Slashdot Mirror

and a nice day to you too, a bit old but ...
The 1st article is an opinion editorial and doesn't count
The 2nd has this chart https://img.washingtonpost.com... clearly US state that have are higher than those without, like I said it's not deterring every would be murderer but i find it hard to believe not a single person lived because of the punishment

Lastly if punishment isn't a deterrence why have prisons and fines, you've ever seen someone running around 'cause their library book was due .

The "92 million unemployed Americans" was a number that right-wing echo chamber tossed about during the Obama Administration to argue that unemployment figures were wrong and Obama was doing absolutely nothing for one-third of America being unemployed. That number is true but misleading. The majority of those 92 million Americans are children, college students and senior citizens. Only ~6 million are unemployed adults looking for work. Trump is also doing absolutely nothing for those 92 million Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/09/16/trumps-absurb-claim-that-92-million-americans-represent-a-nation-of-jobless-americans/

As for coal mine jobs, Trump promised to bring them back. Those jobs are never coming back. Coal miners make nice props for ceremony signings of executive orders at the White House.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/climate/coal-jobs-prove-lucrative-but-not-for-those-in-the-mines.htm

I don't think you can judge a senator's tech-savviness based on his home state.

Senators? Maybe not. Congressmen? Absolutely.

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

In fact, this congressman actually prides himself on being the stupidest member of Congress. Only in Texas (where I live) would this be considered something to brag about.

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

Canada, Germany, Norway, etc. have higher tax rates for the wealthy

Top marginal income tax rates are about 53% in the US, significantly higher than both Germany and Norway. Worse yet, top marginal income tax rates in Europe start applying to people in the middle class, often barely above the median. Furthermore, comparisons to Canada and Norway, two resource-rich countries in favorable locations and with small populations, are invalid anyway; we couldn't run the US like Canada or Norway if we wanted to. The only really valid comparison of the US is to the EU as a whole, rather than cherry-picking the wealthiest European states. Otherwise, you ought to compare the US to at least the larger countries, like France and Germany.

and their MEDIAN incomes are about the same or higher than USA

Among industrialized Western nations, the US has some of the highest pre-tax MEDIAN incomes in the world. More importantly, the income tax burden on low and average income earners is substantially lower in the US than in Europe, and Europeans pay massive and regressive VAT taxes on top of that. German/Scandianvian style social welfare states are paid for by the middle class. (Note that the Tax Foundation actually understates US taxes.)

and WITH better social safety nets.

The US has one of the highest amounts of per capita social spending in the world, higher than all of Europe and most of the Nordic countries. Even as percentage of GDP (an invalid comparison because it's absolute spending in $PPP that actually matters), US spending is very high. Countries like Germany have cut their social safety nets massively because they found that generous social safety nets result in people staying out of the workforce. And the services you get from the government in Europe are shitty: long wait times, limited choices, demeaning rules.

We don't have to theorize, their middle is doing better.

No, we don't need to theorize. Have you actually lived in Europe? And I don't mean as an American expat with full access to American opportunities whenever you want to? I have. The European middle class is highly taxed, has limited economic opportunities, and is less economically well off than the US middle class. Much of the European middle class lives below the US poverty line (that is, when you don't cherry-pick Norway and Luxembourg for your comparisons.) The situation in Europe is grim, both economically and politically. And if the US were really as repressive and miserly towards the working class and the middle class, it wouldn't be the migration destination of choice for so many people.

Read today's "Slashdot news" yesterday!

https://arstechnica.com/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/07/slashdot-founder-rob-malda-on-why-there-wont-be-another-hacker-news/

So plainly the notion that money is the absolute determinant in politics is false.

Oh no, the Republican gerrymandering is also a significant factor.

North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia all demonstrate the effectiveness of that manipulation.

Of course, they already lost in Arizona, so it won't be long before the people start taking back the power. Then what will they do?

So plainly the notion that money is the absolute determinant in politics is false.

Oh no, the Republican gerrymandering is also a significant factor.

North Carolina, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, Texas, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia all demonstrate the effectiveness of that manipulation.

Of course, they already lost in Arizona, so it won't be long before the people start taking back the power. Then what will they do?

I have heard this argument before, and it held true for the first half of the 20th century. Over the last 30 to 40 years, the poor have not benefited from the advances that make the things you mention possible. See, for instance, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/18/the-government-is-spending-more-to-help-rich-seniors-than-poor-ones/

We don't need no stinking EPA website. It just confuses people. Too much information.
Let's simplify government!
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Here's a video.

I know I'm from the Northeast and so have relatively decent sarcasm detection, but this is not even an edge case - he's got a huge "I just made a funny" grin on his face, and everyone in the room is laughing.

Fuck you for motivating me to do your goddam work:
It costs too much
It doesn't work.

So he did nothing?

Read more carefully:

he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.

Pretty much says he has done things, but failed to do it as he said he would, and lied about it.

If I had wanted to say he had done nothing, I could have said that, but no, I merely stated he had done little to nothing, and none of it was exactly how he said he was going to do it, and I certainly wouldn't have said that he has lied about everything he has done if he had nothing.

Stopped chemical weapons being used in Syria

Lied about stopping Chemical weapons being used in Syria, lied about his wasteful airstrike on an airport that was back in operation almost immediately, and certainly did not fulfill his promises on it. In reality, the Syrian Civil War is still a humanitarian crisis, and the use of Chemical weapons, no matter how deplorable they are, is only a small fraction of the tragedy.

And of course, Trump claimed he would solve the problem, which he hasn't, making his failure a lie. That he had previously denounced such missile strikes as he ordered as theater only harms your defense of him.

