Slashdot Mirror

In that context, prior to the January 6 meeting, I discussed with the FBI’s leadership team whether I should be prepared to assure President-Elect Trump that we were not investigating him personally. That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-Elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/os-jcomey-060817.pdf

For all that talk, it seems like they don't have anything.

Read the testimony for yourself.

Don't take my word for it, or CNN's or Fox's or anyone else. It's a five minute read.

https://www.intelligence.senat...

https://democrats.senate.gov/

I have no idea what party the one belongs to that issued this letter here. But it was the first time I saw a senator actually write something sensible about "this computer stuff".

Clean up your own act before you try to mess with the rest of the internet, will ya?

Remember 13 years ago when we all posted links to our American representatives and with their phones and email exploding the DRM trusted PC requirements went away from a potential bill.

Can you all afford 3 minutes of your life

Ok most senators and congressman are too stupid to know what net neutrality is. They gain their information from experts ... experts brought to by lobbyists from Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, to educate our politicians what this issue is. They are simply ignorant.

So here is the link for your congressman. Here is the link to your senator. The people who read these are called scriptwriters and if they get thousands of angry emails I can guarantee you it will at least get your politicians attention.

When I linked this in 2003 or 2004 here Slashdot posted a story a few days later stating congress was confused, dumbfounded, and shocked. The bill died :-D

If you have a Republican write professionally that you do not want big brother government to trample innovation and stop jobs. Explain your I.T. position and career and explain your employer and startups already pay extra for bandwidth and this amounts to a bribe. End it off with if the United States won't allow us to be a leader in technology another cheaper country like China or India will who do not have these problems with Net Neutrality and can operate simply on bandwidth uses without double and triple dipping.

If your senator and or congressman is a democrat explain politely that this is a terrible bill that will hurt lower income internet users and new startups. Explain your I.T. position and career and explain your employer and startups already pay extra for bandwidth and this amounts to double dipping which will hurt America's competitive advantage. Also mention the top 5 technology companies are active Democratic donors to your party including Facebook, Google, and Microsoft and that if America fails to take initiative for regulating tax payer infrastructure then another country with more freedoms like India or China will take the jobs instead and this will help lower income consumers by keeping prices lower.

Louisiana consistently elects small-government, anti-EPA, anti-climate Representatives and Senators. Now they want an environmental conservation bailout? They decry federal handouts, and then they turn around begging for help. How about "No".

They cite:

"Decades of saltwater intrusion, subsidence and rising sea levels"

Yet, they ousted their only politician who even pretended to care about the environment and replaced her with Cassidy, whose policies will only hasten that outcome.

New Orleans couldn't be arsed to maintain their levees, then Hurricane Katrina happened. Now this. Louisiana should change their motto to "The No Foresight State".

Did you not comprehend what I said?

Schumer voted. It's a recorded vote. In the Senate record.

McConnell did not call a vote on Garland. Thus no respect for him, as he refused to vote. On the Record.

Did you not comprehend what I said?

Schumer voted. It's a recorded vote. In the Senate record.

McConnell did not call a vote on Garland. Thus no respect for him, as he refused to vote. On the Record.

This is the rep that is pushing this; Marsha Blackburn.
And here is the Senator pushing this;

Anybody who is represented by these ppl should let them know that the internet is waiting to know all about them AND THEIR FAMILY, including kids and grandkids.

Here's the essence of Flake's argument as made in a Wall Street Journal editorial:

For two decades, the Federal Trade Commission has been America’s sole online privacy regulator. Under the FTC’s watch, our internet and data economy has been the envy of the world. The agency’s evidence-based approach calibrates privacy and data-security requirements to the sensitivity of information collected, used or shared online, and applies protections in a consistent and evenhanded way across business sectors. Consumer behavior demonstrates the success of the FTC’s regulatory approach: Each day people spend more time engaging in online activities.

But in 2015, in a bid to expand its own power, the Federal Communications Commission short-circuited the effectiveness of the FTC’s approach by reclassifying internet service providers as common carriers, subject to Title II of the Communications Act.

In taking that unprecedented action, the FCC unilaterally stripped the FTC of its traditional jurisdiction over ISPs. The FTC can no longer police the privacy practices of providers, leaving us with a two-track system under which the FCC applies its own set of rules for ISPs while the FTC monitors the rest of the internet ecosystem.

