You can certainly say this about most fact-checking, including that by Pulitzer-winners, which is now just as much partisan hacking as the rest of the "journalism".
The simple truth is, of course, the OP meant "Cold War" not "civil war" (in any country). Woosh-woosh-woosh...
Personally, I, actually, toured both Baku and Yerevan with my father in 1988 — Aeroflot was still flying to both capitals from my native Kyiv, and the trip was very educational...
A $185,000 application fee and annual $30,000 operation fee will keep mom-and-pop shops away from their own domains.
Where is the money going to? Who approves the applications and what are the mechanisms for appeals and disputes?
What sort of framework is there to ensure, the fees are not excessive and the services thus purchased — of high quality?
Is it done by the best means known — via vigorous competition — or somehow else? How?
Is this new mechanism related to and/or enabled by the transfer of control of the Internet towards an international body? And, if so, is that the reason, Google and other mega-corporations pushed for the transfer so hard?
And I could buy Stolichnya at the height of the civil war.
Fact Check. We investigate the claim made by a Slashdot poster "Ol Olsoc", that he could buy Stolichnaya at the height of the civil war.
Because it is unclear, which civil war the poster was referring to — and he did not respond to our request for clarification in time for this publication — we give the poster a benefit of the doubt and examine both relevant civil wars: that of the United States and in Russia.
Stolichnaya brand of vodka, according to Wikipedia, was first introduced in 1901. This is four decades after the American Civil War ended.
To be able to buy alcohol during the Russian Civil War, which ended in 1922 (its "height" taking place even earlier), the poster would've had been born in 1901, which would make 115 years-old today, when he made his claim. No people that old are currently alive, however, and scientific consensus is that living beyond that age is impossible. Maybe, the poster was buying alcohol illegally at younger age, but even then he'd have to be above 100 years of age, which is exceedingly unlikely given his manner of speech and presence on the Internet technology web-sites such as Slashdot.
Thus, we rate Ol Olsoc's claim as mostly false and assign it three out four Pinocchios.
Putin to the US is probably kind of like G.W. Bush was to the rest of the world 15 years ago.
Probably-shmobably. There is no obvious difference between the world's sentiment towards America since 2000. The only profound change is among Russians, actually, from 37% approval in 2000, to 46% in 2008, to 15% in 2015.
The engines, which are sound technology
It is called "economic sanctions". Look it up. You impose them to make the manufacturer suffer financially from being unable to sell their goods.
are irrelevant to the relationship between Mr Putin and Mr Trump
They are irrelevant, because no such relationship exists. But the holes in Obama's sanctions-regime remain unexplained. If buying RD-180 engines was wrong, why is it Ok to RD-181? Even more generally, if Russia should suffer under sanctions, why did it require an Act of Congress to stop buying those RD-180ies last year?
Why didn't Obama stop the practice himself? The answer is simple: NASA's rocket would not fly without those, and Obama — who's never seen a problem, which was not best solved with government money — would not allow NASA, the state enterprise, to fall further behind private space firms... Even if that meant helping Putin finances — a small price to pay for "fundamentally changing America".
I could have sworn you said (and I quote): "sexual assault is rape"
What I said right next to that was: "Kissing, even if unwanted, is not sexual assault". Funny, you chose to completely ignore that.
Now, the "sexual assault is rape" bit was sarcasm. To turn a sexual assault into rape requires about as much (slightly less, actually) semantic-stretching as is needed to turn a kiss, however unwanted, into an assault. And battery — as a colleague of yours was doing yesterday.
Back to the basics — the point of mine you desperately try to ignore — is that neither of the two Presidential nominees have ever done it. There is not even a credible accusation, much less proof.
Intimidating witnesses and victims of rape — yes, of that Hillary Clinton, the women's champion, was rather credibly accused decades ago, and not once. Maybe, Democrats should concentrate on making her more likable, instead of worrying about Pepe.
Grabbing someone by the pussy would also qualify as sexual assault.
Maybe, but I was talking about kissing. But, whatever — neither of the two Presidential nominees have ever done it. There is not even a credible accusation, much less proof.
Intimidating witnesses and victims of rape — yes, of that Hillary Clinton, the women's champion, was rather credibly accused decades ago, and not once. Maybe, Democrats should concentrate on making her more likable, instead of worrying about Pepe.
