Clinton was using a private email server so her email was not susceptible to Freedom of Information requests. The same reason other government officials use personal email to conduct government business.
It looks like Comey used his to transfer information from account to account. Not especially smart, but not the same thing at all.
In no way does used gmail equate to used private email server in my closet.
I'm way more concerned with the obviously false lie about Comey not making decisions based on politics. It looks to me like the FBI covered for Clinton when they thought she would win and Comey got nervous when it became obvious to him she might lose. Had she won we wouldn't have found out about any of this.
I've see many businesses that take cash refuse to do business if their computer system is down. For some business that are corporate that is actually a policy, to prevent pilfering, because they don't trust their own employees.
They also refuse to take checks during that time, because they can't check for verification.
I never expect to see cash disappear in the U.S.. It's too hard to hide bribes, buy or sell on the black market or laundry cash if you get ride of cash. Considering our businesses and government they will never allow cash to disappear.
I suspect they don't care. If you can make your goals without servicing particular segments of the economy why bother? Especially if not serving that sector saves you money.
Not taking cash means not having to worry about robbery or keeping money in a safe. No night deposit, with the risk of getting robbed. And of course in this case not needing cashiers at all. No cash registers, receipt printers, or change. It also keeps certain segment of the population out of your store (though cheap, available pre-loaded credit cards do expand the number of people who can live without cash.)
You act like they went to Afghanistan for the U.S. No country send troops to die because another country asks them to unless there is something in it for them. So no our 'allies' did not send troops to Afghanistan for us or our interests. They sent them because it was in their interest.
I happen to think Trump is wrong about this one. But he may have more information than I do about the situation. It's telling to me that this is a bipartisan supported bill. Congress gets a vote and if they decide to dump Trump's deal via legislation, and can get past Trump's veto then we'll see what happens.
Unlike the low bandwidth partisans on the left I don't mindlessly support Trump because he isn't always right. But he's still right a hell of a lot more than most liberals.
Yes. In Britain they have so much freedom that they can be arrested for protecting themselves from attack. Soon they'll not even be able to own a kitchen knife with a point, just like children or the mentally incompetent. To own a fencing foil or epee is a crime, but don't worry, by their munificence they'll let you have it because you have a 'legal defense' until they decide you don't.
Yep. You sure are 'free'.
You can fix long term homelessness. We as a society are just not willing to do the things that will fix it.
First of all it isn't cheap. Second of all it requires an intrusion into people's lives that is aberrant to most people on both the left and the right.
Long term homeless who have addiction problems or are mentally ill are on the streets because they are incapable of taking care of themselves and are likewise incapable of making the decisions that will allow them to take care of themselves. They are not in shelters or programs because shelters and programs have rules they won't or can't obey.
The only way to get them off the streets is to incarcerate them. This what was done previously to the 1980s. Most were incarcerated in mental hospitals, which were closed down for a combination of cost and people like the ACLU pointing out that it was wrong to lock up people just because they were mentally ill or an addict.
So the only way to fix long term homelessness is to take long term homeless people off the streets against their will and place them somewhere in an institutional setting where their civil rights will be violated on a daily basis.
Legal immigrants cannot legally vote.Only citizen can vote. (I do realize there are some localities which allow residents to vote, even if they are not citizens.) No state or federal elections allow non-citizens to vote.
Some Democrats want more illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. They want illegal immigrants because they want to grant amnesty and expect most of those formally illegal immigrants to vote for them in thanks for getting them in.
Some Republicans want fewer illegal and legal immigrants because they fear cultural dilution, a not unreasonable fear. Some want fewer illegal and more legal immigrants (based on merit) because they recognize educated professionals immigrating to the U.S. is good for the country.
I tend to advocate increased legal immigration, a secure border and exclusion only of those shown to have criminal records and terrorist backgrounds.
I base this stance on the fact that the U.S. has always been a country of immigrants and it has been a blessing for the country, both economically and culturally.
Trump has put froth a solution to DACA families. He would be smart to get it passed and undercut the Democrats by finding a way to increase legal immigration and securing the border. If he takes that issue away from them (as Johnson did by taking Civil rights away from the Republicans, who was the first party to propose it) he could bury the Democrats for a generation. I doubt he's that smart though.
