Slashdot Mirror

There's even an app for kids which teaches them how to type with a keyboard, and video games such as Angry Birds that have been lightly customized.

"Lightly customized?" I'm pretty sure that's colloquially known as "pirated".

And you missed the part about their views on Shariah.

Shariah is not what you think it is. Since you are so willing to trust the "news" that ought to change your mind. Except it won't. Dedicated islamofoes know better than middle-eastern sociologists or actual muslims.

And here is a gem that you yourself included here, but overlooked

Yeah, big surprise the handful of countries that have the most protracted conflicts are more violent. Not unlike northern ireland. And even then the people who do support violence are still in the minority. You kind a such suck at math, don't you?

Meanwhile if the same standard of judgment were applied to christians the massacre of a million people in Rwanda totally outweighs the number of deaths across the entire muslim world. But that doesn't count because reasons.

You are the sickness. You and ISIS, two sides of the same extremist coin.

A lot of people keep saying that harassment has risen, but so far all I've seen is a big load of shit:

http://pix11.com/2016/12/14/mu...
http://www.bostonherald.com/ne...
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

You may very well be right about that. But freedom of speech isn't about ensuring that everything done serves a useful purpose. Your proposal to criminalize disrespect of what YOU stand for is fascism, pure and simple. You try to paint it as something else, but you're straight up delusional.

If it isn't for a useful purpose then why do it? It's done to incite. As much as a punch in the mouth. Since the guy doing it often has nothing to lose, kind of a tough situation. More on this later.

Not sure if you realized it or not, please don't put words into my mouth. I know the left loves to tell other people what they think the other person is thinking, stop it. Listen more. Do you even know what fascism is? Clearly not. I'm not a fascist. Did I ever say it should be criminalized? No. Here, find out what fascism is all about - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Bundle of sticks, H - "stronger together"... Humm.... Coincidence? Her Clinton Foundation, Eva Perone's foundation - anther fascist... coincidence?... Just sayin'

The left? Oh boy. Nazis? The Nazi party may have started as a left-wing party, but it ceased to be one on The Night of the Long Knives when every single leftist in it was purged (see: executed) by the Hitler-supporting far-right wing of the party. You don't get to call the Nazi atrocities some kind of left-wing stereotypical behavior... Well, you do, because you're free to do and say anything you like, regardless of how stupid it is, as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights.

Wow. Just wow. Revising history too. Know about communist, socialist and fascist? Clearly not. You have no clue. It's funny you think leftist become right. A lot of people were thrown off by the question to Stalin. They asked him where were the NAZIs compared to Communism. He said the Nazis are to the right, yes, right of Communism. Still plenty far to the left. Redirection.

Reminds me when they tried to make Americans all think in the 1960s that the racist Democrats all became Republicans and the Republicans became Democrats. http://blackrepublican.blogspo... . I still know people that believe that.

You need to get out and see the world. 1%? Not even close. Pretty high up- sure. Nowhere near 1%.

I've done quite well getting around the world. I've seen some real toilets. I rent to people that came from some real toilets in the world. I even have my own airplane. You need to get out more. Here's an article that I think will help -
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

So, if you include that top 1% with the other 99% of Americans, we're all in the top 1% of the world.
Go ahead, call the Washington Post a fascist/right wing paper. That'll be funny. You need to admit you're wrong. Even our poor have it darn well. To me.. man.. you really don't know. I've seen stuff that I couldn't get out of my head for a year. Still disturbs me, however even if I had a billion dollars to throw their way, it wouldn't change anything. Few things very briefly, however corruption would get probably all of it.

Again- an attack on the things you stand for is not an attack on you. You don't get to censor those who attack your beliefs. That's fucking fascism. You are a fascist. I don't personally burn flags, but I defend the *RIGHT* of asshats to do it.

Wow. Just wow. Really wow. You seem to defend the left. The left/democrats are all about telling us what we can and can't do. Regulations - which carry the power of law. From farms to where we can fish... all kinds of stuff. They even want to tell us what we can think. Anything other than what they

that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's...don't fret, Trump is going to fix that for you!

“The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”

I'm not saying that we shouldn't do some "upgrades", retire some old tech via introducing some new...and we really will need to upgrade our delivery and defensive systems to counter-act the newer systems that Putin is pledging to develop. Perhaps Trump will take another page from Reagan and actually develop and deploy a working "star wars" defense system. If so, I'm hoping Trump also makes the system "reversible", as in able to defend outwards as well as downwards.

"Congress has no reason to take Snowden at his word."

How so? Snowden has shown himself to be more honest and ethical than the intelligence bureaucracy which is smearing him.

Most of these new regulations and acts will have little or no meaning. True it's symbolic but under The Congressional Review Act:

Congress is given 60 legislative days to disapprove, after which the rule will go into effect.

For the regulation to be invalidated, the Congressional resolution of disapproval either must be signed by the President, or must be passed over the President's veto by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress.

While a 2/3rds majority of both houses won't happen, a mere majority resolution of disapproval that the new POTUS signs would nullify this. I believe this mainly on the grounds to revitalize domestic production after Saudi Arabia went on it's production glut.
I'm all for nature and renewable energy but our current POTUS has had a royal feast of land grabbing, this included. Not including the Waters of the United States.