Mentioned only in passing, the RD-181 is Russia-designed and created rocket engine...
While lower-level Democrats are gleefully spreading rumours about Trump being a Putin's man, the Democratic Administration continues to buy this high technology from the adversary. In a typical manifestation of hair-splitting, even though Congress banned the use of RD-180 in 2015, NASA claims, use of RD-181 is acceptable...
"False flag" is not the word you're looking for, "agents provocateurs" is.
Read the link carefully (and watch the video). Some of the things listed really were "false flag" operations. Such as:
“So the Chicago protest when they shut all that, that was us,” says Black/Minter. “It was more him [Bob Creamer - a convicted fraudster, mi] than me, but none of this is supposed to come back to us, because we want it coming from people, we don’t want it to come from the party. So if we do a protest and it’s a DNC protest, right away the press is going to say partisan. But if I’m in there coordinating with all the troops on the ground and sort of playing the field general but they are the ones talking to the cameras, then it’s actually people. But if we send out press advisories with DNC on them and Clinton campaign it just doesn’t have that same effect.”
See? Their real flag would have the letter "H" on it with the strange "move right" arrow on it. But "it just doesn't have that same effect", so they falsely raised the flag of "grassroots". Hence "false flag".
It's funny that the most damning thing you can say [...]
Not an ounce of shame in you, is there? Nothing like "OMG, I can't believe Hillary Clinton, such a lady it seemed, could possible have approved anything like that!" None... A typical Democrat.
In the end nothing the DNC or Clinton did made much difference
The point is, they tried. Which means, their ethics allow it. So they'll try again — Clinton ain't hurting for money and is not afraid to spend it.
From the sexual assault
Sexual assault is rape. Kissing, however unwanted, is not sexual assault. Besides, there is no evidence, he's ever actually done even that much — only talked.
"It's completely insane that Pepe has been labeled a symbol of hate, and that racists and anti-Semites are using a once peaceful frog-dude from my comic book as an icon of hate"
How much of that racism and anti-Semitism is actually real, and how much — "false flag" operations by DNC-operatives like these?
“You remember the Iowa state fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude kind of gets roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera?” Foval asks. “That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart who works for Bob.”
Foval also references Shirley Teeter, a sixty-nine-year-old lady who claims that she was assaulted at a Trump rally in North Carolina.
“She was one of our activists,” he says while introducing the term bird dogging to the political lexicon.
In addition to these thugs on the ground, Clinton's campaign also employs online trolls (like Putin). If her political consultants aren't directing some of these guys to create fake "hate posts" — as their ethics clearly allow them to do — they aren't earning their pay...
Raising your fist and threatening to hit someone is "assault". Spitting at someone and missing is "assault".
Yes! Moreover, simply telling someone, you'll kick his ass is an assault.
But that is not, what Trump is accused of doing. Kissing, even if unwelcome, does not qualify as any of that. The ladies may not have actively wanted him to kiss them, but, as the same recording says, they haven't objected either: "When you are a celebrity, they let you do it." So, no, it was not an assault.
Moreover, this sudden — and synchronized — swiftboating is rather suspicious in itself. If Trump was such a sexual assaulter, as NBC knew for 11 years (they've had the tape for all this time), why did they bring him to run the "Apprentice" show? Why have the ladies involved been quiet until now — Clinton's accusers, for example, have tried to make their case for years even before, he became President.
Sorry, it just does not add up — unless you are a cog in the Hillary's tank, of course, and wish her to win no matter what...
Yeah, "an unwanted kiss" is assault and battery. That is calling it what it is.
If that's what it really were, you wouldn't have had this need to substitute one term for another, and waste cycles convincing the audience, the substitute is valid and the terms — equivlanet. What you are doing is spin — carefully choosing synonyms and almost-but-not-quite equivalent words to make something appear worse or better than it really is, depending on your goals.
What it is is "unwanted kiss". End it right there and talk about that, if you can. But you can not — "unwanted kiss" just does not have the same ring to it, as "sexual assault" (the term Anderson Cooper used during the debate) does, does it? So, with a dishonest sleigh of hand, you substitute one for the other...
There's no 'careful manipulation being done by 'professional word jugglers'.
In denial much? It is right here, laughing in your face with perfectly white teeth crediting a highly paid dentist. Here is, how it works:
Some dictionaries would define, what Trump boasted of doing in 2005, as assault. Because it involved physical contact, it would also be considered battery in the court of law.
