If we are ever going to beat this racism thing, we've simply got to start ignoring people's race, both legally AND in practical day to day business matters. This applies to ALL sides of the question including discrimination AND affirmative action laws. Folks will have to drop their victimhood status along with those who think they are better by virtue of their race,
MLK's dream was exactly this, judgment by the content of one's character, not the color of their skin.
Of course, nobody cares what I (A middle age white dude) say on this subject because I'm not a member of a politically recognized group of victims...
Maybe so, but it is worrying to investors non-the-less.. Tesla remains high risk, even after all these years.
The questions here are will Tesla make money, eventually, or will they have to burn all their cash on this infrastructure building from now until bankruptcy comes? If the answer is they will survive, then investors are asking HOW LONG will it take to turn a profit?
Do you know the answers? Tesla doesn't know, Musk is making no promises so nobody knows... That makes them high risk. If you like their chances, have at it, but I'd recommend that investors take the risks they are taking into account by not playing the wall street casino roulette wheel with effectively a single number bet. Diversify...
You are crazy! Hey, I know who you are.. Ted Kaczynski is it? You might consider moving to a cabin in some remote plot of land...
For some of us, what does it matter, really? I erase my browser cookies and don't use common usernames or passwords for anything important... I also am mindful of putting any personal information in E-mail or on social media sites I might visit..... Not to mention that I don't have much disposable income anyway, so advertisers are spitting in the wind sending me ads....
But hey, If you want to go crazy about this, have at it. I'll run a TOR node to help..
If your point is that Trump made a mistake when he hired the Mooch... Point taken, he was a bad choice and it was obvious his first week.
However, that issue has now been corrected, so what's your beef? That Trump made a mistake? Who hasn't? Are you perfect? (unlikely) Was Obama perfect? (absolutely not).
Obama had folks leave his administration on bad terms and go on to write books about how bad things where in the White House. I don't see ANYBODY leaving Trump's White House staff who is upset about it... Granted it will take a few months to see if they are going to shop book deals or not, but it doesn't look like they are leaving on bad terms, even Mike Flynn who got the "you are fired" treatment right out of the gate.
So how's this Mooch thing so hugely bad? I don't think it's a biggie, but hey, if that's all you guys over there got, fire away! It's going to be out of the news cycle in a few days anyway and nobody will likely remember anything about it next week.
So America's democracy isn't functioning because your candidate didn't reach the White House like everybody expected?
My Venezuela example was merely to illustrate a "democracy" that wasn't working, where political opposition is routinely jailed by the government. Obviously the USA isn't that bad. I could have used other examples like "The Peoples Republic of Korea" where everybody votes in every election on pain of death, but there is only one choice on the ballot. Kim gets elected in a landslide every time. THAT is a mockery of democracy.
One of the firmest measures of low morale in an organization is the level of turnover.
Unless the leader is trying to find the team that achieves his desired results and it mixing things up by trying new people? Remember this is the chief Executive working out his management team in his own way. He's not a long term politician who has established advisers and donors to appease with his appointments, he's a brash Real Estate developer who got elected because he WASN'T all the things you seem to want.
What's wrong with turn over in the Whitehouse? Nobody leaving is airing any kind of beef with Trump. Everyone of them (with the exception of James Comey who really wasn't Whitehouse staff) is leaving on good terms with glowing and positive things to say. Doesn't sound very Toxic to me..
Trump is looking for people who get results, the ones he wants. If you don't produce, or don't mesh with the parts of his team that ARE working, he doesn't mess around. Nothing wrong with that management style at the executive level.
So, no Secretary of State has EVER taken a vacation before?
Hillary did...Was Obama's Whitehouse Toxic too? I didn't think so, I a doubt you did either. Clinton and Obama's relationship was obviously strained at times, but nobody called it "toxic". Oh no, that's something reserved for Trump by those who want to bash him for anything they can dream up.
So you are just reading into this what you want to see. Everybody is saying Tillerson isn't leaving his position, he's just taking a break, you'd call it a vacation if you were being fair.
