Slashdot Mirror

Isn't it the _basic_ role of the IRS to make it as simple and automated as possible ?!?

A lot of the blame can be put on Grover Norquist, the leader of Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax, small government group. One of the things his group advocates for is to make filing taxes as hard as possible. The group fears that if filing taxes is easy, then people won't resist paying them or the growth of government. For those of you who may not be aware, Norquist pushes aggressively for politicians to sign a "Taxpayer Protection Pledge" that basically fights any new taxes. For Republicans, it's almost mandatory less have one of the largest right-wing groups move against you.

Not sure why Trump would do anything like that with his approval numbers among minorities increasing steadily.

After a few years most minorities have started to realize that living is prosperity is far better than living on a Democratic plantation being mined for votes...

You want bitter white nationalism, look no further than the majority of Democrat presidential candidates. If Hillary had won for sure we'd see a DWHS, not a surprise from an elderly southern white woman.

I said, tons of evidence of Russia attempting to alter the election, and attempting to coordinate with Trump's team

Zero evidence. Both parties are virulently anti-russian and have been for over a century. Even the self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders has been onboard Russiagate from the beginning. It's as stupid as stupid as accusing a gay person of interferring in an election between a homophobic Catholic and a homophobic Baptist. Your preferred choice when dealing with two candidates that hate your guts is going to be "none of the above".

Like Birthers, Lunars, Chem Trailers and other whakjob conspiracy theorists, all you have is a Gish Gallop. That's where you fire off a rapid series of talking points while pretending that volume == substance. But spent a moment scrutinizing any of the talking points and they invariably turn out to be bullshit. Twitter troll farm? Bullshit. Russian NRA spy? Bullshit. Russia hacked the DNC emails? Bullshit.

Bullshit.
Bullshit.
Bullshit.
And more Bullshit. Rinse, wash and repeat.

Conflating this with McCarthyism is disgusting, and you know it.

Lulz. Russians, Russians, everywhere! Russians in your utility grids, Russians in your voting machines, Russians in Black Lives Matter! Russians controlling the White House with a manchurian candidate! So many Russians we have to accept mass government-directed corporate censorship of the internet! But yeah, this is nothing like McCarthyism. Oregon has lots of rivers, but have you tried kayaking down De Nile?

Huh? The Special Investigation was launched a long time ago due to an undeniable act of obstruction of justice.

Huh? You can only have obstruction of justice after the fact. Not before. It's like if your local police department got a warrant out on you for resisting arrest - when there's no warrant out and no one has tried to arrest you. Ever.

Breach of the emoluments clause is going to require the third branch of government to do something about.

Uh, no. Removing a president from office is purely up to the legislative branch. It's telling, though, that you poo-pooh an actual violation of the Constitution from Trump, instead of your stupid McCarthyite conspiracy theories.

You're well aware that Mitt was talking about militarily.

You're well aware that's laughable. Democrats have been calling the hack of the DNC emails (actually leaks) a 'digital Pearl Harbor' from Russia for years now. All these supposed attacks on American democracy and that of its allies, but none if it is military? However you want to rationalize the fact you're in the same boat as Mitt Romney. And a bunch of Lunars, Chem Trailers and Birthers.

The shortage of doctors in the US may be, in part, to blame for their long hours and burnout. Their professional organizations have limited the number of medical school and residency slots, which partly explains how they're paid about twice as much as those in other developed countries. Given that a large majority of freshmen entering US universities have pre-med aspirations, there is no lack of potential doctors in the US. More reading here:

The problem of doctors’ salaries
https://www.politico.com/agend...

Expect to hear of some kind of "tax" being imposed on companies who don't use coal, or any fossil fuel. The excuse will be they're killing jobs as well as falling for that Chinese hoax of climate change. The same hoax the con artist cited in his need to build a sea wall around his failing Irish golf course.

“If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

Maybe the con artist will suddenly be into regulations and force the company do years of environmental studies to determine the effects of not pouring CO2 into the atmosphere when producing electricity.

