Slashdot Mirror

Yeah, "American"... as in nobody in any other country in the world ever tries to cheat or game the systems that are in place for personal benefit! First rules of business: whatever behavior you reward, you create more of. If it requires cheating to get rewarded, people will cheat. Heck, even school teachers will cheat on tests if given enough incentive: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

hmmm... sounds Familiar

Where have I read about this kind of thing before

In fact, even the big dogs in the press admit they've gone down this road before. Of course, they claim "it's different".

In the past, the media just went Full Stupid about McCain and his health issues.

I guess the difference is McCain released all his records and we knew what he faced health-wise. Will Hillary show the same courage?

This is the doctor that should examine Hillary:

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

https://heavyeditorial.files.w...

It wouldn't matter. Police dogs "alert" (sit down, or scratch, or something - anything the dog does can be an "alert") whenever and whenever the handler wants them too.

In one test, the researchers told the cops they wanted to test the dogs. They set up eights cans and told the handlers "there are drugs in can #1 and can #4, let's see how the dogs do". The dogs consistently alerted on can #1 and can #4. The drugs were in #6 and #8 - the officer's expectations matter more than where the contraband actually is.

See also:

http://illinoistimes.com/artic...

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

don't know about that, but.. the estimate of police dogs' efficacy suffers from the obvious flaw of all such evaluations; you never know how many people don't get caught. Could be they only catch 1% of the targets. And as your example points out, estimates from experiments can never be 100% certain to replicate actual real life numbers.

Correct; you could google it yourself, instead of asking me to.

And I would find one misleading news story. How is that evidence of a large-scale, government-controlled desinformation campaign?.

About 258,000 results (0.49 seconds), according to Google over here. Doesn't Google work over there?

Here's the first page, with sources ranging from The New York Times to The Guardian to Der Spiegel::
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org...
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
http://khpg.org/en/index.php?i...
http://www.dw.com/en/german-me...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...
http://uaposition.com/kharkiv-...

You made a claim, you have flimsy evidence to back it up.

Since you're unwilling to look at any of the 258,000 results, I doubt that anything I can post is likely to affect your position.

It wouldn't matter. Police dogs "alert" (sit down, or scratch, or something - anything the dog does can be an "alert") whenever and whenever the handler wants them too.

In one test, the researchers told the cops they wanted to test the dogs. They set up eights cans and told the handlers "there are drugs in can #1 and can #4, let's see how the dogs do". The dogs consistently alerted on can #1 and can #4. The drugs were in #6 and #8 - the officer's expectations matter more than where the contraband actually is.

See also:

http://illinoistimes.com/artic...

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

If you discount the things we get "for free" out in society which is also paid for by taxes or how do you make that happen? 2014:
26.0% of the GDP of US went into taxes.
43.9% of the GDP of Finland went into taxes.
50.9% of the GDP of Denmark went into taxes.

Your number for the US is wrong since you only count federal spending. Total US government spending as percentage of GDP is about 41%, and in addition, US per capita GDP is about 35% higher than Finland's.

There are plenty of articles on this. Note that the US is a high spender even relative to GDP, but given that the US has one of the highest per-capita GDPs in the world ($PPP), that translates into even higher absolute spending, and social welfare spending ought to be compared in terms of absolute per capita spending in $PPP.

They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.

Do you think your numbers are accurate? Or perhaps you can explain why other examinations don't agree with your conclusions. Surely you can show your own numbers are more valid than independent examinations. If not, it means you are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent.

The real truth is, you have zero credibility when it comes to talking about the Clintons. And it's your own fault. You've been too hysterical and partisan, you could witness an actual homicide, and the jury would laugh when you took the stand.

No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?

Hey, if you want to lock up former Presidents, stop handing out pardons.

Propose a law that the President and their spouse has to live on a stipend, in a confined chamber, where they pray for America, then I'll believe you give a crap.

However,the traffic, except for a handful, were unclassified and thus no violation occurred.

That's simply not true.

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

104 is not a handful.

And quite frankly, after reading the report what she did is not that big of a deal and if the tables were turned the Republicans would be crying foul as loud as they are crying crime today.

I agree that if the tables were turned, both sides would take the opposite position.

I don't agree that isn't a big deal. Government corruption is particularly poisonous and insidious, and while our two party system may make for a great crop of hypocrites, that doesn't make their bad behavior excusable.

