Slashdot Mirror

I totally agree. One more point in defense of the uneducated poor Trump supporters is that they were surrounded, which also made it easier to conform. Doesn't necessarily mean they're dumb, only human.

I agree with this, except the part about 'party lines'. The Dems fought for net neutrality. In this case, and many others like it, one party is obviously worth voting for.

How about voting against Republicans. Then start voting for 3rd party candidates /after/ the Dems are in charge. Because the Dems fought /for/ net neutrality. As well as almost all other issues favoring the little guy and believing in science. But Reps have done everything from Citizen's United to gerrymandering, both the major factors that have brought us to where we are, finally getting rid of net neutrality which they are 99% responsible for.

Except that you clearly weren't paying attention when Netflix had to pay bandwidth costs for Comcast to get faster performance before the net neutrality rules came into play. Or when Verizon CEO made a fool out of himself when they were trying to extort Netflix.

Don't take my word for it though.

There is a reason the net neutrality rules were recently changed and it was in response to what you're saying ISPs haven't bothered to do. In the wake of ATT, Verizon, and Comcast all throttling certain services, consumer complaints and a massive public outcry to the FCC lead to the rules being changed.

It's the order that's on trial. Not Trump.

Nope, it's Trump. Trump is on trial, since it's his order. That's why the order doesn't even pass the whiff test, he made it stink, through his own malodorous actions.

Trump campaign statements do not have the force of law, and neither do anyone else's.

Indeed, and fortunate we are for that, can you imagine if Tippacanoe and Tyler Too was the law?

But that's got nothing to do with the fact that Trump's campaign statements do have the effect of demonstrating intent. Intent matters. You can't dress up a law that you passed to cause an illegal intent and expect courts to ignore that intent just because it's massively devastating to your order.

Trump even went to his good friend, and asked "Do what I said, just make it look legal" and that's where the problem lies.

He could have skated if he'd just complained about insufficient security and terrorism, but no, no, he had to run his mouth and claim he'd ban Muslims. Not even Muslim terrorists, but Muslims.

But if this flies, we should start looking at campaign statements from other candidates as well.

You already should have been. Why haven't you? Why would you be so stupid as to not look at their campaign statements? What did you do, judge them on their hair style?

Didn't one of them say he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry?'

Nope, but even if he did, there's no law or restriction applicable to protecting the coal industry from being bankrupted, whereas there are laws and restrictions regarding animus towards religion.

Sorry, Bartles, if you went to court with the claim that Obama intended to bankrupt you because of your coal-burning pollution, you'd fail, since it isn't at all the same. You'd lose as bad as Kent Hovind.

You, like most Americans, overestimate the size of the gay population. This is not surprising, as gays have done an extraordinary job seeing to it that they are over-represented in pop culture (as I have indicated above). The Washington Post -- hardly a bastion of evangelical redneck conservatism -- reports that "More specifically, 1.8 percent of men self-identify as gay and 0.4 percent as bisexual, and 1.5 percent of women self-identify as lesbian and 0.9 percent as bisexual." So, yeah, 1-2 percent, like I said; less than half of the 5% you indicated. No where's near the percentage as portrayed in pop culture.

All that said, having worked in media and entertainment industries for my entire adult life, I would make an educated estimation that 25-30 percent of the "creatives" working professionally are openly gay (...and the remaining 70-75 percent are terrified of saying or writing something that will piss them off). So the fact that the "gay population" of pop culture characters skews so fabulously wrong is no surprise.

The History books were written by straight white Christian men; the Future History (science fiction) is being written by multi-racial gay people. Ironic...

Why are they discussing sensitive matters in insecure environments? Because they're fucking clown shoes. They think it's ok to just break out sensitive intelligence documents in the middle of a crowded dining room at a hotel. Trump's personal body guard can't figure out how to use a fucking Manila folder to keep the Secretary of Defense's phone number private.

Right. Hillary totally said "Let's attack Russia."

Meanwhile, in our universe, what she did was express support for no-fly zones against Assad's aircraft. Which the right pretended means "go to war with Russia", because if you attack one of Assad's planes, then you might accidentally hit Russian planes, and then everything will spiral out of control.

