You think that a major corporation with thousands of devices in close proximity is going to be able to reliably count on the local cellular carrier to provide enough reliable bandwidth to meet their needs?
No, over the next 5-10 years you'll see more fiber deployment which will get closer to the homes. Last mile will be copper for quite some time.
The FBI investigation is a circus made to look like someone's looking into it because they have to pretend to care. Nobody actually does, nor should they.
While that may be the case in the DoJ, given the # of FBI agents on the case I'm pretty sure they care, and should an indictment not happen you will see leaks like never before.
Lets see... we are comparing a private citizen who hasn't held or sought any government office in how long?... vs a person who has spent most of the last 25 years in government or seeking government positon.
The left is full of such hate, they are still obsessed with a woman who has not run for office in 8 years now, but are more than eager to forgive economic illiteracy (Sanders) or serial corruption and fraud (Clinton).
Selling state secrets may be a bit too much of an accusation, but selling favors and access isn't.
The entire Clinton Global Initiative looks to be an amazing scam in which she was personally able to enrich her family thanks to her position as SoS. Granted a book written on this subject isn't able to 'prove' much (though it does make a compelling case), it would be up to the feds to do a criminal investigation on the subject and that isn't likely.
Storing classified information on an unauthorized system was very illegal at the time... hence the FBI investigation and the granting of immunity to the staffer who set up the server.
Lets not forget that this is the same woman who not only stuck by her husband who was repeatedly and credibly accused of sexual assault, but also attacked his victims along the way.
Sure he got impeached and disbarred over some of the deceptions, now she is somehow a champion of women's rights despite her previous anti-woman actions.
So if you are hitting on a girl on the bar, do you require her to affirmatively say "No, I am not interested" before you stop your pursuit? Or do you take her not looking at you and the drink thrown in your face as a sign of the same?
Be it approving consent or denying consent come in many forms.
It is typical to fill supreme court positions immediately, especially if there is an even number of justices.
And you base that on what exactly?
The average time between nomination and confirmation/rejection has been ~23 days, however over the last 50 years it's upwards of 60 days.
You apparently see an interesting and seldom used meaning of the word 'immediately'
More so, thanks to the Democrat obstruction regarding the Bork nomination, the current record for a SCOTUS vacancy is 237 days... so again, not exactly 'immediately'.
It's so fun when leftists ignore the actual order of events.
Did you happen to note the year the events you listed occurred in?
2005 & 2006.
Did you note what year I referenced Senate Democrats vowing not to confirm anyone else?
2007.
I wonder if you forgot about the whole election in between which saw Democrat control in the Senate... not unlike the 2014 election (they have consequences I hear) gave control to the Republicans.
Why is a vote required to reject the nominee? That's like saying a girl must explicitly say "not interested" to your attempts to woo her, rather than you recognizing her not calling/emailing/texting back and having moved towns as a sign of their lack of interest.
It's a shame that the Democrats don't like a taste of their own medicine from 2007. While they were gung ho back then about not considering any nominee, only now are they upset because they aren't the one's making good on their threats.
I'm sure he was warned/aware of as to the political climate and the possibility of his nomination getting withdrawn should say... Hillary win the election so as to deny the GOP the chance to confirm him prior to her getting a chance to nominate someone worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he's blaming Reagan for the Barbary pirates.
And yet due to Reagan, you don't exactly see all that many Lenin statues in the world anymore.
Sadly I don't see hipsters & their Che t-shirts going away anytime soon.
I'll take that bet.
You think that a major corporation with thousands of devices in close proximity is going to be able to reliably count on the local cellular carrier to provide enough reliable bandwidth to meet their needs?
No, over the next 5-10 years you'll see more fiber deployment which will get closer to the homes. Last mile will be copper for quite some time.
While that may be the case in the DoJ, given the # of FBI agents on the case I'm pretty sure they care, and should an indictment not happen you will see leaks like never before.
Lets see... we are comparing a private citizen who hasn't held or sought any government office in how long?... vs a person who has spent most of the last 25 years in government or seeking government positon.
