Slashdot Mirror

But, its true. Nowhere in the previous US of A's was the office whose duty is to protect the environment, actually damaging the environment and cited to court for that.

You must be very young. During republican administrations, the EPA regularly tries to damage the environment. Actually, that's not directly true. They try to give benefits to their main constituents (various companies who donate heavily). This involves letting those companies make and keep lots of money, often by damaging the environment, so the end result is the same.

When they're out of power, Republicans claim that government is completely incompetent. When they're in power, they prove it.

http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endo...

On the other hand.....

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

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

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

That's just a few. Trump got the vote of the KKK and neo-nazis, and if you voted for him, you're ideals align with theirs.

Don't be a gullible fucking idiot.

http://www.snopes.com/kkk-endo...

On the other hand.....

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

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

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

That's just a few. Trump got the vote of the KKK and neo-nazis, and if you voted for him, you're ideals align with theirs.

Don't be a gullible fucking idiot.

is that those who can't afford solar benefit from the electric grid. When the ones who have money to power their homes themselves what happens to the ones who don't? Does the grid shut down and leave them without power? Probably.

The grid, serving less, will probably raise its prices (less customers in an area doesn't really reduce the number of distribution lines needed, meaning that the cost of the infrastructure will be born by less households, raising prices).

The poor will end up paying the increased cost. It's just one more way that being poor is, in many ways, more expensive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/milwaukee-segregation-wealthy-black-families.html

Ask me how I know your white?
FYI, I'm not; or not fully, which other whites have told me is the same thing.

Interesting list you have there. Let me add some to it.

Derwin Brown was killed by a Democrat rival.

After defeating Dorsey in the August 2000 Democratic primary, Brown announced that he would clean up corruption and fire 38 of the department's 700 deputies. ...
Dorsey, who in 1996 became the first African American to be elected sheriff in DeKalb, ....

The Democrats are good at losing, and being sore losers at the same time. Note I have no issues with Pairs accord, just that Obama, the "constitutional scholar" threw out the constitution. Obama was arrogant ever since he began his presidency, starting in 2009 with "elections have consequences", he even admits it as his biggest mistake. Even though he admitted to his arrogance 2015, for good measure he said FU to Republicans in April 2016 with Paris and said he didn't need the Senates approval. The genius couldn't figure out for the life of him, after 8 years why Republicans didn't want to work with him. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Samsung first considered setting up shop in the United States about three years ago, the company said, and started talks with South Carolina last fall. The firm said it picked Newberry County for its workforce, transportation infrastructure — the plant is 150 miles from the Port of Charleston — and “commitment to public-private partnerships.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Absolutely conclusive evidence until you read the rebuttals. Like the fact that his data excluded all restaurants (almost 35% of minimum wage jobs), excluded any business with more than one location, etc, etc, etc. Just remember, figures never lie but liers can figure.

The data set the researcher used was substandard at best, someone might even argue the data set was cooked to extract the desired result.On top of that he refuses to provide the data to outside users and reviewers making his "research" a fucking black box. But he was at least honest and listed all the problems with the data, just didn't include why excluding more than a 1/3rd of low wage jobs in the study area was a good idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault

Over that five-month interval, the Obama administration secretly debated dozens of options for deterring or punishing Russia, including cyberattacks on Russian infrastructure, the release of CIA-gathered material that might embarrass Putin and sanctions that officials said could “crater” the Russian economy.

But in the end, in late December, Obama approved a modest package combining measures that had been drawn up to punish Russia for other issues — expulsions of 35 diplomats and the closure of two Russian compounds — with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.

Obama also approved a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure, the digital equivalent of bombs that could be detonated if the United States found itself in an escalating exchange with Moscow. The project, which Obama approved in a covert-action finding, was still in its planning stages when Obama left office. It would be up to President Trump to decide whether to use the capability.

The New York Times, "How a Rising Minimum Wage Affects Jobs in Seattle": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Washington Post, "Seattle’s higher minimum wage is actually working just fine": https://www.washingtonpost.com...

EPI.org, "The “high road” Seattle labor market and the effects of the minimum wage increase": http://www.epi.org/publication...

Seattle Minimum Wage Policy: http://murray.seattle.gov/mini...