Now, ignoring the fact that the US at present actually maintains de facto no-fly zones over Kurdish and Daesh territory (including threatening Assad with shooting down his aircraft if they took off during a Kurdish uprising in al-Hasakah), and Turkey maintains their own no-fly zone in northern Syria... forgetting about all of that... Trump outright bombed a Syrian base to bits.

Naturally Republicans freaked out about the imminent war with Russia and condemned Trump for his recklessness! ..... but meanwhile in our universe, they gave Trump high poll ratings for his actions. Because of course, consistency isn't their strong suit.

We need a special prosecutor. In fact, we need four of five of them, investigating the alleged Presidential crimes.
Here's a good place to start:
Murder of Seth Rich
Obama's targeting of conservative groups via IRS/Lois Lerner
Sale of Guns to Mexican Cartels by Obama
ISIS support under orders of Obama?
The Seven Grand Lies by Susan Rice: did she do it herself, or did Obama order the lying?
Killary email server
Bernie buttrape by the DNC/Washerwoman
Obama Arab spring funding
Donna Brazile handing over debate q's to Killary
Obama's PRISM/illegal spying on Americans
(mod this to 4, and I will post the next 10).

Trump consistently acts incompetent, and needs a serious medical check-up to verify his cognitive capability to remain president or be removed for medical reasons (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or simply Dementia, etc.)

Trouble is that people very familiar with him, including the guy that helped work on The Art of the Deal book who wrote an article today, have been saying since he started running for office, that he has always been like this and the way he is acting is no surprise and even predicted.

As a president, Trump could literally commit a crime [...]

Wrong. An actual crime is subject to impeachment. Point was, intelligence-sharing is up to the President in the first place.

I think what people don't like about this little incident

The "people" you are talking about simply hate Trump. Period. The article about Obama sharing intelligence with Putin in 2016, which I linked to earlier, was written by the same Karen de Young, who is now mocking and denouncing Trump for similar cooperation.

and that intelligence agencies are seriously worried about him

Which intelligence agencies are you talking about with such grave respect? The same ones betrayed by your heroes Snowden and Manning — who, according to you and yours, deserve a medal for their betrayals — or some other, noble and glorious ones?

they don't give him access to any valuable secrets in practice.

That would've been dereliction of duty at least and possibly treason as well. Trump was duly elected as President — intelligence agencies ought to work for him, not sabotage him.

As a president, Trump could literally commit a crime [...]

Wrong. An actual crime is subject to impeachment. Point was, intelligence-sharing is up to the President in the first place.

I think what people don't like about this little incident

The "people" you are talking about simply hate Trump. Period. The article about Obama sharing intelligence with Putin in 2016, which I linked to earlier, was written by the same Karen de Young, who is now mocking and denouncing Trump for similar cooperation.

and that intelligence agencies are seriously worried about him

Which intelligence agencies are you talking about with such grave respect? The same ones betrayed by your heroes Snowden and Manning — who, according to you and yours, deserve a medal for their betrayals — or some other, noble and glorious ones?

they don't give him access to any valuable secrets in practice.

That would've been dereliction of duty at least and possibly treason as well. Trump was duly elected as President — intelligence agencies ought to work for him, not sabotage him.

As a president, Trump could literally commit a crime [...]

Wrong. An actual crime is subject to impeachment. Point was, intelligence-sharing is up to the President in the first place.

I think what people don't like about this little incident

The "people" you are talking about simply hate Trump. Period. The article about Obama sharing intelligence with Putin in 2016, which I linked to earlier, was written by the same Karen de Young, who is now mocking and denouncing Trump for similar cooperation.

and that intelligence agencies are seriously worried about him

Which intelligence agencies are you talking about with such grave respect? The same ones betrayed by your heroes Snowden and Manning — who, according to you and yours, deserve a medal for their betrayals — or some other, noble and glorious ones?

they don't give him access to any valuable secrets in practice.

That would've been dereliction of duty at least and possibly treason as well. Trump was duly elected as President — intelligence agencies ought to work for him, not sabotage him.