Trump is still a Mockery of Democracy, independent on what is happening in Venezuela. The U.S. system of checks and balances is still in effect, and we still have enough adults in the room to prevent pure chaos.
OK.. Care to outline HOW Trump is doing this?
Personally, I think things are working AS DESIGNED, which is entirely different than the previous "I have a pen and a phone" occupant of this office, who, failing to accomplish nearly ALL of his legislative goals from his first midterm on, was left with no other choice but to subvert congress and ignore the courts as much as he could.
Glad you see that Venezuela's current election is a REAL Mockery of Democracy, mainly because it is anything but free and fair both in speech and political views in that country. Just like North Korea is a Mockery (the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea... Right).
Where is Trump doing stuff like this? Or is there some other way he's doing what you claim?
Personally, I'd cut him a big break...Most of us wouldn't handle any one of these pressures very well...
You know, if you don't like petting scorpions, you shouldn't get a job petting scorpions.
What's really terrifying is that the WH has become a toxic place for any remotely competent people in the US. What's left after The Mooch?
LOL.. Toxic is it? So the Whitehouse is a "toxic place" now eh? Apart from all the bloviating by the press who have been proudly declaring "This is Trump's worst day ever" for months... HOW DO YOU KNOW? I'm not seeing anybody who was actually there (past or present) saying anything approaching this, are you? All I'm seeing is a bunch of people in the press out speculating that this is what's going on. I don't trust their speculations... They've been wrong more than they've been right about Trump so far.
What on earth are you talking about? Mockery of Democracy? That's what is going on in Venezuela over the weekend not in the Whitehouse right now.
This guy was obviously not a good fit for the Whitehouse "Communications Director" given his current situation. But truth be told, I don't imagine that this guy is necessarily in a good place in his personal life, with his wife divorcing him on the same day as his youngest child was born during his first week on a really high pressure, high stakes, publically visible job.
Personally, I'd cut him a big break...Most of us wouldn't handle any one of these pressures very well...
The "communications director" resigning at the Whitehouse is somehow more important than the first day of a new Chief of Staff? Yea... That makes perfect sense...
Despite the appearance or how hard you try, you are NOT anonymous online. You may be harder to trace than the next person, but you are not able to totally hide. Increasingly, with the advent of "big data" and "data mining", smart people are going to make inroads in tracing every jot and tittle of what you do. The question is only about where the data collection is happening that drives this data mining effort.
Now, I suppose if you think there was some kind of improper relationship with the Russians during the campaign he's trying to hide
Yes obviously there was.
Citation please? (Hint: It may be obvious to you, but it's not based on any factual evidence.) There's been a whole lot of bloviating over the prospect, but no real evidence that anything improper happened between the Russians and Trump or his people. People goina believe what people want to believe I guess.
Right, as if that's the ONLY valid way to perform a study.
Polio killed thousands and scared tens of thousands back in the 1960's here in the USA. I will point out that one strain of Polio has been eradicated from the world's population and the other two have been largely relegated to "in the wild" infection rates of under 100 per year. I will ALSO point out that an "in the wild" infection of Polio in the USA HAS NOT HAPPENED in over a decade.
I'm pretty sure it's easy to prove that this is largely due to the vaccination rates for Polio since the 60's, but be my guest if you want to argue otherwise. The same is true for other viral infections which used to kill and scar a percentage of the population, BEFORE vaccines became the norm.
Now I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the number and frequency of vaccinations suggested by the CDC is a good idea and that vaccine makers are not out on a money grab by pushing as many as they do... But I AM saying that vaccines are safe and effective for most people and it is good government policy to encourage their use (in most cases) for public health. You do what you want, but if your kid dies from the measles (yes it can and does happen) that could have been prevented by a vaccine what will you say then? Personally, I recommend finding a doctor you trust to take care of your kids, and take their advice, which likely means you vaccinate your kids along with mine.
