You know what would most likely happen? They'll build a new plant, it'll be highly automated with the very newest tech rather than employ any line workers, they'll hire three shifts of managers with green cards from India to watch the computer report the status of the assembly lines (and record everything they do on cameras.) The plant will run 168 hours a week.
That is, of course, far more likely. My point was that there are plenty of factory workers who could be employed to do the job and wouldn't need to live in a dorm. If they're replacing Chinese employees, who still make far less than American employees, with robots then they're unlikely to open a new factory with many employees in the United States because the robots are even more economical here.
They'll incorporate parts from China, which are now 140% the cost of what they were previously because President Trump wants that tariff really bad, and they'll charge you double and then multiply that by 1.4.
I could certainly be wrong, since I never actually expected there to be a President Trump, but I suspect Trump will back off on implementing the tariff when someone with a brain, that Trump trusts, explains how starting a trade war with China would likely cause a recession and hang the blame for the recession on Trump, and then result in a Democratic president-elect in 2020. Of course, I wouldn't put it past him to implement the tariff in 2019, if it looks like he's going to lose anyway...
Welcome to the new world, where we don't buy stuff from China anymore, and we still have no work, and we can't afford anything.
President Trump's gonna make America Grate Again. Ouch! Here, hold my footgun.
Indeed. I hope Trump isn't stockpiling those, for the sake of all Americans...
40% of $649 is $259.60 which is more than $225. Mind you, I don't expect Apple to go from $259.60 per phone in profit to $34.60, either.
But I'm not sure if the doubling production costs is reasonable, that implies that labour costs would be more than double in the U.S. and Apple has repeatedly said it wasn't outsourcing to China because the labour was cheaper...
I'm not sure why you would need to do exactly that. If they put the plant in Michigan, hire a bunch of middle aged former factory workers, organize them into 3 shifts of eight hours, they should be able to run the plant 120 hours a week. The plan becomes a little more complicated if you want to run 7 days a week all the time, but that problem can be solved.
That when someone says it's not wages, it's the lack of available experienced workers, they are actually saying it's wages. The proper response to not being able to find enough people to do a job is to offer more money, not complain that there's no one qualified because not enough people are willing to do the job at the price you're offering.
There are very few occupations where there can be a legitimate lack of talent/experience for the job. Running an assembly line isn't one of them.
"Leftists" celebrate all kinds of diversity of everything except thought. When it comes to thought, only right-think is allowed; wrong-think and thought-crime are severely punished. Look how the left attacks people in otherwise protected groups when they commit thought-crime. Milo, Anne Coulter, Michelle Maulkin, Clarence Thomas, Laura Ingram, Col. Alan West, Herman Caine... etc., etc.
How terrible of them to judge people by their actions and not by the colour of their skin, gender, or sexual orientation...
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but it seems to me that you're missing a fundamental difference. The bakers didn't refuse to put arbitrary messages on cakes, when they found out their customers were gay they refused to provide any wedding cake to them for any reason.
Oh REALLY? How about this: http://www.thedenverchannel.co...
where a baker refused to bake a cake for religious customer that had bible scriptures on them referring to gays... Now I'm not condoning the messages requested, I'm simply pointing out the face that it has been done, and the court ruling was opposite. In fact, if I had to guess, I think this was done to prove a point, and that point was that these are biased judgments, and both sides are not being treated the same.
That's a lie. The baker offered to bake the bible-shaped cakes without the anti-gay messages on them, and to provide the complainant with icing so he could write whatever messages he wanted to on the cake:
Marjorie Silva, the owner of the bakery, told Jack that she would make him the bible-shaped cakes, but would not decorate them with the biblical verses and the image of the groomsmen that he requested. Instead, she offered to provide him with icing and a pastry bag so he could write or draw whatever messages he wished on the cakes.
The important part is even though he was deliberately trolling her at the bakery for an excuse to sue her, she didn't refuse him her normal services which is baking cakes. In fact she was quite willing to bake him a Christian bible cake. However, she refused to decorate the cake with offensive images and words. Which, to most people, is a reasonable reaction.
