Hillary Clinton got 16.8 million primary votes to Bernie's 13.2 million. She won handily in both the popular vote and delegate total. She would have won by a huge margin even if there was no such thing as a superdelegate.
If the truth doesn't matter at all anymore, then why do we even both talking to each other?
"But in April of that year, the Supreme Court, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns, allowing maximum donations to as many different committees as a donor wanted."
This was all completely legal.
Words have meaning, laws are laws, facts are facts. Something doesn't become "blatantly illegal" just because a bunch of whiny internet morons think it's unfair. You can't change facts by chanting a lie in unison.
The claim is that the "DNC was caught red handed doing things that are blatantly illegal". That is a statement of fact, it is either true or false. There's nothing subjective there. My question is, WHAT LAWS WERE BROKEN?
You've yet to produce a cite which says that any laws were broken, therefore I claim that you are full of shit. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I'm having trouble reconciling this fact with your assertion that they pay zero taxes now. Perhaps it's because you made up your facts to fit some compelling narrative:
and get over your childish tech tribalism--hopefully you'll learn that technology is supposed to "automagically work together". The point of technology is to make peoples' lives easier, not to serve as a basis for chest-thumping.
The Red Cross also spends a large fraction of their income on "payroll and benefits", because most of the cost of charity work is paying the actual people doing the charity work. Look at Charity Navigator for the Red Cross vs. the Clinton Foundation--the breakdown of expenses is very similar and they both receive the same [highest] rating for a charity organization. They both spend about 90% of the money they take in on direct charity expenditures (programs)--that's how these things are rated and have always been rated.
The 6% thing has been *thoroughly* debunked. It was yet another manufactured conspiracy theory (remember when Obama was a Kenyan Muslim?) that served its purpose of firing up the mouth-breathers and then died a quiet death with a small print retraction on page 43 of the zeitgeist.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/ 6% is what is paid out in external grants, the Clinton Foundation does most of its work via internal staff.
"Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said. We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses. We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work. — Robert Farley"
"Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said. We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses. We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work. — Robert Farley"
The Bush administration lost 22 million emails because their entire crew was using private emails servers for administration business. How come nobody cared about that? oh, right, because at the time we were spending a trillion $ and thousands of lives searching for WMDs that didn't exist while outing CIA agents and letting people drown in New Orleans.
You couldn't care less about emails. You hate Hillary (and Obama) and that's it. No big surprise there--lots of assholes hate Hillary, it's one of the best things about her.
There's no additional study necessary. Apple customers are willing to spend what Apple is charging, and there's not enough serious competition to force Apple to lower the prices. That's how free markets work.
Just because Apple customers place a higher value on some features than you do doesn't mean they are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
Just because a device can do a lot of things doesn't mean it needs to be complex, brittle, and non-intuitive. It should be the goal of every engineer of a consumer device to minimize the cognitive load required by that device. The goal should be that everyone can use the device with minimal or no training.
And we should eradicate from the Earth this sort of pompous attitude that you don't deserve to use a computer unless you know how to build or program one.
Sure there are expert systems for experts, those always need to exist--just like *some* people need to know how to build bridges. But I've never once heard of a bridge designer complaining that people shouldn't be allowed to drive over bridges unless they understand the load-bearing strategy.
There were approximately 0 liberals arguing that Trump should be locked up as the result of his clearly racist statements--it's completely dishonest to claim otherwise. As for Facebook? private companies can decide for themselves what speech they endorse--there's not first amendment right to post on Facebook.
> The iPhone-maker stressed that since counterfeit cables and chargers don't go through consumer safety testing and could be poorly designed, they're prone to overheating and catching fire.
Seriously, dude, it was in the fucking summary. I guess you were blinded by hate.
Slashdot Mirror
Hillary Clinton got 16.8 million primary votes to Bernie's 13.2 million. She won handily in both the popular vote and delegate total. She would have won by a huge margin even if there was no such thing as a superdelegate.
If the truth doesn't matter at all anymore, then why do we even both talking to each other?
"But in April of that year, the Supreme Court, in a case called McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, struck down aggregate limits on total giving to federal campaigns, allowing maximum donations to as many different committees as a donor wanted."
This was all completely legal.
Words have meaning, laws are laws, facts are facts. Something doesn't become "blatantly illegal" just because a bunch of whiny internet morons think it's unfair. You can't change facts by chanting a lie in unison.