Besides drilling offshore is not a really good idea anyway.

Different AC here. Those are great stats to throw at people... but if you look at main street and not Wall Street, it is a completely different picture. Those companies making part of that 18.56T are paying little to no taxes. The average person is barely getting by, because the revenue that is generated by those companies flies overseas, tax free, never to be seen again.

"An enemy so weak..." You mean the one that has stopped the push into Mosul by coalition forces, and is holding strong in their region of Iraq?

As for the current President-elect, if one had any clue about US history, there is a reason for the Electoral College. Without it, California and New York would decide who would be President, with every other region of the US having zero voice in that election. In fact, in California proper, their bicameral state legislature is all based on popular vote. This means that coastal cities get 100% of the attention by politicians, while everyone east of that has no voice whatsoever. This is why California has fiascos like the Salton Sea going on.

So tell me something: Why, exactly, shouldn't California and New York dominate the decision to decide who is President? That happens to be where most of the people are. Generally speaking, in a democracy (yes, even a democratic republic such as the US), the choice of the majority of voters is kinda-sorta supposed to be who ends up winning. But ignore that for a moment. You say that California and New York should not dominate the Presidential election. In the system we now have, with the Electoral College, why then should Iowa, Wyoming, or Nebraska disproportionately determine who our President should be? You do realize that, under our current system, the votes of those states, as a proportion of the population, count for more than do the votes of California or New York, or North Carolina, or Florida. Rather a lot more.WaPo A better solution would be to introduce proportional representation, but we all know that's not going to happen.

Good...the cesspool of political correctness is blowing up in their faces

While I don't agree with political correctness either (and do agree with what John Cleese says on the subject) , the Twitter problem is more general than that: Twitter's decision to police speech on their platform at all was the idiot move there. While their customers do reasonably want filters, those customers should be able to collectively create and individually select those filters, or none at all. Consider in comparison the Slashdot rating system: it is primitive and flawed, but its is the right kind of approach and more-or-less sort of works to permit free speech while de-emphasizing crap. The Slashdot editors censor and some great points get modded down by unfair moderators, but usually the better posts do percolate to the top.

Milo Yiannopoulos has made the point that Twitter's most controversial posters are also its biggest draws, so that therefore banning them is stupid for the platform and stupid for business. He's predicted its financial decline on that basis since he was banned on Twitter in July. Twitter stock has mostly hovered under $20/share since, so not down, but not the growth they need.

Certainly not the people, for who the very election of Donald Trump is an Act of Terrorism.

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but you used the phrase "the people" to link to a statement made by a single person. "the person" would be more correct usage in this instance.

you do not understand the legal concept of assault

If Trump's "grabbing pussy" without first obtaining a written permission from the owner was an assault, then so is making somebody "feel unsafe". The relevant dictionary definition is:

threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped

FindLaw.com may disagree with it, but who is going to ask them? Certainly not the people, for who the very election of Donald Trump is an Act of Terrorism.

Not every goddamn thing is about "The Left"

Sure. Not every thing. But this one is...

your prodigious post history.

Would you like to subscribe to my newsletter?

This sounds reasonable, it was a deliberate, targeted attempt to cause physical harm to someone.

It is perfectly common for people arguing online to develop a sincere (if fleeting) desire to physically harm an opponent. The deliberation and targeting are very easy to find. Usually such rage is impotent — or is it? If, as we are told by TFA, speech can cause a seizure, how about less obvious but still detrimental effects of spiting words and even polite expressions of disagreement?

If simply seeing the name "Trump" written in chalk on campus made some students "feel unsafe", should the perpetrators be prosecuted for the assault?

Folks in college today graduate a few years later — bringing their bogus ideas out with them. The Left's attack on speech is spilling from campuses... It may already be too late.

how did this blatant misinformation get modded informative?

"There are no Christian groups that demand that that for the Bible"

Christian Dominionism must be a new concept to you. http://www.publiceye.org/chris...

Rick Santorum in 2011: http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Tom DeLay just yesterday: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

Mike Lowrie of Louisiana: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/1...

a sitting Colorado legilator: "if you disagree with me and other Christians, you are demon possessed": http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

the Religious Right's wishlist for Trump to create a theocratic Xtians First nation: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

basically anything by this guy: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

Jim Bakker who thinks Trump is the Messiah or his forerunner: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/...

"There's no Muslim countries where non Muslims have religious freedom" ....Except Algeria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Jordan, Syria (pre-civil war), Turkey, Indonesia, Kosovo, Djibouti, Albania, Mali, Senegal and Sierra Leone , and a few others. No, not every Muslim country is all hunky dory with other religion...but not every Muslim majority country is Saudi Arabia. And not even every repressive regime in a Muslim country is religiously oppressive; several are secularly repressive.

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

Recent wars/conflicts fought by and over Christianity just off top of my head newer than your joke of a historical record:
-North Ireland
-The Lords Republican Army
-the Croatian and Bosnian wars
-the mistreatment/forceful conversion of Indigenous Peoples in the Americas and elsewhere

And who gives a shit about their opinion?