Yea, I don't think Trump's tweeting is a good idea either, but you have to admit that it's exactly the opposite of being opaque... It's sort of a blow by blow stream of how Trump thinks though things, unfiltered, unvarnished and unPC. I see them as more of a brainstorming session where Trump is spit balling his ideas to see how they sound... Decidedly NOT filtered or edited, transparent. He's not hiding anything, good or bad from his twitter followers.
Seriously? Some low level pawn takes some USDA information off line for a reason you don't like and you bludgeon Trump for being opaque?
Which FOIA requests are you concerned about? As I recall there are complaints that Obama's administration didn't cough up a bunch of stuff that didn't seem to be fostering transparency... Stuff about Benghazi was routinely slow rolled as was information about Clinton's involvement, ostensibly because the "public story" didn't match the "actual facts" and there was an election or two to win. FOIA requests that the administration blocked and lost in court when their blocks where challenged...
Next you are going to complain because Whitehouse.gov changed on January 20th 2017, and all of Obama's stuff got shuffled into some obscure archive...
then [Hillary] didn't just turn them all over when they were requested
Except she did turn over everything relevant..
I'm going to stop you right there because the rest is pointless if you don't get this.
IF you receive a court order to turn over your E-mail, YOU don't get to pick and choose what is turned over. It ALL goes, regardless of if you think they are relevant or not. You and your lawyers do NOT get to sort them out and filter them in any way. She was legally required to turn over ALL the E-mails she had when the order was received, not a filtered subset. Had she destroyed them BEFORE she reasonably knew they where under a court order, she'd be in the clear from the court order's perspective. However, her sidestepping of the FOIA laws by using a private server to do official State Department business would remain an issue for her.
Since she turned over all "relevant" E-mails, we have found that a couple thousand of them where most decidedly work related where not provided though they where sent and received on this server. They where recovered from other accounts from other servers to which they were sent or received from and obviously came from Clinton's server. Further, we have discovered classified (at the time, and after the fact) information which was improperly sent over her server despite her claims to have not sent or received classified content... Based on this, I simply don't believe her claims..
My point here is that if you routinely destroy records, documents, Email and other things like this, you cannot be held in contempt for not producing records which you destroyed BEFORE becoming aware of a possible court order to produce them. It's a good idea to do this from a legal perspective too, because it limits your liability exposure for past events (should someone decide to file suit at a later date). I was using Clinton as an example of why you might want to do this.
All this does NOT imply that you shouldn't keep records. Sometimes there are legal and business reasons to KEEP them around. However, smart folks routinely destroy records once there is no legal or business reason to keep them.
I saw Bush as somewhat opaque, but not unpleasantly or unreasonably so. Clinton was documented as a liar and was very misleading and opaque when push came to shove politically. But Obama was the textbook definition of opaque for 8 full years.
I don't think Trump is opaque in the least, which is actually partly responsible for his PR problems. What you see is what you get with Trump, warts and all. He tweets out ill-advised stuff based on his feelings at the time and forces his PR folks to work overtime *explaining* how he's really towing the administration's stated position. We are actually getting a glimpse of how Trump thinks and how his administration is working (or not working depending on your view). This is transparency to a fault if you ask me.
Now, I suppose if you think there was some kind of improper relationship with the Russians during the campaign he's trying to hide, and you admit that there is no direct evidence to support this claim, you MIGHT consider Trump's continued denials as being opaque. But you realize that this is only true if it turns out his denials are false...
However, we are off topic here because the FCC people involved here are not Trump appointees, but long standing civil servants. As such, they don't reflect on Trump's OR Obama's administrations.
Well, what he said was to not keep RECORDS by not putting anything into writing where it is subject to FOIA laws. This is EXACTLY the reason that some think Hillary did this "Private E-mail server" mistake, it was an effort to keep E-mail conversations from being subject to FOIA requests (or that's how some see it). The problem for Hillary is that she kept all these old E-mails around instead of routinely trashing them (mistake 2), then she didn't just turn them all over when they were requested (mistake 3) for some reason I cannot imagine...Oh well, her loss, literally...
