Slashdot Mirror

The thing is if you start 20 businesses and 17 of them go bankrupt, you are still doing ok as a businessman.

Most businesses have, regardless of who started them, failed. The majority of those failures occur within the very first year of operation. Thats what average looks like.

While all businesses do fail eventually (over the timespan of "forever", it's hard not to eventually fail), but it's certainly not in the first year. Most small businesses fail just because they are not worth anything to someone else. When the owner of a small business dies or retires, his business usually fails -- because nobody wants to pay money to buy "Henry Adelson Landscaping" when they can just start their own landscaping company. From a Washington Post Article on the subject:

As far as we can tell, there is no statistical basis for the assertion that nine out of 10 businesses fail. It appears to be one of those nonsense facts that people repeat without thinking too clearly about it.
...

About half of all new establishments survive five years or more and about one-third survive 10 years or more. As one would expect, the probability of survival increases with a firm’s age. Survival rates have changed little over time.

Donald Trump's bankruptcies are the classic "heads I win, tails you lose" scam. If the building project does well, he makes a bunch of money. If it doesn't, he just has the development company declare bankruptcy and all the subcontractors and suppliers that provided the labor and supplies to build the project get screwed.

despite mounting video evidence that is almost never the case.

Citation needed. I'd be willing to bet that the GP was alluding to that Gentle Giant (TM) in Ferguson, where the evidence supported the officer. But hey, let's perpetuate the lie that was "Hands Up, Don't Shoot!"

Yes really. Ignore the ignorant judgemental AC.

Plenty of good articles have been written on this awful subject. I doubt any of us here can do better.
But start with Gene Weingarten's Pulitzer-Winning Feature, 'Fatal Distraction' from 2009:

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

Two decades ago, this was relatively rare. But in the early 1990s, car-safety experts declared that passenger-side front airbags could kill children, and they recommended that child seats be moved to the back of the car; then, for even more safety for the very young, that the baby seats be pivoted to face the rear. If few foresaw the tragic consequence of the lessened visibility of the child . . . well, who can blame them? What kind of person forgets a baby?

The wealthy do, it turns out. And the poor, and the middle class. Parents of all ages and ethnicities do it. Mothers are just as likely to do it as fathers. It happens to the chronically absent-minded and to the fanatically organized, to the college-educated and to the marginally literate. In the last 10 years, it has happened to a dentist. A postal clerk. A social worker. A police officer. An accountant. A soldier. A paralegal. An electrician. A Protestant clergyman. A rabbinical student. A nurse. A construction worker. An assistant principal. It happened to a mental health counselor, a college professor and a pizza chef. It happened to a pediatrician. It happened to a rocket scientist....

So bad parents come from all walks of life. We already knew this.

Yes really. Ignore the ignorant judgemental AC.

Plenty of good articles have been written on this awful subject. I doubt any of us here can do better.
But start with Gene Weingarten's Pulitzer-Winning Feature, 'Fatal Distraction' from 2009:

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

Two decades ago, this was relatively rare. But in the early 1990s, car-safety experts declared that passenger-side front airbags could kill children, and they recommended that child seats be moved to the back of the car; then, for even more safety for the very young, that the baby seats be pivoted to face the rear. If few foresaw the tragic consequence of the lessened visibility of the child . . . well, who can blame them? What kind of person forgets a baby?

The wealthy do, it turns out. And the poor, and the middle class. Parents of all ages and ethnicities do it. Mothers are just as likely to do it as fathers. It happens to the chronically absent-minded and to the fanatically organized, to the college-educated and to the marginally literate. In the last 10 years, it has happened to a dentist. A postal clerk. A social worker. A police officer. An accountant. A soldier. A paralegal. An electrician. A Protestant clergyman. A rabbinical student. A nurse. A construction worker. An assistant principal. It happened to a mental health counselor, a college professor and a pizza chef. It happened to a pediatrician. It happened to a rocket scientist....

Same topic (different article
) was submitted by myself on Friday May 13, 2016 @09:58AM

The Washington Post article was longer and had more info, if not as much formatting.

The fact that the defendant is, in fact, a pig farmer, is overlooked in the capital murder trial.

