By all appearances, Biden is itching to get into the race. On some level it's obvious he wants to run. However, until he actually does, nobody here really knows. All we can say is that he's not said "NO" yet, so that means he has some kind of plan here. He may be undecided as you think, waiting for something to change, or he may just be waiting for the right moment.
I think he knows what his plan is and has been working to line up donors, keep his name in the polling, and keep working his plan to enter the race on his white horse. I think he knows that his best chance is to be a late entry who is polling near the top without spending a dime. I think he's Obama's heir apparent. Obama and Clinton have been widely reported to be at odds and I see Obama pushing Biden's chances by allowing him to be a topic of discussion at a number of pressers over the last few months. I think he's being careful to time his entry and is getting ready to hit the ground running at the last possible instant. I think he KNOWS he's getting in and not just toying with the idea waiting for something to happen before he decides as you indicate.
Only time will tell which of us is correct, but a guy doesn't say and do the things he's saying and doing unless he's got a plan for how this moves forward.
The problem with discussing "ethics" is that there are differing opinions about what's ethical and what's not in some cases. In this case, paying the least you legally can and returning as much profit to your investors might be seen as ethical by Facebook, where folks like you might object to how they choose to write off specific expenses in order to pay less in taxes. Both may have ethical arguments to support their positions, but reach totally different conclusions about what should have been done. Everybody needs to understand that ethical standards are not absolute or universal in some cases.
Because ethics sometimes differ between people, society has established a set of guidelines which define the minimum acceptable behavior, regardless of one's ethical stance. This is the function of the law, to define the maximum variation in ethics. To draw clear "do not cross" lines that are enforced by the government, hopefully without partiality. YOU cannot argue that YOUR ethics are superior to someone else's, that they must satisfy YOUR expectations or they are in the wrong. Who made *you* the judge of what's ethical or not for someone else?
The point I'm making here is that you cannot try to enforce YOUR ethics on others. You cannot say others are unethical. It's not your right, responsibly or place to do so. The only way you can possibly enforce your view is to make it into LAW, and then it becomes the function of the government and the legal system to enforce the limits. Short of making a change to the law, the rules of the road, all you can say is that what they did was legal but you don't share their ethical view.
The Clintons are not perfect, both Bill and Hillary have done some really nasty things, but they excel in twisting their way out of it. They are obviously good at it given how many times they've successfully managed to do it. I don't expect that this E-mail thing will stick to her, or she'd be in handcuffs already. Some staffers might get shuffled off to jail, but I'd be REALLY surprised if Hillary catches much more than she already has...
However, don't take my opinion as fact... I thought Trump would be done with his little game campaign in his second week.... I was seriously mistaken, much to my dismay...
I hate to break it to you, Biden is going to be in this race. You can count on it. The question I have is why the heck is he waiting to jump in?
One possibility is that he sees it being too soon. He still thinks it is to his advantage to be high in the polls and not actually be IN the race officially. I can see this being true, because as long as he's not in the race officially, he's not a big target because he's not a threat, so he won't be taking "friendly fire" from Hillary and Sanders who will be focused on each other, at least for as long as Sanders can be seen as competitive. So Biden waits until Sanders takes the eventual fall, or we get to the point where Biden has to get in or risk not being on the ballots in the primary.
The other possible reason for delaying, is Biden knows something about the Hillary situation that will mortally wound her when it comes out and he's just waiting for the shoe to drop so he can step into the race as both the front runner and the presumed nominee.
My guess is that it's the first. Biden is waiting for Sanders and Hillary to beat each other up some, even get some partisan mud slinging going on as Hillary started to attack Trump now, then step into the race at the last possible instant unscathed and fresh.
However, there is little chance Biden doesn't jump in.... Which puts a world of hurt on Hillary and as you point out puts Sanders on a path that *might* get him to the nomination if he's lucky. But the chances Biden or Sanders get the democratic nomination are remote. The race is Hillary's to loose by doing stupid stuff, and unlike Biden, she's not prone to committing unforced errors. Trust me, she ready for Biden, it's unlikely she looses unless there is some mid campaign surprise she cannot control.
PS... Full disclosure, I'm as far from a Hillary voter as you can get. I won't be voting in the democratic primaries or supporting any of their candidates so I don't have a dog in their hunt. I'm just an outside observer who lived though Bill Clinton's presidency so I've seen the Clintons in action before.
Hill's problem was that using a PERSONAL E-mail account as part of her OFFICIAL duties as Secretary of State was NOT ALLOWED both by State Department Policy and by the records retention laws and she knew it (She reprimanded one of her Ambassadors for doing the same thing). Who knows why, but she decided the rules didn't apply to her, or she didn't care.
If that wasn't bad enough, somehow she started sending/receiving classified information though this very same server. I'll put the classified information into two classes, stuff she and others wrote that ended up being classified, and stuff which was directly copied from classified sources. The first is bad, the folks authoring the materials should have known that it was classified and protected it as the State Department's regulations require, but I can give a bit of leniency here because they may not have been well enough trained to know. However, the stuff they copied directly from classified sources is OBVIOUSLY a problem. Somebody had to know they where violating the rules and removing the classification markings, there can be no excuse for doing that. Of course the question now is WHO? Did Hillary do it or one of her aids?