The claim is that the "DNC was caught red handed doing things that are blatantly illegal". That is a statement of fact, it is either true or false. There's nothing subjective there. My question is, WHAT LAWS WERE BROKEN?
You've yet to produce a cite which says that any laws were broken, therefore I claim that you are full of shit. Feel free to prove me wrong.
I'm having trouble reconciling this fact with your assertion that they pay zero taxes now. Perhaps it's because you made up your facts to fit some compelling narrative:
http://thetechnalyzer.com/apple-is-the-largest-taxpayer-in-the-world/
You said "blatantly illegal"--words have meaning and facts are real things. Back up your claim or you're just another liar on the internet.
But we know that you don't have one.
Hillary Clinton gave a concession speech. It was watched by millions of people. Learn to use Google--it's accessible via your Breitbart box.
What's the problem with a news site publishing it?
and get over your childish tech tribalism--hopefully you'll learn that technology is supposed to "automagically work together". The point of technology is to make peoples' lives easier, not to serve as a basis for chest-thumping.
I think you mean "memory consistency".
The Red Cross also spends a large fraction of their income on "payroll and benefits", because most of the cost of charity work is paying the actual people doing the charity work. Look at Charity Navigator for the Red Cross vs. the Clinton Foundation--the breakdown of expenses is very similar and they both receive the same [highest] rating for a charity organization. They both spend about 90% of the money they take in on direct charity expenditures (programs)--that's how these things are rated and have always been rated.
The 6% thing has been *thoroughly* debunked. It was yet another manufactured conspiracy theory (remember when Obama was a Kenyan Muslim?) that served its purpose of firing up the mouth-breathers and then died a quiet death with a small print retraction on page 43 of the zeitgeist.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
6% is what is paid out in external grants, the Clinton Foundation does most of its work via internal staff.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
"Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.
— Robert Farley"
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
"Considering all of the organizations affiliated with the Clinton Foundation, he said, CharityWatch concluded about 89 percent of its budget is spent on programs. That’s the amount it spent on charity in 2013, he said.
We looked at the consolidated financial statements (see page 4) and calculated that in 2013, 88.3 percent of spending was designated as going toward program services — $196.6 million out of $222.6 million in reported expenses.
We can’t vouch for the effectiveness of the programming expenses listed in the report, but it is clear that the claim that the Clinton Foundation only steers 6 percent of its donations to charity is wrong, and amounts to a misunderstanding of how public charities work.
— Robert Farley"
The Bush administration lost 22 million emails because their entire crew was using private emails servers for administration business. How come nobody cared about that? oh, right, because at the time we were spending a trillion $ and thousands of lives searching for WMDs that didn't exist while outing CIA agents and letting people drown in New Orleans.
You couldn't care less about emails. You hate Hillary (and Obama) and that's it. No big surprise there--lots of assholes hate Hillary, it's one of the best things about her.
There's no additional study necessary. Apple customers are willing to spend what Apple is charging, and there's not enough serious competition to force Apple to lower the prices. That's how free markets work.
Just because Apple customers place a higher value on some features than you do doesn't mean they are suffering from Stockholm syndrome.
what a weird thing to lie about.
Just curious...
It sounded more to me like they were complaining about random hangs and reboots--not sure how better marketing is going to fix that.
Because their computers, you know, actually work.
So there.
Just because a device can do a lot of things doesn't mean it needs to be complex, brittle, and non-intuitive. It should be the goal of every engineer of a consumer device to minimize the cognitive load required by that device. The goal should be that everyone can use the device with minimal or no training.
And we should eradicate from the Earth this sort of pompous attitude that you don't deserve to use a computer unless you know how to build or program one.
Sure there are expert systems for experts, those always need to exist--just like *some* people need to know how to build bridges. But I've never once heard of a bridge designer complaining that people shouldn't be allowed to drive over bridges unless they understand the load-bearing strategy.
There were approximately 0 liberals arguing that Trump should be locked up as the result of his clearly racist statements--it's completely dishonest to claim otherwise. As for Facebook? private companies can decide for themselves what speech they endorse--there's not first amendment right to post on Facebook.
> The iPhone-maker stressed that since counterfeit cables and chargers don't go through consumer safety testing and could be poorly designed, they're prone to overheating and catching fire.
Seriously, dude, it was in the fucking summary. I guess you were blinded by hate.
Why stop there? why not give them each an Eniac and a soldering iron?
Just like everyone can use a microwave or drive over a bridge. If people don't know how to use the computer, it's probably the fault of the computer.