The objection isn't to better privacy for broadband customers, it's the regulatory power grab of the FCC over the FTC.

Contact Senator Flake: https://www.flake.senate.gov/p...

You don't have to be from AZ - put in whatever information you like. Express your discomfort that he's submitted a bill removing consumer protections that let ISPs violate our privacy and sell our medical, health, and financial information to anyone they want without our permission.

Are you sure your reps/senetors are against it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Many Dems supported the last expansion. It is kind of normal for a country to want secure borders.

https://www.senate.gov/legisla...

Both Clinton and Obama voted Yea. This wasn't even controversial then, but now, it is Trump, so we must gnash our teeth.

A compromise with the GOP? The hell it was. Not even ONE member of the GOP in the House or Senate voted for this, not even one. This whole thing was 100% the Democrats doing. Republicans wanted NOTHING to do with this.

Except for the amendments they approved.

But hey, you know what? They had 6 years to do anything else. But all they did was scream repeal, but then what?

Remember the "You are going to have to pass it to find out what's in it" thing from Ole Nancy P at the time? Why did she say that?

Yeah, we remember the narrative, as what she was actually saying was that the GOP was lying so much about it, that the average person had no idea what was in it. Some people still confuse the ACA and Obamacare as if they were separate things.

Because the Republicans where just a few hours away from being able to actually having enough votes to stop the ACA with the election of a republican in the Special election for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat who was to be sworn in. There was not even time to READ the bill before everybody had to vote.

March 10was the speech, months after th Senate had passed their bill, leaving the House to confirm it in two weeks.

Democrats had to pass this sight unseen, which is what their leaders asked and what they did.

Nope. There was plenty of scrutiny and debate.

Many are no longer in office because of this.

Nope. Try gerrymandering.

I consider the ACA to be the start of the long decline of democrats power who have been losing more and more power as they tried to cling to this ACA mess... Obama killed your party, it's power, it's credibility with all this mess and until you realize it, you will be the opposing party, the party of "no" and nothing else.

Well, that's what worked for the GOP, isn't it? Except you know, losing the popular vote.

Ouchies. Three Presidential losses of the popular vote in a row, and not too well in 2010, guess you ought to reconsider which party is dying.

To be fair, letting corporations run everything is technically "smaller government". Republicans might be stupid, but they are consistent.

It's not!

There is a huge difference between Corporations and local governments.
Who are both responsible to? Shareholders somewhere or people actually you know from local City Council meetings.
What is their underlying objective? Increase return of investment to shareholders or run a municipality most efficient serving the people living there.

You can see how municipalities are fought for their independence by state governments occupied by people dependent on campaign contributions when municipalities trying to become independent from Corporations in electrical, zoning (fracking) and now internet. There are actual cases where a state government sues municipalities in those instances.

Looking how this works can be clearly seen how senators vote against normal people so they can be bilked by Corporations in drug sales:
http://www.senate.gov/legislat...

They are busy returning favors for funds received and their voters behaving just right lulled and sleeping soundly watching TV ....

You really need to open your eyes and use your grey matter for a change.

Donald Rumpelstiltskin has no clue and is probably only concerned about covering his dick's history, trying to make things "great" again.

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

You listed the senate intelligence committee members, unless I'm mistaken:
http://www.intelligence.senate...

Which is by no means a group that agrees that there was Russian "election hacking" (a bullshit phrase that now means "the Russians told us the truth about our government"), and certainly no one is even on record saying that if it did happen, it was there to elect Trump.

That level of compensation isn't high enough as you are missing some very important aspects of H-1B workers.
1. These people have highly specialized skills that no American has.
2. They need to be brought in right now because these companies can't operate while an American is trained to do the job.
You don't have to take my word for it just ask all of these companies who are using H-1B visa holders they will say this is the case. Now since these people have a skill set that cannot be found in a country of 300+ million people this must be a truly specialized skill set that has required all sorts of advanced training and knowledge which automatically means that these people should be very highly compensated. Also since these companies can't continue without these employees they are obviously more critical than any of the CxO level employees as companies seem to continue on just fine without them while a search is going on.