Yes, Palin mentions are so relevant.
Bingo.
The left is full of such hate, they are still obsessed with a woman who has not run for office in 8 years now, but are more than eager to forgive economic illiteracy (Sanders) or serial corruption and fraud (Clinton).
Sounds rather like the guy whose job she's trying to take at the end of the contract.
Never is it his fault, it's always the weather, republicans, ATMs, or foreign leaders who don't recognize his greatness.
Selling state secrets may be a bit too much of an accusation, but selling favors and access isn't.
The entire Clinton Global Initiative looks to be an amazing scam in which she was personally able to enrich her family thanks to her position as SoS. Granted a book written on this subject isn't able to 'prove' much (though it does make a compelling case), it would be up to the feds to do a criminal investigation on the subject and that isn't likely.
How many classified emails were found in Palin's personal inbox again?
There are multiple layers of political appointees who will need to approve such a thing... no doubt that has slowed things down a bit.
Success... success... success... care to point me at some? It's hard to see much through the burning middle-east which flared up on her watch.
Storing classified information on an unauthorized system was very illegal at the time... hence the FBI investigation and the granting of immunity to the staffer who set up the server.
Internalized misogyny maybe?
Lets not forget that this is the same woman who not only stuck by her husband who was repeatedly and credibly accused of sexual assault, but also attacked his victims along the way.
Sure he got impeached and disbarred over some of the deceptions, now she is somehow a champion of women's rights despite her previous anti-woman actions.
So if you are hitting on a girl on the bar, do you require her to affirmatively say "No, I am not interested" before you stop your pursuit? Or do you take her not looking at you and the drink thrown in your face as a sign of the same?
Be it approving consent or denying consent come in many forms.
If what you say is true... then it should be obvious why they will simply not hold any hearings or a vote.
Damn them for doing just what the Democrats threatened back in 2007!
Irrelevant.
As Democrats in 2009 loved to remind the Republicans: "Elections have consequences"
And you base that on what exactly?
The average time between nomination and confirmation/rejection has been ~23 days, however over the last 50 years it's upwards of 60 days.
You apparently see an interesting and seldom used meaning of the word 'immediately'
More so, thanks to the Democrat obstruction regarding the Bork nomination, the current record for a SCOTUS vacancy is 237 days... so again, not exactly 'immediately'.
It's so fun when leftists ignore the actual order of events.
Did you happen to note the year the events you listed occurred in?
2005 & 2006.
Did you note what year I referenced Senate Democrats vowing not to confirm anyone else?
2007.
I wonder if you forgot about the whole election in between which saw Democrat control in the Senate... not unlike the 2014 election (they have consequences I hear) gave control to the Republicans.
My toddler agrees!
So you want the line somewhere... but where?
Really? Yet nothing constitutionally requires the Senate to act on this or any other nomination.
As the Democrats back in 2009 were fond of saying: "elections have consequences"
Presidential, but like the President, you seem to be forgetting the one in 2014 which expanded GOP control of the House & Senate.
And again in 2014... just Obama doesn't seem to recognize the legitimacy of that election... but that’s pretty typical for (wanna be) despots.
Yes it does, and it means they are racist as well!
Remember though, these principals only valid between January 20th, 2009 & January 20th, 2017.
If however Hillary Clinton is elected, the cries of 'racism' will be automatically replaced with 'sexism' until at least January 20th, 2021.
Why is a vote required to reject the nominee? That's like saying a girl must explicitly say "not interested" to your attempts to woo her, rather than you recognizing her not calling/emailing/texting back and having moved towns as a sign of their lack of interest.
It's a shame that the Democrats don't like a taste of their own medicine from 2007. While they were gung ho back then about not considering any nominee, only now are they upset because they aren't the one's making good on their threats.
I'm sure he was warned/aware of as to the political climate and the possibility of his nomination getting withdrawn should say... Hillary win the election so as to deny the GOP the chance to confirm him prior to her getting a chance to nominate someone worse.