We are mid-2017, and on January 1st, Schedule 1 employers with >500 employees and w/o providing medical benefits, now have a minimum wage of $15.00/hr, up from $13.00/hr (in the period that the UW study most recently concluded on.) Schedule 2 employers (w/ $13.00/hr. So by looking at the data for the next few years, we should get a clearer picture on the effects, since whatever effects there may have been, if they were systematic and attributable to the minimum wage increase, they should deepen and be more visible.

Time will tell.

When then president Obama was informed Russia was doing whatever it could to damage or help defeat Hillary Clinton and get Trump elected, he approved covert measures to plant cyber bombs into Russia's infrastructure. They would be used if the U.S. and Russia escalated the attacks on one another.

They were still in the planning stages when Obama left office, but enough was done that the incoming president could follow up and use them, if necessary. Which was never done. After the changing of administrations, the new president promptly shelved these plans. As a goodwill gesture towards Russia, or possibly a way of saying thanks for the help.

So the complaint that the study doesn't include enough people then quotes a study that includes even less people?

It doesn't matter how large your study population is if your selection process is biased.

Using confidential payroll data from the Washington Employment Security Department, the researchers compare employment, hours and wages of workers in Seattle and various other parts of Washington both before and after Seattle began raising its minimum wage.

Ok. So what about that data means that they have to exclude data for workers at businesses that have more than one location? Nothing. Run the analysis on the whole data set.

No, it's really not hurting them. Or at least, if it is, this study isn't in any way proof that it is: Source

Here you go:

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Donald Turmp hates the Washington Post because it accurately reports on his treasonous crimes.

I'm sorry that the Washington post documented your carelessly executed treason, Moscow Donald.

Before the election

Dec. 10, 2015 Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

Late 2015 British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).

March 19, 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).

March 21 During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).

March 28 Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could Ãoegreatly benefit the Putin Government.Ã His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

April 27 Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

June At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).

June 15 A hacker calling himself ÃoeGuccifer 2.0Ã releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

July At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).

July 7 Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).

July 11 or 12 Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

July 18 At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).

Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's ÃoeLock her up!à chant. ÃoeIf I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth of what she did,à Flynn said, ÃoeI would be in jail todayà (C-Span, July 18, 2016).

July 22 Wikileaks releases emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (WP, July 22, 2017).

Jul. 27 During his last news conferen

Maybe this one's more your speed.

Or are you going to pretend you don't understand this article, either? Or worse, yet - cry "fake news", because you don't like it says?

Donald Turmp hates the Washington Post because it accurately reports on his treasonous crimes.

I'm sorry that the Washington post documented your carelessly executed treason, Moscow Donald.

Before the election

Dec. 10, 2015
Lt. Gen Michael Flynn is part of a panel discussion in Moscow for the 10th anniversary of government-backed Russia Today, for which he receives payment (The Washington Post, Aug. 15, 2016). Officials notice an increase in communication between Flynn and the Russian ambassador to the United States, Sergey Kislyak, following the Russia Today event (CNN, May 19, 2017).

Late 2015
British intelligence agencies detect suspicious interactions between Russia and Trump aides that they pass on to American intelligence agencies (The Guardian, April 13, 2017).

March 19, 2016
Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta is sent an email that encourages him to change his email password, likely precipitating the hack of his account (CBS News, Oct. 28, 2016).

March 21
During an interview with The Post, Trump lists Carter Page as part of his foreign policy team. Page had been recommended by a son-in-law of President Richard Nixon, New York Republican Party Chairman Ed Cox (WP, March 21, 2016).

March 28
Political veteran Paul Manafort is hired to help the Trump campaign manage the delegate process for the Republican National Convention. He is recommended by Trump confidante Roger Stone (New York Times, March 28, 2016). Before joining the campaign, Manafort lobbied on behalf of Oleg Deripaska, an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. That deal followed a memo from Manafort in which he offered a plan that could Ãoegreatly benefit the Putin Government.Ã His relationship with Deripaska ended in 2009 (Associated Press, March 22, 2017). Manafort also worked on behalf of the Russia-friendly Party of Regions in Ukraine, helping guide the party's leader, Viktor Yanukovych, to the country's presidency. Yanukovych would later be ousted. (WP, Aug. 19, 2016)

April 27
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) may have met with Kislyak at a reception at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington before a foreign-policy speech given by Trump (CNN, May 31, 2017).