Increased S&P 500 by 5% (Real money gained by middle class)

Not directly attributed to anything he did, so...huh Thanks for showing the braggadocio though...the trend was already up and really, trying to assert it is real money gained by middle class? Ah, lies.

Unemployment claims at a 17 year low

A fuller perspective shows the lie.

Unemployment claims have been dropping steadily. Attributing it to Trump is like claiming that he put out a fire that was already mostly extinguished. Of course, he also claimed the same employment numbers were lies before relying on them for his own benefit, so there's another broken word of his. You really can't win with this, either Trump takes responsibility and admits that the complaints he made about unemployment statistics were false, or Trump has still left 90 million Americans without a job.

Illegal immigration drop by 75-90% depending on your source

Or you could at that some more. That isn't even getting into his already demonstrated lie about a Wall, his executive order, and his false sanctuary cities claims. Not to mention the toddlers and senior citizens added to his dangerous criminal list.

His handling of that has been yet another cavalcade of deceits, failure, and incompetence.

Supreme court nomination everyone agrees is good

Well, there's a lie. Your hyperbole betrays you. All it took is one.

There are others. 45 in the Senate alone.

Thats quite a bit for 3 months.

That's quite a bit of lies for 5 Sentences. No wonder Trump is your hero

If you still claim he did nothing, then y

Its weird how you inserted a totally random thing just so you could write your polemic.

FYI, the reason asians aren't repressed any more? Society decided they were essentially white.

Nice pigeon-holing.

*Some* Republicans are conservatives. Some are Progressives. Some are Republican in name only (RINO) and vote with the Democrats often.

Some Democrats are conservatives. Some are Progressives. Some are Communists, some Socialists. Some are Fascists and wear masks, carry weapons, and dress in black while rioting and violently attacking others that do not share their opinions.

What, only black? Not red? Camo? You know, like Cliven Bundy.

Up until just a few short years ago, the Democrats kept a former KKK leader in office, Robert Byrd, as a long-time Senator until he died in 2010. That's right, the Democrats had a Senator who served for decades who was a former KKK leader. Not 'member'. Leader.

You know, it's funny how people who rail about Byrd never mention two things. First, they never mention that Byrd expressly and explicitly repudiated the racist KKK (some go so far as to claim he never did), and Second, they never mention how the beloved Strom Thurmond was belovingly embraced into the GOP, and served pretty much the same time as Byrd.

Can you explain it?

Coincidently, speaking of civil rights and minorities, Democrats (and the KKK) fully support Planned Parenthood is and always has been, to slow the birthrates of 'undesirables' like blacks, the poor, the mentally challenged, and other minorities.

Oh no, because Margaret Sanger didn't want women to be burdened with no choice except to give birth time after time, she's not only anti-black, she's anti-Semitic. A self-hating Jew. You tell others to google her? You should look beyond the nonsense you've found on the pages of right-wing propagandists. She was actually brought into Harlem by the NAACP and the leaders of that community, after they saw the effects of her work in Jewish areas. In reality, it's the KKK that opposed Planned Parenthood, and their adherents in the White Power Quiverfull movement that want to breed themselves into dominance like some sort of infectious virus.

But sure buddy, it's conservatives and Republicans who are racist, etc etc, blah blah blah. Yep. Uh-huh. o_0

Yup. Let's see, there's the wonderful Steve King. There's that state Senator in Florida. There's Reagan's history of Dogwhistling, and there's Trump's rampant birtherism. Not to mention his Mexican Wall, Muslim ban, and inability to remember who David Duke is.

Sorry dude, but it's a telling sign when it's a Republican opposing the removal of monuments to white supremacy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com... Trump intentionally picked a chairman who wants to destroy Net Neutrality. As FCC has to be the one to change the rules, not the president. He literally did everything in his power to destroy Net Neutrality.

Criticism of UL is Long-standing. They did approve of aluminum wiring, neglected heater safety, and more.

Sorry, ScentCone, but your blind faith speaks for itself, your admiration of a group with known failures tells us that you aren't even wise enough to check that they don't have skeletons in the closet. They aren't as rigorous as they ought to be.

But then, you're dumb enough to esteem the judgment of a guy who hired someone dumb enough to take money from foreign sources and not report it as a National Security Adviser. Not to mention corrupt enough to owe millions in legal judgments, to waste time on the birth nonsense, and crazy enough to call for a revolution. Just notice the whining over his last loss in court. Can't you do better than the Toddler in Chief?

PS, it was the GAO.

Coal isn't coming back. It's something that sounded good to Trump's fans on the campaign trail, that's all. The coal industry employs fewer people than freaking Arby's. Fixing the coal industry would be like using a teaspoon to bail out a sinking Titanic. Middle America has far bigger problems that the dwindling coal industry.

Only reason why it's an issue at all is because it sounded good on the campaign trail for Trump's supporters. It's dog whistle politics, not an actual energy plan. To everyone else it sounds like Trump is saying "Coal is the future and will meet our energy needs cheaply and effectively!" Which it absolutely won't. But to his fans, it sounds like this: "Rust belt and former mining communities will get their jobs back and be prosperous again!" Sadly, it doesn't actually mean that either. Deregulate all you want, wind and solar are still going to be cheaper.

I feel bad for those folks in coal country counting on this guy to fix things for them. He isn't going to. He isn't able to. It'll be pretty bitter when they realize that.

less coal burning means less mercury in fish.

But Trump allowed coal miners to dump their crap into water, polluting it and of course, the fish down stream.

And while the rich coal mine owners line their pockets with more money, the communities that they destroyed have to buy bottled water.

