wing embraces Russia's attack on our country.

No kidding. The GOP's approval ratings of Putin have increased nearly 4x since the trump infection colonized their party. Saint Reagan is going to bring the fire and brimstone for you traitors.

Here's a piece by the former vice-chair of the FEC: How the FEC Turned a Blind Eye to Foreign Meddling

I warned that Vladimir Putin could meddle in our elections nearly three years ago ...

I suggested to the commission that the FEC consult with internet and tech experts to discuss how the agencyâ(TM)s current approach may or may not fit with future innovations. Starting this conversation should have been noncontroversial, especially at an agency whose very mission is to inform the public about the sources behind campaign spending.

But my comments were greeted with harassment and death threats stoked by claims by the three Republican commissioners that increased transparency in internet political advertising was censorship. Requiring financial disclosure, they argued, âoecould threaten the continued development of the internetâ(TM)s virtual free marketplace of political ideas and democratic debate.â One commissioner went so far as to tell me that even talking about this subject at the commission would itself âoechill speech.â

Not only was it taboo to suggest that the FEC adapt to the times, the commission was barely interested in enforcing rules already in place. In one instance, Republican commissioners had blocked enforcement of a law that explicitly prohibits foreign interference in U.S. elections, despite clear evidence that foreign nationals had spent large sums of money to influence a California ballot measure. Next, they blocked attempts to strengthen FEC regulations to protect the integrity of our political process when there is evidence of foreign contributions.

You mean where the Ukrainian government actively aided, interfered, and worked hand-in-hand with the DNC and Hillary Clinton? All of which is illegal.

Here a choice quote from that article:

Russia’s effort was personally directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin, involved the country’s military and foreign intelligence services, according to U.S. intelligence officials. They reportedly briefed Trump last week on the possibility that Russian operatives might have compromising information on the president-elect. And at a Senate hearing last week on the hacking, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said “I don't think we've ever encountered a more aggressive or direct campaign to interfere in our election process than we've seen in this case.” There’s little evidence of such a top-down effort by Ukraine. Longtime observers suggest that the rampant corruption, factionalism and economic struggles plaguing the country — not to mention its ongoing strife with Russia — would render it unable to pull off an ambitious covert interference campaign in another country’s election.

What that article you quoted is basically saying is that the Trump campaign actively benefitted from a well oiled, well funded and professional campaign aimed at swaying the US presidential election in an operation that not only was run by the president of the Russian federation in person and was implemented by that countries intelligence services, but this operation was sophisticated enough and big enough that it has impressed US intelligence veterans. Those same US intelligence veterans are now briefing Trump regularly on what compromising material the Russians may have on him and it is a fair guess that those reports contain a section with the words 'pee-pee tape' in the abstract. I rather doubt that Abraham Lincoln got regular updates from his spies on the possibility that Jefferson Davies might have pee-pee daguerreotypes of him. Furthermore it has emerged since that article was published that Trump actively sought Russian support of this nature for his campaign. The Ukraine, however, is according to that article that you cited, too fucked up, too corrupt and generally too dysfunctional ever hope to be able to do anything like what the Russians pulled off and therein lies the difference between whatever agreement on campaign aid Trump sealed Putin and the Russian intelligence services and whatever the Hillary campaign got from the Ukrainians. Having said that and given that (A) what Trump did is orders of magnitude more serious and (B) that he is POTUS and Hillary is not, nobody really gives a rodent's backside anymore about what Hillary did in the Ukraine.

You mean where the Ukrainian government actively aided, interfered, and worked hand-in-hand with the DNC and Hillary Clinton? All of which is illegal.

I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for

You pay for Amtrak's WiFi — the cost is included in your ticket.

Nope!

Check your ticket again.

That's a perfectly valid argument, yes. My point is, an equally valid argument can be made for filtering this or that in such and such circumstances. Letting the government decide, which argument is reasonable and which is not is tyranny — it gives the bureaucrats undue powers over private enterprises.

Nope. Check the meaning of tyranny again.