But if the above isn't bad enough for you there is the cover up..... "What server?" to "The server was only for personal use" to "The server wasn't used to send classified information" to "The server wasn't used to send information MARKED classified" (which is so far true, but only because somebody removed the markings).... Now we are discussing if the sever was secure, first it was "What server?:" to it was "totally secure", now it's likely somebody could have hacked it using VNC for Pete's sake. Next we will find out it wasn't being monitored as it sat in the upstairs bathroom being "wiped with a cloth" by Clinton herself.
All this is suspect, but let's face it. Nothing is going to happen to Hillary, guilty or not. Sure, some unlucky aid or two might be charged and even get convicted, but unless Hillary is as stupid as the "You mean wipe it with a cloth" answer sounded (and she's not) she already has a "get out of jail free" card to play which will be followed by "What difference does it make now?" and some variation on the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" defense the Clintons used during the Stained Blue Dress/Monaca Lewinsky thing...
Like that matters..... Just imagine classified information flying around the internet, getting relayed though who knows how many mail servers.... What difference does it make?
Keep a stiff upper lip and don't mix the poison yet... It's way too early to be trying to read the poll numbers/tea leaves. We have a LONG time before the first vote is cast. A lot can happen in 4 months, especially given that the campaigns haven't really geared up yet.
Now if we hit middle January and the first three primary state's polls show it's Clinton/Trump, it's going to get interesting. But I'm willing to bet, one or both of the current "front runners" will be out of the top 2, if not totally out of the race. The alternative possibilities boggle the mind though. Can you imagine a Sanders/Christy race? That'd be bloody... How about Biden/Carson? We'd die of boredom before the election...
That is some Game of Thrones level of hypocrisy right there.
O'vey.... You cannot seriously be comparing world history with a made for TV weekly drama. You know those things you see on TV are mostly fiction right?
I'm not arguing the decision to drop the two bombs on Japan here, I'm saying that SINCE those events the world's holders of nuclear weapons have shown much restraint by not doing it again. We've come close, but the moral and ethical issues prevented the use of nuclear weapons so far, largely because despite our differences, we share a value for human life. You do understand that there ARE peoples and governments who don't share the same views on the value of life right? There are people and governments who, if you believe what they say, would choose to use nuclear weapons, who don't hold the lives of others in high regard, who don't mind harming innocent noncombatants who happen to be in the way. Surely you see how irresponsible it would be to just let them have easy access to nuclear technology, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction invented to date.
So, are you trying to claim that there is no danger in nuclear proliferation? That there is no reason for fear adding to the number of governments who control nuclear weapons? That there is no valid reason to try to keep nuclear weapons out of more hands? Do you believe that this is just about repressing the "have nots" and keeping them poor and powerless?
If you do, you are the hypocrite, because on one hand you decry the loss of life in Japan that ended WWII, yet you enable that and more by allowing nuclear proliferation under the guise that it's somehow more important to be "fair" to everybody..
It sounds like you think that might be a bad thing....
Only TWO weapons of this type have been used in war, by ONE country in ONE war which was over 70 years ago. We all know the affect this had, the loss of life it caused and the moral implications of having used the weapons. Why is it a bad thing to *limit* the number of countries which have the ability to cause such destruction? Especially in the case where the major countries that *have* such weapons have shown great restraint for nearly as long as the weapons have existed.
Like it or not, there ARE crazies out there that wouldn't use the same logic in their moral and ethical views, but would gladly use such weapons to their advantage. It only makes sense to go to great pains to prohibit proliferation of such weapons for the good of all. It's not about keeping the lessor nations under control, but protecting the planet from those who don't hold the same value of life that prevents such weapons from being used now.
Again, THINK about your high school government class...
The Republicans cannot do anything but put bills on Obama's desk, they don't have the ability to override his veto. In the house they can pass ANYTHING they want and have. In the Senate, they are in the majority but they do not have enough votes to get cloture without democratic support. So anything you *think* they should do, requires some kind of negotiated solution with Senate democrats AND with Obama. They can bring any bill to the floor they want, but without the ability to get it past the various cloture votes, the bill will die on procedure.
So with that background, what do you think they should have done by this point? Obama and the democrats both have a firm grip on the brakes and the procedural ability to apply them on any bill. They are using their limited power to tie up the legislative process, much like the republicans did when the democrats where in the majority but couldn't force cloture themselves.
In my view, I would have hoped the republicans would have taken a bit more aggressive stance too, but there is an argument for being less combative with the democrats and choosing to not bring a bill up for debate unless you know it's actually going to get to a final vote, pass and Obama will sign it. You can argue that there is no point in beating a horse you know will die, and it only lets your opponents demagogue and pillage you in the press, giving them free PR to use to their advantage.
Blame the democrats for this lack of progress, at least as much as the republicans. I don't believe the democrats are interested in compromise agreements and don't debate in good faith. I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't compromise on ANYTHING and means "My way or the highway" when he says it. You need enough votes to get cloture and you need the president's signature or enough votes to override his veto and if you don't have BOTH of these, the opposition can prevent any progress.