Privatize the profits and socialize the costs - including the health costs to the people.

Yeah. Capitalism. Yeah. Trump. Making America Great again....more like throwing it back decades.

Coal is a shit fuel, it's outdated, old, inefficient and should just die. It's not cheap, either. It only SEEMS cheap because the costs are being subsidized by the rest of us.

less coal burning means less mercury in fish.

But Trump allowed coal miners to dump their crap into water, polluting it and of course, the fish down stream.

And while the rich coal mine owners line their pockets with more money, the communities that they destroyed have to buy bottled water.

Privatize the profits and socialize the costs - including the health costs to the people.

Yeah. Capitalism. Yeah. Trump. Making America Great again....more like throwing it back decades.

Coal is a shit fuel, it's outdated, old, inefficient and should just die. It's not cheap, either. It only SEEMS cheap because the costs are being subsidized by the rest of us.

Oh please, no one really gives a shit about sites like realcnn.ru or honesttruenewsreutersnoseriouslythisisgoodjournalism.kz; certainly not enough to justify the sudden immense effort to combat them. As Wapo overzealously laid bare in the early days of the faux outrage, the end goal is to create a vague, amorphous category that they can easily lump "bad" news outlets into in order to censor them. Breitbart runs a story you don't like? Get your Trusted Non-Partisan Fact Checkers to call them liars based on an irrelevant detail or alternative interpretation, get facebook and google to give them the scarlet "F" of #FakeNews, and any guilt liberals might experience over ignoring conflicting viewpoints magically vanishes. Concurrently wage a twitter war against their advertisers and hopefully in 5 years they're out of business completely.

It's either that, or Hillary Clinton woke up on November 9th and suddenly noticed for the first time in her fucking life that people sometimes lie on the internet and decided to add that to her list of excuses for blowing it.

Indeed. A Post-ABC poll conducted in 2013 found 22% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats supported punitive strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons. In 2017, under Trump? The number from the Democrats only dropped one point, to 37%, but the number for Republicans totally reversed, to 86% support.

Totally different from state propaganda channels right?
I mean, Comcast News channel 1, Comcast News Channel 5, Comcast News channel 12 and Comcast News channel 331 are entirely different uh, weather ladies.

One of them even has Channel capitalized but not the others, so you can tell they're completely different.

You mean you actually watch linear television? What, are you 80?

In case you are: IMO cable has been digging its own grave for the last two decades, and ever since broadcast stations realized that they basically can write themselves a blank check for retransmission fees and squeeze ever more ads in to the same time slots, they've been doing the same thing. Likewise, I wouldn't count on linear television lasting much longer; especially once the baby boomer generation is gone.

The media companies can go right on ahead and buy up all of those extra markets for all I care, because they're just wasting their money in the long run. Comcast may think its sheer size makes it immune to market forces, but sooner or later it will have a Verizon moment.

That's pretty wishful thinking. As long as Republicans control at least one house of Congress, he will not be impeached. He is too egotistical to resign. And based on actuarial data, he can expect to live about 15 more years. Keep in mind: he's never smoked, he doesn't drink and he has the best healthcare money can buy. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Trump wouldn't have needed Congressional approval, Senate confirmation, even a budget hearing. Just ask his Chief of Staff to hire some people. That's it. Done. Simple, promise kept, cross it off the list (uhh, is there a list?) Instead, he tweeted a lot of nonesense, rubber-stamped a bunch of stuff from Ryan and the Generals, and played golf at his estate on weekends at taxpayer expense.

Ok, I get it that some people just hate Dems, foam at the mouth and all. But this guy is doing a lot of nothing, all the while his hotels and other properties mop up the bucks (STAY at the "official" Hotel of the Prez-Z-Dent!!! Sweet Deal! Get a Free Hat if you book the PrezeeDential Suite!) while he gives his entourage free miles on Air Force One (plus secret service details). I guess none of that counts, as long as you keep hating Dems?

Sarcasm...?

I'll assume you know the history - but for those that don't:

Cars were the late 19th century for internal combustion engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Vaccines were as early as the 10th century (holy shit that's earlier than I thought): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Electricity was being played with in the 18th century - but it wasn't until the 19th century that they made huge leaps in electrical engineering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And last but not least, it looks like Benjamin Franklin lost a son to smallpox and had an opportunity to immunise him but had not: https://www.washingtonpost.com... (anti-vaxxers take note).

Before the Trump enterprises gained market share?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/26/how-many-trump-products-were-made-overseas-heres-the-complete-list

Re:war, Russia
I'm not entirely convinced that the current relations with Russia are really what they appear to be.
Didn't we just see Eric Prince trying to make an unofficial communication channel to Putin?
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
As for sending cruise missles into Syria, it seemed like a really good opportunity for posturing: to Xi Jinping ("Look at what I can [and will] do"), and to the rest of the world ("See, I'm not really buddies with Putin").
Apparently, he told Xi Jinping over dinner.

Technological advancement - Spend money on infrastructure projects and research.

Education - Education is important regardless of its immediate usefulness in landing a job. Elementary and high school education are also in need of improvement.

If the GOP was dumb enough to try a coup d'etat by Constitution, they would find out that they don't run as much as they think. There is a reason why they lost the popular vote.

GOP won (by popular vote) 3/4th of state governerships.

Nope. Governorships are not allocated proportionally. Check out the raw numbers, you'll find it is a lot lower.

GOP won (by popular vote) 3/4ths of state legislatures.

