Which means that there is less expectation of privacy, rules are less restrictive regarding warrants, and so forth. However it does not mean it is a free-for-all. The border patrol MAY NOT stop any random car and search the trunk sieze the contents in order to fund their operations. Just because the first amendment protections are weakened does not mean they no longer exist and it does not mean that the fourth amendment no longer applies.
Yes, it is true that the border patrol routinely ignores this.
In this case, the border patrol would have to show that there was a reasonable cause to sieze the phone and not return it, which is supported by the Wikipedia link you included.
Untrue, the constitution still applies in this case. It would even apply within the so-called 100 mile "border zone", it applies in military bases that are overseas, it applies to US protectorates, and so forth. If this were indeed within areas (outside the 200 mile national waters region) it would be considered piracy and many treaties would apply there that the US would be obligated to respect.
The illegality is being an excess campaign contribution and not reporting it. Paying off someone is legal, paying off someone from campaign funds is legal (though ethically bad), the campaign can even pay more than $2700 for this legally. The crime comes in from paying more than $2700 by an individual to a campaign.
The snag is tying this to the campaign. There is the proven defense, used by politicians in the past, of claiming the payment was done to keep the affair secret from the spouse rather than keeping it secret for campaign reasons. It's a very very fuzzy line. So while this is embarrassing to Trump it's not going to get him convicted of anything.
Remember, the investigations by special counsel are not there in order to "get" Trump. Trump can remain peripheral to the whole thing if he just stops twitting about it and lets it run its course.
No. Manafort worked for dictators in the past is all. He's not a trustworthy guy, certainly not "great". But it has nothing to do with impeaching anyone, Manafort is just a thing that came up during an investigation. The investigation is not even about Trump, and it wouldn't be about Trump if Trump stopped twitting about it.
I am really sick of the attitudes that angels sit on this side of the aisle and demons sit on that side of the aisle. We're all citizens here, not just some of us, and it is not traitorous or immoral to hold diverse political viewpoints. This country is in the most intolerant state I have ever seen it, and I am not young. I lived through the Nixon years, and I remember people from both parties in the same church getting along and being friends with each other, no matter where they stood on the issue. I lived through the Reagan years, and remember Reagan and Tip O'Neil being friends with each other.
Now these days we have the politicis of division - demonize the other side at all costs, refuse to compromise, don't even go to the same D.C. bars. We're headed back to the days when fist fights and duels will occur on the senate floor.
Contracting has so many failures inherent to it. You don't get to fully interview and vet contractors, you're often told to just accept them as-is (at least in the business world). They don't receive the same level of training as actual employees, in regards to safety, security, procedures, etc (and as far as contracting for the military they also aren't subject to the uniform military code of justice, ala the Blackwater embarrassment). Contractors also cost more in almost every case I have seen (other than contracting from overseas), and they are hired despite the cost because they are easier to hire and easier to let go with less paperwork, and they show up in a different part of the accounting books.
Maybe in the NSA case they have to pay more for than for contractors, but so what? Are we really in the situation with our national security that we need to hire the cheapest people out there? It should be obvious you should not hire a cookie cutter IT goon whose only qualifications are a Microsoft Certificate for a serious job at a serious agency.
As an American, I cannot be a traitor either for protesting US wars, criticizing our leaders, etc. In fact, it is a civic duty to criticize our leaders.
As a citizen I don't care who was president or what a party did. I hate partisans, they are the real disloyal ones here, country should come first before ideology or what team you voted for. But no apparently if you're more loyal to the country and its residents than to the president then you're a deep stater.
The real failure here is outsourcing to hiring private contractors to staff vital government functions. Who's going to jail over that?
I am dismayed that so many government functions are contracted out. Including the hiring of mercenaries. These are critical government functions so I don't understand why we leave these to unvetted, untrained, unaccountable, and expensive private companies. is this just an attempt to undermine the govenment by the hardcore small government types?
Clinton was impeached because of the pure hatred the Republicans had for him. The investigation took many years and turned up nothing except a "nope, I didn't cheat on my wife!". High Crimes and Misdemeanors! Even Ken Starr has expressed regret that the took on the Lewinsky case, despite it being the only "win" of his investigation.