In fact, the reason why I'm voting for Trump is because he's the only candidate hated enough by the media and the establishment to be held accountable for his actions, and properly checked and balanced. Clinton's narrow escape here through political pressure is just one in a long litany of corrupt practices the mainstream media has given her a pass on.

Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.

Your ignorance

A sailor going and photographing classified sections of a submarine over a period of months. Basically looking like he was engaged in active espionage.

So no, not a comparable incident.

subject

Petraeus deliberately shared highly classified materials with his mistress and biographer.

Not a remotely comparable incident.

not our problem.

Oooh, "10 people were actually punished for similar or lesser offenses than what Mrs. Clinton got away with yesterday".

This should be good for a laugh.

1. "pleaded guilty in 2005 to illegally sneaking classified documents from the National Archives by stuffing papers in his suit. He later destroyed some of them in his office and lied about it.”

Nope, he was deliberately removed classified documents and they proved he lied about it.

2. "Peter Van Buren, a foreign service officer for Hillary’s State Department, was fired and his security clearance revoked for quoting a Wikileaks document AFTER publishing a book critical of Clinton. In fact, the Washington Post reported that one of his firing infractions was “showing ‘bad judgement’ by criticizing Clinton and then-Rep. Michele Bachmann on his blog.”

Sounds more like someone being punished for writing a book critical of their employer.

3. Was a CIA director storing classified info at home. This is the most comparable though the CIA director was dealing with more sensitive information, should have been more aware than Hillary, and it sounds like he knew he had mishandled classified intel.

So a little worse than Hillary though roughly comparable. He also got pardoned by Bill Clinton before he even finished the plea deal. So that actually kinda sets a no jail-time incident.

4. “A Navy intelligence specialist admitted Thursday that he smuggled classified documents out of Fort Bragg in folders and his pants pockets, then sold them for $11,500 to a man he believed was a Chinese agent.”

Wow, #4 and they're already claiming a guy trying to sell classified intelligence to the Chinese was a lesser offence than Hillary?

I seriously checked all of the examples and even read the links on a few that looked promising.

This one was actually hilarious:

Lab Tech Steals Data from Nuclear Facility. Jessica Lynn Quintana, a former worker at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, pleaded guilty in federal court to “knowingly removing classified information from the national security research laboratory, after she took home sensitive documents and data from the lab last year.”

Talk about misrepresenting the facts. She was charged because she was running a meth lab!!

Still I learned something, don't believe a damn thing you read on "The Political Insider".

Again, lots of hypothetical examples without any actual incidents.

Your ignorance on the subject is not our problem.

"could not recall any briefing or training by State related to the retention of federal records or handling classified information"

Funny, every one of us poor bastards who actually would go to jail over a classified release remembers the briefing distinctly. She, having had the statutory authority to determine what's classified or not with the stroke of a pen (Original Classification Authority) doesn't remember any of the training and couldn't be assed to declassify what she told her subordinates to email her. If she had any integrity, at all, she should shoot herself.

Oh look another person rooting for the death of a presidential candidate. I'd really hate to be a secret service agent in these days and time. I know, as usual, this comment will probably get down modded to -1. Anything I write supporting Clinton tends to, but simply put the whole conversation about Hillary and Trump is so insanely biased as to be barely calculable.

You know what a hundred times more about Hillary than Trump? It is insane. There is a whole industry funded by the right to examine everything about Hillary that is obtainable to find the best bits that can be used to attack her. The very fact that she has survived such a storm is amazing. With Hillary they have to attack things that are years old. With Trump you can barely keep up with the crazy crap he said last week.

With Hillary they attack and attack and attack, but never give her accomplishments any credit. She did a decent job as a secretary of state. Her families foundation has saved countless lives. The health care she initially championed and Obama got in has no doubt saved countless others. The SCHIP program likely has saved countless more childrens lives.

What has Trump done that compares? His most significant accomplishment is being a very accomplishment con man. That seems to be the key to Trump Inc. His two most recent cons were making a lot of people believe that birther crap. (Where are the crack investigators you sent Mr. Trump?) The other one is making people believe that he would somehow fix their problems by a magic wall and then getting Mexico to pay for it. Both were truly audacious and impressive cons.