June
At a closed-door meeting of foreign policy experts and the prime minister of India, Page praises Putin effusively (WP, Aug. 5, 2016).

June 15
A hacker calling himself ÃoeGuccifer 2.0Ã releases the Democratic National Committee's research file on Donald Trump (Gawker, June 15, 2016). News reports already link the stolen data to Russian hackers (WP, June 14, 2016).

July
At some point this month, the FBI begins investigating possible links between the Russian government and Trump's campaign (Wired, March 20, 2017).

July 7
Page travels to Moscow to give a lecture (NYT, April 19, 2017). The Trump campaign approved the trip (USA Today, March 7, 2017). This trip was likely the catalyst for the FBI's request for a secret surveillance warrant to track PageÃs communications (WP, May 25, 2017).

July 11 or 12
Trump campaign staffers intervene with the committee developing the Republican Party's national security platform to remove language call arming Ukraine against Russian aggression. (July 18, 2016).

July 18
At an event hosted by the Heritage Foundation as part of the Republican National Convention, Sessions and Kislyak have a brief conversation (WP, March 2, 2017).

Flynn delivers a speech at the Republican convention, joining in the crowd's ÃoeLock her up!à chant. ÃoeIf I, a guy who knows this business, if I did a tenth of what she did,à Flynn said, ÃoeI would be in jail todayà (C-Span, July 18, 2016).

July 22
Wikileaks releases emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee (WP, July 22, 2017).

Jul. 27
During his

To be fair, I suspect that if you did this (i.e. conducted an experiment that polled random people on the street about such topics) you'd find that the overwhelming majority could answer perfectly fine.

Uh, unfortunately not.

Thankfully, here in the US the Supreme Court unanimously disagrees with this "hate speech" BS. Letting governments censor any sort of political speech is just a bad idea. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

From the University of Washington study: "... although workers were earning more, fewer of them had a job than would have without an increase. Those who did work had fewer hours than they would have without the wage hike."

Or listen to an actual Subway owner about the impacts of going from 7 employees to 3, one of which is one of the owners.

It certainly worked that way for Obama. The idiot even collected a Nobel Peace Prize for......for WHAT?

Before 2006, I never met a person, white or black, that thought we'd see a black person elected president in our lifetimes. I never heard of anyone even saying it was imaginable. Obama, born middle class growing up with a single mother, was elected head of the most responsible group of lawyers in the most prestigious law school in the world. The smart, successful people that elected him said they did so because he was the most reasonable, the most fair, the person that always sought common ground between parties. From the beginning of his presidency, the Republican leadership said their #1 priority was to make it a failure, not to look out for country. Obama was awarded the peace prize because he achieved something nobody thought was possible, and he did it in the most responsible, mature, laudable manner possible in today's politics - he represented hope and promised to end Vietnam II. For the most part, he didn't put people down, he only raised people up. Almost all of his attacks were those of exposure, not denigration. Compare those achievements and symbols to any other politician out there, especially the current president. Oh, by the way, when he started, we were losing 700k jobs per month and the Dow was under 9k, ~60 Americans were dying per month in Iraq, GM was failing, and bin laden was nowhere to be found. Imo, he's not a god, he lived in reality, but he consistently made every single decision the best way possible given the choices. He accomplished an absolutely amazing amount considering he was the first president that the opposition had it out for him as #1 priority ahead of the country.

Queue the trolls in 3, 2, ...

Great, except you mentioned the N word. Nuclear. Whacko environmentalists still think that's a bad thing. Greenpeace is driving most of it. Even though one of the founders wrote an op piece in the WashPo back in 2006 -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Then the fukishima plant.. which was a basic engineering failure by the Japanese. They should have hired a US firm to build it, they wouldn't have put it in an earthquake zone, that gets Tsunamis, and put the generators in the basement. Thought the Japanese were supposed to be smart. Now they have places like Germany, others trying to eliminate them.

You leave out the place where the officer told him repeatedly not to touch the weapon but he kept reaching for it.