So, again... Stop with the angry emotional response and think logically about what's going on.... The Democrats are ringing the anger bell as often as they can and like Pavlov's dog you are reacting in anger. Stop letting them control you this way because it doesn't help you or the case for Ron...
It's not like the FCC (or any other agency) has the ability to prevent the attacks just by saying you're not allowed to do it.
Quick, apply that logic to hand guns....
Enforcement by the FCC may be a rare event, but it DOES happen. Generally you don't get caught directly by the FCC, you get turned in to the FCC by somebody who is being interfered with. The FCC might not be able fine you until they actually observe you breaking the rules, but they do often threaten to levy fines for radio frequency interference complaints. So there is *some* risk of getting into trouble for people who break the rules and run jammers.
Of those who could there are FEW who would actually do it. Most of us understand that breaking the law is generally a bad idea and personally I value my extra ticket enough to not risk loosing it on some boneheaded violation of FCC regulations...
All you did by staying home is make it easier for the more left candidate to get elected. Which may be of little consequence to you, but if Romney was in office today, there would be a whole raft of things that could be accomplished which would have fit the platform of Ron Paul more closely than where we are now. Just remember, YOU helped that happen.
I get that you are angry, but you need to let reason and not emotion dictate what you do. Having an "all or nothing" "My way or the Highway" stance in politics is rarely going to allow you to advance your cause, especially when you are in a very small minority like most Ron Paul supporters are. Think. Isn't it better to have *some* of what you want over nothing?
I can tell you've never been to any of the "big cities" of the north. Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia, Boston just to name a few are *very* diverse places. I have never claimed that racists don't exist, only that they are becoming less and less common, especially in the south where the older white Anglo Saxon racists are dying off faster than they get created. It is literally "out of style and out of step" to be white and hold racist views. The culture is changing.
A wise man once said that you will know when racism is gone because nobody will be talking about it anymore. I add that you can tell who the racists really are by who is talking the most about it.
BTW, your joke is offensive and not even a little funny to this old white guy from the south. I literally don't care and rarely notice the color of those around me. However, I do perceive that there are many who do care, mostly those who see an old white guy with a southern accent and assume I'm something I'm not and treat me differently. I've seen racism by whites and have been upset by it, not because it was directed at me, but because of how stupid their reasons are. I've also seen racism by blacks, which was directed towards me because of my color, and where it makes me uncomfortable, I don't let it upset me. I figure that the only way this ever really gets stopped is by being slow to take offense when treated badly, being quick to disapprove when others are treated badly and trying to treat others as would want to be treated. Until the majority adopt this view from all "sides", racism will still exist in some form.
I grew up in a poor part of a southern state as minority poor white trash though my family was not indigenous. I was from northern roots where color didn't mean anything, yet we ended up there where it did. The high school I went to was over 90% of one race, and it wasn't white. I don't consider myself an expert in race relations, but I survived and escaped from the very hell hole where the racial divide is very apparent and deep rooted on both sides. As an outsider, I observed both sides of this issue, at least as it existed where I lived. I can assure you that my former classmates, unless they have changed their perspectives over the last 30 years, would have been motivated by the common color to actually turn out to vote. That the Junior Senator from IL enjoyed exceptional turnout among those of common race at a much higher level than those voting for either McCain or Romney for the same reasons. Of this I'm totally sure, and the exit polling shows for BOTH of the last two elections.
The Clinton campaign machine hasn't even been started yet and Sanders has apparently struggled to match her in the polls. She's not worried, nor should she be. Hillary is out running his campaign's funding 3 to 1 and out spending him by the same margin. Hillary has twice the amount of cash on hand and is taking in 3 times as much. Sanders will make a show, but unless he has a winning streak in February and places first in the majority of the initial primary states, he's going to slowly be bled dry of cash and donations in states where his socialist populist play won't resonate very well with democratic voters.
Unless Sanders tops Hillary by at least 10 points in the polls moving into when the actual voting starts, don't fool yourself. His path to the Whitehouse involves some pretty improbable things happening along the way.
However, I do admit there are two wild cards which could help him. Hillary's difficulties with this E-mail server thing and Biden's entry into the race at some point. Depending on exactly how all that happens, he *might* be in contention. But things will have to play out almost exactly right for Sanders. Clearly this E-mail thing is hurting Clinton and Clearly Biden is waiting for something to throw his hat into the ring or not. If Hillary takes a dive on the E-mail thing, withdraws and Biden jumps in at the same time, Sanders is in the same place. But if Biden jumps in late (after the primaries start) and/or Hillary gets forced into withdrawing late there just might be enough daylight for Sanders to squeak in. Any other possible scenario kills him either by the Clinton campaign machine or the seasoned Biden who will have all the money at that point... Even if Hillary shrugs off the scandal (which I expect) and Biden jumps in before the primaries start in Feb 2016, Sanders will loose nearly all his funding and die quickly after the first set or primaries, with Hillary likely winning the nomination fight over Biden fairly late in the process.