Therefore, Trump should disgust you, dear viewer, as if he were boasting of beating women.
Because it involved kissing, it must've been sexual assault too, which is, according to some other dictionaries, a synonym for rape.
Therefore, dear viewer, you should also reject Trump as rapist. That there was no actual penetration involved is of no consequence — the above sequence logical arguments clearly shows, unwanted kissing to be equivalent of rape — only an illogical redneck would disagreee. We will now go to commercials, while you try to imaging your daughter being kissed by Trump.
PROFIT!!
You don't need to be anything of Anderson Cooper's caliber to put the above together — a Slashdot junkie with some experience could do it...
Ah, yes.if a Climate Scientist were asked to predict a coin drop, he'd predict it falling on its edge plus or minus one side. Right?
Seriously, I have no idea, which prediction HiThere was referring to. But he admitted, that the observed warming is happening "a LOT [emphasis his] faster than predicted". Thus, whatever the actual and predicted rates are, the former must be outside of even the "error bars", however generously ass-covering, of the latter.
Mercedes are completely unaware of the talent wasting time on Slashdot instead of working for them...
Swerving is a bad move.
Of course, it is bad (usually). Still it is sometimes the only course to take to avoid hitting someone — because breaking would not slow the car sufficiently in time. On a curve such breaking is also likely to send the car spinning (and losing control), whereas swerving may not.
Most importantly, are you denying the fact, that there are situations, in which death of one person must be chosen over the death of another?
"an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact."
Interesting... Subtle changes in semantics can really alter the meaning, can't they? My dictionary defines it somewhat differently:
a threatened or attempted physical attack by someone who appears to be able to cause bodily harm if not stopped
the crime of forcing a person to submit to sexual intercourse against his or her will
By carefully manipulating dictionaries, a professional word-juggler like Anderson Cooper could really convince the audience, Trump is approving of assault as defined in your dictionary, and then casually switch to mine to start calling him "rapist".
An unwanted kiss is actually assault AND battery
It is not even an assault. And nobody got beaten, which is the usual understanding of the term "battery".
Which is why it is better (as in "more honest") to simply call it, what it is: "a kiss" or, maybe, "an unwanted kiss".
You really are dim... Again, no matter what death-avoiding strategies you program, the conflict between killing one person over another will remain. And the AI will need to make that choice.
It's a physical issue, not an ethical one.
TFA is all about the ethics.
But you are perfectly wrong about the technical part too. Here, let me help you with the homework. In order for a car traveling, say 40mph to drop that speed to non-lethal 10mph within 10 feet — to avoid hitting a pedestrian suddenly stepping/falling/being pushed from sidewalk — is impossible. Even if the rubber and the road were up for the multiple gs of deceleration required (computing the precise figure is left as an exercise), the driver and/or occupants may well not be. But, again there are no wheels on commonly used cars today, that are capable of such deceleration. You must swerve...
WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.
and:
Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”
I see... Well, strictly speaking, that's just a Grand Jury deciding, whether or not to prosecute him. Convened in 2011, they were still at it in 2013. Probably, still are...
Clearly, much easier to continue calling him "rapist"...
Better or not, it is not an assault. And Anderson Cooper, the supposedly "neutral" moderator, pressed Trump to explain, whether he is Ok with sexual assaults against women — a line of attack subsequently continued elsewhere, including on Slashdot.
Before those Pulitzers were given [...] those journalists actually verified that the documents were fucking real
Bullshit. Assigned to work on the case in June of 1972, Woodward and Bernstein got their first Watergate-related Pulitzer in 1973, less than a year later? Evidence against president's staff, says Wikipedia, only started to mount by July 1973, but Pulitzers are given out in April...
What sort of proof can be obtained in such cases, especially this quickly? Nixon only resigned in 1974, and the identity of the "Deep Throat" remained unknown until 2005! Some "proof"...
Without realizing it, you've just demonstrated another Illiberal hypocrisy — if the suspect is a Republican, even a rumor or an unsubstantiated allegation is sufficient. For a Democrat — nothing other than "beyond reasonable doubt" would suffice. Thus any talk of Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women is slander, of his wife helping cover it up — only more so, but Trump is an asshole for preferring good-looking females to ugly ones.