Again, nope. Check out the raw numbers, it's heavily warped gerrymandering and voter discrimination. You'll have to do some work, but try the ones that have lost in court. Like North Carolina. Who also tried such a coup d'etat as already mentioned. It failed. Badly.

GOP won (by popular vote) the majority in the Congress.

Nope!

63,173,815 61,776,554 in 2016.
40,081,282 35,624,357 in 2014.
58,228,253 59,645,531 in 2012
44,827,441 38,980,192 in 2010
52,249,491 65,237,840 in 2008

Notice a pattern to it? Not quite what you think. They're still behind 2 million from 8 years ago.

GOP won (by popular vote) the majority in Senate.

Oh, you don't know how the Senate works do you? The Math works out in favor of the Democrats. By 23 million.

GOP won (via the electoral college) the Presidency.

Yes, exactly, relying on the electoral college shows where the GOP is failing.

Every election Democrats lost in 2016 except the Presidential election, was lost in a popular vote.

Oh my, you want to play that card? Turns out, that actually, when you look at the history, you're wrong. Check out the effects of gerrymandering.

Add in the illegal voter discrimination, the unlawful districts in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, Alabama, and Florida, and the loss in their Arizona lawsuit, and it's not looking good for the GOP.

Yeah, I know you don't want to admit it, but the GOP can't afford a coup d'etat. They aren't winning. They don't have a wide swell of popular support. Frankly, they're lucky they didn't lose the popular vote for the House this time, if that had happened, they'd have really looked bad, the disproportionate representation is bad enough, but not quite

You think so? We spend about $13,000 per student per year, nationwide.

As the average net work in a bar jumps the moment Bill Gates walks into it. You wouldn't pretend that Bill Gates has the same standard of living of someone making $7.25 an hour, so why pretend there isn't an enormous gap between schools in wealthy districts and poor ones? There's a reason why no one talks about "failing public schools" in Westchester or the Hamptons.

Average teacher salary is $55,000. but this varies pretty wildly by state. considering you only work 9 months a year and get pretty significant benefits.

You know perfectly well that teachers don't start and stop school when students do. Even if teachers didn't spend months out of the summer preparing for the rest of the school year or continuing their own education, it would be more than balanced by working 50-70 hours a week when school is in session.

That's a pretty reasonable amount, IMO,

Reasonable? The people claiming this wouldn't touch a teaching job for less than a six figure salary. Earning a masters degree, having tens of thousands in student loans to pay off, being salaried and invariably working far beyond 40 hours a week...and that's before even getting to the students. How much would you want to get paid per hour, per kid for being a babysitter, disciplinarian, nurse and social worker. Deal with the pressure of wealthy parents, coaches and principles wanting you to "take another look" at Bobby's grades so he can stay on the football team. And that's before even getting to the actual teaching part, where your performance reviews are dependent on factors entirely outside of your control. And you're also expected to continue your own education with nighttime or summer classes.

Not for a penny under six figures.

Anyone *can* go to college, that's how the system is currently set up.

Until they can't find a job that pays off their student loans, at which point it's time to sneer at them for taking on risk they couldn't afford.

You do realize, right, that the reason why doctors salaries are so high is because only wealthy families can risk the six figure cost of a medical degree

FTFY.

If you look at costs over time, the two areas that have been spiraling out of control, cost wise, are medicine and college. This is the direct result of government meddling in the field trying to be more fair and just, but really just fucking over the vast majority of Americans.

Uh huh. Found a reason yet for why countries that do far more "meddling" in health care or education than the United States cover all or most of their population for a fraction of the cost?

First of all, remember that Burger King themselves vandalized the Wikipedia page first, inserting advertisements into it.

Second, So what? Prosecutors don't care how minor the damage is. For example, this guy got two years in prison for something not all that different. The point is, I'm not claiming this sort of thing should be illegal; I'm claiming that it is illegal. As long as that's the case, then the least we should be asking of the "justice" system is that it applies the law evenly instead of compounding the injustice by only using it to persecute the weak!

In other words, putting a multimillionaire CEO in prison for bullshit reasons is the quickest route to repealing or amending the law, and doing so less unjust than failing to prosecute him because of his status while continuing to charge lower-status people for the same sorts of acts.

What is there to believe?

It's public knowledge that Trump advisor Carter Page is a Russian secret agent.

So treasonous...

Slashing taxes doesn't work either: The Kansas Conservative experiment is a complete bust.
https://www.washingtonpost.com... In case you didn't read about it, the State of Kansas went way GOP with Governor, house and senate. The idea was to create a conservative utopia with all tax slashing GOP promises will create prosperity. They slashed regulations and eliminated corporate taxes, reduced income taxes, and said NO to the Medicaid expansion to attract new business and spur growth. The result is an economic disaster. The State had to raid the road fund to pay for basic services resulting in crumbling infrastructure. Some of the largest health care providers closed the doors because no money. Education got slashed correspondingly so did performance on testing. All the money is gone, education & health care suck, the profiteers who made money ran with it. Most of the GOP who created this disaster lost or are losing their seats and the remaining GOP are revolting against the Governor. For all it's rhetoric, a plan with just 1 side fails.

The problem isn't that just one tax - the payroll/income tax being high.

It's that after you pay that you still have to pay social-security (which isn't operating in the way it commissioned to operate), the medicare, state income tax (in most states), health insurance - which in now a tax per the supreme court, car inspection, vehicle registration, property tax, sales tax at the register, "universal service fee", among other things that creep in we are much more highly taxed than we get credit for when you're only looking at payroll/income.

For a couple of years I was at 53% removed from my paycheck before I got paid, THEN the sales tax etc.... happened.

There are retracted news articles all the time, you should be able to do better.