The only reliable fount of service quality rising and prices lowering is competition. If one ISP blocks something unreasonably, another would attract those customers, who disagree. Switching is much easier and faster than petitioning the FCC — especially, when the ISP's CEO plays golf with the President and otherwise lobbies the regulators.

Nope. Especially not on Trains.

I whole-heartedly agree that any connection that I pay for

You pay for Amtrak's WiFi — the cost is included in your ticket.

It would be unusable if [...]

That's a perfectly valid argument, yes. My point is, an equally valid argument can be made for filtering this or that in such and such circumstances. Letting the government decide, which argument is reasonable and which is not is tyranny — it gives the bureaucrats undue powers over private enterprises.

The only reliable fount of service quality rising and prices lowering is competition. If one ISP blocks something unreasonably, another would attract those customers, who disagree. Switching is much easier and faster than petitioning the FCC — especially, when the ISP's CEO plays golf with the President and otherwise lobbies the regulators.

If San Francisco were to make conservative speech illegal

They would be in violation of the First Amendment.

Also, Democrats are slowing down the confirmation process

Conservatives sure do like being hypocritical little twats.

Republicans engaged in similar procedural combat after Democrats made the 2013 change, tying up the Senate to slow President Barack Obama’s push to fill judicial vacancies.

Here's some light reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... with highlights:

The Washington Post has identified 587 key positions requiring U.S. Senate confirmation. Of those key positions, As of August 17, 2017, 117 of Trump's nominees have been confirmed, 106 are awaiting confirmation, and 0 have been announced but not yet formally nominated.

So.... of the 587 key positions, Trump has nominated 223 as of a week ago. Then, there's this other side of things:

http://www.politico.com/story/...

At least 17 of Trump’s nominees took more than a month to be officially sent to the Senate, at which point the vetting by senators and aides can begin in earnest, according to a POLITICO analysis. (One of the 17 nominations, Jim Donovan to be Trump’s deputy Treasury secretary, has since been withdrawn).

I get it... i really do understand; you conservatives are fucking hypocrites who have to play the victim all the time because you can't govern worth a shit. When you do get in power, the only fucking thing you do is to try to stay in power, instead of help the country.... oh... and whine, a lot.

Where exactly do you get your information on "antifa"? You are aware that there is an active movement right now by pro-Trump trolls running fake "Antifa" twitter accounts, don't you? Even the pro-trump troll who created the "declare antifa a terrorist group" White House petition claims to have twitterbot armies of his own stoking the fires.

Antifa is not a "movement". It has no "ideology". It simply means "anti-fascist". Anyone who considers themselves anti-fascist can (or not) adopt the label.

Asking for someone's email, the budget for a simple calendar or graphic, or trying to fish for information doesn't meet that criteria.

Whew. For a second I thought that people could simply request thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails while serving as Sec. of State in an attempt to fish for information prior to an election. Good to know that they don't meet 3301s criteria.

Oh wait, they did, and a Federal judge even ordered the State Department to supply thousands of emails concerning disparate subjects in response to a single request. And again for John Holdren's emails.

You're simply wrong. "machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics" includes emails and budgets. "appropriate for preservation by that agency" includes emails and budgets (but possibly not slack channel contents, since they would be difficult to automatically archive). "other activities of the Government" extends to any government business.

Motherboard needs to appeal the denial within the agency. Obtain a final agency decision. File a FOIA suit with a judge. Watch agency lose if the requests are at all specific -- i.e., keyword searchable or associated with particlar identifiers such as an email address. It's been done before and it can be done again.

After all accuweather had previously tried to convince Congress to gut the NWS so they could make money: http://www.politico.com/story/... So the idea that Accuweather would do something shady isn't without precedent.

That would be a switch, considering the Allied Powers spent a good six years shooting every Nazi they could find, and then had some trials in Nuremberg to hang or imprison the rest of them.

It took the Germans a few more decades to remove Nazi influence from daily life.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/20/why-there-are-no-nazi-statues-in-germany-215510

You need some citations that contain actual statistics for your "facts". The green jobs lie was just that, a lie. Coal jobs were lost because Obama essentially banned coal fired power plants via regulations making them cost negative to operate. Not even gassfied coal plants could operate at a profit.