The anti-gay cake bakers, as I understand it, entirely refused to provide their regular services to their complainants. The analogous situation would have been for the anti-gay baker to make the wedding cake, but refuse to put the two little women on the top. Instead the refused to selling wedding cakes to the women in question because they were lesbians.
In fact in at least a few of situations where I've looked into anti-gay refusals where the defendant lost, the defendant revoked their offer of services after the fact, without notice, without recompense and without providing an alternative service. That's legally a breach of contract regardless of the reason they refused the service after agreeing to provide it. Once you're past the stage of offer and acceptance, it is not legal to add additional requirements to a contract unless the changes provide consideration for both parties and are agreed to by both parties. In some cases considerable damages were awarded because services were revoked at or near the wedding day to the point where it became extremely expensive or even impossible to arrange for replacement services.
You might not be aware of this, but you're conflating different things together. Twitter is a private company that is publicly traded. In the first usage "private" indicates that the company is not owned by the government, and this usage is common enough that we talk about private/public partnerships when both private corporations and government are involved in funding a project. The second usage "publicly traded" means the company is listed on a stock exchange. Those two usages denote different things about the company.
So when someone says it is a private company, they are saying it isn't run by the government, which is why when you claim it's not a private company people think you mean it's owned by the government. If they know what they're talking about, and they wanted to say the company wasn't publicly traded, then they would say it's a "privately owned company" or a "privately held company".
According to Harvard (in a letter helpfully posted below the first video) the first video was been purposely edited to make the speaker look bad, he was actually mocking his opponent's debate position (which had injected race into the debate) rather than making a serious argument.
Kids, don't believe everything you see on YouTube, especially when it's a short 1 or 2 minute edited clip from a much longer event.
People need to be free to be total assholes so long as they are not physically harming others.
So, if a mob lynches someone, only the people that the police can prove actually did physical harm to the victim should be punished? The guy who singled the victim out, directed the others to put the noose around the victim's neck, and ordered the victim's death should be allowed to go free with no consequences?
I have noticed a persistent pattern in recent years where the actual result is a few percent to the right of what the polls were predicting. This includes this election, the last two or three in Britain, the most recent one in Israel and Brexit. Either people are lying about their intentions or the samples are non-representative.
In this presidential election, I think it was voter modelling that skewed the polls. They assumed the turn out would be similar to the past few elections (in this case the last 3 or 4 presidential elections). Trump's victory can be attributed to many factors but the surprise comes down to his ability to energize rural voters who haven't voted in the last few elections. He increased their turn out by 20%, a factor no one predicted and that was enough to carry the swing states he needed to win.
"Since Inaugural Day 2001, the Democrats were against nearly anything and everything Pres Bush was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?"
How little the left remembers or cares about history.
And this is why in your world, the patriot act was never passed and the U.S. invasion of Iraq never happened?
High corporate income tax rates and costly regulations necessitate a high level of automation... that screws millions of US citizens out of good-paying factory jobs here...
You keep writing that, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. Corporate income tax rates are applied to profits, so as far as tax rates are concerned it never matters whether you automate or not. The tax rate is applied the same way to all profits regardless of how many people work in the individual factories. Likewise, I'm not aware of what "costly regulations" scale by the number of employees, and a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) indicated that most regulatory costs benefit from economies of scale. If the costs scaled aggressively according to number of employees, you would expect that larger companies would pay significantly more than smaller companies, but according to the SBA the companies with the fewest employees pay the highest fees per employee.
That's not to say that there are no regulations that scale by number of employees, but rather that they seem to be a small fraction of the total regulatory burden.
I'm all for a discussion about such things... but using the fact that in two of the past five elections, the winner lost the popular vote is not valid support that our current system is flawed.
In your opinion. To many people the idea that the person who got the most votes lost the election seems a little bit "undemocratic". You can argue that it's not supposed to be democratic or that things would be different if things were different until you're blue in the face. However, it's not going to change the fact that many people would think that a system where the seemingly more popular candidate loses would be inherently defective.
Don't get me wrong, I know why the electoral college works that way, but from a blackbox approach the voting systems looks quite flawed indeed.