I'm pretty Conservative and I'll say it. The U.S. should accept any legal immigrant who can be shown to have no criminal background and are not terrorists. They should be required to show they can be employed and be barred from using entitlement programs for 5 years after which they should be eligible for citizenship, provided they can pass a citizenship test given in English.
Following such a policy requires the country control it's borders.
Billions (historically hundreds of millions) of people have always been crushed under authoritarian regimes. It is no one else's job or responsibility to free them. A people most often gets the kind of government that it deserves.
One reason the U.S. has always been a society that both promotes and celebrates individuality and advances the concept of private (as opposed to government controlled) societies as that freedom does not rest with governments it rest with the individual, but that freedom can only be defended by the individual acting in collaboration.
The founding fathers understood that, including Washington, upon whom much is said about disfavoring political parties. People change parties all the time, even in the U.S., but political parties are not and should not be the only or even the primary way citizens collectively act in their society.
If the citizen's of Tazania don't care enough to resist tyranny then no one for the outside will be able to free them. An yes when throwing off tyranny people will die, but when it comes down to it most tyrannical leaders find that just killing all of the repressed doesn't serve them. When you kill the golden goose it stops laying eggs. Plus eventually you run out of bullets and they bludgeon you to death.
One of the greatest forces preventing government misuse is the commonality of culture. It is easy to trust a government made up of people who all have similar values. Monocultural societies are generally less violent, have lower crime rates and are more civil.
As Sweden becomes more multicultural I expect that they will see a great change in many things. Time will tell
Who and why is easy. A cash society benefits anyone who doesn't want to be tracked. That extends from everyone who wants to break the law to those who don't want the government to have absolute control over them.
The fact is though that people with bad intentions are the ones most likely to actually have the power to prevent a cashless society. Specifically people in government positions who don't want bribes to be tracked, for example. No matter how enlightened you might think a society is there will always be things that are against the law to have. Criminals who deal in these products need untraceable cash. They often will be on the other side of the bribe of government officials. Likewise there will always be corporations, companies, individuals who have bad intentions and want to escape scrutiny or consequences for their actions. They also to need untraceable cash.
We're all going to be F^%$ when that solar EMP hits the Earth and everything goes down. With luck some stuff might be back in a month or so, but by then we'll have lost most everyone in the cities and suburbs.
In the U.S. the Expedited Funds Availability Act requires that checks be cleared in three business days unless it is a new account or there is a power failure. (Yes the last one is a specific exemption.) In that case it must still be cleared in a week.
There are other exceptions to the law, but they are in the customer's favor. Cashier's checks, Postal money orders, U.S. Treasury checks or checks drawn against a Federal Reserve Bank or any local government must be cleared in a day, based on the premise that such checks will never bounce.
This law was passed specifically to prevent banks from sitting on checks in an age when computers make it possible for a bank to check with another bank anywhere in the world in just seconds. I would have thought that consumer friendly Europe would have taken care of this problem years ago.
Last I checked we pretty much save their bacon. Twice. Except for those who we beat about the head and shoulders because they decided to conquer Europe, and then helped rebuild.
Not to mention prevented from having to learn Russian as a native language, at great cost, for a period of something like 40 years.
Cost we're still primarily baring.
By and large we can do without those kinds of allies.
The tax cut which resulted in more money in my pocket?
The economy which is finally recovering from the pit that Bush and Obama, two professional politicians, put it in?
The unemployment situation for the majority, African-American and Hispanic communities?
Personally I got the highest pay raise I've had since Bush was in power. Anecdotal sure, but I reject the premise I shouldn't be concerned about my own prosperity.
Finally recognized Israel's capital. Make no mistake I've been to Israel, Jerusalem is the capital. Pretending it's not is like everyone pretending New York is the U.S. capital and putting their embassies there and traveling to Washington every time they want to meet with the U.S. government, which is what has happened in Israel for years.
Is Trump perfect? Hell no. I think that he is crass and in many ways personally and morally repugnant. No more so than the Clintons, but pretty bad. I think Obama was probably a pretty good husband and father. A disaster as a president, but personally probably a pretty interesting guy to have dinner with, though I'm sure we would disagree about just about everything.