Eh, no, It was the Republicans who commissioned the 'dossier', the Democrats just picked up where the Republican left off after they decoded Trump was their new god emperor.

No, that is not correct. It was started by the Free Beacon, but then dropped. It was not funded by the GOP. However, we do have the Clinton campaign and the DNC paying Fusion GPS. So no - you're wrong. The GOP did NOT commission the dossier. That's a lie. The Democrats own that one - and like most things, they want to get rid of their connection - so they lie about it.

I didn't say the GOP commissioned that dossier I said it was Republicans, the Washington Free Beacon is a conservative website that shills for the GOP which makes it part of the GOP hive-mind. When the Beacon dropped the dossier after Trump became god-emperor of the right wing Fusion GPS sold it to the DNC. Now that is free market capitalism at work, as a conservative you should approve :-)

Eh, no, It was the Republicans who commissioned the 'dossier', the Democrats just picked up where the Republican left off after they decoded Trump was their new god emperor.

No, that is not correct. It was started by the Free Beacon, but then dropped. It was not funded by the GOP. However, we do have the Clinton campaign and the DNC paying Fusion GPS. So no - you're wrong. The GOP did NOT commission the dossier. That's a lie. The Democrats own that one - and like most things, they want to get rid of their connection - so they lie about it.

If all the offers of help were turned down then how did George Papadopoulos know that Russia had stolen DNC emails before Wikileaks had dumped them?

Making an offer conveys information.

If everyone from Trump's campaign turned away Russian offers of help then how do you describe Carter Pager running around Russia trying to make contacts?

His business is being an expert on Russia

And if no one from Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russian government then why was his campaign chair sending internal polling data to Ukrainian oligarchs with connections to Russian intelligence?

Well one the Ukraine isn't Russia, two I notice you left out the name "Paul Manafort", obvious conclusion he wanted to raise his stature with future clients.

But seeing as you think sharing polling data is collusion, let me show you what real foreign collusion

"Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire
https://www.politico.com/story..."

The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump

That is a lie, and you know it. It was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and the Washington Free Beacon - a new site, NOT a campaign - hired Fusion GPS for some intel but it was not the Steele Dossier.

Quit lying.

Not remembering a secondary detail isn't a lie.

The Washington Free Beacon wasn't affiliated with a specific campaign but they were "anti-Trump", and they were paying for opposition research on Trump.

Steele didn't show up until after the DNC started paying the bills. But he was hired because the research initially funded by the Beacon, and later by the DNC, picked up evidence of Trump/Russia connections.

Maybe because right up until Election night, the Democrats were 93% certain to win the whole thing? Why use it and open up the can-of-worms

Really? Not even when Comey re-opened the email investigation days before the election?

Any why create a fake dossier when there were so many legitimate Trump controversies to dig into? Instead of a story line that keeps supplying dirt and hurting Trump (ie, TrumpU) you end up with a story line that fizzles out with no evidence and discredits all your legitimate dirt.

, especially since it did its job to get the FISA warrants to spy in the first place...

Uhhh, I won't accuse you of lying... but surely you now remember that Carter Page was first subject to a FISA warrant in 2014. He was a target again in 2016 because he kept having contacts with Russian Intelligence recruiters.

The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump

That is a lie, and you know it. It was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and the Washington Free Beacon - a new site, NOT a campaign - hired Fusion GPS for some intel but it was not the Steele Dossier.

Quit lying.

> These two are paid with taxpayer dollars to advise the president.

That statement is patently false - they do not take government salary of any kind.

"first daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump, son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner and intergovernmental and technology aide Reed Cordish — take home no pay from taxpayers, according to the disclosure." - https://www.politico.com/story...

Thank you for falling for my trap. It was so obvious I thought nobody would bite. But given that you seem to be paying some attention...

Here is Newsweek: Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner Made More Than $82 Million While Working at White House.

So, you consider this OK? You think there are no conflicts of interest here?