Except that's not even what the cops claimed was happening.. He said the gun is in his glove box. Was he reaching for the glove box? No.

He was reaching for his ID which he was asked to produce.

In the video recordings, Reynolds can be heard disputing this from inside the car, saying that Castile, who had been asked for his license when the stop began, was reaching for his ID, not for a gun.

Yanez, though, said he believed Castile had grabbed a gun:

“I know he had an object and it was dark. And he was pulling it out with his right hand.

So a guy is asked for a license. In order to avoid scaring the cop before pulling his ID out he does the sensible thing and mentions he has a gun and that it's in his glovebox and then proceeds to get his license from his wallet, at which point the cop proceeds to shoot him even though it should be clear at this point he's not going for the gun.

It takes a gigantic idiot to even assume someone who's about to pull a gun an attempt to murder you in plain daylight is about to declare his intentions beforehand to an armed police officer right next to him.

If your hand has to go anywhere near the gun, tell the officer, let him acknowledge it - -

Sadly this individual did not.

But he did act exactly according to this rule. His hand never went near the gun which as he informed was in the glovebox, and he wasn't going for the glovebox, which he even confirmed a second time ('I'm not reaching for it'). The problem is the officer never listened or did not believe him that the gun was in the box and opened fire due to sheer panic and incompetence even though his hand was never near where the weapon was.

and he paid for not obeying the officer's instructions to not touch his firearm

Incorrect. He never touched his firearm at any point or even went near it. The officer thought he did, because the officer did not listen and/or believe him about the location of the gun.

Racism had nothing to do with it.

Agreed and mind you I never claimed it did. This is gross incompetence and lack of proper training. These kinds of individuals should not be working as mall cops let alone as police officers.

He was being honest there. You know the old saying "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining." Well, he warned them ahead of time that "it's not rain - I'm pissing on your legs".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/there-is-a-second-sacred-wall-at-the-cia-trump-disrespects-that-one-every-day/2017/01/29/d1961480-e675-11e6-bf6f-301b6b443624_story.html

Wait till Trumpcare fails. There's a reason they won't even tell their own Senators what is in it.

Hmm..."We'll have to pass it to find out what's in it"...where HAVE I heard that before?

In the lies and misrepresentations being told about what Nancy Pelosi ACTUALLY said?

IOW, so what else is new, other than which Party is trying to pass some sort of health-insurance reform without telling anyone what they're actually voting for?

Nothing has changed, the GOP is still hiding the truth from the American people. First they were lying about the contents of the Affordable Care Act so badly that Pelosi ACTUALLY said: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." because of their storm of lies but of course, the GOP continued that pattern of lies, and twisted that to claim to mean that somehow, people didn't have the ACTUAL bill to review and examine. But they did. It was published, and Representatives and Senators from both sides were regularly talking about it to the people.

So what Pelosi actually meant was rather the opposite of what the GOP claimed she said. And she wasn't unique, they did it with Obama and Clinton as well. Yet it has become a right-wing shibboleth, a mantra, repeated until the delusion is shared.

On the other hand, the GOP Senate is not revealing their own text to the public, they are not meeting with the public, and even their own are saying:

“No, nor have I met any American that has. I’m sure the Russians have been able to hack in and gotten most of it.”

“I’m very eager to see the language. I don’t think it gives enough time to thoroughly analyze the bill, but we’ll see when it comes out.”

"as far as I know the overwhelming majority of my colleagues haven't been able to see it either."

"It has become increasingly apparent in the last few days that even though we thought we were going to be in charge of writing a bill within this working group, it's not being written by us, it's apparently being written by a handful of staffers who are members of the Republican leadership in the Senate,"

The fact is, there are numerous quotes from GOP senators admitting they haven't had a part in writing the bill, not even a chance to read it. And they're timid, at best, in their objections to this secretive process. But they aren't able to deny what we already know. The sausage is being made, in secret, and they don't want us to see it.

Want me to find quotes from the House version of Trumpcare? It's the same story. Prevarications and lies, numbers of GOP Representatives admitting they never read it. Not to mention the haste in passing it, and the lack of public involvement.

It's not new. It's exactly the way the Republican party has decided to operate. And yes, they do try to blame others for their own offenses. They never take responsibility, or clean out the log in their own eye.