The point is when I hire a plumber to clean the s**t out of my toilet I don't really care if he's a nice guy or how crude he is. I want my toilet to work.
When I vote in a president to change the direction of my country from the off the cliff policies of the mainstream Democratic/Republican globalists I don't so much care how much of a toad he is personally, as long as he is effective. And so far, by economic and political measurements that matter to me, he's been pretty effective.
I certainly agree that Kim's goals are simple. The point is how realistic are they? At some point most smart dictators realize that the chance of dying in your sleep in old age are pretty slim. Whether called so or not Kim is an absolute monarch (since his position is by the fact he is of the Baekdu bloodline.) His father and grandfather had the privilege of dying a natural death.
Most dictators and absolute monarchs in the last century or so have not had this luxury, however, smart dictators have often been able to negotiate an exit strategy that leaves them alive in a neutral country without an extradition treaty, making them immune from prosecution of their crimes, with enough money to live a pretty easy life.
I guess it depends what you call winning doesn't it?
For a globalist, anything that disrupts the (to them) irreversible march toward globalization is a loss. To those of us who haven't drank the elite globalist koolaid anything that puts a barrier to it is winning.
Sorry to point this out sparky, but the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. They claimed it was supporting terrorism. Since it was paying money to the families of suicide terrorists who attacked civilians in Israel it was supporting terrorism.
Iraq was providing shelter for the PLF terrorist who killed and American Leon Klinghoffer during the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. That is supporting terrorism.
It may surprise you but 9-11 was not the only terrorist attack that ever happened against the U.S. or American citizens.
I know I'll get called a Russian sock puppet for this, but as someone who actually knows history I have to state that the Crimea was Russian for a long time (1789) and was only part of the Ukraine because the Soviet Union government transferred it to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Russian is and has been the main language. If the indigenous populous had been allowed to vote they would have voted to join Russia. (Just as the Spanish Catalonians would vote to leave Spain if they were allowed.)
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton was using a private email server so her email was not susceptible to Freedom of Information requests. The same reason other government officials use personal email to conduct government business.
It looks like Comey used his to transfer information from account to account. Not especially smart, but not the same thing at all.
In no way does used gmail equate to used private email server in my closet.
I'm way more concerned with the obviously false lie about Comey not making decisions based on politics. It looks to me like the FBI covered for Clinton when they thought she would win and Comey got nervous when it became obvious to him she might lose. Had she won we wouldn't have found out about any of this.
It's not the quantity of the passengers it's their quality. This is business and first class transport for ground travel.
It's mainly intended mainly for tourist and business people heading to the hotels downtown.
You don't think its designed for the natives and plebs do you?
Hasn't Amazon already done that?
I've see many businesses that take cash refuse to do business if their computer system is down. For some business that are corporate that is actually a policy, to prevent pilfering, because they don't trust their own employees.
They also refuse to take checks during that time, because they can't check for verification.
I never expect to see cash disappear in the U.S.. It's too hard to hide bribes, buy or sell on the black market or laundry cash if you get ride of cash. Considering our businesses and government they will never allow cash to disappear.
I suspect they don't care. If you can make your goals without servicing particular segments of the economy why bother? Especially if not serving that sector saves you money.
Not taking cash means not having to worry about robbery or keeping money in a safe. No night deposit, with the risk of getting robbed. And of course in this case not needing cashiers at all. No cash registers, receipt printers, or change. It also keeps certain segment of the population out of your store (though cheap, available pre-loaded credit cards do expand the number of people who can live without cash.)
You act like they went to Afghanistan for the U.S. No country send troops to die because another country asks them to unless there is something in it for them. So no our 'allies' did not send troops to Afghanistan for us or our interests. They sent them because it was in their interest.
I happen to think Trump is wrong about this one. But he may have more information than I do about the situation. It's telling to me that this is a bipartisan supported bill. Congress gets a vote and if they decide to dump Trump's deal via legislation, and can get past Trump's veto then we'll see what happens.
Unlike the low bandwidth partisans on the left I don't mindlessly support Trump because he isn't always right. But he's still right a hell of a lot more than most liberals.
You could actually try to find out why the trees are dying rather than propose an hypothesis base on nothing.
It couldn't possibly be due to an unknown pathogen, parasite or chemical/ecological conditions.