1) This appears to be referring to this article:

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

Here is the Fox (Faux) News article you are probably basing your statement on:

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...

Politico seems to have gotten the basic facts correct in this case and Competitive Enterprise Institute seems to have gotten it wrong. The mistake Politico had made in the original article was stating that OneWest had done the foreclosure when it had been CIT who had merged with OneWest. The mistake was using the old company name instead of the new company name. Mnuchin was on the board of CIT when the second foreclosure took place.

"CORRECTION: This story has been corrected to reflect that CIT Bank, successor to OneWest after a 2015 merger, was the entity that filed foreclosure proceedings against Ossie Lofton over a 27-cent payment error. The story has also been revised to clarify that there were two separate foreclosure proceedings against Lofton. At the time the second foreclosure was filed in 2016, Mnuchin had sold his stake in OneWest and was on the board of CIT."

Other fact checkers have confirmed that Fox is wrong and the foreclosure did take place. You can even see the court case yourself:
https://pro.polkcountyclerk.ne...
Search for: "CIT BANK, N.A. vs. LOFTON OSSIE".

Score: Politico: 1, Faux News: 0.

That said, I'm not really a fan of Politico atm. They just posted a totally garbage anti-Semitic article claiming that Trump is linked to Putin because Putin met with a Chabad Rabbi who had once met a rabbi who did a bris that Ivanka Trump went to and thus there is some Jewish conspiracy linking the two men... The way the article is written is a total conspiracy theory. That would be a much better example of fake news. I'm not a fan of Trump, but you don't need to come up with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories to link Trump and Putin.

2) As others pointed out in this thread, it was actually Nancy Sinatra who seemed to change her tune and claim the negative Trump comment she had tweeted earlier was a "joke." Although to be fair, it might have been meant as a joke but there was no way for CNN to know that. I wouldn't call that fake news.

3) If you read the article, there doesn't seem to be anything fake about it. They even mention that it was probably part of the plan to shift to a different site.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

http://www.snopes.com/white-ho...

What you are leaving out is that it has been several months and Trump still doesn't have anything up on whitehouse.gov about these issues from what I can tell. How is the New York times article "fake news"?

4) As someone else pointed out, they reported on people who objected to the content of the speech not that he gave one there. Here is the article you are claiming is fake news. What exactly is fake? Did the people who Washington Post said objected to the speech not really object?

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

5) It sounds like Spicer is lying (nothing new), not CBS. Although CBS seems to be a little misleading as there were some CIA staff who seemed to support Trump, but the facts about Trump bringing people to cheer him on seem to be correct.

http://www.snopes.com/2017/01/...

Newsweek de

Your sig is wonderful evidence of your batshittyness.

After eight years of being racist, dissent is patriotic once again.

No. That it drives you into impotent rage is a sign, that works as intended... For eight years dissent was racist — it was such a problem, even Obama's fans acknowledged it.

It is now patriotic again — a very welcome development. And to think. we very nearly escaped dissent becoming sexist for eight more years instead...

My signature is short, painfully sarcastic, and to the point. Meanwhile, yours:

Why is there a strong correlation between Trump fans, EM drive believers and people who think SJWs are actually a thing?

is unwieldy, grammatically incorrect, and an example of Complex Question Fallacy. You've picked a wrong fight, kid...

Even Republicans admitted they had a problem.

But actually, yes, I reject pointless grandstanding for votes in the Halls of Congress, they should not be abusing their position to do that. Though speaking for myself, I found the claims of such to be nauseating, for example all the wasteful Obamacare repeal votes were disgusting to me.

They did nothing except waste money. Why would I want more foolishness?

Besides, as Mitch McConnell proved, he'll behave the same or worse without the slightest qualm. Even while complaining about it. Hypocrisy is his middle name.

Women are worse at salary negotiation than men in general which stems from their built in conflict avoidance mechanism. Sorry feminists, but it's true. You want similar pay, you have to actually ask for it.

You're close. At Google, as described by Washington Post, Google's promotion process requires people to ask, and curiously, women are significantly less likely to do so than men. However, in years when that disparity was pointed out to women, suddenly the levels became similar.

Which again, you cannot specifically cite. Again, if it is so clear, you'd think you could cite it as I have.

Actually, I did, several posts back. You just ignored the citation because it doesn't match with your political view. Article VI, clause 3 says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution".

Again, pure speculation, as again, neither you nor any advocate of #DoYourJob could cite a specific constitutional or legal requirement for them to do anything with any nomination.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it define what "support this Constitution" means. One could argue, then, that it is sufficient to physically place a physical piece of paper on top of the head of every Congressperson, thus ensuring that they literally support it (hold it up). One could further argue that it is perfectly acceptable for Congress to deliberately pass laws that violate both the letter and the spirit of that document so long as their Constitutional hats remain firmly on their heads while they do so. No sane person would argue that such an interpretation is plausible, of course, but there's nothing explicitly stated in the Constitution that says that it would be a violation of one's oath to interpret it that way. Yet most people would agree that it would be. The question becomes one of determining where you draw the line of reasonableness, and apparently you draw the line a long way from where I do.

What concerns me more, though, is that you're asking for concreteness in constitutional law where none exists, deliberately, so that the courts have leeway in determining what is and is not acceptable behavior by the government. For example, nowhere in the Constitution was it written that blacks have the right to attend the same schools as whites, yet the courts upheld that non-enumerated right. One could also rationally argue that the people have a right to a properly functioning Supreme Court with nine members or argue that the President has a right to a response, rather than a lack of response, when submitting a nominee for consideration. This is not at all a stretch. In fact, the need for the courts to be able to recognize non-enumerated rights is precisely why we have the entire ninth amendment.