An otherwise perfectly qualified man has lost his job of running Harvard University for merely suggesting, men and women could be different in some respects:

Last year [2005 -mi], Summers sparked international outrage by speculating at an economics conference that innate differences between men and women might be one of the reasons women lag behind in science and math careers.

Even closer to the point in TFA, this year Donald Trump was widely denounced for stating (back in 2004), that an employee's pregnancy is an inconvenience for the employer. Hillary Clinton, portraying herself as a pillar of feminism (pay no attention to her husband's sexual predations), chose to use that obvious and unremarkable true statement to attack her opponent.

You may think, no one "gives a shit", but her billion-dollar campaign did enough research to believe, there is enough of an audience, who'll defecate bricks over it. And they did...

Please. Let them rant

Nobody intends to stop "faminazis" from exercising their First Amendment rights. We are just pointing out, their rants are wrong.

... reduced the utility of a working a low paying job.

Then the boss can give his employees a pay-rise so it's not a low-paying job; is that the inflation you are talking about? Or, since employees have the power to walk away, the boss can provide a better work environment instead of wages, which employees don't need under a basic income.

... have lots of time and some money ...

... to spend time caring for your own parents or children, get basic medical care, enroll to vote and participate in government, to donate (not sell) blood, volunteer at a soup kitchen or library, work part-time as handyman or maid, or as a after-school tutor/coach with children for the guy who is earning $30,000. Few people will spend every day playing Angry Birds and watching Oprah.

... relearn that price fixing doesn't work.

Do you think people are going to eat more vegetables, sleep in more beds, have more baths because they got a guaranteed income? This doesn't change the pay-per-play nature of any economy. Nobody will be buying new shoes every week under a basic income. Putting more money in the economy will cause inflation but suggesting demand for everything, including Ferrari cars, will sky-rocket is deluded. Most of the money for basic income will come from other programs so the total increase will be minimal. Since that money must come from somewhere, money will also be taken out of the economy via extra taxes.

... hoped the Venezuelans spectacular meltdown

Venezuela has a generous welfare service, which like all uses of money, has limited outcomes. It also started failing when the price of oil dropped. The government thought they could make private businesses responsible for the welfare debt. This isn't capitalism versus socialism, this is failing to live within their means: A trap any government can fall into, including US cities.

Is there a special be-dumb additive in the water?

No.

It's much easier to explain than an off-the-wall guess like that.

The fossil fuel industry is in its death throes and putting up a fight.

Your first clue would be Trump's proposed nomination for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

The second would be his choice for Energy Secretary, former governor of Texas Rick Perry.

Third up: Head of EPA, Scott Pruitt.

So ... it's not the water.

It's the money.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca...

In a dramatic demonstration, he and his colleagues use a laptop computer to hack into a car being driven by Stahl. Much to her surprise, they were able to take control of many of the car's functions, including the braking and acceleration.

Yeah that's, like, very credible. (Have you actually bothered to read the full thing?).

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22...

In a controlled test, they turned on the Jeep Cherokee's radio and activated other inessential features before rewriting code embedded in the entertainment system hardware to issue commands through the internal network to steering, brakes and the engine.

Translation: their commands were ignored or didn't even reach the intended systems. If they had actually managed to "disable the brakes", they'd probably mention it in a bit more than a vague subsentence like that.

http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

They also cause the steering wheel to jerk around by making the car think it's in reverse and activating the auto-park feature, and thanks to their hacks, the car's brake pedal ceased to work entirely.

Translation (if honest): at very low speeds, we can actually disable the brake pedal.
Color me impressed. I'm glad that car wouldn't be allowed on EU roads.

In fact, Valasek and Miller ask Greenberg to turn off the car after their speedometer prank, most likely to head off the car deploying its airbag when its speed drops rapidly from 199mph to the actual number, which the car would interpret as a crash.

That's a wild, and wrong, guess. That's not how airbags deploy.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech...

I honestly tried to watch the video but it's unclear which of the few dozens 3rd party javascripts to allow for it to actually play.

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

Not only does the computer weakness allow hackers to manipulate the locks and turn off the engine, it also enables them to cut the brakes. They can even take over the steering wheel if the car is in reverse

That sounds like the paragraph above re-digested.

https://www.ic3.gov/media/2016...

[disabling the brakes at low speed only] (paraphrased)

Meh.

Well, at least I have learned that American cars may actually have brake-by-wire, fair enough. In the developed world, there are safety requirements, like a redundant physical link between the brake pedal and the actual brakes, that has to work regardless of failure of one of the brake-supporting systems.

Jesus H. Christ...don't be so fucking lazy...it's real...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22...
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Really?

In a section titled “Patterns of Immigration,” a speech bubble pointing to a U.S. map read: “The Atlantic Slave Trade between the 1500s and 1800s brought millions of workers from Africa to the southern United States to work on agricultural plantations.

"This is erasure,” Dean-Burren said in an interview with The Washington Post. “This is revisionist history — retelling the story however the winners would like it told.”

In calling slaves “workers” and their move to the United States “immigration,” she noted in viral Facebook posts Wednesday and Thursday, the textbook suggests not only that her African American ancestors arrived on the continent willingly, but also that they were compensated for their labor.