You know it's not science if you're just guessing based on your politics.
Yes. In Britain they have so much freedom that they can be arrested for protecting themselves from attack. Soon they'll not even be able to own a kitchen knife with a point, just like children or the mentally incompetent. To own a fencing foil or epee is a crime, but don't worry, by their munificence they'll let you have it because you have a 'legal defense' until they decide you don't. Yep. You sure are 'free'.
You can fix long term homelessness. We as a society are just not willing to do the things that will fix it.
First of all it isn't cheap. Second of all it requires an intrusion into people's lives that is aberrant to most people on both the left and the right.
Long term homeless who have addiction problems or are mentally ill are on the streets because they are incapable of taking care of themselves and are likewise incapable of making the decisions that will allow them to take care of themselves. They are not in shelters or programs because shelters and programs have rules they won't or can't obey.
The only way to get them off the streets is to incarcerate them. This what was done previously to the 1980s. Most were incarcerated in mental hospitals, which were closed down for a combination of cost and people like the ACLU pointing out that it was wrong to lock up people just because they were mentally ill or an addict.
So the only way to fix long term homelessness is to take long term homeless people off the streets against their will and place them somewhere in an institutional setting where their civil rights will be violated on a daily basis.
Pretty grim huh?
Legal immigrants cannot legally vote.Only citizen can vote. (I do realize there are some localities which allow residents to vote, even if they are not citizens.) No state or federal elections allow non-citizens to vote.
Some Democrats want more illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. They want illegal immigrants because they want to grant amnesty and expect most of those formally illegal immigrants to vote for them in thanks for getting them in.
Some Republicans want fewer illegal and legal immigrants because they fear cultural dilution, a not unreasonable fear. Some want fewer illegal and more legal immigrants (based on merit) because they recognize educated professionals immigrating to the U.S. is good for the country.
I tend to advocate increased legal immigration, a secure border and exclusion only of those shown to have criminal records and terrorist backgrounds.
I base this stance on the fact that the U.S. has always been a country of immigrants and it has been a blessing for the country, both economically and culturally.
Trump has put froth a solution to DACA families. He would be smart to get it passed and undercut the Democrats by finding a way to increase legal immigration and securing the border. If he takes that issue away from them (as Johnson did by taking Civil rights away from the Republicans, who was the first party to propose it) he could bury the Democrats for a generation. I doubt he's that smart though.
I'm pretty Conservative and I'll say it. The U.S. should accept any legal immigrant who can be shown to have no criminal background and are not terrorists. They should be required to show they can be employed and be barred from using entitlement programs for 5 years after which they should be eligible for citizenship, provided they can pass a citizenship test given in English. Following such a policy requires the country control it's borders.
Billions (historically hundreds of millions) of people have always been crushed under authoritarian regimes. It is no one else's job or responsibility to free them. A people most often gets the kind of government that it deserves.
One reason the U.S. has always been a society that both promotes and celebrates individuality and advances the concept of private (as opposed to government controlled) societies as that freedom does not rest with governments it rest with the individual, but that freedom can only be defended by the individual acting in collaboration.
The founding fathers understood that, including Washington, upon whom much is said about disfavoring political parties. People change parties all the time, even in the U.S., but political parties are not and should not be the only or even the primary way citizens collectively act in their society.
If the citizen's of Tazania don't care enough to resist tyranny then no one for the outside will be able to free them. An yes when throwing off tyranny people will die, but when it comes down to it most tyrannical leaders find that just killing all of the repressed doesn't serve them. When you kill the golden goose it stops laying eggs. Plus eventually you run out of bullets and they bludgeon you to death.
One of the greatest forces preventing government misuse is the commonality of culture. It is easy to trust a government made up of people who all have similar values. Monocultural societies are generally less violent, have lower crime rates and are more civil.
As Sweden becomes more multicultural I expect that they will see a great change in many things. Time will tell
Who and why is easy. A cash society benefits anyone who doesn't want to be tracked. That extends from everyone who wants to break the law to those who don't want the government to have absolute control over them.