A) Cite WHY they did so, and

Okay, here's your citation. Historically, every time that the court has lacked a clear majority in one direction or the other, and particularly when there have been eight members, the courts have taken fewer cases.

B) Cite HOW this prevented them from acting as an 'proper check and balance'... which again ignores all of the inferior courts, and

The inferior courts are often called that for a reason. When circuit courts come up with wildly different opinions, there must be a single arbiter. For every case not granted certiorari that would have been granted certiorari under a full bench, the court's voice is muffled. A weakened SCOTUS doesn't completely prevent the courts from acting as a proper check and balance, but it does significantly diminish their ability to do so.

The simple fact is (and will continue to be) that the Senate acted fully within their authority, like it or not.

Ending your post with Q.E.D. doesn't make it so. The thing about constitutional law is that issues are seldom (if ever) clear-cut. There is absolutely no Q.E.D. in matters of constitutional law until settled by the Supreme Court, and arguably even then (see also Brown vs. the Board of Education of Top

The GNU Project told us about Microsoft malware long ago, including what is accurately listed "Microsoft Windows has a universal back door through which any change whatsoever can be imposed on the users" pointing to a mainstream media news reference from 2007 and another link indicating when this was used, and a pointer to a Condé Nast article talking about the (apparently ongoing) forced Windows Updates. Microsoft is also the first PRISM partner with the NSA joining on September 11, 2007, according to an internal NSA document so they have quite a long history of being untrustworthy but the underlying power they're leveraging comes from proprietary software.

Other proprietors are no more trustworthy. Apple didn't fix an intentional back door for 4 years, Apple didn't fix an iTunes backdoor through which others could have gained control of systems running the software. Apple joined PRISM in October 2012. Other proprietors with names you know (Yahoo, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc.) joined in between the Microsoft and Apple partnerships.

The theme remains the same: it doesn't matter who the proprietor is (Microsoft in this case), proprietary software is always untrustworthy and this doesn't change even after applying lots of updates from the proprietor. Just because a new version is out, or a patch released does not mean the back door is shut or that you can verify their work (or even get someone more technically skilled to verify it on your behalf).

Now we have more confirmation of how the threats come from other directions, not just the proprietor, and that the threat is more organized than we commonly knew. Evidence like this immediately advances the discussion beyond the distraction of calling someone a 'tinfoil hat wearer' or other such nonsense, as did the Snowden documents. And WikiLeaks maintains their perfect record for authenticity in their publications—as far as we can tell these documents are what WikiLeaks claims they are. Proprietary software is always a threat. Software freedom is no guarantee of safety, but you're better off having software you can inspect, run, share, and modify (AKA control) than not. You simply can't trust proprietors to do right by you and all computer users deserve software freedom.

The GNU Project told us about Microsoft malware long ago, including what is accurately listed "Microsoft Windows has a universal back door through which any change whatsoever can be imposed on the users" pointing to a mainstream media news reference from 2007 and another link indicating when this was used, and a pointer to a Condé Nast article talking about the (apparently ongoing) forced Windows Updates. Microsoft is also the first PRISM partner with the NSA joining on September 11, 2007, according to an internal NSA document so they have quite a long history of being untrustworthy but the underlying power they're leveraging comes from proprietary software.

Other proprietors are no more trustworthy. Apple didn't fix an intentional back door for 4 years, Apple didn't fix an iTunes backdoor through which others could have gained control of systems running the software. Apple joined PRISM in October 2012. Other proprietors with names you know (Yahoo, Facebook, Google, YouTube, etc.) joined in between the Microsoft and Apple partnerships.

The theme remains the same: it doesn't matter who the proprietor is (Microsoft in this case), proprietary software is always untrustworthy and this doesn't change even after applying lots of updates from the proprietor. Just because a new version is out, or a patch released does not mean the back door is shut or that you can verify their work (or even get someone more technically skilled to verify it on your behalf).

Now we have more confirmation of how the threats come from other directions, not just the proprietor, and that the threat is more organized than we commonly knew. Evidence like this immediately advances the discussion beyond the distraction of calling someone a 'tinfoil hat wearer' or other such nonsense, as did the Snowden documents. And WikiLeaks maintains their perfect record for authenticity in their publications—as far as we can tell these documents are what WikiLeaks claims they are. Proprietary software is always a threat. Software freedom is no guarantee of safety, but you're better off having software you can inspect, run, share, and modify (AKA control) than not. You simply can't trust proprietors to do right by you and all computer users deserve software freedom.

The various drug companies spend 3 1/2 x as much on advertising and marketing as research

The actual ratio is about 1.8 to one, but still an unreasonable amount considering all the taxpayer subsides that these companies receive. Much of that is spent marketing directly to doctors in ways that are nearly indistinguishable from just bribing them to write prescriptions.

How did HB2 help people get left alone?

HB2 addresses men imposing their presence on women in bathrooms;

No, it doesn't. It actually contains zero content relevant to criminal harassment, though as North Carolina already had such laws, it had no need to impose further upon people by forcing them to undergo genital inspections before entering a bathroom facility. Why lie? Did you think I hadn't read them?

SB 1070 and HB 56 addresses foreigners coercing Americans to support them financially and associate with them;

Nope. SB 1070 did nothing for that, as its provisions were directed at Law Enforcement, instructing them to impose themselves on individuals to determine their immigration status REGARDLESS of any other status. It had nothing to do with welfare.