I don't think Trump necessarily has anything impeachable either. He certainly hangs out with a lot of crooked people though, and has some terrible lawyers (the worst being Guiliani). The thing that will get Trump in trouble though will be Trump's attempt to make this all go away, the same thing that got Nixon in trouble. Can Trump maintain a level of self control here?
Does "third party" here means a group trying to hack the DNC and then when discovered quickly said "nope, we're just third parties, the good guys, testing your security for freeeeee, honest"?
If it is distributed. Traditionally the ballots are stuffed in a box and then fed into the optical reader somewhere else. That's because it's too high tech for each individual polling place to security transmit the results to a central location, and you run into all sorts of issues that the average election commission is clueless about. How do you distribute certificates reliably (please, please, no preshared keys, this should have better security than the swiss cheese of wifi), how do you train these volunteers to do things correctly, and so forth.
The optical paper ballots are the easy part. What's complicated is what happens between there and the final tally, and that's what's new in the story.
Often these votes get tabulated at several locations (central to each county), shoved onto thumb drives, and driven to a common location for the state. This leaves many avenues open to fraud. Somtimes sending the results electronically is done also, but again this is error prone.
What's really missing in all of this is an end to end verification - as in, "did my vote get counted or not"? And that issue is not taken into account with most voting systems. There are some systems that aim to solve this (you can check online that your vote was counted using a cryptographic method that does not disclose your identity or how you voted). But it's all too complex for the typical election comission. They often don't see that the issues are real things to be concerned about.
What takes the long time is other stuff. Often they don't count the ballot at the polling place, which is often in someone's house, a church, a school room etc. So there's time needed to drive the ballots to a counting station. That's where a lot of tampering has a chance of occuring - not altering ballots but losing a box here and there from certain districts.
But that's still minor. We have absentee ballots by the truckloads that need counting. Almost all of this counting happens *after* the winners and losers have been announced by television, and after most candidates have conceded. These include ballots from military personnel serving overseas (never mind the scandal of some states trying to cull them from the rolls). In California you can sign up to be a permanent vote-by-mail voter, so you never even head to the polls. There are enough absentee voters now that it's a significant fraction of the electorate. Each of those ballots have to be opened by hand, the name checked against the voter rolls, and presumably the signature is checked. This can take many weeks.
Ya, it's pretty fuzzy as a story. Not necessarily fake, but the headline is misleading and the text makes some leaps in logic. To me, "fake" is stuff just made up out of almost nothing - the main business of Breitbart for example.
The Nazi governments cooperated as partners with industrial companies, those companies were not nationalized. The Nazi government did sell off some state owned companies, or sell off enough to no longer have majority shares. Some were sold to entities within the party but not all. For instance, banks were re-privatized by the Nazis, so that the government was no long a majority shareholder. Similar with steel, railroads, ship building, etc. Before the war, industrialists loved the Nazis because they were clearly not acting like the red wave that was sweeping much of europe, and they were rapidly improving their economy.
The term "privatisation" was invented by The Economist in the 1930 to describe Germany's economic policies.
The official Nazi economic programs did have proposals for larger scale nationalization, but in practice they did not do this. Partially one can suppose that after the Great Depression no one wanted this very much. But I think that because they were a populist party they were doing what felt right at the time rather than having a coherent long term economic plan. So rather than say that they had an ideology that guided them, it seems likely that they were flying by the seat of their pants. Also privatization of government owned resources earned them a lot of money which certainly helped get the country out of the terrible situation it was in.
The tricky part in this is realizing that the Nazis did not have strong left versus right economic ideologies. So one can look at their actions and see evidence pointing either way. If someone has a simplistic one dimensional political view of left vs right then they will want to put Nazi Germany on that scale, but they don't fit that way. For instance, the state exerted little control or regulation over how companies conducted their own affairs internally, whereas it had very strong control when it came to operating within the market (building the product vs selling the product). They also were highly critical of communism and socialism. They were in some ways marketing themselves as a hybrid; parts from socialism and parts from nationalism, both of which were popular ideas that arising earlier in the century.
Slashdot Mirror
Which means that there is less expectation of privacy, rules are less restrictive regarding warrants, and so forth. However it does not mean it is a free-for-all. The border patrol MAY NOT stop any random car and search the trunk sieze the contents in order to fund their operations. Just because the first amendment protections are weakened does not mean they no longer exist and it does not mean that the fourth amendment no longer applies.