If it plays out surprise free and it's not Hillary, it's going to be Biden and not Sanders.
Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color.
So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Not nearly as many. Despite what gets said about racism in this country, the truth is there are far fewer actual racists than there used to be, especially among white Anglo Saxon population, even in the south. There is no way to really know exactly what the numbers would be had the color of the candidates been different, but I can assure you more voted for Obama because "he looks like me" than voted for Romney or McCain for the same reason.
Then blame the voters for putting up with the outrage and not holding the politicians feet to the fire over it, or perhaps admit what this really is, simply political rhetoric, political theater put on for the benefit of the sheeple who allow themselves to be swayed this way and that by the media's emotional pleas. In reality, this isn't about Facebook or the amount of taxes they pay, it's about manipulating the masses with a daily dose of class warfare by stoking anger..
The sad part, though, is that there are those who ardently blather on about how unethical Facebook is. Not because Facebook did anything wrong, but because they fall for the familiar media narrative that "Big Business is BAD" and by association "Rich people are BAD" (because nobody ever earned all that money uprightly, they stole it or cheated to get it) because that's what they are used to thinking and feeling. Critical thinking seems to be absent, just a blind trust in following the same worn emotional path because it's easier than challenging their perspective and thinking about what's really happening and fixing the problem that makes them angry logically.
If you believe there is a loophole, get it changed by electing people who will change it and blame the people who left the loophole in the law. Don't blather on about how Facebook is to blame for following the law and paying their taxes.
Companies do NOT vote and it's what shows up in the ballot box that counts, not how much money the candidate has... Unless of course you somehow think that voters are not paying close enough attention to know who they are actually voting for and are just out voting a party ticket or are swayed by advertisements and slick marketing. (IF that's true, forget the whole thing and start stocking up on freeze dried and canned food because the fall of the empire is at hand and what Facebook pays in taxes is the very least of your worries. You need to worry about feeding and protecting yourself in the face of anarchy in a country which does not have an individual right to arms. Good luck with that one..)
Oh Bernie would be huge fun for the republican field (even Trump).
Oh and I don't discount the history of Hillary and Obama... Sanders' situation is different.... 1. He's an avowed leftist socialist with a long political history (despite his attempts to claim otherwise). There is LOADS of video and audio material to use so he'd be easy to paint with that brush and where this appeals to the left of the Democratic party, it's a turn off to the center. (Obama was little known, except to people from IL so he was a blank slate and could be anything necessary to win). 2. He's male. This whole "war on women" thing which as been under development in the democratic party for more than a decade is not going to play in his favor like it will for Hillary. 3. He's white. Like it or not, Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color. I know the democrats don't like to admit this and the republicans like to make more out of it than it is, but in 2008 this was a unique thing. Obama's campaign played that angle and angered the Clintons by doing so having "used the race card on us" according to Bill Clinton who wasn't happy about it.
So, I really don't expect Sanders to last once Hillary's campaign gets underway. It's nearly 4 months before ANYBODY will be voting in the primaries, it is WAY too soon. Right now it's about MONEY and having enough of it to sustain your campaign though a couple of primary votes where you place high enough to get more MONEY. Right now, Hillary has the cash and all she needs to do is keep the front runner within reach, which isn't a problem because SHE is easily the front runner without spending a boat load yet. Sanders is whacking away at the little money he has already trying to stay relevant to the base and get as many donations as he can so he can weather the storm coming once the Clinton Campaign machine roars to life sometime near the holidays. I'm guessing she times it to start on new years and hit full tilt the second week in January. She will be handily on top of the polling by the start of February, unless something unforeseen happens with the E-mail thing (which is pretty remote unless she really is as stupid as "You mean wipe it with a cloth?" sounds, which I don't believe for a second).
No, Bernie is but a side show in the democratic nomination process and he will be lucky to be in this thing money wise by February. He's unlikely to get a even a prime time speaking slot at the convention and will not be anybody's choice for VP. As much as she likes to play dumb, Hillary knows this game and knows how it's played and she will run circles around Sanders with her knowledge and money.
Horary, Facebook published a list of political donations they legally made and you think this is a problem how? Was it illegal? It was perfectly legal under the current law.
The transactions you call "bribes" where legal and the taxes paid by Facebook where what the law prescribes. The donations are legal and the legal tax liability of Facebook is not in dispute. No laws are being broken.
All this political rhetoric and vitriol you are spewing does not *fix* anything because it is pointed at the wrong target. Facebook paid their taxes and made legal contributions to political campaigns within the bounds of YOUR law. If you don't like the results, change your laws.
So, sir, unless you have *evidence* that Facebook broke a law or owes more taxes under the current law OR you wish to start discussing possible ways to change YOUR laws, there is no point in going further with you.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed the point, but I think you know it.
Does this mean the US can now join the rest of the metric world, or are we still in the quagmire?
What? Look I LIKE having two set's of tools when I'm working on my cars... SAE/Metric Rules!
Can you imagine how many tool makers would suffer if we stop using SAE? PLEASE, there is no way they will let this happen...