Well let's see, the price of natural gas plummetted in 2008 which is a direct result of Bush's 2005 energy policy which exempted natural gas from just about all regulation. However, feel free to point out which executive order he made to make this happen before he came into office.

CO2 is produced by every living organism, and plants need it to live.

Interesting fact, plants absorb and expel it. Until recently, animal life has been living in the margins of what could be absorbed.

It has historically been at higher levels pre industrial revolution, http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-... [drtimball.com] it already blocks all the IR bands at 100%, and adding more will not change that (don't try to feed me that speculative BS about upper vs lower atmospheric diffraction, that is pure speculative BS with zero science to back it up), but somehow we are teetering on the apocalypse, never mind the science and historical evidence.

Adding more will make it more difficult to extract CO2 from the atmosphere which is something that must be done lest we become the next Venus. So if in if fact the we are blocking 100% of the IR, it will make it that much more difficult to undo the damage done. Secondly, the increased level of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the oceans to become increasingly acidic. This in itself is causing rapid ecological changes.

As far as the ACA goes, the Repubicans only got 90% consensus in their own party, while not a single democrat voted for the repeal/replace,

Well, i suppose you'd be surprised to learn how the ACA actually got passed in the first place. https://www.govtrack.us/congre...

so Republicans have decided to let the ACA explode (which it is)

According to who? The mago-in-chief? Please link a CBO document.

and let the Dims ride that sinking ship into oblivion in the next election.

Reforming it is a much better idea than repealing it. If you want to replace it, it has to be a better for the people involved, which i recall Trump promising (“insurance for everybody.” comes to mind). Needless to say, the ACA isn't perfect. Frankly, it seems like a single unified national health care system would be a better and cheaper solution.

You might want to learn some actual facts before you spout off.

Take your own advice.

For example, the state of California spends ~42% of all funds on education, yet private schools produce better results with less than half the funding that public schools get. Clearly room for improvement and reform. We could get far better results cutting the budget in half, privatizing all schools and giving parents a portable voucher every year

LOL! Well, you obviously haven't taken a close look because it's hit-or-miss on both sides of public/private schools. I do not deny that education needs to be reformed but full privatization is exceptionally problematic.

7% of the entire state budget is spent on corrections and rehabilitation of criminals. In the past it was much lower because they used to execute those on death ro

That link is answering the wrong question. http://www.politico.com/story/... Are you saying House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy was wrong or lying?

This article cites some of the applicable laws: http://www.politico.com/magazi...

As I replied to your original post but you're still asking questions I'll link it here as well:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
Section e Paragraph a

Quoted above but the basics are that it's illegal to solicit, offer, or accept anything of value by a foreign national to help an election.

So there's the law.

It's also been cited in previous court cases in case you're wondering. And the judges summarized it pretty well in those cases as well. Just look online.
http://www.politico.com/static...

is a good example of a 2002 case.

No collusion, and it's not a crime.

Forbes estimated that Trump's net worth in 1988 was $1 billion, growing to about $4 billion in 2015 â" a comparatively meager 300% increase

Sure "below average". I'm sure you don't want to switch places, right? Who'd want a puny 4 billion?

But keep believing it's all an act if that makes you feel better...

"all" is such a word. As I said: He's definitely not the most wholesome person, but if you think that he is as stupid as he seems on TV, he fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

But don't take it from me. You can also listen to, say, Bernie Sanders.

• Your link has nothing to do with global warming, so right off the bat your trolling.
• The problem is the not the science, it what he was pushing and why he was pushing it.

It was a anti-progressive rant, and linked to articles that supported his position. is links might be close to the truth, but his declarations that Google was too progressive was his personal opinion, not scientific study.

As for the NLRB, you want a few links?

• Dismantling NLRB, from 1968
• “Worse than Obamacare," conservatives demonize the NLRB
• Trump eyes union-buster for NLRB

Conservatives have always loved playing the victim while trying to undercut those less well off.