Yes, it is true that the border patrol routinely ignores this.
In this case, the border patrol would have to show that there was a reasonable cause to sieze the phone and not return it, which is supported by the Wikipedia link you included.
Untrue, the constitution still applies in this case. It would even apply within the so-called 100 mile "border zone", it applies in military bases that are overseas, it applies to US protectorates, and so forth. If this were indeed within areas (outside the 200 mile national waters region) it would be considered piracy and many treaties would apply there that the US would be obligated to respect.
That's art.
Don't forget, it ran faster too.
The illegality is being an excess campaign contribution and not reporting it. Paying off someone is legal, paying off someone from campaign funds is legal (though ethically bad), the campaign can even pay more than $2700 for this legally. The crime comes in from paying more than $2700 by an individual to a campaign.
The snag is tying this to the campaign. There is the proven defense, used by politicians in the past, of claiming the payment was done to keep the affair secret from the spouse rather than keeping it secret for campaign reasons. It's a very very fuzzy line. So while this is embarrassing to Trump it's not going to get him convicted of anything.
Remember, the investigations by special counsel are not there in order to "get" Trump. Trump can remain peripheral to the whole thing if he just stops twitting about it and lets it run its course.
The next leader will probably be Putin though...
No. Manafort worked for dictators in the past is all. He's not a trustworthy guy, certainly not "great". But it has nothing to do with impeaching anyone, Manafort is just a thing that came up during an investigation. The investigation is not even about Trump, and it wouldn't be about Trump if Trump stopped twitting about it.
Apparently there was no Russian meddling, so Reality Winner just leaked a fake document. How can you classify a fake document?
I am really sick of the attitudes that angels sit on this side of the aisle and demons sit on that side of the aisle. We're all citizens here, not just some of us, and it is not traitorous or immoral to hold diverse political viewpoints. This country is in the most intolerant state I have ever seen it, and I am not young. I lived through the Nixon years, and I remember people from both parties in the same church getting along and being friends with each other, no matter where they stood on the issue. I lived through the Reagan years, and remember Reagan and Tip O'Neil being friends with each other.
Now these days we have the politicis of division - demonize the other side at all costs, refuse to compromise, don't even go to the same D.C. bars. We're headed back to the days when fist fights and duels will occur on the senate floor.
What classified info did Comey leak? He leaked a memo that was not classified. Leaking by itself is not illegal.
Contracting has so many failures inherent to it. You don't get to fully interview and vet contractors, you're often told to just accept them as-is (at least in the business world). They don't receive the same level of training as actual employees, in regards to safety, security, procedures, etc (and as far as contracting for the military they also aren't subject to the uniform military code of justice, ala the Blackwater embarrassment). Contractors also cost more in almost every case I have seen (other than contracting from overseas), and they are hired despite the cost because they are easier to hire and easier to let go with less paperwork, and they show up in a different part of the accounting books.
Maybe in the NSA case they have to pay more for than for contractors, but so what? Are we really in the situation with our national security that we need to hire the cheapest people out there? It should be obvious you should not hire a cookie cutter IT goon whose only qualifications are a Microsoft Certificate for a serious job at a serious agency.
As an American, I cannot be a traitor either for protesting US wars, criticizing our leaders, etc. In fact, it is a civic duty to criticize our leaders.
As a citizen I don't care who was president or what a party did. I hate partisans, they are the real disloyal ones here, country should come first before ideology or what team you voted for. But no apparently if you're more loyal to the country and its residents than to the president then you're a deep stater.
The real failure here is outsourcing to hiring private contractors to staff vital government functions. Who's going to jail over that?
I am dismayed that so many government functions are contracted out. Including the hiring of mercenaries. These are critical government functions so I don't understand why we leave these to unvetted, untrained, unaccountable, and expensive private companies. is this just an attempt to undermine the govenment by the hardcore small government types?
Yup, and that name made me completely confused by the headline.
Clinton was impeached because of the pure hatred the Republicans had for him. The investigation took many years and turned up nothing except a "nope, I didn't cheat on my wife!". High Crimes and Misdemeanors! Even Ken Starr has expressed regret that the took on the Lewinsky case, despite it being the only "win" of his investigation.