It's not just the Chinese saying "blame the NSA".
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-14/microsoft-slams-nsa-letting-its-hacking-tools-cause-global-malware-epidemic

Ah, only a few yars years ago leaking national secrets was cool. How do Snowden, Manning, and Obama remain heroes of the same people, who wish to impeach Trump for allegedly doing it?

To which all professors should respond with some variant of "You're welcome to your own self-image, but I am not required to participate in it."

Unfortunately, at some institutions the professors are are required to use the students' preferred pronouns. One example is the University Of Michigan.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2016/09/28/um-gender-pronouns/91222056/

A conservative student, as an act of protest, chose the pronoun "His Majesty".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2016/10/07/a-university-told-students-to-select-their-gender-pronouns-one-chose-his-majesty

They've had a good run of doing nothing and not updating their hardware or software in any kind of meaningful way for the past couple decades. No other company would have been so neglectful to such a profitable product line.

You don't understand, nor do those who upvoted you. TI has been updating their product lines all along, and that's the problem. What???!!?!?

The newer, better calculators have all sorts of wonderful features, like the ability to totally cheat in several ways. Ultimately, they can store text, so kids can put all kinds of stuff on there.

The TI-84 was basically the last calculator that they made which is good for helping students with calculation but not with cheating.

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

“We have to keep evolving on this platform, but it can’t be innovation for the sake of innovation,” said Peter Balyta, president of Texas Instruments’ calculator division. “While it’s tempting for us to build in WiFi, Bluetooth, audio, a camera, a whole bunch of things, we could do, but teachers don’t want us to. And it’s because we want to have a tool that kids can use in a classroom, on their way home, at home when they’re doing homework and also a tool they can bring in during their most important exam.”

That last line is the key.

This shouldn't be news here, by the way:

https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

Again, every thing I have seen say you are being disingenuous. The position seems to have changed over time. Go figure.

  From the first 2 links.
https://www.google.com/#q=trum...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Are you going to show me where he says; "I want a Muslim American database"? Also, how is that different than wanting a gun owner database?

>Try a little more variety in your news diet.
  I get enough to know that CNN, NBC, FOX, WSJ, NYTIMES, MSNBC, washington post all pump out fake news. I'll glean the facts and ignore the narrative crafting.

Also, i am curious from an ideologue, would you kill/die for the right of healthcare?

Really? Democrats did not decide to run the nuclear option?

Don't talk about things you don't know about, it makes you look like an asshole.

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

That's why, for example, judges and jurors are sought to be impartial.

There you are! Justifying Trump's dismissing a judge as "biased" because he was of Mexican descent...Racist, racist, racist!

Of course, attacking a judge because of his ancestry is indeed, racist, and Trump's admissionsa actually showed his own realization of the bias and animus he had been demonstrating.

That is what Trump chose to do. He picked a deliberate course of racial antagonism to attack a judge in a lawsuit where it was immaterial. In the media. Nothing more. Remember, Trump University? It didn't get filed as a request for recusal in court, it was merely engaging in political aggrandizement. You don't get a judge to act in a case just because you go on CNN and pout like a crybaby.

You do know this, right? Trump was whining about a judge. He chose to do it with an included racist spin, so it only reflects on Trump. Not the judge. In the realm of public opinion. At least, until it becomes relevant to a legal matter. Now personally, I blame Trump's political advisers, who should have at least made Trump temper his remarks, but he still has a problem with running his mouth. Or twitter fingers, as the case may be. But he's not the only one with a problem with that in his administration. That sort of thing can reflect on you.

Which was why when somebody takes your statements, applies them to you, in a legal case, and submits them to court, well, then you have a judge rule on it.

Now if you want to see a judge who got in trouble because of their own actions, let's try one. That's one where a

You would be right, If we lived in a democracy. Which we dont. We live in a Democratic Republic.

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

Come on even the Washington Post knows this. And they are literally the worst site to get information from. They do however back track a year later to align with their agenda. but heres some others.

http://www.realdemocracy.com/d...

http://www.thisnation.com/ques...

I hope this is enough to inform you.

Story of Trump working with Japanese man to invest $50 Billion in the US.