The wall would likely cost every Mexican taxpayer something like nine hundred dollars if you assume around 42 billion cost and 46.3 million taxpayers from Mexico.

It ain't gonna happen. The average salary in Mexico is $843 a month. mexico income. Do you really think they have the spare cash to help us? What's in it for them?

Even if they wanted to donate that kind of money, which they don't. They have $350 billion in debt. Why the hell would they increase that to around $400 billion just to help the US? The only way to get them to pay for the wall is to invade, and it would probably be cheaper just to pay for it ourselves.

Seriously? The very concept is ridiculous, yet people on slashdot want that for their leader? As trump might say. Sad.

... but the FDA is still finding something to complain about.

This is after preeminent scientists argue that bioethics needs to get out of the way of modern research.

An interesting parallel, by the way, was John Nestor. Here was a guy that intentionally (and even with good intention) drove 55MPH in the fast lane of DC traffic. He was, at best, misguided, since speed differential is more dangeous than speed and his actions were likely safety-reducing. He was also an FDA bureaucrat that never approved a drug and was ultimately fired for his "caution" that probably cost more lives and more lifesaving drugs than it ever saved.

it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.

To make it worse the article also has this little tidbit:

There is value, he said, in “keeping our options open for such a situation.”

A pistol is not the same thing as a rifle. A semi auto is not the same as a bolt action.

Nowhere did I say that. A semiautomatic pistol is surely not the same thing as a rifle, but it has the same "fire as fast as you pull the trigger" mechanism, which is one of the two main objections people raise to "assault rifles." The second one is "high capacity magazines," and this is simply not that big a deal for somebody who's got a shred of practice. You can swap out a magazine on the move in about 2 seconds. You get slightly less firing time with a pistol than a rifle because you have to change magazines more frequently, but that is NOT the major limiting factor if you're trying to maximize damage.

That's why you don't see massacres using hunting rifles or low mag pistols.

Yeah, nobody ever killed a bunch of people with a couple handguns. In fact, if you look at the statistics, you'll find that handguns were absolutely involved in nearly all recent mass shootings. And guess what: those semiautomatic pistols are issued by militaries the world over, they have 10-15 round magazines standard, which makes them about half the capacity of the high-capacity 30 round magazines. So every thirty rounds, you get about 2 seconds less shooting time with a pistol than with a rifle. Given the duration of most of these shootings, do you really think that 20 seconds over the course of 20 minutes to 3 hours is going to make much of a difference in body count?

the argument that 'they don't like it because it looks scary' doesn't hold weight against second graders and mall goers and club dancers getting sawn in half by something made specifically to incur horrific fatal wounds to people.

Yes, it does. Plenty of mass shootings have been committed by people using handguns. MOST (somewhere around 80%) of gun violence is committed with handguns. Mass shootings account for somewhere less than 2% of gun fatalities overall.

FBI statistics show 5,562 killings committed by handgun, versus 248 by rifle, versus 262 by shotguns in 2014. Approx 2000 were "unspecified firearm type" -- meaning that even if every single one of those was a rifle, you'd still be looking at more than twice as many handguns used in gun violence as rifles.

Mass killings are scary - but again, if you claim you care about gun violence, rifles are by far the LEAST of your worries in terms of gun violence. Taking steps to limit handgun violence will do far more than taking steps to implement "feel good" legislation about "assault rifles." Focusing on rifles as a major gun violence problem is like worrying that your family photo is hung crooked on the wall while your house is on fire.

There is never a reason to burgle someone.

You be sure to tell the judge that when it's a cop who stole your money.

(Yes, that's the more likely scenario.)

There are a variety of online articles that contradict your claim that independent labor unions are allowed in China such as this one , this one, and this one. Perhaps Chinese labor unions are defined in law but protections are not enforced in practice like their environmental regulations.

Given Chinese censorship of news and social media it is difficult for anyone including Chinese citizens to know exactly what takes place in that country. I am more inclined to believe the accusations of dissidents than the wealthy authoritarian party's propaganda.

I haven't seen any evidence that the wiping was done during the email investigation; do you have a citation that says otherwise?

It wasn't done during the FBI investigation, but it seems to have been done after the State Department requested her emails pursuant to an investigation by the House about Benghazi.