I don't think Trump necessarily has anything impeachable either. He certainly hangs out with a lot of crooked people though, and has some terrible lawyers (the worst being Guiliani). The thing that will get Trump in trouble though will be Trump's attempt to make this all go away, the same thing that got Nixon in trouble. Can Trump maintain a level of self control here?
Does "third party" here means a group trying to hack the DNC and then when discovered quickly said "nope, we're just third parties, the good guys, testing your security for freeeeee, honest"?
The board owns the company. The CEO may have potentially started it by begging for money, but the board were his bosses.
The primary purpose of a startup CEO is to say "dude, can you lend me some money?"
It's a startup. OF COURSE the founders are too full of themselves.
You forgot the seats.
If it is distributed. Traditionally the ballots are stuffed in a box and then fed into the optical reader somewhere else. That's because it's too high tech for each individual polling place to security transmit the results to a central location, and you run into all sorts of issues that the average election commission is clueless about. How do you distribute certificates reliably (please, please, no preshared keys, this should have better security than the swiss cheese of wifi), how do you train these volunteers to do things correctly, and so forth.
The optical paper ballots are the easy part. What's complicated is what happens between there and the final tally, and that's what's new in the story.
Often these votes get tabulated at several locations (central to each county), shoved onto thumb drives, and driven to a common location for the state. This leaves many avenues open to fraud. Somtimes sending the results electronically is done also, but again this is error prone.
What's really missing in all of this is an end to end verification - as in, "did my vote get counted or not"? And that issue is not taken into account with most voting systems. There are some systems that aim to solve this (you can check online that your vote was counted using a cryptographic method that does not disclose your identity or how you voted). But it's all too complex for the typical election comission. They often don't see that the issues are real things to be concerned about.
What takes the long time is other stuff. Often they don't count the ballot at the polling place, which is often in someone's house, a church, a school room etc. So there's time needed to drive the ballots to a counting station. That's where a lot of tampering has a chance of occuring - not altering ballots but losing a box here and there from certain districts.
But that's still minor. We have absentee ballots by the truckloads that need counting. Almost all of this counting happens *after* the winners and losers have been announced by television, and after most candidates have conceded. These include ballots from military personnel serving overseas (never mind the scandal of some states trying to cull them from the rolls). In California you can sign up to be a permanent vote-by-mail voter, so you never even head to the polls. There are enough absentee voters now that it's a significant fraction of the electorate. Each of those ballots have to be opened by hand, the name checked against the voter rolls, and presumably the signature is checked. This can take many weeks.
Ya, it's pretty fuzzy as a story. Not necessarily fake, but the headline is misleading and the text makes some leaps in logic.
To me, "fake" is stuff just made up out of almost nothing - the main business of Breitbart for example.
The Nazi governments cooperated as partners with industrial companies, those companies were not nationalized. The Nazi government did sell off some state owned companies, or sell off enough to no longer have majority shares. Some were sold to entities within the party but not all. For instance, banks were re-privatized by the Nazis, so that the government was no long a majority shareholder. Similar with steel, railroads, ship building, etc. Before the war, industrialists loved the Nazis because they were clearly not acting like the red wave that was sweeping much of europe, and they were rapidly improving their economy.
The term "privatisation" was invented by The Economist in the 1930 to describe Germany's economic policies.
The official Nazi economic programs did have proposals for larger scale nationalization, but in practice they did not do this. Partially one can suppose that after the Great Depression no one wanted this very much. But I think that because they were a populist party they were doing what felt right at the time rather than having a coherent long term economic plan. So rather than say that they had an ideology that guided them, it seems likely that they were flying by the seat of their pants. Also privatization of government owned resources earned them a lot of money which certainly helped get the country out of the terrible situation it was in.
The tricky part in this is realizing that the Nazis did not have strong left versus right economic ideologies. So one can look at their actions and see evidence pointing either way. If someone has a simplistic one dimensional political view of left vs right then they will want to put Nazi Germany on that scale, but they don't fit that way. For instance, the state exerted little control or regulation over how companies conducted their own affairs internally, whereas it had very strong control when it came to operating within the market (building the product vs selling the product). They also were highly critical of communism and socialism. They were in some ways marketing themselves as a hybrid; parts from socialism and parts from nationalism, both of which were popular ideas that arising earlier in the century.