Nothing adds carbon to the atmosphere like volcanoes, meteor impacts, ocean venting, and natural lightning fires. Oh, wait, I meant Humans. We're the only thing that "adds carbon to the atmosphere". Yeah.
In order:
Volcanic contribution to the atmosphere per year is about 1% of the human contribution per year.
I don't think meteors contribute a measurable amount of CO2. They're mostly rock and not very big, in comparison human CO2 emissions were 38.2 billion tonnes in 2011. The estimate of annual meteor mass is 37,000-78,000 tons. Human CO2 emissions are literally almost a million time larger.
Ocean venting is incorporated into the volcanic contribution (unless you're talking about frozen methane which is an entirely different thing)
Forest fires (lightning started or otherwise) contribute virtually no CO2 to the atmosphere over a sufficiently long period (a few years), because the plants grow back. Human initiated clear cutting is a different matter since the trees and other plants are generally not allowed to grow back.
Effectively, while there are natural processes that both release CO2 and capture CO2, those processes are pretty well balanced. Without human activity, the CO2 level would be close to constant. It is the additional of billions of tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year that is pushing the atmospheric CO2 levels higher. The simple fact is that without human activity the CO2 level in the atmosphere would not be rising.
Hillary, on the other hand, has been the target of slings and arrows since her husband was first elected President. She knows how to take the verbal punch, ignore it, and keep doing what needs to be done.
This is absolutely untrue!
She's actually been a target since Bill was first elected governor of Arkansas in 1978...
The latter, while doing a lot of things that are either distasteful or something that a lot of people may disagree w/, is neither unethical nor illegal: it's just that most people would disagree w/ his judgement. The former did something that is clearly illegal, and among other things, downright corrupt (trading State Department favors for Clinton Foundation donations, Clinton Foundation - a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization - footing the bill for her daughter's wedding and 10 years of their lives), as well as putting national secrets at risk by maintaining a private server. If WikiLeaks could break into DNC emails and that of Clinton aides, how difficult would it have been for more professional organizations (read enemy states) to actually hack Clinton's private server(s)? And a lot of people have gone to jail for much less - Gen Petraeus, Adm Cartwright and the guy who got a year in jail for taking 6 photos in a classified area of a submarine.
The real problem is that everything you think you know is wrong:
1) There is no evidence that favours were traded for donations.
2) Someone who dislikes Chelsea Clinton wrote an email to Podesta claiming that Chelsea had used foundation money to pay for her wedding, however, there's no evidence to back up the accusation and the email writer did not get along well with Chelsea, so his words might be hyperbole, just plain wrong, or even deliberately misleading.
3 a) Wikileaks didn't break into the DNC email or John Podesta's email. The FBI says it believes it was the work of Russian intelligence operatives.
3 b) Whether or not they are correct, we know for certain that the State Department's official email server was hacked.
3 c) The FBI has examined the logs from Clintons server and said there's no evidence that it was hacked.
3 d) If there was stuff on her server that wasn't on the State Department's official servers then she may have accidentally kept it out of the hands of the Russians (or whoever it was who hacked the State Department).
4 a) No, actually, people have gone to jail for much more.
4 b) General Petraeus knowingly gave top secret information to his journalist/biographer/lover and lied to the FBI about it.
4 c) General Cartwright (not Admiral!) knowingly leaked top secret information to the media and lied to the FBI about it.
4 d) Saucier took detailed pictures of classified equipment on the Alexandria (including the sub's nuclear reactor) then lied to the FBI about it, and then partially destroyed the evidence after he lied about having done it. He was convicted because a cleaner found the phone with the pictures after he denied taking them and turned them over to the Navy. His fellow crew members also told the FBI that they saw him taking the pictures, that he was warned it was illegal and that he continued to take the pictures after being warned. Because of the destruction of evidence, the FBI and the NCIS were never able to confirm whether the pictures had been given to anyone else.
4 e) Two other crew members on the Alexandria were also caught taking pictures, however, they admitted what they did and received only disciplinary action from the Navy.