Really, you think nobody is familiar with what has been going on? You think you can just throw out your spurious misquoting, and not actually be demonstrating the very problem? Hardly. You might as well be chanting about "57" states or "you didn't build that" for all the validity it has.

And with the way the GOP is going, I'd dare them to call snap elections if they could. Well, technically they could, they'd j

But while autonomous or semiautonomous driving technology could help reduce collisions in general, questions about how and when to draw the line between manual and autonomous mode have yet to be fully resolved by engineers and researchers. Last year, for example, a study by Stanford University found that drivers often had trouble taking the wheel again after letting a computer drive, even momentarily. Drivers commonly over- or undercorrected with the steering wheel, even when they knew the handoff was coming, the research found. The effects were more pronounced if driving conditions had changed substantially since the last time the drivers were in control, according to a Stanford release.

They had an API for writing their own apps

A secure API that let the phone install apps from many sources?

If you were building a phone that did not need third party apps shy not just put security around the whole system, rather than a per-app basis?

and initial volume would've been really low.

It was not .

Legend has it that Jobs really was actually counting on webapps for everything.

That was the very public story Apple gave to developers the first year, stalling for time until the real app store was released.

I've also heard that they took the iPod from zero to a product in considerably less than a year.

Almost year> from conception.

Yes it's true Apple could move pretty fast but like I said there were a lot of signs at the launch of IOS that there would be third party apps. If all of that hadn't been there I would agree but I actually left my job and focused only on iPhone development, before they announced there would be an app store or third party apps - it was that obvious to me at the time. I just started with jailbroken IOS development before the official SDK launched... (and the jailbroken stuff would not have been possible without all of the system support in place for third party apps).

I read that to,Still funny though.

Why is Edward Snowden's former employment (on the consulting side) relevant to what their accountants are doing?

I submitted the story because (1) Booz employes many IT professionals and (2) I believe their billing practices reflect the corporation's Organizational Culture.

If Booz is willing to defraud the federal government, how do you think they are going to treat their employees?

After all, we're talking about a corporation of 22000 people here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All the more reason to discuss the corporation's organizational culture!

Snowden did NOT share the corporation's values, according to its CEO: “I told our employees Mr. Snowden was on our payroll for a short period of time, but he was not a Booz Allen person and he did not share our values. We cannot and will not let him define us.” -- Booz Allen’s chief executive, Ralph W. Shrader,

Is that what you call it when you help the Saudi's to bomb civilians in Yemen? Bet you're really happy setting up drone strikes on civilians and calling airstrikes on hospitals.

And now Trump is basically letting the military do whatever it wants, including setting troop levels in Afghanistan. Talk about giving up the pretext of being Commander. Guess it was too hard.

If you don't like it done to you then don't do it to others.

Aside from all the elections America has interfered in, the US recently targeted its allies and hacked the phone of the German leader.

he republicans are all talk to appear tough for the public ...

Someone not paying attention to the senate or house recently. Yep sure looks like it.

Hillary and Obama did not threaten the start of WW3 as much as they threatened to stop Putin's theft from Russia

So let's go with that. You wonder why the Russian government seriously believed that if Hillary was elected that there would be a war. Would you perhaps like to claim that the inquisitr is a right-wing publication to save face before you find out that it's a left-wing publication.

THAT is why Putin was so desperate that he worked to get Trump elected ...

Yes, he worked so hard that we have no proof that they were involved. Or that the DNC email leaks show the exact opposite of what you're trying to say, like the fact that Hillary was acting as a front in a cash-for-access program using the clinton foundation to the state department. Would you like to now claim ABC News is right-wing? Or perhaps the washington post which also reported on it.

Remember that part where the previous administration claimed that Russia was behind the DNC leaks, but there's no actual proof because the FBI never had access to actually investigate it. That Comey said that in itself was a "odd occurrence" and in turn there is no positive proof because of that. Remember that part where the founder of wikileaks came out and stated that Russia wasn't the source. The same wikileaks that the left cheered on for leaks under Bush and were quite happy when the information was supporting their side. Shall we continue?

Oh here we are. Are you the pro-russian troll, or the teabagger obsessed with the Clintons? It has become so hard to tell these days.