That was a really bad example. The worst serial killer in Canadian history was a pig farmer - and he was feeding the women he killed to his pigs.

Among actual scientists, GMOs are a considered a beneficial technology and legislation to oppose GMOs is ignorant and detrimental to society. https://www.washingtonpost.com...

That's not the law in Canada.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Toronto police officer sentenced to 6 years in teen shooting
By Associated Press
July 28 2016

(Constable James Forcillo, a Toronto police officer was sentenced Thursday to six years in prison for the 2013 shooting death of death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim on a streetcar. In a video, Yatim was holding a knife inside a streetcar by himself, while police yelled, "Drop your knife!" 3 shots are fired. After a pause, 6 more shots are fired while Yatim is lying on the floor of the streetcar. Forcillo testified that he believed Yatim was about to come off the streetcar to attack him.)

Justice [Edward] Then said Thursday that Forcilloâ(TM)s behavior âoeconstitutes a fundamental failure to understand his duty to preserve all life, not just his own,â Then said.

In letting loose a second volley of shots on Yatim, Forcillo committed an âoeegregious breach of trustâ and his sentence must serve as notice to other police officers that they should open fire âoeonly as a last resort,â Justice Edward Then told the Toronto court.

Once weapons are brandished and threats of death are made, deescalation is not an option. If the cops just leave (in order to meet her demands for de-escalation) and the child ends up dead at the hands of the person brandishing the weapon the cops would be crucified for not protecting the child. She took her life into her hands when she pointed a shotgun at the police and threatened to kill him.

I assume, by your comments, that you haven't taken the time to read into the story at all. The police were there to arrest another person on more significant assault charges. here is a link.

There is in effect no difference and the purpose is exactly the same

You'll want to educate yourself as this statement betrays a profound ignorance on the topic

http://thelibertarianrepublic....
http://time.com/3222176/campus...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

If you take away nothing else from the above, you must acknowledge that they are lowering the burden of proof. That's hardly "no difference".

They are being rewarded not fired. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already done, they are probably moving from the DNC to Hillary's campaign

DWS's position is a "honorary chair of the campaign's 50-state program". She has no responsibilities or voice in the campaign.

You mean her name will appear on no official document or email. She has access to Hillary, she is there to advice Hillary.

She was given a desk and told to STFU to limit additional fallout.

She is given a desk because they think she still has things to contribute to Hillary. Otherwise she wouldn't be at the campaign, Hillary is not being publicly hypocritical for no gain.

Once the election is over she'll not be part of the administration nor will she possibly have a senate seat. Not exactly a reward.

Criminal actions and embarrassing the Clintons is no barrier to continued employment by the Clintons. The loyalty displayed by these acts is valued, there will be more such acts so people of extreme loyalty are highly valued.

Oh, and I consider the Clinton Foundation to be an extension of a Hillary administration. So if she winds up there that counts too.

"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism ... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The only way his answer is any better than Hillary's is if (a) you ignore history or (b) if you get Hillary confused with "If I knew then what I know now I would still support the war" Jeb

Except c) that dog still don't hunt. Trump wasn't privy to classified intelligence as a U.S. Senator - Hillary was, she just didn't bother to read it. John Edwards had an unequivocal "yeah, I fucked up that vote" confession back in 2005. Whereas right now Hillary still engages in the chickenshit cop-out of blaming Bush, when she was too lazy to read the briefings she was given. And she can't blame Bush for repeating the Iraq clusterfuck in Syria and Libya, which she did as SOS. So, any way you wish to split the hair, Trump is better than Hillary on the Iraq War.

No lesser evil. Not this time.

Pssst..... everyone, it isn't "libtards against guns" - its liability. Sweet Jeebuz in a smartcar, when an emoticon becomes a second amendment flashpoint, perhaps it isn't the "libtards" that have a really big problem.

I really don't care what Apple does with its emoji. But do you seriously think it's going to make any difference in liability when students get kicked out of school for biting pop tarts to make a "gun" shape? Hoplophobia is out of control in this country.