4 e) Clinton did not knowingly distribute classified information (because of the way the FBI report was written and reported, I'm not sure if she ever actually distributed any classified information, even in error), did not lie about knowingly distributing the classified information, and did not order the destruction of evidence after the FBI contacted her. She would have gotten a slap on the wrist like both of Saucier's colleagues, except that she doesn't work at the State department any more, so they literally can't apply disciplinary action and her actions do not warrant a criminal charge.
Basically every accusation you have repeated is either provable false or is merely an accusation with no actual evidence to give it credibility.
What other side? Hasn't Romney endorsed Clinton? The most amazing thing about this election is the validation of the conspiracy theorists who have been saying we have one party rule. It's true, as unbelievable as that is.
Have you ever considered the possibility that Trump is just a completely terrible candidate for President? He is facing a rape trial and a fraud trial along with his many other flaws.
Still though, this doesn't come off as suspicious to me at all. Since when is it odd or otherwise unusual that a server belonging to a billionaire talks to a server belonging to a bank in a foreign country? That's like saying that it's odd that there's dog piss on a fire hydrant.
The odd parts are that the server seems to have been configured to only speak to servers owned by an associate of Putin, and that the communication pattern roughly follows the time table of political events, increasing when newsworthy political events are happening and dropping off when it's not.
or maybe because the EU simply isn't perfect, and is not just a democracy of several competing demands, but a collection of them.
seriously, in what world is your comment at all a useful, logical argument, and not false dichotomy that contributes nothing but a distraction?
And now you know why he's posting: the goal is to distract everyone (including himself) from the problem because the mere acknowledgement that the problem exists is a challenge to his personal beliefs.
No, we can't. Airplanes aren't going to be solar powered, wind driven ships are extremely erratic, and delivering food to cities by horse-drawn carts is so last millennium.
We could live comfortably without air planes*, we can design ships to be powered by wind and solar, electricity or hydrogen fuel cells as need, and there's no need to go back to horse-drawn carts. Your failure to imagine a world where we aren't dependent on oil is a failure of your imagination, not an indication of actual impossibility.
* Technically we wouldn't have to live with airplanes in any case, since we could use solar/wind power to create aviation fuel to run the planes on in a carbon-neutral way.
Slashdot Mirror
At least the big lie is easier to falsify.
Funny, you should say that Hitler and Goebbels thought the big lie was harder to falsify.
You know what would most likely happen? They'll build a new plant, it'll be highly automated with the very newest tech rather than employ any line workers, they'll hire three shifts of managers with green cards from India to watch the computer report the status of the assembly lines (and record everything they do on cameras.) The plant will run 168 hours a week.
That is, of course, far more likely. My point was that there are plenty of factory workers who could be employed to do the job and wouldn't need to live in a dorm. If they're replacing Chinese employees, who still make far less than American employees, with robots then they're unlikely to open a new factory with many employees in the United States because the robots are even more economical here.
They'll incorporate parts from China, which are now 140% the cost of what they were previously because President Trump wants that tariff really bad, and they'll charge you double and then multiply that by 1.4.
I could certainly be wrong, since I never actually expected there to be a President Trump, but I suspect Trump will back off on implementing the tariff when someone with a brain, that Trump trusts, explains how starting a trade war with China would likely cause a recession and hang the blame for the recession on Trump, and then result in a Democratic president-elect in 2020. Of course, I wouldn't put it past him to implement the tariff in 2019, if it looks like he's going to lose anyway...
Welcome to the new world, where we don't buy stuff from China anymore, and we still have no work, and we can't afford anything.
President Trump's gonna make America Grate Again. Ouch! Here, hold my footgun.
Indeed. I hope Trump isn't stockpiling those, for the sake of all Americans...
It can, but it doesn't in that case:
40% of $649 is $259.60 which is more than $225. Mind you, I don't expect Apple to go from $259.60 per phone in profit to $34.60, either.
But I'm not sure if the doubling production costs is reasonable, that implies that labour costs would be more than double in the U.S. and Apple has repeatedly said it wasn't outsourcing to China because the labour was cheaper...