(/sarcasm)
By all appearances, Biden is itching to get into the race. On some level it's obvious he wants to run. However, until he actually does, nobody here really knows. All we can say is that he's not said "NO" yet, so that means he has some kind of plan here. He may be undecided as you think, waiting for something to change, or he may just be waiting for the right moment.
I think he knows what his plan is and has been working to line up donors, keep his name in the polling, and keep working his plan to enter the race on his white horse. I think he knows that his best chance is to be a late entry who is polling near the top without spending a dime. I think he's Obama's heir apparent. Obama and Clinton have been widely reported to be at odds and I see Obama pushing Biden's chances by allowing him to be a topic of discussion at a number of pressers over the last few months. I think he's being careful to time his entry and is getting ready to hit the ground running at the last possible instant. I think he KNOWS he's getting in and not just toying with the idea waiting for something to happen before he decides as you indicate.
Only time will tell which of us is correct, but a guy doesn't say and do the things he's saying and doing unless he's got a plan for how this moves forward.
The problem with discussing "ethics" is that there are differing opinions about what's ethical and what's not in some cases. In this case, paying the least you legally can and returning as much profit to your investors might be seen as ethical by Facebook, where folks like you might object to how they choose to write off specific expenses in order to pay less in taxes. Both may have ethical arguments to support their positions, but reach totally different conclusions about what should have been done. Everybody needs to understand that ethical standards are not absolute or universal in some cases.
Because ethics sometimes differ between people, society has established a set of guidelines which define the minimum acceptable behavior, regardless of one's ethical stance. This is the function of the law, to define the maximum variation in ethics. To draw clear "do not cross" lines that are enforced by the government, hopefully without partiality. YOU cannot argue that YOUR ethics are superior to someone else's, that they must satisfy YOUR expectations or they are in the wrong. Who made *you* the judge of what's ethical or not for someone else?
The point I'm making here is that you cannot try to enforce YOUR ethics on others. You cannot say others are unethical. It's not your right, responsibly or place to do so. The only way you can possibly enforce your view is to make it into LAW, and then it becomes the function of the government and the legal system to enforce the limits. Short of making a change to the law, the rules of the road, all you can say is that what they did was legal but you don't share their ethical view.
LOL, you are right on that...
The Clintons are not perfect, both Bill and Hillary have done some really nasty things, but they excel in twisting their way out of it. They are obviously good at it given how many times they've successfully managed to do it. I don't expect that this E-mail thing will stick to her, or she'd be in handcuffs already. Some staffers might get shuffled off to jail, but I'd be REALLY surprised if Hillary catches much more than she already has...
However, don't take my opinion as fact... I thought Trump would be done with his little game campaign in his second week.... I was seriously mistaken, much to my dismay...
You know, there is some truth to that, having lived both in very rural and very urban environments in my life.
But I would say that racists exist in both rural and urban areas, they just tend to be different colors, at least in my experience....
I hate to break it to you, Biden is going to be in this race. You can count on it. The question I have is why the heck is he waiting to jump in?
One possibility is that he sees it being too soon. He still thinks it is to his advantage to be high in the polls and not actually be IN the race officially. I can see this being true, because as long as he's not in the race officially, he's not a big target because he's not a threat, so he won't be taking "friendly fire" from Hillary and Sanders who will be focused on each other, at least for as long as Sanders can be seen as competitive. So Biden waits until Sanders takes the eventual fall, or we get to the point where Biden has to get in or risk not being on the ballots in the primary.
The other possible reason for delaying, is Biden knows something about the Hillary situation that will mortally wound her when it comes out and he's just waiting for the shoe to drop so he can step into the race as both the front runner and the presumed nominee.
My guess is that it's the first. Biden is waiting for Sanders and Hillary to beat each other up some, even get some partisan mud slinging going on as Hillary started to attack Trump now, then step into the race at the last possible instant unscathed and fresh.
However, there is little chance Biden doesn't jump in.... Which puts a world of hurt on Hillary and as you point out puts Sanders on a path that *might* get him to the nomination if he's lucky. But the chances Biden or Sanders get the democratic nomination are remote. The race is Hillary's to loose by doing stupid stuff, and unlike Biden, she's not prone to committing unforced errors. Trust me, she ready for Biden, it's unlikely she looses unless there is some mid campaign surprise she cannot control.
PS... Full disclosure, I'm as far from a Hillary voter as you can get. I won't be voting in the democratic primaries or supporting any of their candidates so I don't have a dog in their hunt. I'm just an outside observer who lived though Bill Clinton's presidency so I've seen the Clintons in action before.
Hill's problem was that using a PERSONAL E-mail account as part of her OFFICIAL duties as Secretary of State was NOT ALLOWED both by State Department Policy and by the records retention laws and she knew it (She reprimanded one of her Ambassadors for doing the same thing). Who knows why, but she decided the rules didn't apply to her, or she didn't care.