I thohught it was fear of Pop Tarts - Hell you see what one of those does if you leave it in the toaster too long? But semi seriously, I Kellogs getting sued is far fetched. Or then again, maybe not.

If anything, the value of an investment in college is higher now than it’s ever been.

The broadest measure of the productivity differential between high school graduates and college graduates is how much employers are willing to pay for the latter over the former.

34.4 percent graduated with no debt.

12.0 percent graduated with $1-$9,999 in debt.

18.2 percent graduated with $10,000-$19,999 in debt.

15.5 percent graduated with $20,000-$29,999 in debt.

8.9 percent graduated with $30,000-$39,999 in debt.

5.3 percent graduated with $40,000-$49,999 in debt.

5.3 percent graduated with $50,000-$99,999 in debt.

0.5 percent graduated with over $100,000 in debt.

the median debt (i.e., 50th percentile) level for all graduating seniors is slightly above $10,000 for those receiving a bachelor’s degree. This is probably less than an average new car loan.

A recent survey found 40% of American women are now obese.

Of course this varies by region and demographics. To give an example, I came out of the grocery store behind a middle-aged white woman. She looked classy in her white slacks, strappy heels and light-beige top with white markings. Carried herself upright and walked confidently to her car carrying her one bag. A definite MILF.

Next to her waddled two younger black women (I'm guessing late 20s) whose literally could not contain themselves in their clothes. Muffin top doesn't go far enough. The woman behind the shopping cart was at least as wide as the cart itself, if not wider, slumped over shuffling along. The one beside her wasn't any better

I'm not trying to turn this into a racist thing because there are just as many obese white women in my area, I am only giving one data point to show the differences.

Pssst..... everyone, it isn't "libtards against guns" - its liability. Sweet Jeebuz in a smartcar, when an emoticon becomes a second amendment flashpoint, perhaps it isn't the "libtards" that have a really big problem.

I really don't care what Apple does with its emoji. But do you seriously think it's going to make any difference in liability when students get kicked out of school for biting pop tarts to make a "gun" shape? Hoplophobia is out of control in this country.

No. It was Hillary

Also, I suggest you take a look at how many states are currently being run by Republican governors and legislatures.

Gerrymandering

Even if all the scandals she's been involved in were "made up bullshit", that would just mean that the public does not fancy her, which should be enough for her to lose the nomination.

You misspelled rightwing birther loons. And other assorted paranoid schizos who've been jerking off to Clintons since... forever.
Well, since the last millennium at least.

Would you look a that?
Some "people" simply can't stand the fact that "some people" are conspiracy theory rightwing birther loons who have been inventing conspiracy theories about Clintons since the early '90s at least.
And those same "people" like to present their own loony conspiracy theories as the views "of the people".

Hmm... where did I hear that kind of rhetoric recently... Calling personal political goals "the will of the people"? Oh that's right!
It's the guys running for office in order to shut down the government against the will of the ACTUAL people.
Imagine people like that also labeling as "trolls" anyone disagreeing with them. Naaaah... They wouldn't do THAT?

Manufactured outrage allows people to feign wounded astonishment that their opponent would sink so low. Right now, liberals are manufacturing outrage about what was quite obviously a throw-away, sarcastic statement from Trump. The other day, conservatives in North Carolina were trying to stir up outrage by accusing Tim Kaine of wearing a Honduran flag lapel pin during his convention speech (their accusation ended with the one-word sentence "Shameful."). Turns out they were just ignorant, and Kaine's pin was not a Honduran flag but a service pin in honor of his son, who is in the Marines and deployed at the moment. I'm not totally sure why we do this. I mean, it's not persuasive, it's only reinforcing for people who already believe their side is right. Maybe if one side were constantly being accused of bullshit without accusing the other side as well, it would appear weak? https://www.washingtonpost.com...

OK, may be you really don't understand.

OP suggests that the right course of action if you don't want neither Trump nor Hillary as president is to vote third party candidate, in order to rob both said candidates of electoral votes.
Thus making sure that neither candidate has enough votes to secure the win.
Which, according to the OP is the right thing to do if you don't want Trump nor Hillary - cause then the House of Representatives must make the call.
House of representatives which is loaded with a Republican majority.

