The question was, what does the Clinton *Foundation* owe those countries. Not "what pressure may be brought to bear on Clinton as a result of donations to the Clinton Foundation?"
Re the numbers -- got a respectable source to back up the assertion it's 7.5% of all donations vs the 2.5% I quoted? And then another respectable source to explain why these donors had so much more influence on policy than the non-ME donors of the 90%+?
The irony of someone complaining that renewables advocates aren't taking into account issues beyond money, and then suggesting nuclear as an alternative...
Right. Cos coal extraction has been a subsidy-free means of production since its inception, and has never had a free pass at anything. Except, oh wait, blowing the fucking tops off mountains, black lung, etc et fucking cetera.
Good Christ, have none of you idiots heard of the cost of capital? If investors selling stock were a net positive, investments wouldn't work. You sound like a Brexiteer crowing about the short-run effect of a lower GBP on exports.
Every major investment firm with actively managed funds takes criteria other than profitability into account when deciding what to buy and what to sell. For example, a special situations fund will only buy companies it expects to be rebounding from serious trouble. Taking sustainability issues into account is just fine, and not different in kind from what funds already do.
Obviously large scale divestment matters: it can cause the divested stock's price to fall over the long term. That puts pressure on management to address the issues causing the divestment. The basic mechanism is pretty simple. I don't know why you're making it out to be impossible, it's obviously not. And obviously, if stocks in multiple companies in a sector all start to fall because of divestment, then the sector as a whole comes under pressure. Again, hardly rocket science.
Ooh, ooh! I can answer that one! Absolutely nothing whatsoever, because it's a charitable foundation and doesn't have business contracts with countries in the Middle East.
The Clinton Foundation has raised $50m or less from Middle Eastern countries since inception, out of a total of $2bn.
We've deployed 60 Surface Pro 4s this year to DRP folks with docks for their desks and VPN capabilities for home. We've seen our helpdesk volume bump up expectedly as a result, but have yet to see that normalize.
Meanwhile, IBM have deployed more than 90,000 Macs to replace PCs (at users' discretion -- 3 out of 4 choose a Mac over a PC) and have seen helpdesk volumes decline dramatically: 3.5% of Mac users call a helpdesk each year, vs 40% of PC users....
You said 90km from one side of Madrid to the other. 90km takes you from Meco to Valmojado. In no conceivable world would those little villages be considered part of Madrid. You said you have a 30km commute from the border of the inner city to your place of work. That's like Alcobendas to Buenavista -- a massive journey. I really strongly doubt that is a typical commuter journey for 90%+ of Madrilenos.
There are tens of millions of urban residents of European cities who live in houses in the outer city who commute in to work by public transport daily without any of the issues you describe. I personally commute from NW London to the centre of town daily. It takes 40mins door to door on the tube.
"The only reason we're pretending is so China will stop letting Russia transport military supplies through their territory to North Vietnam. Talk about outdated." Really? That's the only reason you can think of? Off the top of my head: - The Chinese now have practical guidance to how to push Trump's buttons in relation to US foreign policy stances towards China. They could, if they wished, put a hundred clever people in a room with the sole task of spending the next three months building a plan of action for taking advantage of that - China could choose to make life difficult for US companies, both overtly and covertly, in response - China could bring North Korea into play as a lever - China could disengage from the US and turn towards other economies etc etc
Incidentally, I'm terribly interested in understanding what meaningful difference you see between someone being a Trump supporter and someone who happens to support Trump. So far as I can see, you've just added in a "happens" as though it was random chance or an external agency that made someone support Trump, but no doubt it means something profound to you.
Oh nonsense. We all, individuals and companies, judge people for words and acts all the time, including platform granting and denial. I'm sure we all are fabulously multidimensional, but that doesn't give us a free pass from having consequences applied to our behaviour, whether we like it or not -- and whether the behaviour is about whether to grant / withdraw a platform or what we choose to say when using such platforms.
If Twitter gets this wrong, they'll suffer the consequences as you say, but frankly I heartily doubt it. They're much more concerned about being seen as a platform for hateful speech at present, because they see that as driving away more people.
In what way is it a stupid idea? They are doing it to avoid advertisers and users migrating away from their platform. Obviously, they have to weigh up Trump supporters and others leaving in outrage at the ban, vs others leaving in outrage at the lack of a ban. It's not clear that one group is self-evidently larger than the other. And who knows, maybe the weighing up is made easier by the political and moral beliefs of the decision-makers. So be it: they're running a private company, not providing a public service.