Now HB 56did impact public benefits, however, that was not its exclusive content, sorry. By some arguments, it even criminalized giving an illegal immigrant a cup of coffee. It was very broadly written. It also forbade contracts and agreements, in some cases.

And in fact, some of the individuals investigated under the law had valid passports, international driver's licenses, and work permits.

I'm going to suspect that neither of those individuals was on welfare.

Prop 8 addresses gay men and women being able to coerce other Americans to do business with them against their moral conviction.

No, it didn't. It denied people's right to marry. Marriage is inherently a sanctioned practice by the state, and yes, it is coercive. Given the vast majority of marriages that remained in effect, its only result was discriminatory upon a particular group.

How exactly does that serve in the interests stated above? I might respect such an argument if it were repudiating all marriage as a state-practice, but nope, that's not going to happen.

All these laws were in response to coercive laws and practices in the US. Now, they were flawed responses, but they were the best people could do under the circumstances.

Seems they did poorly. All of them were almost completely overturned. Others were heavily challenged. And their effectiveness was less than salutary.

Did you want to discuss that, instead of the actual character and behavior of the professed conservatives as exemplified by their patterns and practices?

On the whole, I have no complaint with the character or behavior of conservatives. I do have a big problem with the bigotry, intolerance, and greed of progressives and Democrats, which is why I left the Democratic party recently.

Oh? Well, I suggest you examine the character and behavior of conservatives, or self-proclaimed conservatives, especially the ones claiming Republican Party membership.

Wasn't what we we discussing before, though.

While they do have some influence on the climate (as documented by the experts), they aren't nearly as big as the warming caused by CO2. And actually the Sun has been cooling a little bit since the 1980's.

Sorry. That can't be true. All those articles which use sources, and are the basis of AGW talking points say that your view is untrue. Hate to be the bearer of bad news and tell you that you're still a climate denier.

Contrary to what those on the left want to believe, Republicans actually have more diversity and difference of opinion than the Democrats. If you browse through the historical voting record of the House and Senate and sort by "votes with party", you'll find it's the Democrats who vote more as a bloc, and Republicans who are more likely to cross the aisle. As we saw with the failure of the Republicans to repeal/replace Obamacare, having the House, Senate, and Presidency controlled by Republicans doesn't mean they'll be able to pass whatever they want as easily as when Democrats are controlling those three branches.

Anyhow, while immigration law is made by Congress, immigration enforcement is controlled by the President. People can apply for as many H1-Bs as they want. If Trump signs an executive order instructing INS not to grant any H1-Bs, none of those people will get H1-Bs. So it remains to be seen what Trump will do about H1-Bs. That is how the balance of power works between those two branches. The Legislative can pass whatever laws they want, but the Executive gets to choose how to enforce (or not enforce) those laws.

Sanctuary cities do not exist and nobody on the Progressive left talks about the need for them. Right?

Actually, they don't exist, especially not in the form that the Regressive right insists on falsely portraying them. They're pretty much just a straw-man where the right makes up false claims about lawlessness and crime in order to whip up a frenzy of hysteria.

Instead, what they are, is municipalities deciding that the Federal Government needs to be accountable, and forced to behave in a manner compliant with the law, by a policy of adherence to the strictures of law informing them that the cities won't knuckle under to their capriciousness. Not new, but a lingering problem for a supposed agency enforcing the law.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when Janet Reno was demonized for returning Elian Gonzalez to his father. The mishandling of policies on Cuba is bad enough, but apparently we're supposed to decide parental rights on a whim?

So it's hypocrisy too. Even ignoring the other protests against the federal goverment, the silence on the failures of the immigration system is very telling.

Oh, I guess you are just another AC who's full of shit. Brave enough to hide in anonymity while claiming that I am being watched, as if you are a threat.

You're confused again, there's no threat to being judged, you're merely being observed, and recognized, for what your public behavior happens to be. It's called responsibility. You should recognize that as a natural consequence of communication. You spea

Milo unverified on twitter Jan 2016:
http://www.businessinsider.com...

Milo banned on twitter Jun 2016:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So they DID unverify Milo, with no reason given, and certainly no doubt as to his authenticity. Six months later they banned him for ToS violations.

I can see that side of the question, but in the end, if EPA can promulgate regulations without revealing the underlying data, we're accepting the argument, "Trust us, we're your government."

The issue is not about "Trust us, we're your government." strawman.
Raised by the clown crew of a government, with only 21 executive nominations confirmed (out of 553), multiple ongoing scandals, not the least of which is appointment of an anti-EPA loon as the head of the agency, who then promptly ignores science anyway.
Trust us, WE are your government indeed.

It's about little facts like exposing patient data, various privacy concerns, various patent laws and rules, copyright...
In order to "release to the public... data used to support new regulations to protect human health and the environment" EPA would literally have to either be given godlike power to expose anything and anyone, regardless of laws, regulations or any kind of legal or physical protection...
OR... much more likely, simply NOT create regulations anymore... regulations "to protect human health and the environment".

Right now they can simply CITE data used in their science, like with any other scientific study.
Not release everything cited to public, or even be forced to replicate other people's science.
I'm all for replicable science but this is not about science.
It's about gagging the mouths and tying the hands of those who rely on science in order to "protect human health and the environment" by people who abhor science.

Constitution trumps state laws. If the right to record officials is protected by the First Amendment, no state can take that away.

That ruling states "we conclude that First Amendment principles, controlling authority, and persuasive precedent demonstrate that a First Amendment right to record the police does exist, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." So even if this were a case of someone recording the police, it's still not entirely clear. Recording an on-duty officer in a public place in a manner that does not interfere with his official duties? Protected. Recording an off-duty officer talking about work over dinner? Not clearly protected.