So that alone makes danbert8 a liar - cause saying that only way to avoid Trump AND Hillary is to give the decision to people who will elect Trump IS A LIE.

Except, in this case there's also all that deliberate stalling to even hold a hearing for the Supreme Court judge nominated back in MARCH.
Who is stalling? Republicans.
Why is that important?
Cause right now Supreme Court is deadlocked between "republican" and "democrat" judges. There is no tie-breaker.

Meaning that should there be a contentious election like the Bush-Gore one was (which is what danbert8 is hoping for) Supreme Court will not be able to make that decision.

I.e. Not only is danbert8 lying - he is pretending that aside from his little "modest proposal" everything is "as usual".
When actually Republicans have been stalling the nomination cause they are hoping for an election which would be made in the House - by Republicans.
While hypocritically claiming it's all about "the American people should have a say in the court's direction."

Which is why danbert8 is not a mere liar, but a sniveling coward with no balls.
None. Null testicle. Nothing dangling down below.

He made a very tired joke

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 Thursday 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 â" 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 â" Russia, China, anybody â" to interfere, to hack into the system of anybody's in this country."

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

Lastly, even though very clearly he wasn't joking, even as a joke this is wholly unpresidential. So to sum it up, he clearly wasn't joking and even under this absurd excuse concocted two days after the fact Trump still loses points with this one, As simple as that. And all around fscked up for him anyway you see it.

But as Trump himself said, he could go and shoot someone in Times Square and his voters would still support him. That part he did get right.

IF ANY international norm can still be called uncontroversial, it is the stricture against cross-border aggression by one sovereign state against another. Certainly any failure to enforce it in one place invites violations elsewhere.

...

But given the global repercussions of this struggle, the United States and its allies cannot afford to let Mr. Putin break the rules.

This is the same Cold War "domino effect" logic that had us fighting in Vietnam for a decade. And the hypocrisy on display is clear as day. How many sovereign states have been on the receiving end of "cross-border aggression" from the US in this century alone? Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria..... "The Rules" basically boil down to "Do as the US says, or else."

America is a liberal country - Love it or leave it.

Point 1: America is 38% conservative and 24% Liberal. (source).

Point 2: "Love it or leave it" is effectively "shut up and sit down". It calls for a suppression of free speech typical of tyrannical, abusive dictatorship. Turkey can say "love it or leave it" with some justification. America cannot.

That criminal witch is untouchable [...]

Insults are the domain of the Democrats, have some couth. Republicans don't generally use insult as a substitute for rational thinking, that's a Democratic play.

We could easily build stories about Hillary being Marie Antoinette ("let them eat cake"), or Lucrecia Borgia (for all Clinton's opponents who have died under mysterious circumstances), or even Lilith ("Mother of demons"). Some of them would even have a rational basis. It would be a counterpoint to Trump being Hilter, Stalin, or Cthulhu.

But we don't, because we believe the head rules the heart. We have smart people here at Slashdot, we don't have to descend to common name calling.

"Heart rules the head", IOW emotional thinking, is what Democrats do.

We don't *need* to spout lies or insults.

Don't descend to their level.

(And if you're a Democrat reading this and are angered: take the challenge. Post a reason why Hillary would be better than Trump as president, without outright lying, insulting, or wishful fantasy. In other words, cite their stated positions instead of "he'll do *this*" or "she'll do *that*. I don't think anyone can, but if anyone can, they'd be here on Slashdot.)

Video Speed Controller will change your life.

We've known for decades that long-term exposure to zero-g causes all kinds of health problems in humans. Including messing up your eyesight/.

We've also known for decades how to solve this problem. Create some gravity by spinning the spacecraft. If spacecraft is too small to make this feasible, attach a ballast on a tether and have the spacecraft and ballast orbit each other.

This is why I rank Woodrow Wilson as the worst US President of All Time: He really put into practice this idea that "Europe's problems are America's problems", and it's saturated the minds of Americans ever since.

Unfortunately it didn't. We stood by for two years while Hitler took over almost all of Europe, and it took Pearl Harbor to crack through our isolationism.