If you lived in Texas, which I do, you'd be aware of the right wing Evangelical Christian batshit crazy supremacist white trash bitches like former governor Rick Perry.

Threatening the messenger is now how science is done:

[ https://www.washingtonpost.com... ]

>How does a donation to a charitable foundation turn into a campaign donation?

Simple, when there is no firewall whatsoever between the 'charitable foundation'* and the campaign.

*charitable, mainly, for the Clintons; for example https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

In case you're not following the money:
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case one in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing more than $33 million. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries To untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

7. Net result -- foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

Hey, how is that swamp draining going? Trump is nominating someone who leaked classified information and wasn't prosecuted by the FBI, considered someone for secretary of state who was convicted of sharing classified information and Trump is lauding the Philippines leader who compares himself to Hitler and who has death squads that kill people on suspicion of having committed a crime. Why is Trump doing this? There is no knowable reason except, I don't know, maybe that it will allow Trump to have a business deal go through in the Philippines. Swamp drained yet?

Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, we wouldn’t need to fundraise for years to come.

Odd, I seem to remember them promising the same thing last year, too. It seems the Washington Post remembers as well. I guess if the price hasn't changed, they either are woefully underfunded/overbudgeted (discussed in plenty of comments above but I'm assuming not), are drastically miscalculating for inflation, or it's just pure greed.

Given that their income was $82 million and their annual expenses were $66 million, I think don't think they're miscalculating by too much. That's a buffer of only a quarter-year's worth of expenses. And if they invest that excess money in endowments, they'll have a more stable budget and less need for fundraising.

Another way to look at it is that it's providing resources to grow. Now, I don't know what or how they might want to grow, but I do know that it's harder to grow when you've got no money for it.

Only a tiny portion of our readers give. If everyone reading this right now gave $3, we wouldn’t need to fundraise for years to come.

Odd, I seem to remember them promising the same thing last year, too. It seems the Washington Post remembers as well. I guess if the price hasn't changed, they either are woefully underfunded/overbudgeted (discussed in plenty of comments above but I'm assuming not), are drastically miscalculating for inflation, or it's just pure greed.

The reason solar is relatively inexpensive right now is because of Chinese panel manufacturing costs, or lack of them.

With the planned 45% (or short-term 15%, if he can't convince congress) tariff, solar may not be cheaper for very long. And/or if China continues to be aggravated about Taiwan.

Well, not here in the US, anyway. They'll still be cheaper everywhere else. Unless China actually stops subsidizing its manufacturers.

I accept solid proof. Anyone that gets their 'news' or 'science' from the entertainment industry are a special kind of stupid.

You want facts, go look them up yourself or ask someone you trust to look into it. Asking entertainers to be impartial and honest is ludicrous. All they are there for is the paychecks the ratings grab.

A good example is all over the media. Zimmerman, defending himself but tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion, despite rock solid evidence that pointed to self defense. Michael Brown was a robbery suspect fighting for Wilson's firearm. The current popular 'facts' spread by the media weren't facts at all, and under this new 'anti fake news' regime those lies told by the entertainment industry to incite news-generating riots run the risk of becoming religious dogma.

But, to be fair, sometimes, months to years later they recant and post something like the following, but it's never hyped like the shootings are.

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

So tell me, which of those news articles would have been flagged as fake? And what if the majority of the censors are black and don't like the truth depicted above to be considered 'real news'? Stop pretending you know it wouldn't be flagged as 'fake'.

But when retards like you post bullshit that didn't happen, google is not going to give us any hits, so we're wind up wasting our time.

That's funny. I found the link I was looking for. Enjoy!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58802-2004May26.html

And you should know that I call you a retard not as an insult, but as an observation.

No offense taken. I was in Special Ed classes for eight years due to an undiagnosed hearing lost. Every time I blew out the annual evaluation on the genius side, it was called a statistical fluke.

I dunno. Like so many other things in politics, it looks like the used statistical probability. I was curious and found:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Basically you have superdelegates. If 51% of them said they'd vote 100% without a doubt that they're voting for HamSandwich, then we all basically know its going to happen, but its still not safe to call the race, since 1% is a very tiny margin of error. A few delegates for HamSandwich could have a heart-attack and now you're only at 49% of 100% voters. So let me push my magic margin to 70% of the 100% confident voters. If that's MY (yes editorial control and all that) bar to measure a sure win, then I can call the race even if not everyone reports, or has even voted yet. When was the last election people waited for Hawaii to cast their votes before predicting a winner? Oh yeah: Never.

I think I am the only one that got seriously bothered by Hillary in a debate saying things like;

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

TRUMP: See, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting -- no wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.
CLINTON: That's a -- that's -- go to the -- please, fact checkers, get to work.

When wikileaks shows collusion between the press and a presidential candidate's campaign staff, and in the middle of a debate said candidate "asks" fact-checkers to "get to work", it strikes me as corruption of the highest order....

What you quoted from Clinton was a strenuous effort not to scream "Bullshit" on national television. She has been an adult for considerably longer than ISIS's approximate 10 years.