I remember when Republicans were so morally outraged by someone losing $52K on a real estate deal called Whitewater before they were eleccted that they spent $70M+ of taxpayer dollars investigating it.

I remember when Republicans insisted that an elected president sell off his peanut farm, in his family for generations.

But Republicans don't seem to care about any of this: Trump just sold (less than a month ago) a condo for $2.9M -- highest prices in that building ever -- to a foreign interest willing to pay a way-above market price for what reason do you suppose. Don't waste time pretending it is something DJT delegated -- his own signature is on the document. It is speculated that he needed the money to pay off fines (the same amount, roughly) that the Republicans don't care much about either.

So I get it that Republicans don't care beyond an occasional harumph on cable news. Trump appoints the far-right judges they want and signs off on tax breaks. What I don't get is the partisan morons that support this even though it has nothing to do with their own self interest.

As I said: partisan morons. And Buttery Males.

She listed herself as a minority on a legal directory reviewed by deans and hiring committees. Harvard called her their "first woman of color." At the time, Harvard was under enormous pressure to make a diversity hire.

Putin: I wanted Trump to win the election

https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/7-times-that-trump-has-parroted-putins-talking-points

To make a movie.

Unless you get in the way of Progressives and their beloved narrative.

there's nothing to say that websites can't sell ads to legitimate advertisers and put up advertisements.

This works for Daring Fireball and Read the Docs. But before you recommend requiring the ad-supported web at large to adopt their business model, please consider the following nothings:

1. A publisher selling ads on its own website has to somehow convince advertisers that the publisher exists in the first place, is worth the advertisers' time, and can detect and not charge for fraudulent page views or clicks. If a web publisher hired you to market the publisher's ad space to advertisers, what steps would you recommend taking to do so?
2. Interest-based advertising pays three times the CPM compared to context-based advertising according to a study by Beales and Eisenach.

Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? (July/August 2015)

Quote: "... the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad..."

Your content isn't worth the trouble. Toss me an add and let me see the content.

Some sites don't even toss me an ad. They toss me the URL of a third-party proprietary computer program written in JavaScript that surveils my browsing history across multiple websites and uses the battery life and Internet bandwidth that I pay for to choose an ad from one of a dozen or more ad networks. And if I say no to proprietary software or no to surveillance, these sites are incapable of falling back to a publisher-hosted ad like those seen on Daring Fireball and Read the Docs because interest-based ads pay three times the CPM.

there seems to have been some evidence recently that running ads that are heavily personalised/targeted isn't necessarily much more effective than the traditional approach of running your ads in places where your target market are likely to be found.

Which leaves a problem for publishers of general-interest publications. A special-interest publication attracts inherently targeted advertisements, but it may not have sufficient ad sales budget to make advertisers aware of its (smaller) audience. A general-interest publication may have more of an ad sales budget, but an ad that reaches every reader of a general-interest publication is less effective than an ad that reaches only a targeted subset. In fact, Beales and Eisenach report that in 2014, advertisers were paying three times as much to place interest-based ads compared to ads based only on context.

Or should general-interest publications switch to a paywall model, as many sites affiliated with major newspapers and magazines have been doing lately?

I think you're confusing "tracking", with "ads". Those two aren't the same thing.

Advertisers suffer from the same confusion. Publishing consultant Oliver von Wersch put it this way: "the common perception in the market is there's no advertising without tracking. Deactivating tracking in the browser is a de facto ad blocker."[1] This is because the revenue for ads based on tracking is three times that for ads not based on tracking.[2]

[1] "Mobile ad blocking is becoming a bigger threat" by Lucinda Southern
[2] "An Empirical Analysis of the Value of Information Sharing in the Market for Online Content" by Beales and Eisenach

Such old-fashioned ads can be seen on Daring Fireball and Read the Docs. But their cost per thousand impressions (CPM) is one-third of what interest-based advertising can produce according to a 2014 study by Beales and Eisenach.