Your assertion that an Atlantic Wall is enough to protect us also makes me suspect that you're forgetting what happened in WWII.

The Russians are deeply pragmatic. What would they have to gain by annexing the Baltic states?

Russia just invaded Ukraine in 2014. What did they have to gain in that case? I hate to send you to a George Will article but it popped up in my first Google search and I have to go now.

Many law enforcement leaders are acting as if no crimes can be solved unless all cell phones are made more vulnerable.

What a great idea.... weaken everyone for a few rare cases.

It seems to me that encryption is increasingly being used as a smokescreen for law enforcement incompetence. There are reports that one of the killers of the French priest earlier this week was not only on a watch list but was actually wearing an electronic ankle tag.

That is eerily like the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in London in 2013. The official government report into the killing found that:

"...the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."

Perhaps if the law enforcement agencies focused on making better use of the information they already have, rather than trying to erode everyone's privacy, they might be more successful.

She's gleefully in favor of infringing on constitutionally protected rights,

Taking your guns away once again, I assume?

supports nationally self-destructive immigration policies,

Are you referring to the couple thousand Syrian women and children fleeing the aftermath of your stupid war? Or the 12 million Mexicans he wants to load onto rail cars and dump into the desert, south of the 2000 mile wall you think he's actually going to build?

and wants to see the government involved in wildly more private sector activities, at both the business and personal level.

Does she want to dictate where iPhones can be manufactured? Or does she have a history of abusing eminent domain to seize people's property?

The only good thing about PowerPoint was that it forced people to think about what they were going to say and in what order.

Exactly. If Abraham Lincoln had Powerpoint, the Gettysburg Address could have looked like this.

If the US government fails to care about blatant disregard of law because...it's a Clinton and she's a Democrat...then perhaps it's legitimate to appeal to other state-level actors to help throw aside the veil of secrecy?

At what point are the people of the US entitled to recognize that their government directly serves the interests of a small coterie of oligarchs, and try to work around it?

Again, let's recall:
"I don't have a private email server"
"It was only private and family correspondence"
"Well nothing secret went on that server"
"Nothing I knew was secret was on that server"
"Nothing ACTUALLY MARKED SECRET was on that server"
and then, after at least a week of denials, a carefully vetted pile of emails was 'given' to the FBI/DOJ and there were STILL secret things found in the correspondence.

And yet, the response from half the electorate and most of the major news organizations is "What me worry?" and "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy*"
*now including Red Scare 2016(tm)

Ok lets, here's what appears to be the first press conference she gave. But there's no evidence that a) she deliberately sent classified emails on the system, b) intended that her lawyers delete work emails along with the personal emails before turning the server over, or c) knew that either had occurred.

But even IF she was guilty of all those things, and the FBI would have prosecuted her if not for her political influence, and by rights she should be in jail.

Even if those things were true.

It's still absurd to consider voting for Trump over her.

Its ego. How do you know? Because Trump has been acting out like this for his entire public life, even when he had no one to "drown out." He just lucked out this time, finally finding the most receptive audience yet.

For example:

Back in the 1993, he lobbied to keep an indian tribe from being official recognized by the federal government because they had plans to build a casino and he didn't want the competition. So he told a house subcommittee that the tribe members don't look like indians.

Back in 1989, Trump took out full-page ads in the 4 largest new york newspapers calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty in order to have five black teenagers executed. They were convicted, but in the 2000s they were all proven innocent.

No, Laureate University she dumped $55 million of taxpayer money into and got Bill $16.5 million of it personally.

Trump, questionable ethics and conflicting story. Clinton, stole taxpayer money.

Ever wonder why the Trump U stories disappeared and never came back? He mentioned the Clinton sealing taxpayer money and they freaked out and told the press to be quiet about it.

Ahh, that "scandal", where an organization paid Bill Clinton $16.5 million and the State Department gave $55 million to a completely different organization.

The press stopped talking about Trump U because it's old news and there's so much other crazy Trump stuff to report.

The press never talked about the Laureate University scandal because it was a dumb idea for a scandal.

What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.