See that ID? Yeah. So what are you? A paid shareblue poster trying to cover up for the Clintons. Maybe you can explain why when Clinton lost the election that the international arm of the clinton foundation shut down almost right away as the donation stream abruptly stopped. Would you like to explain why when people wanted to talk with the Obama administration they'd be stonewalled, then suddenly when they made large contributions to it they had access. And they used it to directly gain access to special favors at the state department.

Why talk about the topic at hand when we can talk about a completely different topic?

Maybe you should ask the parent poster.

It's getting old and us moderates are tired of the idiots on both sides. Before you go there (I know you will), no, I ddidnt vote for the candidate you likely call Killary.

If you're an actual moderate, then you wouldn't be lashing out when someone points out that she was the worse candidate and likely the one that would have caused another world war. You were the one who said that not me.

Check https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual

Allow me to inject a little reality using a source you doubtless regard as truth incarnate: Washington Post, 2015: We’ve had a Massive Decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why

This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

You're worldview is fictional. You've been inculcated with fictional nonsense about the US and you're regurgitating it all over the interwebs.

You'll note that wapo at no point credited gun control for the "massive decline." You'll then dismiss that as it fails to align with the fictions you prefer to indulge. The massive decline corresponds to a period in which firearm ownership and concealed carry in the US have both grown at phenomenal rates. There is no correlation between the growth of firearms and gun violence; exactly the opposite. Another reality you'll need to subsume under your preferred bullshit narrative.

Virtually every first-world democracy has lower rates of gun ownership than the USA, stricter gun safety rules/gun controls and also lower rates of murder and lower rates of gun murders.

So claim what you want, but every first-world democracy that has lower rates of gun ownership, stricter gun controls has fewer murders.

You may draw whatever conclusion you wish from that, but the claim "first world countries with lower rates of gun ownership and stricter gun controls have fewer murders" is absolutely and provably substantiated by well-documented facts. Does that mean that lower rates of gun ownership and stricter gun controls are the primary or major contributing cause of these lower murder rates? That's quite plausible but not proved.

The stats are the stats.

Let the idiotic left pay for this worthless garbage while allowing the right to prosper.

That's funny because for the most part (Texas being the exception), red states are financially supported by the blue ones.

But you're right about the "idiotic left." The left are idiots for giving welfare to the red states. It's time to cut the red states off and let them try to support themselves financially. Self-reliance is still a conservative value, isn't it?

Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual

Allow me to inject a little reality using a source you doubtless regard as truth incarnate: Washington Post, 2015: We’ve had a Massive Decline in gun violence in the United States. Here’s why

This decline in gun violence is part of an overall decline in violent crime. According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. Even as a certain type of mass shooting is apparently becoming more frequent, America has become a much less violent place.

You're worldview is fictional. You've been inculcated with fictional nonsense about the US and you're regurgitating it all over the interwebs.

You'll note that wapo at no point credited gun control for the "massive decline." You'll then dismiss that as it fails to align with the fictions you prefer to indulge. The massive decline corresponds to a period in which firearm ownership and concealed carry in the US have both grown at phenomenal rates. There is no correlation between the growth of firearms and gun violence; exactly the opposite. Another reality you'll need to subsume under your preferred bullshit narrative.

this has been extensively reported on. if you decide to ignore all of these sources, and instead make a decision based on some other unknown source (i.e. internal circle jerk), you might as well be a flat-earther, bigfoot hunter, UFO spotter, and loch ness fisherman. you put an unreachably high bar of evidence on things you don't want to believe, while putting a very low bar of evidence on things you want to believe. you have become that nutcase.

Had Comey not done his political stunt with the Weiner's e-mails it wouldn't have flipped the election and I doubt they expected it to. Yet Nate Silver's numbers are pretty clear: Hillary had 6%+ lead until Comey did that and down 3%+ points after, close enough for the EC to do its thing. Had it not been for Comey the election would not have even been close.