Even if "non-tailored ads are still worth something", they might not be worth enough to pay for a particular site's writing and hosting. Interest-based ads reportedly command three times the cost per thousand impressions (CPM) compared to context-based ads. "An Empirical Analysis of the Value of Information Sharing in the Market for Online Content" by J. Howard Beales and Jeffrey A. Eisenach states: "the availability of cookies to capture user-specific information is found to increase the observed exchange transaction price by [...] as much as 200 percent (for users with longer-lived cookies)."

Because if they'd leaned "conservative", the article would have been gleefully shouting it from the rooftops.

What, like Michelle Bachman or Rand Paul?

The truth is that this idiocy is non-partisan. It appeals to the left's weirdo anti-science, anti-mainstream medicine wing. And it appeals to the right wings weird anti-government, anti-science wing.

When your enemy tells you you're stupid and you should be doing something else, never do that. She'll always say things like "you're wasting your time on useless efforts" - if your enemy really thought that, she'd rejoice that you were wasting your time. Your enemy is not worried that you will fail. She is worried that you will succeed.

OR... your enemy is trying to goad you into doing exactly what they want.

Or perhaps your enemy sees the bigger picture that your selfish plan hurts everyone.

Or maybe your enemy is just a jerk.

Point is, there's more than one reason people say things. You shouldn't automatically do what others tell you to. But neither should you automatically reject it. Evaluate the reasons for their advice, then decide what makes sense.

These smart guys already did the math: Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Say Berkeley, Stanford Studies (If you don't like this link, there are several other copies of this article floating around on the web.)

The available voting data from the 2016 democratic primary shows significant statistical abnormalities, in the last half of the data, that favor Hillary at the expense of Bernie. It appears that a voting machine exploit was in place in several districts, that only triggered in real time when someone or something detected that Hillary was about to lose to Bernie.

That's just the election itself. Stepping back in time to the pre-election Hillary vs. Bernie campaign trail, there's also the obvious issues of stealing campaign money from Bernie's campaign, and installing Imran Awan, a Pakistani spy as the IT manager of the DNC's computer network, subverting the DNC 'VAN' computer network that Bernie, a democratic candidate, was forced to use for official campaign business. Meaning that Hillary was secretly in control of the Bernie campaign's network, and even revoked access at one point during his campaign. (We discovered Hillary's DNC network subversion through a Wikileaks publication.) Then we have a secret joint fundraising agreement that DNC bosses signed with Hillary Clinton, giving her nearly full control of the DNC, BEFORE she was nominated. (alternate link.)

If that's too technical for you, then let me remind you that, defending against the DNC fraud lawsuit, a DNC lawyer Bruce Spiva said in court: "We could have voluntarily decided that, 'Look, we're gonna go into the back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way." This is in reference to the whole Hillary-biased democrat super-delegate debacle that was all over the news at the time. Hillary bribed those super-delegates with laundered money through one of her crooked 'charities' to secure her nomination over Bernie.

This is just the easily cited stuff Hillary's done to screw Bernie. I'm not saying that Hillary's crimes only include screwing Bernie, or that Bernie's a perfect candidate. And I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump.

These smart guys already did the math: Odds Hillary Won Without Widespread Fraud: 1 in 77 Billion Say Berkeley, Stanford Studies (If you don't like this link, there are several other copies of this article floating around on the web.)

The available voting data from the 2016 democratic primary shows significant statistical abnormalities, in the last half of the data, that favor Hillary at the expense of Bernie. It appears that a voting machine exploit was in place in several districts, that only triggered in real time when someone or something detected that Hillary was about to lose to Bernie.

That's just the election itself. Stepping back in time to the pre-election Hillary vs. Bernie campaign trail, there's also the obvious issues of stealing campaign money from Bernie's campaign, and installing Imran Awan, a Pakistani spy as the IT manager of the DNC's computer network, subverting the DNC 'VAN' computer network that Bernie, a democratic candidate, was forced to use for official campaign business. Meaning that Hillary was secretly in control of the Bernie campaign's network, and even revoked access at one point during his campaign. (We discovered Hillary's DNC network subversion through a Wikileaks publication.) Then we have a secret joint fundraising agreement that DNC bosses signed with Hillary Clinton, giving her nearly full control of the DNC, BEFORE she was nominated. (alternate link.)