So given that it seems like an appropriate level of compensation for H-1B visa holders would that they are the highest compensated individuals at the company they are doing work for or are employed by. This means total compensation, base salary, bonuses, medical and dental benefits, relocation allowance, vehicle allowance, vacation, company paid travel, stock options, retirement plan, exit clauses, etc. since they are truly exceptional people that are absolutely critical.

I say make that change and we can have unlimited H-1B visa holders enter the country. However like everyone on /. we known this to not be the case and instead these people are used to drive down wages. I have written my congress critters numerous times on this issue and the only response I have ever gotten was from Senator Amy Klobuchar who responded by basically saying that if it weren't for those evil republicans she would have done something about the H-1B program. Problem is she was pushing for just expanding the program with automatic additional expansions.

Yes. Bernie did.

You conservatives love your black and white, yes and no options don't you? Go be smug somewhere else.

I haven't yet seen any non Trump supporters lamenting the passing of TTP.

All that means is that you haven't been paying attention. Please leave this to those of us that are. Thanks so much.

The first thing he does is to shove ACA down everyone's throats without even letting the Republicans add a single amendment or really even debate it.

Please don't believe that story.

That isn't even going back to its foundations, but the idea that there were no amendments added, or really even debate it? That's fucking dishonest.

That torpedoed any credibility he had to work across the isle and made the Republicans only want to seek revenge.

You have it wrong, Obama's mistake was not forcing them to vote for it, but instead making up all the votes in the Democratic Caucus. That let them spend the next 7 years complaining about it even more, and even though they looked like fools, the American people lapped it up.

That whole thing is a train wreck form the beginning.

You can always hope that's part of the plan. It was all Republican dreams, that now they're what? Stuck having to repudiate? What are they left with, to use, exactly?

The real story will come in with Trump unable to do a thing since it'd just blow up on him, not that he'd admit it. And if he does let it blow up, so much the better.

Though if he does, who will pick up the pieces?

Yes, this request was made in 2008: "At a time when serious questions are being raised about transition readiness, it would be counterproductive for the FCC to consider unrelated items, especially complex and controversial items that the new Congress and new Administration will have an interest in reviewing." http://commerce.senate.gov/pub...

Sanders never praised Chavez and certainly never said Venezuela was an economic model for the US.

I suppose if you just make things up anything is possible though.

"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger." http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

Neither can a president declare war without their approval.

The US congress has declared war 11 times the last one in 1942.

You went to fucking Vietnam without congressional approval. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. There's no need for congressional approval for the president to deploy military force, and since this precedent has long since been established I don't think for a second Trump will even try to get congressional approval if he wants to play war-games in the mdddile-east or wherever.

Hillary consigliere and wikileaks victim John Podesta is a lobbyist and registered foreign agent for Putin's banker.

More here and elsewhere of course, for the interested.

The idea that Trump is in bed with Putin merely by virtue of having done some Business with Russians (like many thousands of others including Boeing have done) is an absurdity when Hillary's people are actually directly tied to Putin's oligarchs and lobbying for them before congress and agencies of the executive branch of our government. Then there was that whole Hillary/Clinton Foundation/Putin Crony/American Uranium mining thing... (google if you are unaware, or read the wikileaks where internally they admit this Hillary activity WAS a threat to US national security...)

Probably the same amount that Senator Klobuchar gets from H-1B supporting groups. Having Written Klobuchar on the H-1B issue the best I have ever gotten back was a patronizing letter thanking me for my support of her efforts that also blamed the Republicans for not passing her expanded H-1B program.

I'm having a lot of trouble believing any of that, when there's numerous articles on "sanctuary cities" (where's the alien-harboring charge for those mayors/governors, huh?).

Here are some other links that would dispute what you claim:

Poor illegal immigrants get food stamps denied to poor U.S. citizens, $2 billion worth
Illegal immigrants tell San Diego border agents that Obama said it was OK to come
Lawless immigration policies of the Obama administration
DHS quietly moving and releasing vanloads of illegal aliens away from the border

Former CIA Officer: President Obama Should Pardon Edward Snowden

Barry Eisler spent three years in a covert position in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations and is the author of 12 novels, including The Detachment

He let Americans evaluate omniscient domestic surveillance for themselves

This week, Edward Snowden, multiple human rights and civil rights groups, and a broad array of American citizens asked President Obama to exercise his Constitutional power to pardon Snowden. As a former CIA officer, I wholeheartedly support a full presidential pardon for this brave whistleblower.