Businesses do this kind of thing all the time. Like my company's default E-mail retention policy of 14 days. Crazy as it sounds, they do this for liability reasons (as well as limiting server space). Record retention policies are usually about limiting legal liability in the case of a lawsuit. "Oh, you want the E-mail from 30 days ago with that court order? Sorry, we only have 14 days worth due to our records retention policy..."
To protect the USA by being able to kill people and break things anywhere on demand as quickly and efficiently as possible... Not to be some social or environmental experiment.
This whole LGBT* being allowed in the military debate looks more like a social experiment than being about the military's primary mission to me. It's about as pointless as using renewable "green" fuel to power a long range bomber on a thermal Nuclear strike. You are really concerned about CO2 emissions when you are dropping a nuclear bomb?
IF some idea or policy doesn't enhance the military's ability to kill people and break things, then it's a bad idea or policy for the military. There should be no arguments about the military that is not about how to fulfill it's purpose with the most efficient, most accurate and quickest way possible, with perhaps a thought about if we can actually afford to do without it based on cost. Full Stop.
Why are people acting like there was a trans brigade charging the shores of Normandy?
Wartime is when the military STOPS banning LGBTs. During WW2, it was very difficult to avoid the draft, and plenty of LGBTs were inducted, and plenty of them landed on the Normandy beaches. It is only in peacetime that the military uses the excuse that LGBTs can't serve "because we need to win wars", but not when there is actually a war to be won.
Only biological males where drafted and I guarantee that if a biological male disclosed that he was gay or insisted on dressing like a girl he'd be dishonorably discharged during the Viet Nam war, the Korean war, WW2 or any war before that. being openly gay and being in the military wasn't allowed until after "don't ask, don't tell" was revoked.
Yea, but it's FASTER (according to M$'s PR campaign that comes up when you start Edge)... Well SURE it's faster, it doesn't support anything that would slow it down.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe not EVERYWHERE.... In some places, such wage levels are not going to buy you reliable labor. Heck, in SOME places $12/hour is illegal.
Seriously?
If we are ever going to beat this racism thing, we've simply got to start ignoring people's race, both legally AND in practical day to day business matters. This applies to ALL sides of the question including discrimination AND affirmative action laws. Folks will have to drop their victimhood status along with those who think they are better by virtue of their race,
MLK's dream was exactly this, judgment by the content of one's character, not the color of their skin.
Of course, nobody cares what I (A middle age white dude) say on this subject because I'm not a member of a politically recognized group of victims...
Maybe so, but it is worrying to investors non-the-less.. Tesla remains high risk, even after all these years.
The questions here are will Tesla make money, eventually, or will they have to burn all their cash on this infrastructure building from now until bankruptcy comes? If the answer is they will survive, then investors are asking HOW LONG will it take to turn a profit?
Do you know the answers? Tesla doesn't know, Musk is making no promises so nobody knows... That makes them high risk. If you like their chances, have at it, but I'd recommend that investors take the risks they are taking into account by not playing the wall street casino roulette wheel with effectively a single number bet. Diversify...
Going nowhere fast.... Be still my beating heart.
You are crazy! Hey, I know who you are.. Ted Kaczynski is it? You might consider moving to a cabin in some remote plot of land...
For some of us, what does it matter, really? I erase my browser cookies and don't use common usernames or passwords for anything important... I also am mindful of putting any personal information in E-mail or on social media sites I might visit..... Not to mention that I don't have much disposable income anyway, so advertisers are spitting in the wind sending me ads....
But hey, If you want to go crazy about this, have at it. I'll run a TOR node to help..
If your point is that Trump made a mistake when he hired the Mooch... Point taken, he was a bad choice and it was obvious his first week.
However, that issue has now been corrected, so what's your beef? That Trump made a mistake? Who hasn't? Are you perfect? (unlikely) Was Obama perfect? (absolutely not).
Obama had folks leave his administration on bad terms and go on to write books about how bad things where in the White House. I don't see ANYBODY leaving Trump's White House staff who is upset about it... Granted it will take a few months to see if they are going to shop book deals or not, but it doesn't look like they are leaving on bad terms, even Mike Flynn who got the "you are fired" treatment right out of the gate.