According to Clinton's lawyer, the emails must have been deleted sometime between December 5, 2014 and March 27, 2015. That article is from last year, so perhaps they've managed to narrow the window further.

As discussed in the New York Times timeline on the investigation, the select committee in the House to investigate Benghazi was formed in May 2014 and began negotiating with Clinton in July 2014 to obtain all of her emails. The State Department turned over "a handful of emails from Mrs. Clinton, all from her private account" in August 2014, and the House committee requested the remainder of the emails. As noted in the Politifact story above, Clinton's lawyer said the "review" of Clinton's emails to separate personal correspondence, etc. happened in fall of 2014. Clinton apparently finally turned over (what she claimed to be) the remainder to the State Department in December (almost two years after leaving office), after which she deleted the rest. On March 10, 2015, the New York Times reported that Clinton had deleted 32,000 emails. After finding classified information, the FBI began its investigation in July 2015.

So, yes, the emails were deleted before the FBI investigation began. But they were deleted after repeated requests to turn over all her correspondence by the House committee.

Personally, I have my doubts that there was some sort of "evil memo" smoking gun to be found in this mass of stuff, but the fact is that the server was wiped AFTER an investigation (at that time limited to Benghazi) and official government request for all her email happened. It at least has to go in the "somewhat shady" category that Clinton only gave paper copies of emails and wiped the server clean at this point. (Why they were delivered on 55,000 pages of paper is still unclear, but it would have potentially erased a lot of metadata -- the redigitized email I've seen had no detailed headers. Oh, and the redigitization process required more than 2400 man-hours of work.)

It seems more likely (to me) that if there were anything "shady" going it, it was probably to delete personal correspondence -- rather than State Department business -- that would make her look really bad if it ever got out. But I guess we'll never know.

When they talk about the "user experience" they mean someone who is buying ads, not the person who is posting "Look what Hillary Trump said last night" every day. Think in terms of Facebook's customers.

Knowing who is talking to whom is an important part of Facebook's marketing. Look at how Facebook targets and consider item #19 in that article. It's not just about who you are, it's about who you know. Whether you think this is a good idea for Facebook or not, it is what they do.

User A and user B are friends in real life, use Whatsapp, and have Facebook accounts -- but they're not "friends" on Facebook (maybe they only use Facebook for work, or something like that). (Or maybe they don't have Facebook accounts, but Facebook has profiles on them gathered by "like" buttons, and has some way to deliver ads to at least one of them.) They communicate with each other using Whatsapp. This lets Facebook connect the two profiles, even though within Facebook alone, they are unconnected. The result: Now user A can see shopping ads for user B's upcoming birthday.

The advertiser has a good products experience.

In case anyone is keeping score at home, according to the CIA

Ukrainian 77.8%, Russian 17.3%, Belarusian 0.6%, Moldovan 0.5%, Crimean Tatar 0.5%, Bulgarian 0.4%, Hungarian 0.3%, Romanian 0.3%, Polish 0.3%, Jewish 0.2%, other 1.8% (2001 est.)

So maybe 1.8% black or African-American....err, African-Ukrainian? African-Asian? Probably not. I suspect most of them are just as white as the native Ukrainians and Russians and Polish people.

An interesting article about being a black American in Ukraine: A cop in Ukraine said he was detaining me because I was black. I appreciated it.

You're right the NSA as a body has far more pressing concerns, but the problem is information collected is open for personal abuse by pubic servants. The eavesdropping on American soldiers phoning their loved ones shows some public servants *ARE* very much interested in "how drunk Motard got at the bar last night":

US:

“Inside Account of U.S. Eavesdropping on Americans,” Brian Ross, Vic Walter, Anna Schecter. ABC Nightline, 2008-10-09 “"Calling home to the United States, talking to their spouses, sometimes their girlfriends, sometimes one phone call following another," said Faulk. ... Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer. ... "Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News.” http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...

“Cop Suspected of Using Database to Plan Murder of Ex-wife.” http://rense.com/general26/top...

“FBI Files Sold to Mob and International Criminals by Nevada Attorney General's Office Employee and Former FBI Agent.” http://rense.com/general26/top...

“The Highland, Indiana, police department had its access to the state's FBI database suspended due to misuse. ... State police auditors claim that local investigators had been using the system to run checks on contractors and door-to-door solicitors in direct violation of IDACS policy, and continued to do so even after being warned.” http://rense.com/general26/top...