All nations require some secrecy. But in a democracy, where the government is accountable to the people, transparency should be the default; secrecy, the exception. And this is especially true regarding the implementation of an unprecedented system of domestic bulk surveillance, a mere precursor of which Senator Frank Church warned 40 years ago could lead to the eradication of privacy and the imposition of “total tyranny.”

That today we are engaged in a meaningful debate about whether such a system is desirable is almost entirely due to the conscience, courage and conviction of one man: Edward Snowden. Without Snowden, the American people could not balance for themselves the risks, costs and benefits of omniscient domestic surveillance. Because of him, we can.

For this service, the government has charged Snowden under the World War I-era Espionage Act. Yet Snowden did not sell information secretly to any enemy of America. Instead, he shared it openly through the press with the American people.

For this service, Snowden has been accused of having “blood on his hands“—the same evidence-free cliché trotted out every time a whistleblower reveals corruption, criminality or anything else the government would prefer to hide. That this charge is being aired by the very people responsible for wars that have led to thousands of dead American servicemen and servicewomen; hundreds of thousands burned, blinded, brain-damaged, crippled, maimed and traumatized; and hundreds of thousands of innocent foreigners killed, is more than ironic. It’s also a form of psychological projection, or propaganda, intended to distract from where true responsibility for bloodshed lies.

And for this service, the usual suspects have claimed Snowden has caused “grave damage to national security.” As always, the charge is backed by nothing but air, and ignores—in fact, is intended to distract from—the real damage caused by metastasizing governmental secrecy. This includes not only disastrous government mistakes and cover-ups (see the Bay of Pigs, the “missile gap,” the Gulf of Tonkin, Iraqi wea

There was a Kickstarter to send a copy of the constitution to every member of congress but it wasn't successful. https://www.kickstarter.com/pr...

I'm not sure why.

Looking at the Oath We Take for Senators (in its entirety below):

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

One might presume they've already, actually, read the Constitution - since they've just sworn to defend it.

Don't worry the Democrats will protect us from those evil Republicans. /sarcasm

While the above paints the Ds in a a bad light the Rs are just as bad on the H-!B issue it is just they lack the standout champion of expansion that is Senator Klobuchar. The last time I wrote Senator Amy Klobuchar on the H-1B issue I got a very patronizing response back, which is par for the course from here on the rare occasion I get a response, where she stated that it was the Republican's fault because they failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform that had her amendment to increase the number of H-1B visas.

Interesting that the headline says Franken "questioned" Niantic (which sounds like the name of a drug for erectile dysfunction, by the way). In fact, what he did was send them a letter, with these (quite reasonable) questions. In fact, these are issues that are brought up daily by users here on Slashdot:

1. Pokemon GO has stated that it collects a broad array of users' personal information,
including but not limited to a user's profile and account information, their precise
location data, and information obtained through Cookies and Web Beacons. Can you
explain exactly which information collected by Pokemon GO is necessary for the
provision or improvement of services? Are there any other purposes for which Pokemon
GO collects all of this information?
2. According to reports, Pokemon GO also requests permission to access a number of
mobile capabilities, including but not limited to the ability to control vibration on a
phone, prevent the phone from sleeping, and find contact accounts on the device. Can
you explain exactly which features and capabilities are necessary for Pokemon GO to
access for the provision or improvement of services? Are there any other purposes for
which Pokemon GO has access to all of these features and capabilities?
3. If, in fact, some of the information collected and/or permissions requested by Pokemon
GO are unnecessary for the provision of services, would Niantic consider making this
collection/access opf-in, as opposed to requiring a user to opt-out of the
collection/access?
4. Pokemon GO has stated that users' information can be shared with The Pokemon
Company and "third party service providers". Can you provide a list of current service
providers? Does Pokemon GO also share users' information with investors in Pokemon
GO?
5. Pokemon GO has further indicated that it shares de-identified and aggregate data with
other third parties for a multitude of purposes. Can you more exhaustively describe the
purposes for which Pokemon GO would share or sell such data?
6. Can you describe how Niantic ensures parents provide meaningful consent for their
child's use ofPokemon GO and thus the collection of their child's personal information?
Apart from publicly available privacy policies, how does Niantic inform parents about
how their child's information is collected and used?
7. According to reports, signing into Pokemon GO on iOS through a user's Google account
gives Niantic full access to an individual's Google account without the user's knowledge.
Niantic has since recognized that it erroneously asked for more permissions than it
intended. Can you provide an update on any fix Niantic is seeking to correct this mistake?
Also, please confirm that Niantic never collected or stored any information it gained
access to as a result of this mistake.