If that wasn't bad enough, somehow she started sending/receiving classified information though this very same server. I'll put the classified information into two classes, stuff she and others wrote that ended up being classified, and stuff which was directly copied from classified sources. The first is bad, the folks authoring the materials should have known that it was classified and protected it as the State Department's regulations require, but I can give a bit of leniency here because they may not have been well enough trained to know. However, the stuff they copied directly from classified sources is OBVIOUSLY a problem. Somebody had to know they where violating the rules and removing the classification markings, there can be no excuse for doing that. Of course the question now is WHO? Did Hillary do it or one of her aids?
But if the above isn't bad enough for you there is the cover up..... "What server?" to "The server was only for personal use" to "The server wasn't used to send classified information" to "The server wasn't used to send information MARKED classified" (which is so far true, but only because somebody removed the markings).... Now we are discussing if the sever was secure, first it was "What server?:" to it was "totally secure", now it's likely somebody could have hacked it using VNC for Pete's sake. Next we will find out it wasn't being monitored as it sat in the upstairs bathroom being "wiped with a cloth" by Clinton herself.
All this is suspect, but let's face it. Nothing is going to happen to Hillary, guilty or not. Sure, some unlucky aid or two might be charged and even get convicted, but unless Hillary is as stupid as the "You mean wipe it with a cloth" answer sounded (and she's not) she already has a "get out of jail free" card to play which will be followed by "What difference does it make now?" and some variation on the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" defense the Clintons used during the Stained Blue Dress/Monaca Lewinsky thing...
Like that matters..... Just imagine classified information flying around the internet, getting relayed though who knows how many mail servers.... What difference does it make?
Keep a stiff upper lip and don't mix the poison yet... It's way too early to be trying to read the poll numbers/tea leaves. We have a LONG time before the first vote is cast. A lot can happen in 4 months, especially given that the campaigns haven't really geared up yet.
Now if we hit middle January and the first three primary state's polls show it's Clinton/Trump, it's going to get interesting. But I'm willing to bet, one or both of the current "front runners" will be out of the top 2, if not totally out of the race. The alternative possibilities boggle the mind though. Can you imagine a Sanders/Christy race? That'd be bloody... How about Biden/Carson? We'd die of boredom before the election...
That is some Game of Thrones level of hypocrisy right there.
O'vey.... You cannot seriously be comparing world history with a made for TV weekly drama. You know those things you see on TV are mostly fiction right?
I'm not arguing the decision to drop the two bombs on Japan here, I'm saying that SINCE those events the world's holders of nuclear weapons have shown much restraint by not doing it again. We've come close, but the moral and ethical issues prevented the use of nuclear weapons so far, largely because despite our differences, we share a value for human life. You do understand that there ARE peoples and governments who don't share the same views on the value of life right? There are people and governments who, if you believe what they say, would choose to use nuclear weapons, who don't hold the lives of others in high regard, who don't mind harming innocent noncombatants who happen to be in the way. Surely you see how irresponsible it would be to just let them have easy access to nuclear technology, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction invented to date.
So, are you trying to claim that there is no danger in nuclear proliferation? That there is no reason for fear adding to the number of governments who control nuclear weapons? That there is no valid reason to try to keep nuclear weapons out of more hands? Do you believe that this is just about repressing the "have nots" and keeping them poor and powerless?
If you do, you are the hypocrite, because on one hand you decry the loss of life in Japan that ended WWII, yet you enable that and more by allowing nuclear proliferation under the guise that it's somehow more important to be "fair" to everybody..
It sounds like you think that might be a bad thing....
Only TWO weapons of this type have been used in war, by ONE country in ONE war which was over 70 years ago. We all know the affect this had, the loss of life it caused and the moral implications of having used the weapons. Why is it a bad thing to *limit* the number of countries which have the ability to cause such destruction? Especially in the case where the major countries that *have* such weapons have shown great restraint for nearly as long as the weapons have existed.
Like it or not, there ARE crazies out there that wouldn't use the same logic in their moral and ethical views, but would gladly use such weapons to their advantage. It only makes sense to go to great pains to prohibit proliferation of such weapons for the good of all. It's not about keeping the lessor nations under control, but protecting the planet from those who don't hold the same value of life that prevents such weapons from being used now.
Again, THINK about your high school government class...
The Republicans cannot do anything but put bills on Obama's desk, they don't have the ability to override his veto. In the house they can pass ANYTHING they want and have. In the Senate, they are in the majority but they do not have enough votes to get cloture without democratic support. So anything you *think* they should do, requires some kind of negotiated solution with Senate democrats AND with Obama. They can bring any bill to the floor they want, but without the ability to get it past the various cloture votes, the bill will die on procedure.
So with that background, what do you think they should have done by this point? Obama and the democrats both have a firm grip on the brakes and the procedural ability to apply them on any bill. They are using their limited power to tie up the legislative process, much like the republicans did when the democrats where in the majority but couldn't force cloture themselves.
In my view, I would have hoped the republicans would have taken a bit more aggressive stance too, but there is an argument for being less combative with the democrats and choosing to not bring a bill up for debate unless you know it's actually going to get to a final vote, pass and Obama will sign it. You can argue that there is no point in beating a horse you know will die, and it only lets your opponents demagogue and pillage you in the press, giving them free PR to use to their advantage.