If you could cite an instance of Clinton getting backup from fact checkers when the facts were not on her side, you might have a point. In this case, you're condemning her for daring to call out Trump being either flagrantly incorrect or lying.

the IRS targeted multiple groups, on both sides, that appeared to be violating the law concerning 501c status.

Sure was. ~496 right-leaning groups vs 12. Much both sides, you read the articles right? You read the IG report? You saw the part where the IG said that the IRS was targeting particular groups. You also saw the part where multiple people quit in the IRS when it came to light that they were targeting groups at the behest of high-level bureaucrats within the IRS. And that the Obama and IRS are still stonewalling, which is why there are still nearly 50 lawsuits on going.

further, no groups actually had their 501c status revoked or denied, and the ones that were delayed the longest were "occupy" related groups.

Uh No. Even the IRS has said it will "stop targeting those groups." One of those groups has been waiting since 2009. Occupy started in 2011.

He also came to the conclusion that ultimately there was no wrong doing, and no specific targeting of a specific political side, but that the investigation gave the impression of impropriety by essentially taking a shortcut, looking at names of groups and policy positions, rather than looking directly for improper campaign involvement, which is the part that is actually illegal. while the names and positions may be an indicator, it isn't a garuntee of violating the 501c rules.

Would you like to save face now and read the report, or shall we just start with a quote directly from it:

The IRS used inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention. Ineffective management:
 
  1) allowed inappropriate criteria to be developed and stay in place for more than 18 months,
 
  2) resulted in substantial delays in processing certain applications, and
 
3) allowed unnecessary information requests to be issued.

In other words, yes the IRS targeted those groups. And yes, your post is full of bullshit.

Well the "debate" on encryption will start a again next year with the government pushing for ever more access. It isn't like those in power haven't fucking told us what they are going to do. I mean it isn't like the assholes in power didn't publicly state that it would take a terrorist attack where encryption was used to turn the public. Then a few months later the next few terror attacks didn't mention encryption at all.

You're the second person I've heard claim that people still do it, yet haven't heard anyone actually still do it. Maybe it's just who I hear from.

You must be in a bubble of your own. It really is a commonly-shared sentiment. Or, at any rate, was as recently as this summer.

Hardly surprising, given the personal politics of the overwhelming majority of journalists.

Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures.

Many of which have failed, declared bankruptcy or are barely keeping their head above water. His repeated lies about how much his businesses are worth are undermined by his own attorneys who keep arguing the properties are worth substantially less for tax purposes.

and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State.

False. Completely false. Hillary Clinton, or her family, never profited from any contributions or otherwise while she was Secretary of State. Nor from their foundation.

Contrast that with Trump who bragged about siphoning millions from his casinos while they were plunging into bankruptcy:

"Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me," Mr. Trump said in an interview in May, summing up his 25-year history here. "The money I took out of there was incredible."

Further, Trump's "foundation" has been illegally paying his legal bills, his personal bills and buying him things. That is why the New York Attorney General has barred him from soliciting for donations in the entire state of New York.

You just like the fact that she was completely beholden to her financiers on Wall Street, as opposed to Trump, who paid his own way through to his nomination as a candidate

False again. Trump received tens of millions from hedge fund managers and Wall Street firms, not to mention his pick to head the Treasury is/was a hedge fund manager AND worked for Goldman Sachs.

Nor did Trump pay his way through the campaign. He started to do so but then had donations come in from regular people, including illegal foreign donations.

For some bizarre reason this turned into a left vs right issue, but that's how everything works in the US because we're not smart enough to understand anything more nuanced than two political stances.

The important thing to remember about parties in the US system is that they don't actually represent consistent ideological positions; that's largely a convenient fiction. Ideology tends to divide people along fine distinctions, which works in a parliamentary system because a small party can join a governing coalition. In fact small parties often play kingmaker and wield a great deal of power. In the American system being a small party like the Greens means you get nothing. Ever.

In the US we have to build our cross-ideological coalition within the parties, which requires a lot of creative rationalization and, to put it bluntly, emotional manipulation. That's why the Democrats have trade unionists and minorities on one hand, and the Republicans have evangelicals and the Log Cabin Republicans on the other. These groups have little intrinsic motivation to support each other, except that's the only way to get a share of power.

This means that to understand a party you cant just go by the pictures they paint of themselves (never a good idea with any group); you need to look at their history. And that explains those Republican ranchers and their undocumented workers. From Reconstruction until the 1960s the Republican party was regional party that represented Northern and later Western business interests. The in 1964 Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. That very year arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond switched parties from Democrat to Republican, and the Republicans for the first time ever gained a foothold in the South and a nation-wide scope that has allowed them to dominate the House of Representatives since the early 90s.

A Democratic hyperpartisan will tell you the post-Nixon Republicans embraced racism, but really what they did was smarter: they embraced nativism. Nativism had considerable appeal to racists while being more acceptable to traditional Republicans. However this also conflicted with business interests (especially agricultural ones), so the Republican party adopted a regime of hard rhetoric and and harsh but deliberately ineffective measures. If you don't believe me, check out this graph of undocumented Mexicans in the US and note the transition from the Bush era to the Obama era. Obama actually stepped up deportations pretty much from the get go, particularly of criminals.