Considering the happy horseshit the US Congress has been doing for the past 6 years, I'm not sure this isn't a case of an elected official actually doing his job. Maybe that's why it seems so unusual.

Oh, and here's the full text of Franken's letter:

http://www.franken.senate.gov/...

First off this sentence by sentence thing is pretty annoying, I would prefer if you used paragraphs and skipped the majority of the quotes. A sentence by sentence rebuttal is pedantic, and these comments are threaded anyways so people can go back and read the prior comment

The corruptibility of the system is an argument for simplification and for bringing the rates in line with comparable countries. Any corporation that actually paid the 39.1% (average combined federal + state rate) would fail in the world marketplace, and hence the large incentive to influence the system in their favor. Additionally a lot of tax avoidance is done through international subsidiaries, a sign that domestic tax burdens are unusually high. 39.1 percent is the third highest rate in the world. If you were in charge of an international corporation you'd be doing everything you could to avoid is as well

Corporation and other business firms are essentially organization for the transformation of capital into profit. Not all firms in the market are price-setters, many are price takers. Nonetheless among firms that set prices the strategy of revenue maximization is rare and are associated with extremely thin margins and are pursued to gain a market-share or other long-term advantage. Most price-setters take the profit maximizing strategy, which as you describe sets prices as to maximize the proportion of revenue to marginal costs. Nonetheless the story does not end when this quarter's profits are made. High margins are signals that encourage investors and new entrants into that market. Low margins will drive investment elsewhere. (Any economic analysis mush include both eh seen and unseen, the immediate and the longterm.) " As Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury in the Clinton Administration, explained in a Brookings Institution paper, “Although unsophisticated observers focus on the distinction between tax relief for business and for individuals, all taxes are ultimately borne by individuals in their role as labor suppliers, consumers, or suppliers of capital.” Hence, it is difficult to apply the concept of tax fairness to corporations. Any tax imposed on corporations results in either a reduction to employee wages, an increase in costs passed on to consumers, a reduction in the return to capital received by shareholders, or a combination of all three." - Joint Economic Council Study, May 2005 https://www.jec.senate.gov/pub...

>"Citizens against government waste". Why not go all-out and cite Grover Norquist and Ayn Rand?

Because the government never has any wast to redundancy? They cite primary sources including the congressional budget office and explain the difference in methodology from the FSC, mainly in correcting for the value of fringe benefits. They are consistent with the CBO analysis and other independent sources. in treating the question as total renumeration rather than as simply nominal salary

As an employer, you'd know theres a large cost in finding, hiring, and training new employees. It can take six months to a year for productivity to cover these costs. A job offer from another employer is often all the leverage you need. Unless you're talking about mind-numbing shift work that anyone with and IQ over 65 can do. Even then such work is being increasingly automated. I've also never had a job where I've said "A little more bureaucracy just what this job needs" Unions have been shrinking in the private sector because they are increasingly irrelevant.

>Another zombie talking point. You guys really think that once you'd join a union, you'd really stand around and think "boy, I wish Bob would start slacking off so I can do my job plus his!" And there is nothing about unions that prevents people from being fired with cause.

So why does New York City Schools have "rubb

Why ask the operators for cooperation when you can get that data yourself? Or ask the NSA for some help. Sometimes, when you're under investigation, it's also fun to spy the people investigating you

if anyone else wants to see how their senator voted you can find it here

Thank you. I am not too bashful to admit that my Markey and Warren, both of whom I thoroughly disagree with most of the time, came through like champs in this instance. So, from an unexpected corner, thank you Markey and Warren.

Thanks. It is nice to know that at least one of my senators doesn't' completely hate my freedoms (Al Franken) but that Amy Klobuchar does seem to hate freedom.