Trump blasts Obama, hopes Russia can find 'missing' Clinton emails
The many problems with Donald Trump's call for Russia to spy on Hillary Clinton
Trump Says He Hopes Russia Can Access Clinton's Emails
Trump Asks Russia to find Clinton's missing emails in Doral [Florida] Appearance

"By the way, they hacked -- they probably have her 33,000 e-mails. I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 e-mails that she lost and deleted because you'd see some beauties there. So let's see."

So he's encouraging them to go back in time to hack her server? Ridiculous.

For anyone that actually cares about the truth, full transcript is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

“They probably have them. I’d like to have them released. It gives me no pause, if they have them, they have them,” Trump added later when asked if his comments were inappropriate. “If Russia or China or any other country has those emails, I mean, to be honest with you, I’d love to see them.”
- Wash Post.

The real estate mogul sought to distance himself from allegations that the Russian government hacked into the Democratic National Committee to benefit his campaign, which Clinton’s campaign manager suggested earlier this week.

“It is so farfetched. It’s so ridiculous. Honestly, I wish I had that power. I’d love to have that power, but Russia has no respect for our country,” Trump said.

I'd say Trump was at least half-serious. He said in no uncertain terms that he'd have no problem if Russia stepped in to do some dirty work on his behalf.

Of course, if the Russians actually deliver, Trump would owe Putin a favor. Ukraine, maybe? Disband NATO?

Dumb not-so-funny, off-the-cuff comments may be fine in reality TV, but they have consequences in international politics. An ex-KGB like Putin could make a predictable narcissist like Trump dance on a string. I'm talkin Godfather II, waking up next to a dead prostitute.

Speaking of press conferences, Hillary hasn't had a press conference the entire year of 2016.

Fantastic! Now you can prove me wrong. Just find one person who did what Hillary did (mishandle classified data but with no intent to leak and with no data leaked) and is in jail, and you will prove me terribly mistaken.

Or, if you can't, then it will be clear that your hatred of Hillary is greater than your love of facts or fairness or patriotism, and that you will make anything up if it fits the narrative you wish were true.

How many cases would you like links to? Here is one from NPR that talks about David Petraeus who was indicted for mishandling classified data. He received one year of probation after pleading out. The same article mentions John Deutch, who was the CIA director under Bill Clinton. President Clinton had to grant him a pardon when he was facing indictment for "Improper handling of classified data." In fact, he basically did the same thing as Clinton - had classified data on a (government owned) computer at home. He was facing indictment because he didn't turn over classified material several days after leaving the CIA. How long did Clinton keep the classified data at her house? Oh and here's another Clinton aid mentioned in the same article: Samuel "Sandy" Berger who destroyed copies of classified data and then lied about doing so. Hmmm didn't Clinton do the same thing - only in her case it was to destroy evidence of wrongdoing? And then again we have Alberto Gonzales, AG under GW Bush. He was investigated just for storing material in a safe that non-cleared people had access to - inside the Justice Department office - though in this case there was no indictment. What about this Navy Engineer who was indicted and convicted for mishandling classified data with no intent to distribute it? This young sailor just took a picture on a submarine and then destroyed the evidence and was indicted and convicted. How about this Marine Corps Major who was dishonorably discharged after using personal email to send classified documents? And here is a lab tech who was prosecuted for taking classified material home from the office - again with no evidence of intent to distribute. How about an NSA Employee who was indicted for leaking material to the press? And a State Department Employeee indicted and convicted for taking classified material home. Are these enough references? Because it took me all of 30 seconds to find these news articles.

And what did the FBI basically say? She's too big to indict.

You have a rare talent, to interpret what people "basically" say. My poor brain can only handle what they "actually" say: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various bad stuff]. We do not see those things here."

How else can you interpret the comment that "No reasonable prosecutor would indict" when it was clearly a violation of the law and we can clearly see dozens of cases above where people were indicted for doing similar things, and in some cases, far less than Clinton? If they could not find cases of prosecution in events similar to hers then

These crimes were exposed by someone we don't like so much.

Best that the Hillary Haters (which is a family tradition in some cultures) could come up with is claiming violation of 18 U.S. Code  599.