At the same time the adoption of nativism by the Republicans makes the Democrats' job easier. While from a strict trade-unionist position undocumented workers are a bad thing, in practical terms the impacts aren't in jobs where there is a strong union, because the union prevents employers from paying low wages to non-union workers.

The report actually stated that it fell short of a consensus of all the agencies. You're repeating falsehoods, and it makes you look gullible (at best).
From the fucking Washington Post article itself:
'The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies.'

If you want an unbiased view on this, please don't ask just the mobile payment providers who have everything to gain by painting a rosy picture of a very bad situation in India. The markets across the country are crumbling following this idiotic decision with markets falling as much as 70% in some sectors (agriculture is an example) and 100s of 1000s of people losing their jobs as a direct result of this bone headed move by the government.

Washington Post: India just made a big mistake with its currency ban
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The Harvard Business Review article on this is far more factual: Case study in poor policy and even poorer execution.
https://hbr.org/2016/12/indias...

Nobody cares. California only votes Democrat, so no one is going to put resources into investigating

Oh. The land of Reagan doesn't care about corrupt Democrats. Got it.

Here's a fun fact for you: California has gone for Democratic presidential candidates 18 times, and for Republican candidates 23 times. From 1952 through 1988 it went Republican for every election except the one in 1964.

They have had 38 governors. 15 of them have been Democrats, 22 Republicans. One of those Democrats was the second governor in American history to get recalled by voters, maybe you remember that, and he was replaced with a Republican (perhaps you've heard of him). Here's how libby California voted in that election. Republican candidates got over 62% of the vote on about 61% voter turnout.

But, yeah, Republicans totally don't care about those 55 electoral votes, or taking control back from the Democrats, right? They know about a major federal voting fraud offense apparently perpetrated by Democrats or liberals or whatever, but they don't care enough to act on it. Makes total sense. They know that Americans in general don't care at all about voter fraud, in fact it wasn't even mentioned during this entire election cycle. Riiiiiight.

Do you even believe yourself?

But, remember, you don't have to be an illegal immigrant to commit voter fraud (look at that, references from this year). It's just easier to blame "scary" groups like immigrants when you're trying to convince 73% of Republicans that the election is going to be stolen from them, even though every actual investigation has shown the actual rates to be statistically negligible.

But, hey, "millions of illegal immigrants voting in California" hits several buttons. It hits your "illegal immigrants are scary" button, the "liberals are evil" button, all kinds of good stuff there. That's why you believe it, even though it is completely false and there is not a single shred of evidence that it exists.

Nobody cares. California only votes Democrat, so no one is going to put resources into investigating

Oh. The land of Reagan doesn't care about corrupt Democrats. Got it.

Here's a fun fact for you: California has gone for Democratic presidential candidates 18 times, and for Republican candidates 23 times. From 1952 through 1988 it went Republican for every election except the one in 1964.

They have had 38 governors. 15 of them have been Democrats, 22 Republicans. One of those Democrats was the second governor in American history to get recalled by voters, maybe you remember that, and he was replaced with a Republican (perhaps you've heard of him). Here's how libby California voted in that election. Republican candidates got over 62% of the vote on about 61% voter turnout.

But, yeah, Republicans totally don't care about those 55 electoral votes, or taking control back from the Democrats, right? They know about a major federal voting fraud offense apparently perpetrated by Democrats or liberals or whatever, but they don't care enough to act on it. Makes total sense. They know that Americans in general don't care at all about voter fraud, in fact it wasn't even mentioned during this entire election cycle. Riiiiiight.

Do you even believe yourself?

But, remember, you don't have to be an illegal immigrant to commit voter fraud (look at that, references from this year). It's just easier to blame "scary" groups like immigrants when you're trying to convince 73% of Republicans that the election is going to be stolen from them, even though every actual investigation has shown the actual rates to be statistically negligible.

But, hey, "millions of illegal immigrants voting in California" hits several buttons. It hits your "illegal immigrants are scary" button, the "liberals are evil" button, all kinds of good stuff there. That's why you believe it, even though it is completely false and there is not a single shred of evidence that it exists.

The many ways in which Donald Trump was once a liberalâ(TM)s liberal.

1999: he was "very pro-choice."
2000: supported an assault weapons ban and a longer waiting period to purchase a firearm.
1999: he was "very liberal when it comes to health care" and that he believes in "universal healthcare."
Either Trump or his son donated to Clinton in 2002, 2005, 2006 and 2007, he invited her to his 2005 wedding in Florida, where she sat front row, and he's donated at least $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation. He also said in an appearance on the Howard Stern show in the mid-2000s that she was a fantastic senator.

There's plenty to like about Clinton and plenty to dislike about Nixon [...]

Clinton is relevant for what reason? As I recall, this discussion was about Trump and Nixon.

So, got anything to backup your claim?

Enjoy!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58802-2004May26.html

The transition team did not respond to a request for comment.