Since you're continuing to be obtuse about this, let me spell it out for you. Many gay couples want, and can, have children, through a multiplicity of routes, including adoption, surrogacy, complex family arrangements etc. Laws which would forbid this would be a bad thing. The right to have children thus matters, whether an individual has a womb or does not.
And believe it or not, there's also this thing where people pretend they were joking when they say hateful things. Distinguishing the one from the other is a right old pain in the backside.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the shareholders look at how the rules are being applied, and are content that it's being done in a way that best protects their commercial interests?
Perhaps they don't really care about being taken seriously by the likes of you? Perhaps you feel that's very rude and unfair of them. Cry me a river. It's a private entity. They don't need to give two shits about your views (or mine), so long as they stay within the law.
Perhaps you're right and their application of the laws will put off users and cause them to go bust. Or perhaps you're wrong, and it will turn out to be a brilliant commercial move. Who knows? But you know, if you're jolly cross about how they run themselves, you can always set up your own platform, and attract people to it by its fearless championing of free speech. Oh wait, no need: there's Breitbart.
Jesus, why can't you people read? He said that Democrats do *not* have an issue with people being called illegal immigrants. And then you get all ranty about not being able to call a spade a spade, based on your inability to read what he actually wrote.
Liberalists (great neologism, there) basically don't say anything of the sort. Rightists say that liberalists say this shit to get themselves all steamed up and cross about liberalists, but like very large amounts of other things that rightists believe, there's no materially significant factual basis to it. For example, Twitter is, you may be astounded to find out, not in fact a font of liberalism but a commercial company whose services are used by large numbers of people of all political persuasions.
How this kind of comment gets marked insightful is beyond me. Twitter isn't trying to solve everything, obviously. Twitter is trying to protect its commercial interests. This includes setting rules for how its services get used, and enforcing them. Don't like the rules? Cry me a river. It's their house. Go set up your own soap-box on another corner of the internet instead.
Because there's this tremendous innovation that you've probably not heard of, it's so gosh-danged new. Called adoption. (Not that there aren't also lots of other options, too)
What's wrong with a 7.5 year payback period for large-scale infrastructure? What's the payback period for a typical nuclear, coal or gas plant? Most of them take more than 5 years to construct, for a start!
Slashdot Mirror
The question was, what does the Clinton *Foundation* owe those countries. Not "what pressure may be brought to bear on Clinton as a result of donations to the Clinton Foundation?"
Re the numbers -- got a respectable source to back up the assertion it's 7.5% of all donations vs the 2.5% I quoted? And then another respectable source to explain why these donors had so much more influence on policy than the non-ME donors of the 90%+?
Care to explain the difference between how stocks and futures respond to supply and demand?
The irony of someone complaining that renewables advocates aren't taking into account issues beyond money, and then suggesting nuclear as an alternative...
Right. Cos coal extraction has been a subsidy-free means of production since its inception, and has never had a free pass at anything. Except, oh wait, blowing the fucking tops off mountains, black lung, etc et fucking cetera.
Good Christ, have none of you idiots heard of the cost of capital? If investors selling stock were a net positive, investments wouldn't work. You sound like a Brexiteer crowing about the short-run effect of a lower GBP on exports.
Every major investment firm with actively managed funds takes criteria other than profitability into account when deciding what to buy and what to sell. For example, a special situations fund will only buy companies it expects to be rebounding from serious trouble. Taking sustainability issues into account is just fine, and not different in kind from what funds already do.
Obviously large scale divestment matters: it can cause the divested stock's price to fall over the long term. That puts pressure on management to address the issues causing the divestment. The basic mechanism is pretty simple. I don't know why you're making it out to be impossible, it's obviously not. And obviously, if stocks in multiple companies in a sector all start to fall because of divestment, then the sector as a whole comes under pressure. Again, hardly rocket science.
Ooh, ooh! I can answer that one! Absolutely nothing whatsoever, because it's a charitable foundation and doesn't have business contracts with countries in the Middle East.
The Clinton Foundation has raised $50m or less from Middle Eastern countries since inception, out of a total of $2bn.
I hope that clears things up for you.
We've deployed 60 Surface Pro 4s this year to DRP folks with docks for their desks and VPN capabilities for home. We've seen our helpdesk volume bump up expectedly as a result, but have yet to see that normalize.
Meanwhile, IBM have deployed more than 90,000 Macs to replace PCs (at users' discretion -- 3 out of 4 choose a Mac over a PC) and have seen helpdesk volumes decline dramatically: 3.5% of Mac users call a helpdesk each year, vs 40% of PC users....
http://www.computerworld.com/a...