Democrats have a complete lock on your local government, that is quite a feat! Even Chicago usually has at least one Republican and at least one independent.

Even DuPage County Illinois, in suburban Chicago, used to be uniformly Republican. It was the home of disgraced Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and the, locally, infamous Phillips brothers. Even DuPage county is no longer uniformly Republican.

Wherever you live must be ripe for corruption if the Dems have such a total lock on power. Anytime one party controls everything, government always becomes corrupted.

Then you ended up attacking an innocent pizza parlor.

Really? I did?

Yup. It was a vicious attack. Why did you do it? Did you really believe that story, or were you just trying to get attention?

You mean the story that you were screaming over for weeks, if not months, that you, and the GOP and House Republicans kept trying to fan into a fire, desperate that we believe all their smoke?

So wait, you're trying to dispute FOIA documents now?

Mashiki, can't you even try to respond in a coherent fashion? Or do you think your lies aren't as obvious if you gabble around a lot?

Or we can look at Michael Flynn, Paul Manaforte, or Donald Jr. Himself. Now there is some meat. Or Trump's un-independent business dealings.

Oh, media matters huh? Not one to shoot the messenger, but considering they're an actual political advocacy group...that's in violation of their non-profit status, and has a long history of quote mining in order to create "gotcha
moments" which turn out to be nothing, you'll need to do better.

Oh, isn't it CUTE how you're quoting the part that isn't related to Media Matters, rather than responding to what you quoted. Can't defend those individuals, but you can clamor about Media Matters. But that's a tough sell. Especially from somebody who cited Judicial Watch, American Center for Law & Justice, not to mention Alex Jones, Breitbart and other sources of "alternative facts" that turn out to be lies. Like you know, your lies about the Alberta power grid.

What is it with you, can you just not resist the urge to lie?

So, again those FOIA documents aren't real?

What, you think I don't know you're lying about their contents?

Want to stick to those.

Why, you aren't. You're just randomly babbling. Because you know your lies about the contents of the documents would be exposed if you started talking about them.

Remember that salon article? Yeah it's not an article either, but an out-of-context opinion piece.

Oh noes! You mean they have a negative opinion about the political advocacy group you cited? With a long history of factual misrepresentations and exaggerations. My oh my. Who knew?

No different then something coming from the mouth of Dowd.

Oh no, not Dowd!

In other words, if you believe that, why are you lying? They're telling you what to believe.

Why are you lying? Why do you want me to believe your lies? What do you have to gain?

Not leaving the evidence and letting you make the choice.

Wank wank wank, pretending you aren't just screaming your own narrative, full of lies, as usual.

You were better off when you were assaulting the Pizza Parlor. At least you weren't lying so badly. It may have been crazy, but it wasn't fraudulent.

Those have damaged your brain.

I think he already "pulled them out".

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-dropped-230770

I'm not seeing anybody who was actually there (past or present) saying anything approaching this, are you?

No, I usually hear words said, not see. I see things that are written . Now you might complain they are anonymous, so yo don't know for sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.

But yes, there was a discussion about how Hillary hated Obama, I believe it involved Colin Powell? Still, Obama managed not to engage in a Twitter fest over it, unlike Trump.

Given the wealth that most of the cabinet and staff have in the current white house it confuses me why many of them would want to risk image issues or care to face the daily workload and headaches that these positions entail. Though many are earning a comfortable salary, the money pulled in is likely secondary to the access to impact decisions as well as access to information. Given the chaos and drama however we must be left to think carefully about what kind of corruption might be brewing behind this relatively opaque administration. Like a poorly tuned monitoring system there is so much noise in US politics right now it is difficult to pick out where the real harm to the world might be.

The US government has been paying for nothing for years.

Verizon Knows You're A Sucker: Takes Taxpayer Subsidies For Broadband, Doesn't Deliver, Lobbies To Drop Requirements

Shocker: Billions In Broadband Subsidies Wasted As Government Turns Blind Eye To Fraud

Wired to fail