So how's this Mooch thing so hugely bad? I don't think it's a biggie, but hey, if that's all you guys over there got, fire away! It's going to be out of the news cycle in a few days anyway and nobody will likely remember anything about it next week.
So America's democracy isn't functioning because your candidate didn't reach the White House like everybody expected?
My Venezuela example was merely to illustrate a "democracy" that wasn't working, where political opposition is routinely jailed by the government. Obviously the USA isn't that bad. I could have used other examples like "The Peoples Republic of Korea" where everybody votes in every election on pain of death, but there is only one choice on the ballot. Kim gets elected in a landslide every time. THAT is a mockery of democracy.
One of the firmest measures of low morale in an organization is the level of turnover.
Unless the leader is trying to find the team that achieves his desired results and it mixing things up by trying new people? Remember this is the chief Executive working out his management team in his own way. He's not a long term politician who has established advisers and donors to appease with his appointments, he's a brash Real Estate developer who got elected because he WASN'T all the things you seem to want.
What's wrong with turn over in the Whitehouse? Nobody leaving is airing any kind of beef with Trump. Everyone of them (with the exception of James Comey who really wasn't Whitehouse staff) is leaving on good terms with glowing and positive things to say. Doesn't sound very Toxic to me..
Trump is looking for people who get results, the ones he wants. If you don't produce, or don't mesh with the parts of his team that ARE working, he doesn't mess around. Nothing wrong with that management style at the executive level.
Unknowingly YES.
But he dealt with it pretty quickly, just like he's done in the past with others on his staff. Your point?
So, no Secretary of State has EVER taken a vacation before?
Hillary did...Was Obama's Whitehouse Toxic too? I didn't think so, I a doubt you did either. Clinton and Obama's relationship was obviously strained at times, but nobody called it "toxic". Oh no, that's something reserved for Trump by those who want to bash him for anything they can dream up.
So you are just reading into this what you want to see. Everybody is saying Tillerson isn't leaving his position, he's just taking a break, you'd call it a vacation if you were being fair.
Trump is still a Mockery of Democracy, independent on what is happening in Venezuela. The U.S. system of checks and balances is still in effect, and we still have enough adults in the room to prevent pure chaos.
OK.. Care to outline HOW Trump is doing this?
Personally, I think things are working AS DESIGNED, which is entirely different than the previous "I have a pen and a phone" occupant of this office, who, failing to accomplish nearly ALL of his legislative goals from his first midterm on, was left with no other choice but to subvert congress and ignore the courts as much as he could.
Glad you see that Venezuela's current election is a REAL Mockery of Democracy, mainly because it is anything but free and fair both in speech and political views in that country. Just like North Korea is a Mockery (the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea... Right).
Where is Trump doing stuff like this? Or is there some other way he's doing what you claim?
Personally, I'd cut him a big break...Most of us wouldn't handle any one of these pressures very well...
You know, if you don't like petting scorpions, you shouldn't get a job petting scorpions.
What's really terrifying is that the WH has become a toxic place for any remotely competent people in the US. What's left after The Mooch?
LOL.. Toxic is it? So the Whitehouse is a "toxic place" now eh? Apart from all the bloviating by the press who have been proudly declaring "This is Trump's worst day ever" for months... HOW DO YOU KNOW? I'm not seeing anybody who was actually there (past or present) saying anything approaching this, are you? All I'm seeing is a bunch of people in the press out speculating that this is what's going on. I don't trust their speculations... They've been wrong more than they've been right about Trump so far.
What on earth are you talking about? Mockery of Democracy? That's what is going on in Venezuela over the weekend not in the Whitehouse right now.
This guy was obviously not a good fit for the Whitehouse "Communications Director" given his current situation. But truth be told, I don't imagine that this guy is necessarily in a good place in his personal life, with his wife divorcing him on the same day as his youngest child was born during his first week on a really high pressure, high stakes, publically visible job.