If that's too technical for you, then let me remind you that, defending against the DNC fraud lawsuit, a DNC lawyer Bruce Spiva said in court: "We could have voluntarily decided that, 'Look, we're gonna go into the back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way." This is in reference to the whole Hillary-biased democrat super-delegate debacle that was all over the news at the time. Hillary bribed those super-delegates with laundered money through one of her crooked 'charities' to secure her nomination over Bernie.

This is just the easily cited stuff Hillary's done to screw Bernie. I'm not saying that Hillary's crimes only include screwing Bernie, or that Bernie's a perfect candidate. And I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump.

The only statement we have which tries to make the opinion (an "assessment") from the Obama administration which I can't find anyone who seriously believes;

Then pull your head out of the Fox News/Infowars bubble. The only people who "don't believe" the assessment are the people who worry that significant Russian interference delegitimizes Trump's presidency (which it kinda does).

Even the ostensible source of Russiagate stories—alleged collusion between some Russians and the Trump campaign—isn't looking so rosy for proponents anymore

LOL

Sources and evidence, not namecalling, are required to sustain convincing arguments.

The evidence that they're morons is they presented the timestamps as proof, apparently not realizing a USB transfer likely came AFTER the remote download.

And virtually everybody in the US intelligence apparatus disagrees with him.

The only statement we have which tries to make the opinion (an "assessment") from the Obama administration which I can't find anyone who seriously believes; nobody believes all of those agencies agree on anything much less that opinion. Sy Hersh says as much when he talked about that assessment and the media's lacking coverage of it ("What does an assessment mean? It's not a national intelligence estimate. If you had a real estimate you would have five or six dissents, people saying, 'cause I can tell you right now. One time they said 17 agencies all agreed. Oh really? The Coast Guard and the Air Force, they all agreed on it? And it was outrageous and nobody did that story."). Even the ostensible source of Russiagate stories—alleged collusion between some Russians and the Trump campaign—isn't looking so rosy for proponents anymore (it never looked relevant for the American public; Russiagate doesn't address the public's concerns it only reflects elite's interests). As the title indicates, "Mueller report PSA: Prepare for disappointment." and one report concurs. And this kind of downplaying has been done before. To think this is all being done in service of a neoliberalist losing a rigged election in search of an excuse to distract us from her culpability, what those leaked emails actually said, and possibly manufacture lies that could help foment a future war with Russia.

No they don't, they're morons.

Sources and evidence, not namecalling, are required to sustain convincing arguments.

Unlike your naive world of 2007, here in the future all ads are in fact user hostile

I agree with you that the vast majority of web ads are user-hostile. This includes any ad hosted by a third-party ad network or ad exchange, as those have a habit of stalking users across multiple websites to infer their interests in order to give advertisers the feeling of more control over what viewers see their ads. Ad networks and ad exchanges do this because interest-based advertising reportedly pays out three times as much per view as context-based advertising.

But "all" is stretching it. I don't see how ads that are hosted by a website's publisher, such as the display ads on Daring Fireball and Read the Docs, are user-hostile. Newspapers and magazines got along fine with this model for decades, despite web publishers complaining that they could never make money that way.

Walls work. And not only do walls work, with the same force you can see a 4-10X reduction in illegal immigrant. That seems to be pretty convincing, and it's backed by hard data. Walls work to enhance security. Otherwise, why do we put walls around prisons, or even add doors to the cells?

The fence works, where it exists. Why do you close and lock your doors when you leave your home?

Pence is not a great guy either but he's at least reasonably intelligent and honest enough to not stare into a camera and lie his ass off (yet).