So are you telling us you are a liar, or stupid?

ok. Our Intelligence agencies released a report stating they think the Russians made an organized effort to influence the 2016 US presidential elections.

You can read it here. It points out a propaganda campaign using Russian Today to spread fake news. I didn't even know there was a kremlin financed US news channel.

There was certainly a cyber attack using the Gucifer identity. The report points a finger at the Guicifer identity being multiple people and not just Marcel LazÄfr Lehel who was prosecuted as he made contradictory statements. They believe he was accompliced by Russian state actors.

Sadly, they don't include these details in their report, but you can find them elsewhere. There are fingerprints pointing to known Russian groups. Like using the same attack vectors and tools: "The spearphish message was actually sent from hi.mymail@yandex[.]com, an email address from the Moscow-based webmail provider Yandex."

The caveat is that it's pretty trivial to act like you're someone else online, especially if you want to point the blame elsewhere. And we've found out the CIA has tools to help them look like other hackers. Welcome to the cloak and dagger world of reporting on the CIA where nothing is ever conclusively proven.

But from the propoganda campaign, it's obvious that Russia pushed an effort to influence the election and there's some evidence that the hackers behind the DNC leak had ties to Russian state actors.

ok. Our Intelligence agencies released a report stating they think the Russians made an organized effort to influence the 2016 US presidential elections.

You can read it here. It points out a propaganda campaign using Russian Today to spread fake news. I didn't even know there was a kremlin financed US news channel.

There was certainly a cyber attack using the Gucifer identity. The report points a finger at the Guicifer identity being multiple people and not just Marcel LazÄfr Lehel who was prosecuted as he made contradictory statements. They believe he was accompliced by Russian state actors.

Sadly, they don't include these details in their report, but you can find them elsewhere. There are fingerprints pointing to known Russian groups. Like using the same attack vectors and tools: "The spearphish message was actually sent from hi.mymail@yandex[.]com, an email address from the Moscow-based webmail provider Yandex."

The caveat is that it's pretty trivial to act like you're someone else online, especially if you want to point the blame elsewhere. And we've found out the CIA has tools to help them look like other hackers. Welcome to the cloak and dagger world of reporting on the CIA where nothing is ever conclusively proven.

But from the propoganda campaign, it's obvious that Russia pushed an effort to influence the election and there's some evidence that the hackers behind the DNC leak had ties to Russian state actors.

Just after firing Comey, Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Now this was not bad just for the optics. No American press was allowed but Russian press was allowed. No that's not worst part. The Russian press was allowed to bring in their equipment to take photos in the Oval Office. That's the worst part: Trump allowed foreign officials to bring in electronic equipment into a sensitive area of the White House. Many security experts are dismayed that was allowed to happen. Former security officers have noted that it was standing policy that no one was allowed to bring in their phone/cameras into the Oval Office.

Alternative Facts maybe? http://www.foxnews.com/politic... http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/... https://www.usnews.com/news/ar... https://www.washingtonpost.com...

as you can see in the US where 45,000 people per year avoidably die (American Journal of Public Health 2009) from being uninsured

"Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care"
- A guy who just voted to eliminate coverage for those most in need

Yes, that is true

Well you watched Obama "fix" it and nothing changed for these poor people.

I'd say all we proved is that government is incapable of fixing anything.

I halfway agree in that I think the ACA did not do enough. Roughly 20 million people gained medical coverage of some kind. Given that a significant part of this study revealed healthcare as a contributing factor, I wouldn't be suprised if tens of thousands of lives were saved. The real problem is we need a single payer system like the rest of the developed world, where we would pay about half as much to insure everyone while getting superior medical outcomes. Even trump agrees.

This. The problem the ACA had wasn't Obama, the ACA ended up being almost nothing like what Obama wanted or proposed in the first place. The problem with the ACA is that the Republicans that controlled the house could not allow it to succeed. So it was sabotaged at every opportunity.

Well you watched Obama "fix" it and nothing changed for these poor people.

I'd say all we proved is that government is incapable of fixing anything.