I'm not sure why you would need to do exactly that. If they put the plant in Michigan, hire a bunch of middle aged former factory workers, organize them into 3 shifts of eight hours, they should be able to run the plant 120 hours a week. The plan becomes a little more complicated if you want to run 7 days a week all the time, but that problem can be solved.
That when someone says it's not wages, it's the lack of available experienced workers, they are actually saying it's wages. The proper response to not being able to find enough people to do a job is to offer more money, not complain that there's no one qualified because not enough people are willing to do the job at the price you're offering.
There are very few occupations where there can be a legitimate lack of talent/experience for the job. Running an assembly line isn't one of them.
That's "The Movement for Black Lives" not "Black Lives Matter".
"Leftists" celebrate all kinds of diversity of everything except thought. When it comes to thought, only right-think is allowed; wrong-think and thought-crime are severely punished. Look how the left attacks people in otherwise protected groups when they commit thought-crime. Milo, Anne Coulter, Michelle Maulkin, Clarence Thomas, Laura Ingram, Col. Alan West, Herman Caine... etc., etc.
How terrible of them to judge people by their actions and not by the colour of their skin, gender, or sexual orientation...
Is that your point?
So why can't a Christian privately owned bakery refuses to sell a gay wedding cake ?
As far as I understand they can refuse to sell a gay wedding cake, but they can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but it seems to me that you're missing a fundamental difference. The bakers didn't refuse to put arbitrary messages on cakes, when they found out their customers were gay they refused to provide any wedding cake to them for any reason.
Oh REALLY? How about this: http://www.thedenverchannel.co... where a baker refused to bake a cake for religious customer that had bible scriptures on them referring to gays... Now I'm not condoning the messages requested, I'm simply pointing out the face that it has been done, and the court ruling was opposite. In fact, if I had to guess, I think this was done to prove a point, and that point was that these are biased judgments, and both sides are not being treated the same.
That's a lie. The baker offered to bake the bible-shaped cakes without the anti-gay messages on them, and to provide the complainant with icing so he could write whatever messages he wanted to on the cake:
The important part is even though he was deliberately trolling her at the bakery for an excuse to sue her, she didn't refuse him her normal services which is baking cakes. In fact she was quite willing to bake him a Christian bible cake. However, she refused to decorate the cake with offensive images and words. Which, to most people, is a reasonable reaction.
The anti-gay cake bakers, as I understand it, entirely refused to provide their regular services to their complainants. The analogous situation would have been for the anti-gay baker to make the wedding cake, but refuse to put the two little women on the top. Instead the refused to selling wedding cakes to the women in question because they were lesbians.
In fact in at least a few of situations where I've looked into anti-gay refusals where the defendant lost, the defendant revoked their offer of services after the fact, without notice, without recompense and without providing an alternative service. That's legally a breach of contract regardless of the reason they refused the service after agreeing to provide it. Once you're past the stage of offer and acceptance, it is not legal to add additional requirements to a contract unless the changes provide consideration for both parties and are agreed to by both parties. In some cases considerable damages were awarded because services were revoked at or near the wedding day to the point where it became extremely expensive or even impossible to arrange for replacement services.
You might not be aware of this, but you're conflating different things together. Twitter is a private company that is publicly traded. In the first usage "private" indicates that the company is not owned by the government, and this usage is common enough that we talk about private/public partnerships when both private corporations and government are involved in funding a project. The second usage "publicly traded" means the company is listed on a stock exchange. Those two usages denote different things about the company.
So when someone says it is a private company, they are saying it isn't run by the government, which is why when you claim it's not a private company people think you mean it's owned by the government. If they know what they're talking about, and they wanted to say the company wasn't publicly traded, then they would say it's a "privately owned company" or a "privately held company".
According to Harvard (in a letter helpfully posted below the first video) the first video was been purposely edited to make the speaker look bad, he was actually mocking his opponent's debate position (which had injected race into the debate) rather than making a serious argument.
Kids, don't believe everything you see on YouTube, especially when it's a short 1 or 2 minute edited clip from a much longer event.
People need to be free to be total assholes so long as they are not physically harming others.