Actually, he does exactly this every time he defends Trump on TV. Pence is no better; he's just there waiting for his #MeToo moment for when he expects to becomes President.

Yes, they are busy voting down a Democrat introduced law called PAYGO that requires funding to be identified and in place for any new spending.

They are literally voting to spend with no money identified. This shit is too fucked up to make up.

They why are you making it up? Pelosi easily put down the objections to PAYGO. On the other hand, the former Republican House voted to lower corporate taxes without a plan to keep the deficit from growing to a trillion dollars.

Flynn: no lawyers in his multiple FBI interviews
Hillary!: nine lawyers in her one FBI interview, no notes by FBI allowed

Flynn: failed to register as a foreign agent while he was a private citizen
Hillary!: made millions via Clinton Foundation from Russia while she was Secretary of State approving Uranium One deal.

Flynn: going to jail
Hillary!: Free despite setting up a private email server, almost certainly hacked by multiple foreign intelligence services, and putting classified data on it. Free despite having her uncleared maid handle top secret information. Free despite directing subordinate to remove classification markings and send classified data via her insecure email.

So? Clinton was found innocent. Flynn and the entire Trump administration are criminals. Your point?

Found innocent?

By who?

Comey weasel-worded Hillary!'s "innocence" by claiming she didn't knowingly violate laws regarding the handling of classified data, which is actually irrelevant per the law. Not only that, that's factually false anyway, because Hillary! is known to have directed a subordinate to actually remove classification markings and send a secure fax via nonsecure email.

And why weren't Cohen or Flynn offered immunity prior to their FBI interviews, like Cheryl Mills was?

The list of double standards is endless - Hillary! got away with felonies and her aides got immunity, Trump aides go to jail after being forced to plead guilty to non-crimes. (And no, Trump's payoffs to women are NOT "illegal campaign contributions" - Trump's done those for years, which means by law they're not campaign contributions. Period. Full stop. The more you argue they are, the more you reinforce the fact that Trump's being held to a standard no one else has ever been.)

And unlike you, I have actual factual reporting linked in to back up my claims.

"If our defense budget was cut in half, which freedoms would I lose?"

You would gain freedom, because there would be more money for taking care of citizens.

The "Defense" of the U.S. is poorly managed. Highly qualified people don't want to work helping the military kill people and destroy property.

800 military bases in more than 70 countries: Where in the World Is the U.S. Military?

Quote:

"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad -- from giant "Little Americas" to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined."

Are you one of those people 'triggered' by reality?

Just call it 'fake news' and go back to reddit. I'm sure they'll all agree with you.

Hint: don't read https://www.politico.com/magaz... ....after all, I'm sure politico is a Russian front, right?

In fact, the "Defense" of the U.S. is very, very badly managed. Highly qualified people don't want to work helping the military kill people and destroy property.

Where in the World Is the U.S. Military? Quoting:

"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad -- from giant "Little Americas" to small radar facilities. Britain, France and Russia, by contrast, have about 30 foreign bases combined."

Well, let's see. In just the last 24 hours, aside from the booming job market referenced in the above article, he probably just won the trade war with China.

https://www.politico.com/story...

But none of this matters to you, does it? Fact is, if he walked on water, you'd say it was Russians in scuba gear.

That is because one side is getting paid to take one position by one group and the other side is getting paid to take the other position by another group. It really just shows the power of lobbying.

Should be modded up. Meanwhile, Net neutrality: A lobbying bonanza

The only thing in dispute is whether Dems are being bribed sufficiently to ignore the will of their voting base that overwhelmingly approves NN.

Why would you believe a government that scammed you a trillion dollars by falsifying claims of Iraq WMDs, that was shown to spying on China, their own "friends", and you, and that hijacked a hostage for negotiation just last week?

Why would you believe a government that scammed you a trillion dollars by falsifying claims of Iraq WMDs, that was shown to spying on China, their own "friends", and you, and that hijacked a hostage for negotiation just last week?

Alternatively, maybe journalists really are full of shit?