Likewise, we are supposed to ignore Hillary Clinton's negligence with State secrets (she was never convicted, right?), but instead concentrate on rumors, Trump is a Putin's man.
which is something no one has proven with the Guccifer 2.0 or #PodestaEmails19.
Questions:
Is that your defense — that the published texts aren't actually verbatim copies of the e-mails?
Could you link to any earlier doubts regarding the authenticity of Wikileaks publications harming Bush? Ideally, it would be your own comment, but anything on Huffington Post or DailyKos would be acceptable too.
What would you accept as proof in this case even theoretically?
This is why he is not prosecuted for espionage, but rather for rape. Of course, "rape" had to be redefined to include "unprotected sex when the woman consented only to condom-protected penetration". But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss.
At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.
Bradley Manning's exposures made him (or her? — one never knows with Illiberals) — a hero as well. He may be in prison, but he is a hero still — with numerous fans at home and abroad.
Julian Assange was a hero too, as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive".
But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.
Which "bullshit"? Please, be certain to clearly specify, whether you hate him for falsifying the released communications or for "stealing" the real ones.
“It's very possible that I could be the first presidential candidate to run and make money on it.”
That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.
Slashdot Mirror
You can certainly say this about most fact-checking, including that by Pulitzer-winners, which is now just as much partisan hacking as the rest of the "journalism".
The simple truth is, of course, the OP meant "Cold War" not "civil war" (in any country). Woosh-woosh-woosh...
Personally, I, actually, toured both Baku and Yerevan with my father in 1988 — Aeroflot was still flying to both capitals from my native Kyiv, and the trip was very educational...
Where is the money going to? Who approves the applications and what are the mechanisms for appeals and disputes?
What sort of framework is there to ensure, the fees are not excessive and the services thus purchased — of high quality?
Is it done by the best means known — via vigorous competition — or somehow else? How?
Is this new mechanism related to and/or enabled by the transfer of control of the Internet towards an international body? And, if so, is that the reason, Google and other mega-corporations pushed for the transfer so hard?
Fact Check. We investigate the claim made by a Slashdot poster "Ol Olsoc", that he could buy Stolichnaya at the height of the civil war.
Because it is unclear, which civil war the poster was referring to — and he did not respond to our request for clarification in time for this publication — we give the poster a benefit of the doubt and examine both relevant civil wars: that of the United States and in Russia.
Stolichnaya brand of vodka, according to Wikipedia, was first introduced in 1901. This is four decades after the American Civil War ended.
To be able to buy alcohol during the Russian Civil War, which ended in 1922 (its "height" taking place even earlier), the poster would've had been born in 1901, which would make 115 years-old today, when he made his claim. No people that old are currently alive, however, and scientific consensus is that living beyond that age is impossible. Maybe, the poster was buying alcohol illegally at younger age, but even then he'd have to be above 100 years of age, which is exceedingly unlikely given his manner of speech and presence on the Internet technology web-sites such as Slashdot.
Thus, we rate Ol Olsoc's claim as mostly false and assign it three out four Pinocchios.
Probably-shmobably. There is no obvious difference between the world's sentiment towards America since 2000. The only profound change is among Russians, actually, from 37% approval in 2000, to 46% in 2008, to 15% in 2015.
It is called "economic sanctions". Look it up. You impose them to make the manufacturer suffer financially from being unable to sell their goods.
They are irrelevant, because no such relationship exists. But the holes in Obama's sanctions-regime remain unexplained. If buying RD-180 engines was wrong, why is it Ok to RD-181? Even more generally, if Russia should suffer under sanctions, why did it require an Act of Congress to stop buying those RD-180ies last year?
Why didn't Obama stop the practice himself? The answer is simple: NASA's rocket would not fly without those, and Obama — who's never seen a problem, which was not best solved with government money — would not allow NASA, the state enterprise, to fall further behind private space firms... Even if that meant helping Putin finances — a small price to pay for "fundamentally changing America".
Citations missing.
Ukrainian expats, such as myself, have also been — and remain — very vocal calling for tightening sanctions against Russia.
But, whoever called for it, it makes no sense that RD-180 is banned, but RD-181 is not. None... Clearly, NASA/White House are exploiting a loophole.
What I said right next to that was: "Kissing, even if unwanted, is not sexual assault". Funny, you chose to completely ignore that.