And if anyone else wants to see how their senator voted you can find it here.

Fool me once, shame on Hillary
1980's-1992: Served on board of Walmart, union buster. Nobody there ever heard her support unions.
1990's-early 2000's Hillary: I support my husband's push for NAFTA
Democrat Party supporting Unions: This is (provably) not good for us
2007-2008 Election season Hillary: I think NAFTA was a bad idea and I oppose free trade with Columbia
2007-2008 Hillary supporters: Hillary is allowed to change her mind (sound familiar?)

Fool me twice, shame on me
2011: Emails show she LOBBIED Congress to push for free trade with Columbia, which passed!
2012-2014 Hillary: I'm fully behind the Trans Pacific Partnership (she said this publicly 45 times claiming this is the 'gold standard')
(NOTE AFTER SHE SAID NAFTA WAS BAD!)
Democrat Party supporting Unions: This is not good for us
Sanders said TPP was not good!
2015-2016 Election season Hillary: I'm (now) against the Trans Pacific Partnership

When did he got to war with the US? Never. When did he join enemies of the US? Never. When did he give aid and comfort to enemies of the US? Never.

Who are the enemies of the US right now? Al-Qaeda, ISIL, the Taliban. Snowden hasn't been involved with any of them.

Or if you look at it another way, when was the last time Congress voted to go to war? 1942. No state of war exists right now, just a lot of "military actions."

While true it is because no one who could realistically do anything about it has the stones to do so. About the only thing the workers could do would be to file wrongful termination lawsuits but I don't know if they would have standing to do so. Assuming they don't (it probably isn't age, sex, race, religion, disability, etc related the likely don't) then it would have to fall to some State or Federal Attorney General and they like those campaign contributions.

When I see stuff like this happening I like to remind people that both major political parties do not have your interests at heart. Yes republicans are painted as the party of Big Business but deomcrats are all for this shit. Especially one of my shit stains of a senator Amy Klobuchar who is against well paid skilled labor for Americans and is hard at work trying to destroy these jobs.

Let's take it a step further. What does Dianne Feinstein say about this bill?
Source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=EA927EA1-E098-4E62-8E61-DF55CBAC1649/

The government cannot require or prohibit any specific design or operating system for any covered entity to use in complying with a court order.

She explicitely says the restriction you refer to only refers to the system used in complying with a court order. Not that you can avoid complying with it if your encryption doesn't allow you to, but that

Covered entities are responsible only for the information or data that they (or another party on their behalf) have made unintelligible.

they just can't be told how they have to comply.

Pretty simple, from the words of dianne herself. Or are you going to call her a liar about her own bill as well?

Dear Dipshit:

Before spouting off nonsense and idiocy, please inform yourself on the workings of the Senate, or at least some basic information on which Senators sit on which committees. For example, when you specifically cite Senator Sanders as voting for this bill, you should probably not just make that up as that could be considered to be libel. To refute your absolutely false claim, I present you with the web site for the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence which prominently features the roster of Senators that sit on that committee, and thus vote to advance a bill for the full Senate to vote on. Please note that Senator Sanders is not among them, and also please note that this bill has not been debated on the Senate floor, much less voted to end debate, much less voted on final passage.

Thank you, go take a god damn civics class, and don't post on anything happening in the Congress again until you do.

There's more information at Wyden's press release.

In addition to Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., the original cosponsors are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Jon Tester, D-Mont. I would hope Bernie Sanders would support the bill but I don't personally know how much one can read into him not being an original cosponsor.

The above press release includes a link to a readable (warning, PDF) 1-page summary. The last sentence lists other supporters/commenters of the bill:

For more information, see comments by ACLU, Google, EFF/Access, OTI, CDT, NACDL, the security researchers Bellovin, Blaze, and Landau, and the Agenda Books from the U.S. Courts.

There's more information at Wyden's press release.

In addition to Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., the original cosponsors are Sens. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., Steve Daines, R-Mont., and Jon Tester, D-Mont. I would hope Bernie Sanders would support the bill but I don't personally know how much one can read into him not being an original cosponsor.

The above press release includes a link to a readable (warning, PDF) 1-page summary. The last sentence lists other supporters/commenters of the bill:

For more information, see comments by ACLU, Google, EFF/Access, OTI, CDT, NACDL, the security researchers Bellovin, Blaze, and Landau, and the Agenda Books from the U.S. Courts.