Blame the democrats for this lack of progress, at least as much as the republicans. I don't believe the democrats are interested in compromise agreements and don't debate in good faith. I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't compromise on ANYTHING and means "My way or the highway" when he says it. You need enough votes to get cloture and you need the president's signature or enough votes to override his veto and if you don't have BOTH of these, the opposition can prevent any progress.
So, again... Stop with the angry emotional response and think logically about what's going on.... The Democrats are ringing the anger bell as often as they can and like Pavlov's dog you are reacting in anger. Stop letting them control you this way because it doesn't help you or the case for Ron...
It's not like the FCC (or any other agency) has the ability to prevent the attacks just by saying you're not allowed to do it.
Quick, apply that logic to hand guns....
Enforcement by the FCC may be a rare event, but it DOES happen. Generally you don't get caught directly by the FCC, you get turned in to the FCC by somebody who is being interfered with. The FCC might not be able fine you until they actually observe you breaking the rules, but they do often threaten to levy fines for radio frequency interference complaints. So there is *some* risk of getting into trouble for people who break the rules and run jammers.
Some hams could, most couldn't.
Of those who could there are FEW who would actually do it. Most of us understand that breaking the law is generally a bad idea and personally I value my extra ticket enough to not risk loosing it on some boneheaded violation of FCC regulations...
All you did by staying home is make it easier for the more left candidate to get elected. Which may be of little consequence to you, but if Romney was in office today, there would be a whole raft of things that could be accomplished which would have fit the platform of Ron Paul more closely than where we are now. Just remember, YOU helped that happen.
I get that you are angry, but you need to let reason and not emotion dictate what you do. Having an "all or nothing" "My way or the Highway" stance in politics is rarely going to allow you to advance your cause, especially when you are in a very small minority like most Ron Paul supporters are. Think. Isn't it better to have *some* of what you want over nothing?
I can tell you've never been to any of the "big cities" of the north. Chicago, Detroit, New York City, Philadelphia, Boston just to name a few are *very* diverse places. I have never claimed that racists don't exist, only that they are becoming less and less common, especially in the south where the older white Anglo Saxon racists are dying off faster than they get created. It is literally "out of style and out of step" to be white and hold racist views. The culture is changing.
A wise man once said that you will know when racism is gone because nobody will be talking about it anymore. I add that you can tell who the racists really are by who is talking the most about it.
BTW, your joke is offensive and not even a little funny to this old white guy from the south. I literally don't care and rarely notice the color of those around me. However, I do perceive that there are many who do care, mostly those who see an old white guy with a southern accent and assume I'm something I'm not and treat me differently. I've seen racism by whites and have been upset by it, not because it was directed at me, but because of how stupid their reasons are. I've also seen racism by blacks, which was directed towards me because of my color, and where it makes me uncomfortable, I don't let it upset me. I figure that the only way this ever really gets stopped is by being slow to take offense when treated badly, being quick to disapprove when others are treated badly and trying to treat others as would want to be treated. Until the majority adopt this view from all "sides", racism will still exist in some form.
I grew up in a poor part of a southern state as minority poor white trash though my family was not indigenous. I was from northern roots where color didn't mean anything, yet we ended up there where it did. The high school I went to was over 90% of one race, and it wasn't white. I don't consider myself an expert in race relations, but I survived and escaped from the very hell hole where the racial divide is very apparent and deep rooted on both sides. As an outsider, I observed both sides of this issue, at least as it existed where I lived. I can assure you that my former classmates, unless they have changed their perspectives over the last 30 years, would have been motivated by the common color to actually turn out to vote. That the Junior Senator from IL enjoyed exceptional turnout among those of common race at a much higher level than those voting for either McCain or Romney for the same reasons. Of this I'm totally sure, and the exit polling shows for BOTH of the last two elections.
Your mileage may vary... But IMHO you'd be wrong.
The Clinton campaign machine hasn't even been started yet and Sanders has apparently struggled to match her in the polls. She's not worried, nor should she be. Hillary is out running his campaign's funding 3 to 1 and out spending him by the same margin. Hillary has twice the amount of cash on hand and is taking in 3 times as much. Sanders will make a show, but unless he has a winning streak in February and places first in the majority of the initial primary states, he's going to slowly be bled dry of cash and donations in states where his socialist populist play won't resonate very well with democratic voters.
Unless Sanders tops Hillary by at least 10 points in the polls moving into when the actual voting starts, don't fool yourself. His path to the Whitehouse involves some pretty improbable things happening along the way.
However, I do admit there are two wild cards which could help him. Hillary's difficulties with this E-mail server thing and Biden's entry into the race at some point. Depending on exactly how all that happens, he *might* be in contention. But things will have to play out almost exactly right for Sanders. Clearly this E-mail thing is hurting Clinton and Clearly Biden is waiting for something to throw his hat into the ring or not. If Hillary takes a dive on the E-mail thing, withdraws and Biden jumps in at the same time, Sanders is in the same place. But if Biden jumps in late (after the primaries start) and/or Hillary gets forced into withdrawing late there just might be enough daylight for Sanders to squeak in. Any other possible scenario kills him either by the Clinton campaign machine or the seasoned Biden who will have all the money at that point... Even if Hillary shrugs off the scandal (which I expect) and Biden jumps in before the primaries start in Feb 2016, Sanders will loose nearly all his funding and die quickly after the first set or primaries, with Hillary likely winning the nomination fight over Biden fairly late in the process.