You said 90km from one side of Madrid to the other. 90km takes you from Meco to Valmojado. In no conceivable world would those little villages be considered part of Madrid. You said you have a 30km commute from the border of the inner city to your place of work. That's like Alcobendas to Buenavista -- a massive journey. I really strongly doubt that is a typical commuter journey for 90%+ of Madrilenos.
There are tens of millions of urban residents of European cities who live in houses in the outer city who commute in to work by public transport daily without any of the issues you describe. I personally commute from NW London to the centre of town daily. It takes 40mins door to door on the tube.
Newsflash: major US cities aren't the same as Paris, and load factors on buses are a shit ton higher there than where you reside.
Since when do dictators not need staff? What a dumbass thing to say
"The only reason we're pretending is so China will stop letting Russia transport military supplies through their territory to North Vietnam. Talk about outdated."
Really? That's the only reason you can think of? Off the top of my head:
- The Chinese now have practical guidance to how to push Trump's buttons in relation to US foreign policy stances towards China. They could, if they wished, put a hundred clever people in a room with the sole task of spending the next three months building a plan of action for taking advantage of that
- China could choose to make life difficult for US companies, both overtly and covertly, in response
- China could bring North Korea into play as a lever
- China could disengage from the US and turn towards other economies
etc etc
Incidentally, I'm terribly interested in understanding what meaningful difference you see between someone being a Trump supporter and someone who happens to support Trump. So far as I can see, you've just added in a "happens" as though it was random chance or an external agency that made someone support Trump, but no doubt it means something profound to you.
Oh nonsense. We all, individuals and companies, judge people for words and acts all the time, including platform granting and denial. I'm sure we all are fabulously multidimensional, but that doesn't give us a free pass from having consequences applied to our behaviour, whether we like it or not -- and whether the behaviour is about whether to grant / withdraw a platform or what we choose to say when using such platforms.
If Twitter gets this wrong, they'll suffer the consequences as you say, but frankly I heartily doubt it. They're much more concerned about being seen as a platform for hateful speech at present, because they see that as driving away more people.
In what way is it a stupid idea? They are doing it to avoid advertisers and users migrating away from their platform. Obviously, they have to weigh up Trump supporters and others leaving in outrage at the ban, vs others leaving in outrage at the lack of a ban. It's not clear that one group is self-evidently larger than the other. And who knows, maybe the weighing up is made easier by the political and moral beliefs of the decision-makers. So be it: they're running a private company, not providing a public service.
Since you're continuing to be obtuse about this, let me spell it out for you. Many gay couples want, and can, have children, through a multiplicity of routes, including adoption, surrogacy, complex family arrangements etc. Laws which would forbid this would be a bad thing. The right to have children thus matters, whether an individual has a womb or does not.
And believe it or not, there's also this thing where people pretend they were joking when they say hateful things. Distinguishing the one from the other is a right old pain in the backside.
God, you lot don't half whine.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the shareholders look at how the rules are being applied, and are content that it's being done in a way that best protects their commercial interests?
Perhaps they don't really care about being taken seriously by the likes of you? Perhaps you feel that's very rude and unfair of them. Cry me a river. It's a private entity. They don't need to give two shits about your views (or mine), so long as they stay within the law.
Perhaps you're right and their application of the laws will put off users and cause them to go bust. Or perhaps you're wrong, and it will turn out to be a brilliant commercial move. Who knows? But you know, if you're jolly cross about how they run themselves, you can always set up your own platform, and attract people to it by its fearless championing of free speech. Oh wait, no need: there's Breitbart.
Jesus, why can't you people read? He said that Democrats do *not* have an issue with people being called illegal immigrants. And then you get all ranty about not being able to call a spade a spade, based on your inability to read what he actually wrote.
Liberalists (great neologism, there) basically don't say anything of the sort. Rightists say that liberalists say this shit to get themselves all steamed up and cross about liberalists, but like very large amounts of other things that rightists believe, there's no materially significant factual basis to it. For example, Twitter is, you may be astounded to find out, not in fact a font of liberalism but a commercial company whose services are used by large numbers of people of all political persuasions.
How this kind of comment gets marked insightful is beyond me. Twitter isn't trying to solve everything, obviously. Twitter is trying to protect its commercial interests. This includes setting rules for how its services get used, and enforcing them. Don't like the rules? Cry me a river. It's their house. Go set up your own soap-box on another corner of the internet instead.
His club, his rules. I thought you right-wing folks were in favour of property rights?
Because there's this tremendous innovation that you've probably not heard of, it's so gosh-danged new. Called adoption. (Not that there aren't also lots of other options, too)
What's wrong with a 7.5 year payback period for large-scale infrastructure? What's the payback period for a typical nuclear, coal or gas plant? Most of them take more than 5 years to construct, for a start!