Comey has been routinely insisting that he had no choice but to do what he did. He had previously gone to Congress and reported that the investigation had been closed. The problem with that, he testified last week, is that saying such a thing creates a duty to correct if it becomes untrue later. Some extra unprocessed emails popped up, and he felt he had a duty to report that. You can well imagine the Republican reaction if something interesting DID turn up in those emails (even if it was only interesting if you squint hard and incant "Clinton's a Crook" three times), and he had hidden their existence before the election. They of course eventually turned up the same nothing that all the previous ones had, but by then it was too late.

So now Comey thought he had a lesson-learned: don't publicly report on investigations, so you won't have that "duty to correct". The problem there is that when Trump came into office, and was told he wasn't (at the time) under investigation, he wanted that information publicized. Comey explained why he didn't want to do that, based on what happened with Clinton, but it looks like Trump was not enamored of that answer.

Prove otherwise.

Ok.

There's two. Especially the second one.

The messages are gone, so it's up to you to prove that the administration overstepped the bonds.

You poor, ignorant sod. The messages are not gone -- the users were blocked. The messages remain. The news on this topic even includes copies of many...

Are you going to say that setting cars on fire, as done on the inauguration day, is a protected free speech as well? Or setting a campus on fire, when a speaker for the
conservatives is to give a speech?

Classic whataboutism. Ignored.

The "opponents" have a long and sordid history of violating the rules of civil discussion,

Labeling all members of a perceived group according to the worst anecdote that you can recall. Clear due process violation. Ignored.

so in absence of solid proofs that this instance specifically this was not the case, I'm strongly inclined to believe you're trying to dig up dirt on the administration where there is none.

Proofs provided.

While we're at it, please explain how one twitter message amongst 43K replies can disrupt the discussion

Intervened? I missed that, but wikileaks reported on US espionage on the French elections.

However , here is an article "The long history of the U.S. interfering with elections elsewhere". Is Washington Post MSM enough for you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Perhaps it would help if the US admitted past CIA corruption of democracy and apologised.

There's lots of meticulously researched and sourced articles out there. Just because you can't use google doesn't mean there isn't any evidence.

And then you think Trump needs lessons...

Guy Kawasaki isn't facing an obstruction of justice charge. At the very least, Trump should follow his attoney's advice and STFU.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/09/did-trump-just-acknowledge-in-a-tweet-of-course-that-he-told-comey-to-back-off-michael-flynn/

... So we never entered into it in the first place.

Presidential agreements are not binding on future administrations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The thing is, that's who he is.

True, to the extent that people have been making him the subject of earnest mockery and derision, he has been known and recognized for who he is for decades. Since the 1980s at least.

He decided to become President, and did it pretty much by himself with the help of family and friends, and with his own money.

He did it by embracing the ever-popular aggrandizement of the Republican party, without even the principles of a Perot, and they ate it up, because it was what they wanted.

Desperately. They wanted somebody to promise them the skies, and denounce the evil liberals, and they got it. The Birther-in-Chief.

But yes, he was wealthy enough to get attention, that certainly helped him. He should thank his father. And all the victims of his cons.

He had a tiny team of volunteers compared to Clinton; his own party didn't want him there and tried to get rid of him even after the primaries.

LOL, his own party? Trump isn't a Republican any more than he's a Blue Mongoose. But the party leadership? It's been sycophantic to him since he decided to run, let alone since he took office. They've neither reined him in nor tried to shrink his head. They've been failing the party and its alleged principles for years, but they really took the prize when it came to Trump.

They may be privately dismayed, perhaps, though I doubt they have the intelligence or wisdom for that, but otherwise? No, their actions on Trumpcare, the Muslim Ban, the tweeting, the whole business with Russia, with NATO, they're worse than when they tried to kill the Iran deal just because Obama made it.

He's been like that his whole life. We're talking about a guy who literally fought for decades with bureaucrats to develop some land that he bought in NYC. He's not a sweet-talker that sugarcoated his way to power. He's in-your-face, doesn't-bend-over kind of guy.

Like that his whole life? Yes, I agree, he hasn't changed in character (though in quality, age seems to have taken its toll). He's certainly in your face, but he hides things behind all of that bluster, in fact, he's less honest than you would ever admit. What he's done in New York City, like everywhere else, is find a way to enrich himself, and run rough-shod over the poor and weak to do it. (The AC who endorsed him as only socking the rich, is wrong, he's taken advantage of the poor all the time. His workers HAVE complained.) He isn't sugar-coated, he's slime-coated, and he has slinked his way to power like a slug oozing through a crack, and bent over a lot of people because of who he is, a man who likes to screw people.