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

When PowerBall had a $1B jackpot, I bought some tickets like everyone else. But I gave serious thought about what to do with $500M after taxes in a lump sum. I wouldn't change my modest lifestyle or even quit my government IT job. My role model is Ronald Read, a janitor whom everyone thought was poor but left an $8M fortune to the local library and hospital upon his death.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/the-remarkable-life-and-lessons-of-ronald-read/2015/04/24/7c12a26a-e944-11e4-9a6a-c1ab95a0600b_story.html

His love of the generals is also sadly revealing.
As a kid he got kicked out of regular school for acting-up so his unloving father sent him to military school.

He's appointing all these generals because he's seeking the approval of the same father surrogates he had at military school. The man is such a sad walking ball of neediness and insecurity. He thinks he can get love and respect transactionally - he marries models and spends money on them expecting love in return when all that can really get him is to be treated like a glorified john. He hopes by making the generals work "for" him he will have their respect when nothing could be farther from the truth. Meanwhile Bannon whispers sweet nothings in his ear and pulls his strings like a marionette.

And despite all that happening in plain view his loyal subjects think he's some kind of genius playing 4D chess when its really trump who is getting played by all those people around him. Its only a matter of time until we end up with a 21st century version of the teapot dome scandal.

"alt-right" is a concept intended primarily as a smear tactic by the Hillary campaign. White nationalists are hand-in-hand with the liberals in adopting it as a label. Since it is completely undefined, you can use it as a smear.

      There's aren't any "white nationalists", KKK members, etc, in the Trump team, nor will there be. Both of these groups are utterly insignificant idiots, and have been denounced and denigrated time and time again by Trump and anyone else in his circle

You know we have videotape and records right? A ten second web search yielded this information

Trump himself is a hero to these people. What you think anyone is really buying the crap about trump being concerned about obama's birthplace? No, it was a transparently obvious attempt to delegitimize the first black president from the very beginning and it lasted just long enough to do what it needed to do. At the time Trump accused Obama of playing the best con in history, which was a bit of insight into how Trump thinks. He was lying of course, but I think even then he was thinking of playing the best con in history.

Sure on some level trump is likely racist, but mostly he is for Trump and is more than willing to deal with any racists that come along, as long as they support him. It is the same with Putin. We know Putin is a murderer. Too many of his enemies turn up dead. One even from polonium poisoning, but lead poisoning is the usual reason.

We also know he had a campaign manager with major Russian ties. We know they bent over backward to get him elected, though to be fair it was probably more to prevent Hillary. We know that he is bending himself in a pretzel to say that all of our intelligence agencies are stupid and wrong, and only he is right on russia and of course now Trump is appointing Russia's best friend in the most important position he has.

I wonder if he is afraid of his own polonium poisoning, or if there is actual marching orders. Heck, we even know that Trump is ignoring almost all of his intelligence briefings.

His decisions will cause deaths. All presidents decisions do. His uninformed decisions are bound to cause a lot more, but he is just too busy to do the damn job. Disgusting. Seriously, can you imagine Romney or McCain refusing to be kept up to date on threats?

I don't think you're being honest. I can't think of a state that requires anything definitive.

You must be dishonest, so dishonest, you don't think anybody has heard of Voter ID.

Somehow that's racist. Black people they tell us can't either get an ID or they can't be trusted to have it on election day. I'd think they're the racist ones saying black people are so stupid and irresponsible, however somehow it's not.

Nothing racist about saying that IDs are deliberately made hard to get for many people, due to mysteriously shutting down locations, only opening them at certain hours, and other effects.

Maybe it's just the black people that are also Democrats, which seems consistent.

Yep, that's what happened in North Carolina.

I have a voter reg card, I've never been asked for it nor any other identification in the 30+ years I've been voting. Not once. I've lived in three different counties. Same thing.

Counties are not states. See

Here are the dead voting - http://watchdog.org/57643/md-d...

Then you read the article, and it says:

"At least two dead voters showed up to vote at least once in a Maryland general election between 2004 and 2008, according to a voter registration watchdog group that has reviewed thousands of voter records this year, 1 percent of the rolls in the largest counties."

According to them. But...

"The group – Election Integrity Maryland – filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections Aug. 30. The group said it found several potential dead voters, voters who registered after they had died and a living Maryland resident who has been voting twice in elections for years."

But potential is the key word.

Here's another article:

Which says other things.

http://articles.baltimoresun.c... - in this case they were able to prove in court a lot of dead people voted. The Democratic judge didn't care. He didn't invalidate the results even though it's clear the ballot box was stuffed and Sourbrey lost by less than 6000 votes.

No, they weren't able to make that proof.

Again, from your own article:

"But others, including city elections administrator Barbara Jackson, said incorrect registrations are common in Baltimore and not necessarily evidence of fraud. Many people fail to notify the election board when they move and continue to vote from their old address, she said."

"The Sun did locate one voter identified by the Sauerbrey campaign, Ora L. Lewis, who listed 913 Whitelock St., a building that was razed several months ago, as her home address on her voter registratio

I don't think you're being honest. I can't think of a state that requires anything definitive.

You must be dishonest, so dishonest, you don't think anybody has heard of Voter ID.

Somehow that's racist. Black people they tell us can't either get an ID or they can't be trusted to have it on election day. I'd think they're the racist ones saying black people are so stupid and irresponsible, however somehow it's not.