If it plays out surprise free and it's not Hillary, it's going to be Biden and not Sanders.
So did Mitt Romney and John McCain.
Not nearly as many. Despite what gets said about racism in this country, the truth is there are far fewer actual racists than there used to be, especially among white Anglo Saxon population, even in the south. There is no way to really know exactly what the numbers would be had the color of the candidates been different, but I can assure you more voted for Obama because "he looks like me" than voted for Romney or McCain for the same reason.
Then blame the voters for putting up with the outrage and not holding the politicians feet to the fire over it, or perhaps admit what this really is, simply political rhetoric, political theater put on for the benefit of the sheeple who allow themselves to be swayed this way and that by the media's emotional pleas. In reality, this isn't about Facebook or the amount of taxes they pay, it's about manipulating the masses with a daily dose of class warfare by stoking anger..
The sad part, though, is that there are those who ardently blather on about how unethical Facebook is. Not because Facebook did anything wrong, but because they fall for the familiar media narrative that "Big Business is BAD" and by association "Rich people are BAD" (because nobody ever earned all that money uprightly, they stole it or cheated to get it) because that's what they are used to thinking and feeling. Critical thinking seems to be absent, just a blind trust in following the same worn emotional path because it's easier than challenging their perspective and thinking about what's really happening and fixing the problem that makes them angry logically.
If you believe there is a loophole, get it changed by electing people who will change it and blame the people who left the loophole in the law. Don't blather on about how Facebook is to blame for following the law and paying their taxes.
Companies do NOT vote and it's what shows up in the ballot box that counts, not how much money the candidate has... Unless of course you somehow think that voters are not paying close enough attention to know who they are actually voting for and are just out voting a party ticket or are swayed by advertisements and slick marketing. (IF that's true, forget the whole thing and start stocking up on freeze dried and canned food because the fall of the empire is at hand and what Facebook pays in taxes is the very least of your worries. You need to worry about feeding and protecting yourself in the face of anarchy in a country which does not have an individual right to arms. Good luck with that one..)
Oh Bernie would be huge fun for the republican field (even Trump).
Oh and I don't discount the history of Hillary and Obama... Sanders' situation is different.... 1. He's an avowed leftist socialist with a long political history (despite his attempts to claim otherwise). There is LOADS of video and audio material to use so he'd be easy to paint with that brush and where this appeals to the left of the Democratic party, it's a turn off to the center. (Obama was little known, except to people from IL so he was a blank slate and could be anything necessary to win). 2. He's male. This whole "war on women" thing which as been under development in the democratic party for more than a decade is not going to play in his favor like it will for Hillary. 3. He's white. Like it or not, Obama got a significant number of votes because of his skin color. I know the democrats don't like to admit this and the republicans like to make more out of it than it is, but in 2008 this was a unique thing. Obama's campaign played that angle and angered the Clintons by doing so having "used the race card on us" according to Bill Clinton who wasn't happy about it.
So, I really don't expect Sanders to last once Hillary's campaign gets underway. It's nearly 4 months before ANYBODY will be voting in the primaries, it is WAY too soon. Right now it's about MONEY and having enough of it to sustain your campaign though a couple of primary votes where you place high enough to get more MONEY. Right now, Hillary has the cash and all she needs to do is keep the front runner within reach, which isn't a problem because SHE is easily the front runner without spending a boat load yet. Sanders is whacking away at the little money he has already trying to stay relevant to the base and get as many donations as he can so he can weather the storm coming once the Clinton Campaign machine roars to life sometime near the holidays. I'm guessing she times it to start on new years and hit full tilt the second week in January. She will be handily on top of the polling by the start of February, unless something unforeseen happens with the E-mail thing (which is pretty remote unless she really is as stupid as "You mean wipe it with a cloth?" sounds, which I don't believe for a second).
No, Bernie is but a side show in the democratic nomination process and he will be lucky to be in this thing money wise by February. He's unlikely to get a even a prime time speaking slot at the convention and will not be anybody's choice for VP. As much as she likes to play dumb, Hillary knows this game and knows how it's played and she will run circles around Sanders with her knowledge and money.
Horary, Facebook published a list of political donations they legally made and you think this is a problem how? Was it illegal? It was perfectly legal under the current law.
The transactions you call "bribes" where legal and the taxes paid by Facebook where what the law prescribes. The donations are legal and the legal tax liability of Facebook is not in dispute. No laws are being broken.
All this political rhetoric and vitriol you are spewing does not *fix* anything because it is pointed at the wrong target. Facebook paid their taxes and made legal contributions to political campaigns within the bounds of YOUR law. If you don't like the results, change your laws.
So, sir, unless you have *evidence* that Facebook broke a law or owes more taxes under the current law OR you wish to start discussing possible ways to change YOUR laws, there is no point in going further with you.