‘Political Candidates Probed by Police Chief in Eastpointe, Michigan.’ http://rense.com/general26/top...

“Police Investigated for Using Database to Target Organizers of Sheriff-Recall Campaign” http://rense.com/general26/top...

“Butler County Prosecutor's Office Uses Database to Smear Prosecutor's Political Opponent” http://rense.com/general26/top...

“Police Lieutenant Charged With Abusing Database to Influence Elections” http://rense.com/general26/top...

“Cop Fired for Abusing Database, Chief Accused as Well.” http://rense.com/general26/top...

“Amid Concerns, FBI Lapses Went On.” Jeffrey Smith and John Solomon, Washington Post, 2007-03-18. “FBI counterterrorism officials continued to use flawed procedures to obtain thousands of U.S. telephone records during a two-year period when bureau lawyers and managers were expressing escalating concerns about the practice” http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

“School Spies on Students at Home With Webcams: Suit,” Teresa Masterson, NBC, 2010-02-18. “A Philadelphia-area school official confronted a student with photographic evidence that he was doing bad things at home. She got her evidence by activating the webcam on the laptop in his house, a lawsuit claims. Lower Merion School District officials are spying on students and their families inside their homes with Web cameras

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times!

That was 200 million years ago, even the days were 23 hours long and the years more than 20 days longer.

There's a reason scientists publish papers in peer reviewed journals, not every decision is as simple as jumping on the first convenient looking factoid.

There is much to like about the Trump campaign if you are Russian.

Trump has promised to look into lifting the sanctions that the U.S. has imposed against Russia for its military incursions in Ukraine.

The Trump campaign worked behind the scenes to make sure the new Republican platform won’t call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces, contradicting the view of almost all Republican foreign policy leaders in Washington.

He questioned whether the U.S. would defend its NATO allies in the event of a Russian attack and claimed that the alliance is “obsolete.”

An isolationist America would pose less of a threat to Russia’s ambitions in Europe and the Middle East.

On top of this, Putin likely holds a grudge against Clinton for this.

https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us...
No intent, kept records in house, but with knowledge (which Hillary should have had...she went through the briefs).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Tried to bring attention to a perceived illegal activity, prosecuted anyways.

http://www.politico.com/story/...
Sailor took some photos for posterity of his workplace, he seems to have had no clue it was even an issue until he was charged with holding classified information.

http://pilotonline.com/news/mi...
No intent to distribute.

http://usuncut.com/politics/cl...

Of course, there is no case like Clinton's, even Powel never sent or received classified information. It is however gross negligence, and all of these above were the same.

What kind of major outlets are you looking for?

http://abcnews.go.com/Internat...

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

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gr...

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

Hell, even the NY Daily News covered it:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

Coal already gets massive subsidies http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind... http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... http://www.climatechangenews.c... and that doesn't count the huge cost to health care and lost worker productivity: http://www.fastcompany.com/172...

DOE did a study on savings to date through the Clean Air Act (passed through Congress without a single vote against it!) which found the Act had a *net benefit* to the economy for that reason. Nuclear sucks too, but Coal kills more than Nuclear https://www.newscientist.com/a... If someone can get alternative up to coal and nuclear then all the more power to them! :-)

Environmental policy used to be bipartisan https://www.washingtonpost.com... Fuck partisanship!

That 14,000 abandoned wind turbine claim is bullshit: They are old ones which were decommissioned and replaced, so it's like claiming the automobile is a failed idea because there are so many cars have gone to the wreckers. Just more Nimby bullshit. http://skeptics.stackexchange.... http://www.wind-works.org/cms/...

"and trump said in clear as day wording that he wants to block immigration from countries where terrorism is rampant. big difference from banning all muslims"

That's what he's saying *now*. I imagine that flip-floppin', loose-lipped bozo will change his tune again before the election.

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

"In a semantic softening of his previous position restricting immigrants or visitors from Muslim-majority countries, Trump said he would “temporarily suspend immigration from some of the most dangerous and volatile regions of the world that have a history of exporting terrorism.”

Russia's been hacking the DNC.