I halfway agree in that I think the ACA did not do enough. Roughly 20 million people gained medical coverage of some kind. Given that a significant part of this study revealed healthcare as a contributing factor, I wouldn't be suprised if tens of thousands of lives were saved. The real problem is we need a single payer system like the rest of the developed world, where we would pay about half as much to insure everyone while getting superior medical outcomes. Even trump agrees.

No you stupid fucktard the problem is there is no effective education for reserve children.

That will never happen. The Trumps will kill all the lions and post selfies. The gladiators will just have to kill each other.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2016/08/06/the-trump-sons-go-hunting-again-will-more-trophy-photos-follow/?utm_term=.480588b20ddc

So, I guess my point is that I don't see how any Trump policies won over people who were for Obama.

After 8 years of Obama, another 4 years of "progressive" politics would have been too much. When Obama started, he wasn't even in support of gay marriage. Eight years later, and a Christian baker is forced under the law to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Title IX was abused to cause kangaroo courts and a rash of sexual assault claims that ruined students' lives.

I supported intervention in Libya at the time, but now it looks like a giant mistake, and it looked like Clinton wanted to repeat that mistake in Syria.

Obama wouldn't use the phrase "Islamic terrorism". Clinton wanted to take in 50,000 Muslim refugees, in addition to those we've already taken in. And she certainly wasn't taking a stance against illegal immigration from Mexico, which I've never liked, and I think it's about time we got serious about it.

Well, if Trump country is anything to go by, there will be less Trump supporters in the future. They didn't want any government supplied heath care because they can die very well on their own:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Oh, FFS. Rape is not a pre-existing condition. The AHCA is bad enough without spouting a bunch of BS about it.

The National Front are a pack of anti-Semitic Neo-Nazis.

I've seen this accusation a few times, but it seems weak to me. Neo-nazis in France aren't going around killing Jews. Islamic extremists are. And the National Front are the party most solidly opposed to them.

Remember that the media were desperately labelling Trump as anti-semitic, even when his daughter and son-in-law are Jewish.

Europe also tends to be more ethnically homogeneous (per country). The U.S., for all its flaws, is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world. I've always suspected part of the high violence rate in the U.S. is due to latent racism and cultural biases present everywhere, but coming into conflict with each other much more in the U.S. than in other countries.

The problem with that argument is simple: You haven't shown that inter-cultural exchanges are compromising a number of homicides.

So basically, not only are you still slipping on causation, you haven't established correlation.

The counterargument would be Canada, which is more diverse than the U.S., yet has less violence. But if you stare at that map and a homicide rate map long enough, I think you'll convince yourself that Canada is an outlier, and that in general higher ethnic diversity in a country is correlated with higher violence rates.

Stare too long into the abyss, and you'll find it staring back, doesn't make it true or valid.

The least you could do is check your own assumptions, but you didn't.

We still have a long ways to go as a species.

One would hope so, we haven't even gotten close to becoming a worm. Which was we all know, is the pinnacle of evolution.

Europe also tends to be more ethnically homogeneous (per country). The U.S., for all its flaws, is a hodgepodge of people from all over the world. I've always suspected part of the high violence rate in the U.S. is due to latent racism and cultural biases present everywhere, but coming into conflict with each other much more in the U.S. than in other countries.

The counterargument would be Canada, which is more diverse than the U.S., yet has less violence. But if you stare at that map and a homicide rate map long enough, I think you'll convince yourself that Canada is an outlier, and that in general higher ethnic diversity in a country is correlated with higher violence rates.

We still have a long ways to go as a species.

That's exactly who got elected. How's he doing so far?

Trump voters seem to still consider him the better choice. Personally, I have nothing to complain about.

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

I do see the violence on the right but I do make a distinction between actions v words and lone wolfs v groups.

Actually, what you do is try to embrace a false sanctimony as you fail to admit to the violent organizations on the right, from the Bundy Ranch militias, the Respect the Flag group, the Huttaree, and even the various Tea Party groups and others on the right-wing clamoring for a revolution. Which included Donald Trump, in 2012, with his infamous Tweetstorm.

If you want to admit to them, then fair enough, go ahead and condemn them. Say they're deplorable. Say they're repugnant. Say they're dangerous.

I don't blame the Chicago kidnapping on the left anymore than I blame the Charleston shooting on the right.