Being the kind of people who don't need and don't care for actual facts as long as they think they fit their agenda - they are even quoting the wrong section.
18 U.S. Code  599 refers to CANDIDATES - not candidate's staff or candidate's party's staff.

But as they have such a hardon for Hillary, they are desperate to make something supposedly done by DNC automagically mean that it's an excuse for execution of Hillary.

What they SHOULD be quoting is section 600 - 18 U.S. Code  600.

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Only problem is... at best, that would get them some people in the DNC that no one has ever heard of - not Hillary.

In reality, IT WOULD NOT GET THEM ANYONE cause it is NOT a crime - emails they are quoting prove so.
Key word is PROMISE. I.e. Give assurance of future events.
"IF you do this for me, I WILL do this for you."

Emails are AT BEST describing the exact opposite of that.
It's people ASKING FOR names of people to put on lists of potential nominees. And even that is not a certain nomination. They are LITERALLY asking for names of people who would they like to be CONSIDERED.

Any folks who you'd like to be considered to be on the board of (for example) USPS, NEA, NEH. Basically anyone who has a niche interest and might like to serve on the board of one of these orgs.

Not making promises. Looking for loyalists who have ALREADY pledged their loyalty.
"You DID stuff for me, MAYBE you'll be considered."
That's NOT a promise. At best it is compensation for past service... maybe...
And you can't legislate against that cause then the government would have to fire every government employee and dismantle every government program with every election.
Cause the fact that the candidate would be signing budgets, which pay for paychecks, of cops and judges, who have maintained law and order during candidate's past life - could be construed as compensation for past services.

And in the end, they are not even asking people directly - THEY ARE ASKING FOR RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!
They are asking for references for possible consideration.
So not only is it not a promise - it is not even a promise of a promise.
Casinos and lotteries make more direct promises than that.

But hey... screw that. Did you know that Hillary has a

Please by all means post your dire predictions, but shut up when you're wrong.

I stand corrected. The Persian Gulf will become uninhabitable at the end of this century.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/26/climate-change-could-soon-push-persian-gulf-temperatures-to-lethal-extremes-report-warns/

They are a private company. They can filter, block, promote any speech that they want.

I always said the same about TV and radio companies, but various Statists from FCC and FEC down to Slashdot cowards always disagreed.

Good to see some turnaround in public opinion towards liberty. Except, oh, wait, TV, radio, and even web-sites may not be able to do what they want... Even texting in support of a candidate may be illegal.

Unless, obviously, the candidate is from the Party of Government. For a few decades we had something called Fairness Doctrine, which allowed FCC to enforce "fairness". Libertarians fought it, but at least, with it on the books, one could formally complain against "unfair" coverage. Not any more — with only 7% of journalists being Republicans, the game is played with only one set of goal-posts...

Can you name one disgraced supporter of the Clintons that has been rewarded

"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism ... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

This is why there is actually quite a lot of black trump supporters.

"Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008, according to an account posted on the website of eTurboNews, a trade publication. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

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

That's the same method David Petraeus used.

After receiving several complaints, police detectives decided to follow a TSA agent in Seattle, and caught him filming up a woman's skirt while he followed her on an escalator.

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

All I can say is that most pickup truck owners will not want an electric pickup because their identity is based on something that makes a lot of roaring engine noise - like Harley owners.

I don't see those people settling for a recording on their electrics.

And there are the jackasses who like the belching black smoke.

I think an electric truck will only sell for corporate fleets.

After this post of almost pure bullshit you are hardly the standard bearer fact and reason. I do give you credit for knowing your audience's tastes and prejudices, and playing to them.

On the other hand you might be only a step away from being a Trump supporter.

You're discussing equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

Which is horseshit sloganeering to begin with.

Hint: I grew up dirt poor and wanted to get out of it.

Another temporarily embarrassed millionaire. Hint: if you really grew up poor, then you really must have seen drug addled delinquent assholes make it much farther in life than you have, because they had rich asshole parents who steered them into positions earning six figures as their first "real" job.

Actually, Hitler, Jews, "Gotta Catch 'em All..."

There's a time and a place for everything.