Trump's top campaign adviser is a literal agent of the Kremlin. As in, he had to register as an agent of a foreign government because he was working for one. And Ivanka Trump is partying in Croatia with Vladimir Putin's girlfriend, Wendy Murdoch.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/15/...

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyl...

Now with those two stories in mind, go back and look at the changes Trump made to the GOP platform back in July:

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

Now think about the fact that Russia's been hacking the DNC (see how I brought it back on-topic?)

No, that's not my experience with homeless people. Here's an example story.

Most of the people I know who are homeless aren't as bad as the ones mentioned in that story. They have skills, and sometimes are astonishingly good at what they do. But they are demoralized for various reasons. Besides the things mentioned directly in that story I linked to, a lot of times it really helps when someone reaches out and gives them a hand. Just shows that they care, even a little bit. Like that guy who hadn't had a kind word spoken to him in over a decade, what kind of life is that?

Any examples? I know he tends to judge various cultures, but a culture is not the same as a race. You knew that right?

The examples of Milo's racism are very easy to find:

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

In case you don't realize why depicting a black person as a gorilla is racist, here is a little history:

http://www.authentichistory.co...

Washington Post? Really... They're almost as bad as Huffington Post. Please post some other credible links on Milo's racism, that aren't "liberal" leaning.

Any examples? I know he tends to judge various cultures, but a culture is not the same as a race. You knew that right?

The examples of Milo's racism are very easy to find:

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

In case you don't realize why depicting a black person as a gorilla is racist, here is a little history:

http://www.authentichistory.co...

Now you have a bunch of activist judges making legal leaps and declaring Voter ID illegal not because it's against the Constitution, but because it "unfairly affects minorities".

It's not the voter ID that's against the Constitution, dumbshit. It's the "unfairly affects minorities" part.

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

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

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontl...

You will notice that states that enacted these strict voter ID laws still allow absentee ballots. The Federal courts might not have decided against these states if Republican officials in those states didn't come out and flat admit that they were passing these laws to keep minorities from voting

http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelli...

But I'm sure the new excuse for these statements is that they were being "sarcastic". That's what Republicans say now when they get their tongues caught in a zipper.

And when Trump says the same thing, it's a national outrage. It's not a coincidence the Left is trying to eliminate voter registration laws, and switch everything to electronic voting.

Voting fraud by actual voters is negligible. There are very few cases of it. The right does focus on reducing actual voting by a variety of methods which tend to statistically favor their party, including limiting voting areas, striking people from voting rolls with similar names, reducing early voting, blocking efforts at same day registration, etc, etc. The left correctly points out that the actions the right is doing are more about disenfranchising eligible voters that might be more likely to vote democratic than actual voter fraud. From the Washington Post a comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast.

The left was also extremely concerned about the electronic voting machines, and their potential to be tampered with in various ways. That doesn't mean electronic can't be secure, but without a paper trail, any hack could effectively tip an election in ways that cannot be proven to have occurred. In short typical voting machines have probably less security than Hillary's email server. Voting security is not an easy thing. I encourage both parties to support regulations that require a paper trail. There is literally no downside.

As far as Trump's crazy crap of the day, well one of his plans is to setup watchers, which sound a bit like an intimidation force. Still, if he wants to send one low key person to each polling place that quietly and unobtrusively watches, I say go for it. The other party can do the same. As to his allegations of people voting 5 times, well, no. Who voted is tracked. If you try to vote twice you will be noticed and you must vote where you are registered.

Amazing to think that US civil forfeiture laws apply even if the alleged crimes were committed by a German/Finnish citizen, living in New Zealand.

Except this part of the write-up is bullshit:

Civil forfeiture in the United States allows law enforcement to seize one's assets if they are believed to be illegally acquired -- even without filing any criminal charges.

The above is completely irrelevant. Although this part of the US law is an outrage, Mr. Dotcom is not affected by that.

First, plenty of charges against him were filed. And, second, he may lose his property not because some cop on a highway decided, his trunk-full of cash is "suspicious" (and can be much better used to pay for his Department's parties too), but because he chose to not answer criminal charges against him in the US.

The outrage of "civil forfeiture" is that it can happen on the Executive-branch's say-so — no judge, no jury. In Mr. Dotcom's case, the loss of property is approved by the Judiciary. It may or may not still be wrong, of course.

hey pay sales tax on a large portion of their income.