Given that the police typically interact with the public when acting in an official capacity, it isn't even clear how this ruling would relate to recording public officials who typically work in more controlled environments and/or with protected information, or if it would apply to them at all (note the use of the term "the police," not "public officials."). Can you record a private meeting between a Senator and a lobbyist? The President's medical exam? A classified briefing to the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Even if you can make the case for this applying to all public officials (which is a bit of a stretch), the "reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions" associated with other officials would likely be far greater than they would be for police officers.

And given the number of rulings on cases involving recording of elected officials (most notably the Gingrich case), some public officials would already seem to be clearly established as separate from police officers when recording is involved (the police officer ruling did not seek to overturn any previous rulings but merely clarify lower court rulings that all agreed to some extent). Absent some other ruling extending the protection of recording police officers to the recording of other officials, precedent would seem to indicate that this ruling does not apply to cases of recording all government employees. But that's not even what the case in question is about.

Planned Parenthood is not a private company. Ostensibly a "charity", it is financed by taxes — government money being their single largest source of funds — by far. Which makes them indistinguishable from police, firefighters, or the NPR "journalists".

Lockheed Martin receives 85% of its revenue from the US government. That's more than double the percentage that Planned Parenthood gets and isn't just the "single largest" source but, unlike with Planned Parenthood, it makes up the majority of their revenue (and an overwhelming majority at that). Are Lockheed Martin employees therefore considered public officials?

If anything, Lockheed Martin would have a stronger case because it holds contracts directly with the US government that are tied to funding directed by Congress, while Planned Parenthood only receives money from the US government through more general federal grant programs and Medicaid reimbursement. But no, even if 100% of a company's revenue is received directly through specific line items in the federal budget that are uniquely tied to that company, its employees are not automatically public officials. Money is irrelevant, authority is what matters. And nobody at Planned Parenthood (or Lockheed Martin for that matter, in theory at least) has the authority to act on behalf of any government in any capacity. And without that, it is impossible for them to be considered public officials in any way.

I'm sorry, you're one of those "states rights" dipshits

Please, don't hate, asshole. One more namecalling attempt from you, and you'll be talking to your keyboard alone. Behave yourself — you aren't in your "safe space" denouncing opponents' "evil thoughts" to like-minded assholes.

It's called - a state law.

Constitution trumps state laws. If the right to record officials is protected by the First Amendment, no state can take that away.

difference between police officers working for the public in a public setting, and doctors working for a private company

Planned Parenthood is not a private company. Ostensibly a "charity", it is financed by taxes — government money being their single largest source of funds — by far. Which makes them indistinguishable from police, firefighters, or the NPR "journalists".

none of the states found any evidence of wrongdoing

That's irrelevant. The topic is, California bans recording of public officials — such as PP personnel. Had it been about secretly recording, say, opponents of "gay marriage" for example, you and Mr. Becerra would not have objected — because both of you are hypocrites.

These films were nothing more than a couple lying piece of shits

Irrelevant. It still is — or ought to be — legal to make them. "Sticks and bones can break my bones, but the words never hurt me," — remember?

You start by calling me a racist and think that my reply was meant to engage you in a political argument?

No, actually, I don't see Bruce Perens calling you a racist, in fact, you interjected yourself, but actually, to start yourself off, you are one who stated:

"In fact, the entire "argument" for the left is that you are a racist if you don't agree with them."

A very defensive reaction, and a false premise, but I guess you wanted to get enraged over an imagined attack, and direct your abuse at the left" as Bruce Perens already described you. You began with trying to play the victim card, that comes across as hysterical posturing, nothing more.

That you then jumped to "They have no logic, no reason, nothing but insults." is even more discrediting when we consider the tendency of the current President to make up accusations, throw-out insults, and otherwise present fact-deficient claims, a problem that also applies to many in the Republican party, and yes, even to yourself. As demonstrated by your own conduct here.

Which actually makes me wonder if you're not trying to make them look bad as you're paid to be a discredit to the conservative party.

Sheesh, and you think that I'm the kid here.

Here's what ESR (you've heard of him, no?) had to say about the election:

Eric Scott Raymond isn't immune to foolish statements either, though I will say that if nothing else, he managed to endeavor to a higher level than yourself. Still, he got numerous facts wrong, and his premises are broken.

And what lesson did you learn from this election?

That Donald Trump only barely managed to outperform Bush, after 12 years of population growth, and that more effort needs to be focused on controlling gerrymandering and voter initiatives. But even with that, it was still a substantial lead in the popular vote, and no amount of lying about a landslide will change Trump's win from anything except a popular victory. As noted, you were also engaged in that lie, when you claimed the "people" favored him. A deceit of your own, and you should know better. But you don't want to do that.

Personally, I think Tim Kaine was the weakness. He delivered Virginia, but what else? Not much. Somebody with more dramatic left-wing appeal should have been chosen. Or more right-wing appeal. A Republican "disgusted" at Trump would have brought voters into the fold by the millions.

"The party that formed specifically to abolish slavery, that gave their very lives by the hundreds of thousands to free the slaves from their Democrat masters, and that passed something like a dozen civil rights acts over the objections of Democrats, has always been racist."

Yup, believe it or not, it HAS been a long-standing accusation against the Republican Party and its leaders. Namely, Douglas was saying that about Lincoln during their famed debates.

Take the Civil War and emancipation. It didn't take more than a decade before the Republicans walked away from protecting black civil rights in favor of winning the Presidency.

Sorry, but even Lincoln can't be sainted on the issue, let alone the thousands of other elected Republicans, or even the ones today.