He doesn't try to hide things because that's who he is.

The guy has falsely portrayed almost everything he is.

But there's more to the guy.

There's less to the guy.

Have you seen this thing that happened at a debate during the primaries? He saw that Carson was confused and stayed back to let him make a dignified entrance:

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

Did you see the actual debates? Or better yet read them? Such empty pompous bombast was revolting. He complained more about the evils of "Political Correctness" than he offered real policy.

It's rather telling that you think your video is important, when what he said up on that stage is what truly matters.

It was an act, sure, but being willing to make that act? Terrible.

That we now have months of a presidential administration to look upon, and you still can

The thing is, that's who he is.

True, to the extent that people have been making him the subject of earnest mockery and derision, he has been known and recognized for who he is for decades. Since the 1980s at least.

He decided to become President, and did it pretty much by himself with the help of family and friends, and with his own money.

He did it by embracing the ever-popular aggrandizement of the Republican party, without even the principles of a Perot, and they ate it up, because it was what they wanted.

Desperately. They wanted somebody to promise them the skies, and denounce the evil liberals, and they got it. The Birther-in-Chief.

But yes, he was wealthy enough to get attention, that certainly helped him. He should thank his father. And all the victims of his cons.

He had a tiny team of volunteers compared to Clinton; his own party didn't want him there and tried to get rid of him even after the primaries.

LOL, his own party? Trump isn't a Republican any more than he's a Blue Mongoose. But the party leadership? It's been sycophantic to him since he decided to run, let alone since he took office. They've neither reined him in nor tried to shrink his head. They've been failing the party and its alleged principles for years, but they really took the prize when it came to Trump.

They may be privately dismayed, perhaps, though I doubt they have the intelligence or wisdom for that, but otherwise? No, their actions on Trumpcare, the Muslim Ban, the tweeting, the whole business with Russia, with NATO, they're worse than when they tried to kill the Iran deal just because Obama made it.

He's been like that his whole life. We're talking about a guy who literally fought for decades with bureaucrats to develop some land that he bought in NYC. He's not a sweet-talker that sugarcoated his way to power. He's in-your-face, doesn't-bend-over kind of guy.

Like that his whole life? Yes, I agree, he hasn't changed in character (though in quality, age seems to have taken its toll). He's certainly in your face, but he hides things behind all of that bluster, in fact, he's less honest than you would ever admit. What he's done in New York City, like everywhere else, is find a way to enrich himself, and run rough-shod over the poor and weak to do it. (The AC who endorsed him as only socking the rich, is wrong, he's taken advantage of the poor all the time. His workers HAVE complained.) He isn't sugar-coated, he's slime-coated, and he has slinked his way to power like a slug oozing through a crack, and bent over a lot of people because of who he is, a man who likes to screw people.

He doesn't try to hide things because that's who he is.

The guy has falsely portrayed almost everything he is.

But there's more to the guy.

There's less to the guy.

Have you seen this thing that happened at a debate during the primaries? He saw that Carson was confused and stayed back to let him make a dignified entrance:

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

Did you see the actual debates? Or better yet read them? Such empty pompous bombast was revolting. He complained more about the evils of "Political Correctness" than he offered real policy.

It's rather telling that you think your video is important, when what he said up on that stage is what truly matters.

It was an act, sure, but being willing to make that act? Terrible.

That we now have months of a presidential administration to look upon, and you still can

Long before laser printers, investigators were tying people to typewriters based on unique per-unit imperfections and wear patterns.

I wonder if that's like the pseudoscience behind bite mark "experts".

It's really difficult to determine whether this would use the voicemail service of your provider, or the voicemail on your phone. I found a WaPo article https://www.washingtonpost.com... which quotes the RNC as saying it's the latter: '"[D]irect-to-voicemail technology permits a voice message to go directly to the intended recipient’s mobile voicemail via a server-to-server communication, without a call being made to the recipient’s telephone number and without a charge," wrote the RNC.' Note the "mobile voicemail".