Now, the "sexual assault is rape" bit was sarcasm. To turn a sexual assault into rape requires about as much (slightly less, actually) semantic-stretching as is needed to turn a kiss, however unwanted, into an assault. And battery — as a colleague of yours was doing yesterday.
Back to the basics — the point of mine you desperately try to ignore — is that neither of the two Presidential nominees have ever done it. There is not even a credible accusation, much less proof.
Intimidating witnesses and victims of rape — yes, of that Hillary Clinton, the women's champion, was rather credibly accused decades ago, and not once. Maybe, Democrats should concentrate on making her more likable, instead of worrying about Pepe.
Maybe, but I was talking about kissing. But, whatever — neither of the two Presidential nominees have ever done it. There is not even a credible accusation, much less proof.
Intimidating witnesses and victims of rape — yes, of that Hillary Clinton, the women's champion, was rather credibly accused decades ago, and not once. Maybe, Democrats should concentrate on making her more likable, instead of worrying about Pepe.
Mentioned only in passing, the RD-181 is Russia-designed and created rocket engine...
While lower-level Democrats are gleefully spreading rumours about Trump being a Putin's man, the Democratic Administration continues to buy this high technology from the adversary. In a typical manifestation of hair-splitting, even though Congress banned the use of RD-180 in 2015, NASA claims, use of RD-181 is acceptable...
Read the link carefully (and watch the video). Some of the things listed really were "false flag" operations. Such as:
See? Their real flag would have the letter "H" on it with the strange "move right" arrow on it. But "it just doesn't have that same effect", so they falsely raised the flag of "grassroots". Hence "false flag".
Not an ounce of shame in you, is there? Nothing like "OMG, I can't believe Hillary Clinton, such a lady it seemed, could possible have approved anything like that!" None... A typical Democrat.
The point is, they tried. Which means, their ethics allow it. So they'll try again — Clinton ain't hurting for money and is not afraid to spend it.
Sexual assault is rape. Kissing, however unwanted, is not sexual assault. Besides, there is no evidence, he's ever actually done even that much — only talked.
How much of that racism and anti-Semitism is actually real, and how much — "false flag" operations by DNC-operatives like these?
In addition to these thugs on the ground, Clinton's campaign also employs online trolls (like Putin). If her political consultants aren't directing some of these guys to create fake "hate posts" — as their ethics clearly allow them to do — they aren't earning their pay...
Yes! Moreover, simply telling someone, you'll kick his ass is an assault.
But that is not, what Trump is accused of doing. Kissing, even if unwelcome, does not qualify as any of that. The ladies may not have actively wanted him to kiss them, but, as the same recording says, they haven't objected either: "When you are a celebrity, they let you do it." So, no, it was not an assault.
Moreover, this sudden — and synchronized — swiftboating is rather suspicious in itself. If Trump was such a sexual assaulter, as NBC knew for 11 years (they've had the tape for all this time), why did they bring him to run the "Apprentice" show? Why have the ladies involved been quiet until now — Clinton's accusers, for example, have tried to make their case for years even before, he became President.
Sorry, it just does not add up — unless you are a cog in the Hillary's tank, of course, and wish her to win no matter what...
If that's what it really were, you wouldn't have had this need to substitute one term for another, and waste cycles convincing the audience, the substitute is valid and the terms — equivlanet. What you are doing is spin — carefully choosing synonyms and almost-but-not-quite equivalent words to make something appear worse or better than it really is, depending on your goals.
What it is is "unwanted kiss". End it right there and talk about that, if you can. But you can not — "unwanted kiss" just does not have the same ring to it, as "sexual assault" (the term Anderson Cooper used during the debate) does, does it? So, with a dishonest sleigh of hand, you substitute one for the other...
In denial much? It is right here, laughing in your face with perfectly white teeth crediting a highly paid dentist. Here is, how it works:
You don't need to be anything of Anderson Cooper's caliber to put the above together — a Slashdot junkie with some experience could do it...
Ah, yes.if a Climate Scientist were asked to predict a coin drop, he'd predict it falling on its edge plus or minus one side. Right?
Seriously, I have no idea, which prediction HiThere was referring to. But he admitted, that the observed warming is happening "a LOT [emphasis his] faster than predicted". Thus, whatever the actual and predicted rates are, the former must be outside of even the "error bars", however generously ass-covering, of the latter.