Journolist, Gamejournopro's, and so on proves that collusion is true. Being full of shit and pushing an agenda is older then the Spanish-American war.

1. Military ban
2. Medical practices from DHHS
3. Adoption Laws
4. Asserting they aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act
5. Considering rollback of protections under AHCA

6. That took 2 minutes of effort and I ignored a lot. Seriously, this isn't hard.

After all, didn't he get elected even after basically calling all his supporters fucking morons ?

To be fair, his opponents proved to be fucking morons.

Here's a bunch of their predictions.

It's retards all around, and if you're surprised by this... I've got some bad news for you.

So selling weapons to the Ukraine, firing on Syrian/Russian troops, cutting off funds, that's all "nothing" - mainly because it doesn't go far enough? And just what the heck did President Obama do in 2014 when it was told Russia was going to interfere? The fact is that President Trump is taking action; some may decide it's not enough, but it's a massive increase from the previous Administration who sat around and let Russia do what they wanted, with tacit approval.

I don't have time to find the numbers

They are cited here.

I'm gonna say that has to do with less white people getting stopped by cops ... Its not because of racism either

Assuming, for the sake of argument, a) the personal racial attitudes of the cops are in no way responsible for this and b) that there is no racial differential in rates of cannabis use, then the racial sub-group which makes up ca 25% of the city, in making up 48% of cannabis arrests, is unambiguously suffering under some serious structural disadvantage (even if the disadvantage is disproportionately residing in neighbourhoods with more snitches). There's some kind of analysis in NYT, but no numbers / graphs (that are displaying for me) sadly. Their conclusion:

[W]e discovered was that when two precincts had the same rate of marijuana calls [i.e. complaints to police], the one with a higher arrest rate was almost always home to more black people. The police said that had to do with violent crime rates being higher in those precincts, which commanders often react to by deploying more officers.

BTW, same AC who was conversing with you above.

see here

The article you linked to for Kevin says it's about what data they can hold and how they hold it. Nothing about Hate speech.

You're the one moving the goal post, from "Regulating Hate Speech" to "Data retention and storage". You don't have a leg to stand on here.

Again, nobody outside of trolls on /. wants to regulate hate speech on Facebook. The only one regulating speech online are the owners of the platforms, and they're doing it to keep the advertisers happy. The right wing are losing out here because their beliefs are too extreme for Americans and advertisers are afraid of being associated with those extreme beliefs.

Don't laugh. It could happen, according to our big, wet, President. We just have to wait it out.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

And we know for sure that he knows what he's talking about, because he says he has a "natural instinct for science".

https://www.politico.com/story...

"You have scientists on both sides of it. My uncle was a great professor at MIT for many years, Dr. John Trump," the president said. "And I didn’t talk to him about this particular subject, but I have a natural instinct for science, and I will say that you have scientists on both sides of the picture."

I don't know about the rest of you, but that's good enough for me.

The real answer is neither. The increased competiveness of the US economy has come from cheaper energy prices which has come from fracked gas. ...

I'd bet a shitload of money that you're ignorant of the fact that it was Obama's actual policy to drive up the price of fuel:

President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.

“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

That WSJ article:

WASHINGTON -- President-elect Barack Obama and his energy team could face the most inauspicious climate in years for pushing ahead with their plans to remake U.S. energy strategy.

...

Remember Obama's constant refrain "remake the US economy".

Tell us again why those jobs left?

If it was because of higher energy prices, Obama was deliberately driving them away.

So yeah, thanks for tying US job loss right to Obama.

Somehow I suspect that wasn't your intent.

...and the rest.

Jill Stein being in the race and taking more votes in 3 states than Hillary lost by is how you got Trump.

That's also wrong, as more Republicans voted for Johnson and McMullen than Democrats did for Stein. Take third parties out of the race and Clinton would have done worse, not better. In fact she would have lost at least Minnesota, as she was ahead of Trump by only 45,000 votes in that state - Johnson and McMullen put together had more than three times that many.