Personally, I'd cut him a big break...Most of us wouldn't handle any one of these pressures very well...
The "communications director" resigning at the Whitehouse is somehow more important than the first day of a new Chief of Staff? Yea... That makes perfect sense...
Despite the appearance or how hard you try, you are NOT anonymous online. You may be harder to trace than the next person, but you are not able to totally hide. Increasingly, with the advent of "big data" and "data mining", smart people are going to make inroads in tracing every jot and tittle of what you do. The question is only about where the data collection is happening that drives this data mining effort.
Now, I suppose if you think there was some kind of improper relationship with the Russians during the campaign he's trying to hide
Yes obviously there was.
Citation please? (Hint: It may be obvious to you, but it's not based on any factual evidence.) There's been a whole lot of bloviating over the prospect, but no real evidence that anything improper happened between the Russians and Trump or his people. People goina believe what people want to believe I guess.
Right, as if that's the ONLY valid way to perform a study.
Polio killed thousands and scared tens of thousands back in the 1960's here in the USA. I will point out that one strain of Polio has been eradicated from the world's population and the other two have been largely relegated to "in the wild" infection rates of under 100 per year. I will ALSO point out that an "in the wild" infection of Polio in the USA HAS NOT HAPPENED in over a decade.
I'm pretty sure it's easy to prove that this is largely due to the vaccination rates for Polio since the 60's, but be my guest if you want to argue otherwise. The same is true for other viral infections which used to kill and scar a percentage of the population, BEFORE vaccines became the norm.
Now I'm not going to sit here and tell you that the number and frequency of vaccinations suggested by the CDC is a good idea and that vaccine makers are not out on a money grab by pushing as many as they do... But I AM saying that vaccines are safe and effective for most people and it is good government policy to encourage their use (in most cases) for public health. You do what you want, but if your kid dies from the measles (yes it can and does happen) that could have been prevented by a vaccine what will you say then? Personally, I recommend finding a doctor you trust to take care of your kids, and take their advice, which likely means you vaccinate your kids along with mine.
Yea, I don't think Trump's tweeting is a good idea either, but you have to admit that it's exactly the opposite of being opaque... It's sort of a blow by blow stream of how Trump thinks though things, unfiltered, unvarnished and unPC. I see them as more of a brainstorming session where Trump is spit balling his ideas to see how they sound... Decidedly NOT filtered or edited, transparent. He's not hiding anything, good or bad from his twitter followers.
Seriously? Some low level pawn takes some USDA information off line for a reason you don't like and you bludgeon Trump for being opaque?
Which FOIA requests are you concerned about? As I recall there are complaints that Obama's administration didn't cough up a bunch of stuff that didn't seem to be fostering transparency... Stuff about Benghazi was routinely slow rolled as was information about Clinton's involvement, ostensibly because the "public story" didn't match the "actual facts" and there was an election or two to win. FOIA requests that the administration blocked and lost in court when their blocks where challenged...
Next you are going to complain because Whitehouse.gov changed on January 20th 2017, and all of Obama's stuff got shuffled into some obscure archive...
then [Hillary] didn't just turn them all over when they were requested
Except she did turn over everything relevant. .
I'm going to stop you right there because the rest is pointless if you don't get this.
IF you receive a court order to turn over your E-mail, YOU don't get to pick and choose what is turned over. It ALL goes, regardless of if you think they are relevant or not. You and your lawyers do NOT get to sort them out and filter them in any way. She was legally required to turn over ALL the E-mails she had when the order was received, not a filtered subset. Had she destroyed them BEFORE she reasonably knew they where under a court order, she'd be in the clear from the court order's perspective. However, her sidestepping of the FOIA laws by using a private server to do official State Department business would remain an issue for her.
Since she turned over all "relevant" E-mails, we have found that a couple thousand of them where most decidedly work related where not provided though they where sent and received on this server. They where recovered from other accounts from other servers to which they were sent or received from and obviously came from Clinton's server. Further, we have discovered classified (at the time, and after the fact) information which was improperly sent over her server despite her claims to have not sent or received classified content... Based on this, I simply don't believe her claims..