Mercedes are completely unaware of the talent wasting time on Slashdot instead of working for them...
Of course, it is bad (usually). Still it is sometimes the only course to take to avoid hitting someone — because breaking would not slow the car sufficiently in time. On a curve such breaking is also likely to send the car spinning (and losing control), whereas swerving may not.
Most importantly, are you denying the fact, that there are situations, in which death of one person must be chosen over the death of another?
Interesting... Subtle changes in semantics can really alter the meaning, can't they? My dictionary defines it somewhat differently:
By carefully manipulating dictionaries, a professional word-juggler like Anderson Cooper could really convince the audience, Trump is approving of assault as defined in your dictionary, and then casually switch to mine to start calling him "rapist".
It is not even an assault. And nobody got beaten, which is the usual understanding of the term "battery".
Which is why it is better (as in "more honest") to simply call it, what it is: "a kiss" or, maybe, "an unwanted kiss".
Not as weird, as if Brezhnev were to...
You really are dim... Again, no matter what death-avoiding strategies you program, the conflict between killing one person over another will remain. And the AI will need to make that choice.
TFA is all about the ethics.
But you are perfectly wrong about the technical part too. Here, let me help you with the homework. In order for a car traveling, say 40mph to drop that speed to non-lethal 10mph within 10 feet — to avoid hitting a pedestrian suddenly stepping/falling/being pushed from sidewalk — is impossible. Even if the rubber and the road were up for the multiple gs of deceleration required (computing the precise figure is left as an exercise), the driver and/or occupants may well not be. But, again there are no wheels on commonly used cars today, that are capable of such deceleration. You must swerve...
From the Wired's article:
and:
You were saying?
I see... Well, strictly speaking, that's just a Grand Jury deciding, whether or not to prosecute him. Convened in 2011, they were still at it in 2013. Probably, still are...
Clearly, much easier to continue calling him "rapist"...
Better or not, it is not an assault. And Anderson Cooper, the supposedly "neutral" moderator, pressed Trump to explain, whether he is Ok with sexual assaults against women — a line of attack subsequently continued elsewhere, including on Slashdot.
Bullshit. Assigned to work on the case in June of 1972, Woodward and Bernstein got their first Watergate-related Pulitzer in 1973, less than a year later? Evidence against president's staff, says Wikipedia, only started to mount by July 1973, but Pulitzers are given out in April...
What sort of proof can be obtained in such cases, especially this quickly? Nixon only resigned in 1974, and the identity of the "Deep Throat" remained unknown until 2005! Some "proof"...
Without realizing it, you've just demonstrated another Illiberal hypocrisy — if the suspect is a Republican, even a rumor or an unsubstantiated allegation is sufficient. For a Democrat — nothing other than "beyond reasonable doubt" would suffice. Thus any talk of Bill Clinton sexually assaulting women is slander, of his wife helping cover it up — only more so, but Trump is an asshole for preferring good-looking females to ugly ones.
Likewise, we are supposed to ignore Hillary Clinton's negligence with State secrets (she was never convicted, right?), but instead concentrate on rumors, Trump is a Putin's man.
Questions:
This is why he is not prosecuted for espionage, but rather for rape . Of course, "rape" had to be redefined to include "unprotected sex when the woman consented only to condom-protected penetration". But that's even less of a stretch than the feat Anderson Cooper accomplished recently by redefining assault to include unappreciated kiss.
At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.
Bradley Manning's exposures made him (or her? — one never knows with Illiberals) — a hero as well. He may be in prison, but he is a hero still — with numerous fans at home and abroad.
Julian Assange was a hero too, as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive".
But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.
See also "Peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism".
Which "bullshit"? Please, be certain to clearly specify, whether you hate him for falsifying the released communications or for "stealing" the real ones.
The requirement is racist. Heck, simply asking, whether a person speaks English — without even requiring him to — is racist.
That was a cute joke, but Clintons have certainly beaten Trump to it. Unless you think, Bill and Hillary Clinton receiving hundreds of thousand of dollars per speech can be explained by anything other than his past presidency and, more importantly, the "inevitability" of her future one.
Having left the White house "dead broke" by their own admission, the couple are now worth tens of millions of dollars. What exactly have they sold in 15 years, that is that valuable?