Yes, yes, you already made it clear that you want to ignore how Dylan Roof is merely one among many on the right espousing such views, but that won't make it not a fact that "they do exist in abundance.

Sorry, but Dylan Roof wasn't merely some lone isolated nut following the beat of a drum only he could hear, there's a whole marching band.

By their fruits we know them.

As for the rest of your diarrhea... try harder.

I will, you're not worth giving up on. You deserve to be informed. You deserve to have the strength of character you need to admit the truth. You can have the fortitude to boldly proclaim that the shit stinks all around. It's a dysentery that

It's the lowest unemployment rate since before the Great Recession. That's pretty exceptional in my book.

That might be exceptional, but it isn't true. It is the lowest level in a decade. Here's a graph of the unemployment rate since the 1960s:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
where you can see the rate dropped below 4.4% many times.

Here's a graph (from six months ago) looking just at the last 15 years:
http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/560e8af3ecad046c04212250-1200-900/sept-2015-unemployment-rate.png
and you can see the rate was below 4.4% right until the 2008 economic crash hit. You can also see that 4.4% is nothing exceptional, simply the continuation of the trend.

I wasn't a big Trump supporter, but you have to admit the guy is coming thorough 'bigly.'

Since he's only been in office a hundred days, it's unlikely that any economic effects of his presidency have hit yet. From the graph, I'd say that this unemployment news is "more of the same, nothing exceptional."

That is not the fault of the regulations, it is the fault of lazy and/or incompetent school managers.

This is also a Michelle Obama-approved school lunch, from Mirror Lake Elementary School in Federal Way, WA:

https://img.washingtonpost.com...

Well, tough it out, snowflake. Just because you've been triggered is no reason to squelch free speech.

I presume you're addressing Donald Trump here, considering he's again been pushing the idea of suing the press.

Suing the press is freedom of speech, ya moron.

ESPN just laid off 100 employees holding on-air or content-producing positions.

Well, tough it out, snowflake. Just because you've been triggered is no reason to squelch free speech.

I presume you're addressing Donald Trump here, considering he's again been pushing the idea of suing the press.

Simply attributing the difficulty in implementation to cultural differences is, to put it mildly, a threadbare excuse. It amounts to throwing up one's hands and saying that because "this is how Americans and Japanese are different, consequently there is no way for Americans to learn from the Japanese model." And such an attitude reflects the kind of entrenched, defeatist, brainwashed thinking that permeates all kinds of problems that American society faces.

Read the WaPo article on this subject: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/on-japans-school-lunch-menu-a-healthy-meal-made-from-scratch/2013/01/26/5f31d208-63a2-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

Here's how this comment thread has played out: I posted about the problem and why it exists, largely ignoring the partisan politics on the issue. Someone responded saying how the goal of cheap, healthy, and delicious school lunches for kids is unattainable. I provided direct evidence that contradicts that belief. Now you say that such evidence is not valid due to differences in culture. And I reject your claim, because Japan's approach proves that the original goal is attainable. Moreover, what it also suggests--but does not in itself prove--is that what needs to change is not only the school lunch model, but American attitudes, specifically the tendency to make excuses and whine about the perceived lack of freedom and individual choice.

Lets be honest here.

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

And the story, use google to find your favorite source
story of Trump advisor Carter Page being survaled on by the FBI.

Pretty cut and dry. Trump made a claim, there is a FISA warrant as proof that his claim is true. And here you are calling him a liar.

Better question would be, why did James Comey lie under oath to Congress when asked SPECIFICALLY this question? The warrant was given to the FBI, he would have asked about it before testifying or he would have said he didn't look into it. Instead he said he looked into it and lied under oath.

Yes, Obama administration spyed on Trump campaign. We have the warrant for Carter Page. The newspapers published spying on Michael Flynn. So we have at least 2 PROVEN cases of it. How many more? Hard to tell when the intelligence agencies lie under oath to cover up for Obama. After Comey was proven a liar, I am going to assume everyone in Trump campaign was spied on until I see proof otherwise. The left has lost the right to be trusted.

You lying didn't help your case at all.