So, if a mob lynches someone, only the people that the police can prove actually did physical harm to the victim should be punished? The guy who singled the victim out, directed the others to put the noose around the victim's neck, and ordered the victim's death should be allowed to go free with no consequences?
I have noticed a persistent pattern in recent years where the actual result is a few percent to the right of what the polls were predicting. This includes this election, the last two or three in Britain, the most recent one in Israel and Brexit. Either people are lying about their intentions or the samples are non-representative.
In this presidential election, I think it was voter modelling that skewed the polls. They assumed the turn out would be similar to the past few elections (in this case the last 3 or 4 presidential elections). Trump's victory can be attributed to many factors but the surprise comes down to his ability to energize rural voters who haven't voted in the last few elections. He increased their turn out by 20%, a factor no one predicted and that was enough to carry the swing states he needed to win.
"Since Inaugural Day 2001, the Democrats were against nearly anything and everything Pres Bush was in favor of. The Party of No, or have you been sleeping for these past eight years?"
How little the left remembers or cares about history.
And this is why in your world, the patriot act was never passed and the U.S. invasion of Iraq never happened?
High corporate income tax rates and costly regulations necessitate a high level of automation... that screws millions of US citizens out of good-paying factory jobs here...
You keep writing that, but it doesn't seem to make any sense. Corporate income tax rates are applied to profits, so as far as tax rates are concerned it never matters whether you automate or not. The tax rate is applied the same way to all profits regardless of how many people work in the individual factories. Likewise, I'm not aware of what "costly regulations" scale by the number of employees, and a report from the Small Business Administration (SBA) indicated that most regulatory costs benefit from economies of scale. If the costs scaled aggressively according to number of employees, you would expect that larger companies would pay significantly more than smaller companies, but according to the SBA the companies with the fewest employees pay the highest fees per employee.
That's not to say that there are no regulations that scale by number of employees, but rather that they seem to be a small fraction of the total regulatory burden.
I'm all for a discussion about such things... but using the fact that in two of the past five elections, the winner lost the popular vote is not valid support that our current system is flawed.
In your opinion. To many people the idea that the person who got the most votes lost the election seems a little bit "undemocratic". You can argue that it's not supposed to be democratic or that things would be different if things were different until you're blue in the face. However, it's not going to change the fact that many people would think that a system where the seemingly more popular candidate loses would be inherently defective.
Don't get me wrong, I know why the electoral college works that way, but from a blackbox approach the voting systems looks quite flawed indeed.
Nothing adds carbon to the atmosphere like volcanoes, meteor impacts, ocean venting, and natural lightning fires. Oh, wait, I meant Humans. We're the only thing that "adds carbon to the atmosphere". Yeah.
In order:
Effectively, while there are natural processes that both release CO2 and capture CO2, those processes are pretty well balanced. Without human activity, the CO2 level would be close to constant. It is the additional of billions of tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere every year that is pushing the atmospheric CO2 levels higher. The simple fact is that without human activity the CO2 level in the atmosphere would not be rising.
Hillary, on the other hand, has been the target of slings and arrows since her husband was first elected President. She knows how to take the verbal punch, ignore it, and keep doing what needs to be done.
This is absolutely untrue!
She's actually been a target since Bill was first elected governor of Arkansas in 1978...
The latter, while doing a lot of things that are either distasteful or something that a lot of people may disagree w/, is neither unethical nor illegal: it's just that most people would disagree w/ his judgement. The former did something that is clearly illegal, and among other things, downright corrupt (trading State Department favors for Clinton Foundation donations, Clinton Foundation - a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization - footing the bill for her daughter's wedding and 10 years of their lives), as well as putting national secrets at risk by maintaining a private server. If WikiLeaks could break into DNC emails and that of Clinton aides, how difficult would it have been for more professional organizations (read enemy states) to actually hack Clinton's private server(s)? And a lot of people have gone to jail for much less - Gen Petraeus, Adm Cartwright and the guy who got a year in jail for taking 6 photos in a classified area of a submarine.
The real problem is that everything you think you know is wrong:
1) There is no evidence that favours were traded for donations.