So do the wealthy, because they buy a lot of stuff. Pretty much everything other than real estate gets hit with sales taxes. Many states also have higher sales tax rates for luxury goods than they do for necessities.

They pay gas taxes. They must buy car tags and pay a variety of other fees.

Yes, many of those are regressive.

Either directly or indirectly (as part of their rent) they pay real estate taxes.

The wealthy also pay a lot of real estate taxes, because they tend to own a lot more real estate.

You're also ignoring state income taxes, which are also generally very progressive.

My guess is that the richer you are the lower your income tax rate.

Got any data? Google found me a chart Washington Post article which appears to show that it's actually fairly flat, starting with a 17% total tax rate at the low end, rising to a peak of over 30% for the top 5%, then a slight dip to about 29% for the top 1%, but it doesn't cite sources.

You might recall that Mitt Romney's reported income tax rate was 14% for 2011.

Federal income tax only, and that's for an individual who makes most of his income from capital gains -- which, granted, is true for most of the 0.1%, but there are reasons other than fairness that argue for keeping cap gains taxes low.

The tax breaks for the rich are not really available for the vast majority of us.

Which tax breaks are those?

Anyone with half a brain knows that was just a sardonic comment

No it wasn't. Trump and his supporters keep on claiming this because they know the comments are inexcusable, but facts show he was serious.

First, nobody laughed when he first said it on a Tuesday, and at his first chances to clarify it he doubled down on it, it took until two days later before he claimed was a joke. Here's what happened in between:

From the Washington Post:

1. Trump campaign officials never said he was joking on Wednesday. They mounted a robust defense, mind you, but they didn't say it was a joke.

2. Trump doubled down. In a tweet after the comments exploded on social media, Trump sought to explain a little bit Ã" apparently suggesting he simply meant that the emails should be turned over to the FBI "if Russia or any other country or person has" them. Again, no mention of joking around.

3. He said it twice. This wasn't a one-off quip in Trump's news conference on Wednesday. He initially said he hoped the Russians had the emails, and then he returned later to say that if they didn't have them, he hoped they would obtain them.

4. A reporter gave him an out -- that he didn't take. NBC's Katy Tur, later in Wednesday's press conference, basically asked Trump twice if he was serious. In response, Trump indicated he had no qualms about, in Tur's words, "asking a foreign government Ã" Russia, China, anybody Ã" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."

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

Same with jump starting the economy by giving tech entrepreneurs cash too. They don't need much to survive, and it is better incentive than making them a slave to some VC fund or fat rich bastard. Communism died because workers hated giving the bulk of their labor to the party. Same with today's workers having to give the bulk of their labor to fat rich bastards who have amassed undeserved wealth (old money, payback for giving a politician a blowjob, and personal connections). Great book: https://www.amazon.com/Meritoc... https://www.psychologytoday.co... http://www.truth-out.org/opini... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.newstatesman.com/po...

I'd say Trump would be way, way worse for the US than Hillary would be

And what, pray tell, is so awful about Trump? Please, enumerate a few things you find particularly disagreeable. If you are going to list any promises or statements by him, please, be sure to include links to where he made them (not somebody else building a strawman or two).

America's media — only 7% of them being Republicans — would try to help a Democratic nominee against any Republican. Had the party nominated anyone else — Cruz or Rubio or Bush or whoever, they would've attacked him just as viciously.

Chances are, your own anti-Trump opinions are subliminally formed by these guys' efforts rather than something especially bad he did or said... Hence my question and the insistence on evidence.

It would be nice if the media would 1. dig more into the content of the leaks and 2. investigate the source of the leaks and give us facts rather than try to spin some kind of "Trump is a Russian plant" conspiracy theory.

Like these? http://motherboard.vice.com/re...
http://arstechnica.com/securit...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Disagree with the conclusions all you like, but there's certainly not a lack of facts or investigation going on. I also haven't seen any serious suggestions of Trump being a Russian plant (outside of biased partisan stuff at least). I have seen lots of speculation that Russia/Putin have a strong interest in backing Trump, or that Trump is favorable towards Russian interests, but that's hardly the same thing.

The only evidence the DNC was hacked as opposed to the target of a whistleblower is from the security firm the DNC hired themselves.