Nothing racist about saying that IDs are deliberately made hard to get for many people, due to mysteriously shutting down locations, only opening them at certain hours, and other effects.

Maybe it's just the black people that are also Democrats, which seems consistent.

Yep, that's what happened in North Carolina.

I have a voter reg card, I've never been asked for it nor any other identification in the 30+ years I've been voting. Not once. I've lived in three different counties. Same thing.

Counties are not states. See

Here are the dead voting - http://watchdog.org/57643/md-d...

Then you read the article, and it says:

"At least two dead voters showed up to vote at least once in a Maryland general election between 2004 and 2008, according to a voter registration watchdog group that has reviewed thousands of voter records this year, 1 percent of the rolls in the largest counties."

According to them. But...

"The group – Election Integrity Maryland – filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections Aug. 30. The group said it found several potential dead voters, voters who registered after they had died and a living Maryland resident who has been voting twice in elections for years."

But potential is the key word.

Here's another article:

Which says other things.

http://articles.baltimoresun.c... - in this case they were able to prove in court a lot of dead people voted. The Democratic judge didn't care. He didn't invalidate the results even though it's clear the ballot box was stuffed and Sourbrey lost by less than 6000 votes.

No, they weren't able to make that proof.

Again, from your own article:

"But others, including city elections administrator Barbara Jackson, said incorrect registrations are common in Baltimore and not necessarily evidence of fraud. Many people fail to notify the election board when they move and continue to vote from their old address, she said."

"The Sun did locate one voter identified by the Sauerbrey campaign, Ora L. Lewis, who listed 913 Whitelock St., a building that was razed several months ago, as her home address on her voter registratio

It was mentioned in great detail at least 2 months before the election.

You really need to take a look at the harm all the other energy sources actually do, Nuclear Power is far far safer for people AND the environment than coal, oil or gas.

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

Being kneejerk against nuclear power just shows you haven't studied the facts.

And YES we DO need to develop renewables to replace fossil AND nuclear, but nuclear is in fact the safest of all our current options.

"How do we know this radiation isn't actually good for you? I mean, the Sun's heat is radiation, right?"

- Trump's new director of the Department of Energy.

[Note: If you think I'm somehow exaggerating, you might find tonight's story about Trump's new Department of Energy "enemies list" an interesting read:}

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

Either you don't know your history, or you're too lazy to use google, so the first item that comes up when asking about us interference in other countries elections:

In the 1958 Japanese election, the United States gave the Liberal-Democratic Party damaging political intelligence on its main rival, the Socialists. The CIA acquired it from paid informants within the Socialist Party. In the 1990 Nicaraguan elections, the United States leaked damaging information on alleged Sandinista corruption and Swiss bank accounts, funneling the information to German newspapers. The Nicaraguan opposition then used these German media reports to great effect.

In other words, the CIA was doing the exact same thing that they accuse Wikileaks of doing. US exceptionalism at work - "the rules don't apply to us."

and

“Isn’t it interesting that her (Clinton's) campaign is now experiencing the same thing that she perpetrated on other countries,” Netherton told The Huffington Post, as she awaited Sanders’ speech Monday night.

“She did this in Haiti, she did this in Honduras, and now it’s coming back on her and she’s all verklempt about it,” Netherton added. “It’s a little bit of her own medicine, but unfortunately I don’t think she’s open minded enough to see that for what it is.”

Indeed, meddling in foreign politics is a great American pastime, and one that Clinton has some familiarity with. For more than 100 years, without any significant break, the U.S. has been doing whatever it can to influence the outcome of elections up to and including assassinating politicians it has found unfriendly.

Assassinating politicians is certainly going to keep them from running in an election.

When Iran elected a nationalist politician, Mohammed Mosaddeq, the U.S. intervened to launch a coup in 1953, which CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt led. Mossadegh’s crime was to nationalize a British oil company, a forerunner to BP, and to spark concerns among the paranoid Dulles brothers that he was leaning toward the Soviet Union. The U.S. installed Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, Iran’s monarch, as the head of Iran and his repressive rule led to the Iranian revolution. That uprising, in turn, has given us a brutally repressive regime in Iran, client terrorist groups around the Middle East, savage sectarian violence in Iraq and a nuclear standoff.

Overthrowing a democratically elected politician and getting rid of elections is also interfering in Iran's electoral process.

When the French withdrew from Vietnam in the 1950s, they scheduled an election to be held shortly after. It became increasingly clear that the communist revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh would win it in a landslide. So the U.S. intervened and installed Ngo Dinh Diem as leader of a new country it recognized as South Vietnam. The national election was canceled, but the U.S. still needed a way to pretend the puppet regime had political support. So it set up an election between Diem, who was widely disliked, and an exiled member of the royal family who was even more hated. Diem won with an absurd tally of 98.2 percent.

Cancelling an election that would have elected someone the US didn't want to win is most certainly interfering in their electoral process.

The election in 2014 didn’t go as the U.S. intended (like the one in 2009, shot through with fraud that gave it to Hamid Karzai). So the U.S. declared it a tie and created a new position not in the Afghan constitution called Chief Executive Officer.

There are plenty of other examples of US interference in other countries.