2) Someone who dislikes Chelsea Clinton wrote an email to Podesta claiming that Chelsea had used foundation money to pay for her wedding, however, there's no evidence to back up the accusation and the email writer did not get along well with Chelsea, so his words might be hyperbole, just plain wrong, or even deliberately misleading.
3 a) Wikileaks didn't break into the DNC email or John Podesta's email. The FBI says it believes it was the work of Russian intelligence operatives.
3 b) Whether or not they are correct, we know for certain that the State Department's official email server was hacked.
3 c) The FBI has examined the logs from Clintons server and said there's no evidence that it was hacked.
3 d) If there was stuff on her server that wasn't on the State Department's official servers then she may have accidentally kept it out of the hands of the Russians (or whoever it was who hacked the State Department).
4 a) No, actually, people have gone to jail for much more.
4 b) General Petraeus knowingly gave top secret information to his journalist/biographer/lover and lied to the FBI about it.
4 c) General Cartwright (not Admiral!) knowingly leaked top secret information to the media and lied to the FBI about it.
4 d) Saucier took detailed pictures of classified equipment on the Alexandria (including the sub's nuclear reactor) then lied to the FBI about it, and then partially destroyed the evidence after he lied about having done it. He was convicted because a cleaner found the phone with the pictures after he denied taking them and turned them over to the Navy. His fellow crew members also told the FBI that they saw him taking the pictures, that he was warned it was illegal and that he continued to take the pictures after being warned. Because of the destruction of evidence, the FBI and the NCIS were never able to confirm whether the pictures had been given to anyone else.
4 e) Two other crew members on the Alexandria were also caught taking pictures, however, they admitted what they did and received only disciplinary action from the Navy.
4 e) Clinton did not knowingly distribute classified information (because of the way the FBI report was written and reported, I'm not sure if she ever actually distributed any classified information, even in error), did not lie about knowingly distributing the classified information, and did not order the destruction of evidence after the FBI contacted her. She would have gotten a slap on the wrist like both of Saucier's colleagues, except that she doesn't work at the State department any more, so they literally can't apply disciplinary action and her actions do not warrant a criminal charge.
Basically every accusation you have repeated is either provable false or is merely an accusation with no actual evidence to give it credibility.
Well, he knows who he wants to go to jail for murder, so it's just a matter of finding a way to convict them. That's how "good policemen" work, right?
What other side? Hasn't Romney endorsed Clinton? The most amazing thing about this election is the validation of the conspiracy theorists who have been saying we have one party rule. It's true, as unbelievable as that is.
Have you ever considered the possibility that Trump is just a completely terrible candidate for President? He is facing a rape trial and a fraud trial along with his many other flaws.
Still though, this doesn't come off as suspicious to me at all. Since when is it odd or otherwise unusual that a server belonging to a billionaire talks to a server belonging to a bank in a foreign country? That's like saying that it's odd that there's dog piss on a fire hydrant.
The odd parts are that the server seems to have been configured to only speak to servers owned by an associate of Putin, and that the communication pattern roughly follows the time table of political events, increasing when newsworthy political events are happening and dropping off when it's not.
or maybe because the EU simply isn't perfect, and is not just a democracy of several competing demands, but a collection of them. seriously, in what world is your comment at all a useful, logical argument, and not false dichotomy that contributes nothing but a distraction?
And now you know why he's posting: the goal is to distract everyone (including himself) from the problem because the mere acknowledgement that the problem exists is a challenge to his personal beliefs.
No, we can't. Airplanes aren't going to be solar powered, wind driven ships are extremely erratic, and delivering food to cities by horse-drawn carts is so last millennium.
We could live comfortably without air planes*, we can design ships to be powered by wind and solar, electricity or hydrogen fuel cells as need, and there's no need to go back to horse-drawn carts. Your failure to imagine a world where we aren't dependent on oil is a failure of your imagination, not an indication of actual impossibility.
* Technically we wouldn't have to live with airplanes in any case, since we could use solar/wind power to create aviation fuel to run the planes on in a carbon-neutral way.