I keep seeing this quoted, but Crowdstrike's conclusions were also confirmed by Fidelis and Mandiant/FireEye, i.e. their competitors:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The evidence that the hacks originated in Russia is circumstantial, and there is no evidence it was state sponsored.

Definitively and absolutely making an attribution call is very difficult, but this is hardly the case of using one indicator to state "Well it was Russia." The research, evidence, and conclusions are all clearly laid out, and while they didn't point to a smoking gun, there's a reasonably clear case that the majority of the signs point to Russian APT activity as being behind the intrusion:
http://motherboard.vice.com/re...

Trump is probably the most hated person on Earth right now

Oh, there are some people in the world that love him.

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

But the DNC knew about the leaks at latest back in mid-June. So there's no time travel required.

they have a word ofr it now.

Now? It was a word when my old man was going to to the unversity of kansas and university of riverside in the 1970's. This stuff has been going on with the Clinton's since the 1970's You don't accumulate this level of speculation just by chance.

But politifact told me that the US has never ever supported ISIS or its predecessors. How can a site that has won a Pulitzer Prize lie? They even have 'fact' in the name!

The reason for hiring them, at least in Silicon Valley, is not to pay a bargain basement wage, but to enable US companies to hire the best and brightest in the world. It's got nothing to do with a shortage of US workers. [...] Now, if US employers were forced to hire based on immigration status - citizens first, then green card holders, then it would be a distinct advantage to be a citizen. It'd also probably result in US employers not having the smartest people in the world working for them.

So let me see if I get your point.

The important issue in your mind is that US employers get the smartest people in the world.

And this is a more important issue than US citizens having a job.

Additionally, why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?

(I'm all for helping people in other nations, and note that we've brought a lot of people out of poverty... but do we have to bring our own population into poverty to promote that goal?)

Greed.

Capitalism.

Two powerful forces that put the US on the map as a global powerhouse in business today.

Also, two powerful forces that could give a flying fuck about your native poverty issue.

And yes, there should be an advantage in being a citizen. Again, see above.

The reason for hiring them, at least in Silicon Valley, is not to pay a bargain basement wage, but to enable US companies to hire the best and brightest in the world. It's got nothing to do with a shortage of US workers. [...] Now, if US employers were forced to hire based on immigration status - citizens first, then green card holders, then it would be a distinct advantage to be a citizen. It'd also probably result in US employers not having the smartest people in the world working for them.

So let me see if I get your point.

The important issue in your mind is that US employers get the smartest people in the world.

And this is a more important issue than US citizens having a job.

Additionally, why shouldn't there be an advantage to being a citizen?

(I'm all for helping people in other nations, and note that we've brought a lot of people out of poverty... but do we have to bring our own population into poverty to promote that goal?)

Also the teach the test idea needs to go away.

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

Because your personal choices about business dealings, charitable donations, what sort of bonuses you might give to your personal assistant or landscaper, and a thousand other things are private and can be kept that way if you choose to do so.

However, Trump has made statements about all these things in relation to his character and many (if not most) of these claims have been demonstrated to be, if not outright false, exaggerations. His tax returns are more objective in this regard - which is what concerns Trump.

• Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.
• Five questions we still can’t answer about Donald Trump’s charity donations
• Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group

More info: trump charitable donation

Because your personal choices about business dealings, charitable donations, what sort of bonuses you might give to your personal assistant or landscaper, and a thousand other things are private and can be kept that way if you choose to do so.

However, Trump has made statements about all these things in relation to his character and many (if not most) of these claims have been demonstrated to be, if not outright false, exaggerations. His tax returns are more objective in this regard - which is what concerns Trump.

• Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.
• Five questions we still can’t answer about Donald Trump’s charity donations
• Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group

More info: trump charitable donation

Because your personal choices about business dealings, charitable donations, what sort of bonuses you might give to your personal assistant or landscaper, and a thousand other things are private and can be kept that way if you choose to do so.

However, Trump has made statements about all these things in relation to his character and many (if not most) of these claims have been demonstrated to be, if not outright false, exaggerations. His tax returns are more objective in this regard - which is what concerns Trump.

• Trump promised millions to charity. We found less than $10,000 over 7 years.
• Five questions we still can’t answer about Donald Trump’s charity donations
• Four months after fundraiser, Trump says he gave $1 million to veterans group

More info: trump charitable donation