Apple seems to be front and center in this debate but what about General Electric? http://www.sanders.senate.gov/...

"From 2008 to 2013, while GE made over $33.9 billion in United States profits, it received a total tax refund of more than $2.9 billion from the Internal Revenue Service.".

Not only did GE not pay any corporate tax they got a $2.9 billion dollar REFUND from Uncle Sam (i.e. you and I).

I'm not blaming GE, or Apple for that matter, for trying to minimize their tax burden. But when politicians start jumping up and down about it - about a tax system that THEY crafted - it seems to me the blame is misplaced.

The whole system is rotten to the core and both Republicans and Democrats are to blame for this. It seems to me there are one of two ways to fix it. Either go to a flat tax system for both individuals and corporation or just outlaw lobbyists entirely and get the dirty money out of the system.

As an analogy, should I disagree with a US government agency (and most of the scientific community) just because some guy somewhere with a PhD claims that "evolutionary theory is mostly religion"?

So former cartoonist, activist blogger John Cook's paper is akin to "evolutionary theory" in your analogy...??

No, I was quoting the same climate contrarian GiordyS has cited, Dr. Roy Spencer, addressing the U.S. Congress at 3:23:10. Should I disagree with most of the scientific community just because Dr. Spencer told the U.S. Congress that "evolutionary theory is mostly religion"?

Not tonight, sweetie. I gotta headache...

Just read the Levin report... It's only 650 pages.

Please share your views here, too.
http://www.feinstein.senate.go...

400,000 people are 5% of the USA? I don't think so. 400,000 people is 5% of one city (New York City) alone.

And these 400,000 people didn't accumulate in a year, this is 400,000 people that have been on the books during the entire time since you couldn't get rid of student loan via bankruptcy (that's at least 30 years by my recollection).

Your percentage chart leaves off one VERY IMPORTANT detail. What is the group this percentage is being taken from? Fortunately the entire report can be pulled, not just the chart.

Looks like the report claims the reason why we see so many pulling SSDI is because the baby boom is in their 60's and old people are more prone to disability. Something also tells me that old people probably don't manage to carry their college debt to their 60's, so basically your data is at best error prone, and at worst deliberately misinforming the public.

Which is why the H-1B visa issue is a bi-partisian one. Both sides support increasing it. It has been about the only controversial thing Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar has supported. Sadly she really wants to expand this program. Why does Amy Klobuchar hate high skilled well paid workers? I bring up Klobuchar because she is one of my senators and her supports don't believe that she supports such things even when I have shown them her official senate web site where in her own words she says she supports these things.

Not the only candidate. Bernie Sanders has spoken out against free trade AND has a proven track record of voting against disastrous trade bills.

Bernie voted to increase H1B immigration at the last go-around, as did Rubio.

Cruz voted against, and (of course) Trump and Clinton weren't legislators.

I don't know how the GP post got modded as "funny", Trump's position has been "pro-Americans" from the beginning, and is the source of his popularity.

Just to keep people informed, note that Bernie Sanders and Marco Rubio voted to increase H1B visas last round (2013).

Ted Cruz voted against, and (of course) neither Clinton nor Trump could vote.

Here's a quote from [Facebook VP] Joel Kaplan:

"This is a big step forward for jobs, innovation, and the American economy," Facebook's vice president of U.S. policy Joel Kaplan said in a statement e-mailed to CNET. "We've been talking with members for months about what the technology industry needs to remain competitive and this bill shows that they listened and they get it."

Sanders voted to increase H1B visas at the last round of voting.

How can you support Sanders when he doesn't care whether you (and in the future, your children) have jobs?

I gather that you believe America will have more jobs if it just stops trading with other nations. And your state will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of America. And your town will have more jobs if you just stop trading with the rest of the state. In fact, perhaps we should entirely do without commerce. That might work.

I don't know if it's fair to compare Trump and Sanders. Sanders has a pretty solid, decades old voting record that gives a pretty clear picture of where he stands.

Sanders voted to increase H1B visas at the last round of voting.

How can you support Sanders when he doesn't care whether you (and in the future, your children) have jobs?