My point here is that if you routinely destroy records, documents, Email and other things like this, you cannot be held in contempt for not producing records which you destroyed BEFORE becoming aware of a possible court order to produce them. It's a good idea to do this from a legal perspective too, because it limits your liability exposure for past events (should someone decide to file suit at a later date). I was using Clinton as an example of why you might want to do this.
All this does NOT imply that you shouldn't keep records. Sometimes there are legal and business reasons to KEEP them around. However, smart folks routinely destroy records once there is no legal or business reason to keep them.
I guess it depends on your political prospective.
I saw Bush as somewhat opaque, but not unpleasantly or unreasonably so. Clinton was documented as a liar and was very misleading and opaque when push came to shove politically. But Obama was the textbook definition of opaque for 8 full years.
I don't think Trump is opaque in the least, which is actually partly responsible for his PR problems. What you see is what you get with Trump, warts and all. He tweets out ill-advised stuff based on his feelings at the time and forces his PR folks to work overtime *explaining* how he's really towing the administration's stated position. We are actually getting a glimpse of how Trump thinks and how his administration is working (or not working depending on your view). This is transparency to a fault if you ask me.
Now, I suppose if you think there was some kind of improper relationship with the Russians during the campaign he's trying to hide, and you admit that there is no direct evidence to support this claim, you MIGHT consider Trump's continued denials as being opaque. But you realize that this is only true if it turns out his denials are false...
However, we are off topic here because the FCC people involved here are not Trump appointees, but long standing civil servants. As such, they don't reflect on Trump's OR Obama's administrations.
Yep... That's exactly what he said...
Well, what he said was to not keep RECORDS by not putting anything into writing where it is subject to FOIA laws. This is EXACTLY the reason that some think Hillary did this "Private E-mail server" mistake, it was an effort to keep E-mail conversations from being subject to FOIA requests (or that's how some see it). The problem for Hillary is that she kept all these old E-mails around instead of routinely trashing them (mistake 2), then she didn't just turn them all over when they were requested (mistake 3) for some reason I cannot imagine...Oh well, her loss, literally...
Businesses do this kind of thing all the time. Like my company's default E-mail retention policy of 14 days. Crazy as it sounds, they do this for liability reasons (as well as limiting server space). Record retention policies are usually about limiting legal liability in the case of a lawsuit. "Oh, you want the E-mail from 30 days ago with that court order? Sorry, we only have 14 days worth due to our records retention policy..."
To protect the USA by being able to kill people and break things anywhere on demand as quickly and efficiently as possible... Not to be some social or environmental experiment.
This whole LGBT* being allowed in the military debate looks more like a social experiment than being about the military's primary mission to me. It's about as pointless as using renewable "green" fuel to power a long range bomber on a thermal Nuclear strike. You are really concerned about CO2 emissions when you are dropping a nuclear bomb?
IF some idea or policy doesn't enhance the military's ability to kill people and break things, then it's a bad idea or policy for the military. There should be no arguments about the military that is not about how to fulfill it's purpose with the most efficient, most accurate and quickest way possible, with perhaps a thought about if we can actually afford to do without it based on cost. Full Stop.
Why are people acting like there was a trans brigade charging the shores of Normandy?
Wartime is when the military STOPS banning LGBTs. During WW2, it was very difficult to avoid the draft, and plenty of LGBTs were inducted, and plenty of them landed on the Normandy beaches. It is only in peacetime that the military uses the excuse that LGBTs can't serve "because we need to win wars", but not when there is actually a war to be won.
Only biological males where drafted and I guarantee that if a biological male disclosed that he was gay or insisted on dressing like a girl he'd be dishonorably discharged during the Viet Nam war, the Korean war, WW2 or any war before that. being openly gay and being in the military wasn't allowed until after "don't ask, don't tell" was revoked.
Yea, but it's FASTER (according to M$'s PR campaign that comes up when you start Edge)... Well SURE it's faster, it doesn't support anything that would slow it down.