The fact is though that people with bad intentions are the ones most likely to actually have the power to prevent a cashless society. Specifically people in government positions who don't want bribes to be tracked, for example. No matter how enlightened you might think a society is there will always be things that are against the law to have. Criminals who deal in these products need untraceable cash. They often will be on the other side of the bribe of government officials. Likewise there will always be corporations, companies, individuals who have bad intentions and want to escape scrutiny or consequences for their actions. They also to need untraceable cash.
We're all going to be F^%$ when that solar EMP hits the Earth and everything goes down. With luck some stuff might be back in a month or so, but by then we'll have lost most everyone in the cities and suburbs.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean somebody isn't out to get you.
In the U.S. the Expedited Funds Availability Act requires that checks be cleared in three business days unless it is a new account or there is a power failure. (Yes the last one is a specific exemption.) In that case it must still be cleared in a week.
There are other exceptions to the law, but they are in the customer's favor. Cashier's checks, Postal money orders, U.S. Treasury checks or checks drawn against a Federal Reserve Bank or any local government must be cleared in a day, based on the premise that such checks will never bounce.
This law was passed specifically to prevent banks from sitting on checks in an age when computers make it possible for a bank to check with another bank anywhere in the world in just seconds. I would have thought that consumer friendly Europe would have taken care of this problem years ago.
?????
Last I checked we pretty much save their bacon. Twice. Except for those who we beat about the head and shoulders because they decided to conquer Europe, and then helped rebuild.
Not to mention prevented from having to learn Russian as a native language, at great cost, for a period of something like 40 years.
Cost we're still primarily baring.
By and large we can do without those kinds of allies.
Which American problems would those be?
The tax cut which resulted in more money in my pocket?
The economy which is finally recovering from the pit that Bush and Obama, two professional politicians, put it in?
The unemployment situation for the majority, African-American and Hispanic communities?
Personally I got the highest pay raise I've had since Bush was in power. Anecdotal sure, but I reject the premise I shouldn't be concerned about my own prosperity.
Finally recognized Israel's capital. Make no mistake I've been to Israel, Jerusalem is the capital. Pretending it's not is like everyone pretending New York is the U.S. capital and putting their embassies there and traveling to Washington every time they want to meet with the U.S. government, which is what has happened in Israel for years.
Is Trump perfect? Hell no. I think that he is crass and in many ways personally and morally repugnant. No more so than the Clintons, but pretty bad. I think Obama was probably a pretty good husband and father. A disaster as a president, but personally probably a pretty interesting guy to have dinner with, though I'm sure we would disagree about just about everything.
The point is when I hire a plumber to clean the s**t out of my toilet I don't really care if he's a nice guy or how crude he is. I want my toilet to work.
When I vote in a president to change the direction of my country from the off the cliff policies of the mainstream Democratic/Republican globalists I don't so much care how much of a toad he is personally, as long as he is effective. And so far, by economic and political measurements that matter to me, he's been pretty effective.
For a second there I thought you were talking about Obama.
I certainly agree that Kim's goals are simple. The point is how realistic are they? At some point most smart dictators realize that the chance of dying in your sleep in old age are pretty slim. Whether called so or not Kim is an absolute monarch (since his position is by the fact he is of the Baekdu bloodline.) His father and grandfather had the privilege of dying a natural death.
Most dictators and absolute monarchs in the last century or so have not had this luxury, however, smart dictators have often been able to negotiate an exit strategy that leaves them alive in a neutral country without an extradition treaty, making them immune from prosecution of their crimes, with enough money to live a pretty easy life.
I guess it depends what you call winning doesn't it?
For a globalist, anything that disrupts the (to them) irreversible march toward globalization is a loss. To those of us who haven't drank the elite globalist koolaid anything that puts a barrier to it is winning.
Sorry to point this out sparky, but the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. They claimed it was supporting terrorism. Since it was paying money to the families of suicide terrorists who attacked civilians in Israel it was supporting terrorism.
Iraq was providing shelter for the PLF terrorist who killed and American Leon Klinghoffer during the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. That is supporting terrorism.
It may surprise you but 9-11 was not the only terrorist attack that ever happened against the U.S. or American citizens.
I know I'll get called a Russian sock puppet for this, but as someone who actually knows history I have to state that the Crimea was Russian for a long time (1789) and was only part of the Ukraine because the Soviet Union government transferred it to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Russian is and has been the main language. If the indigenous populous had been allowed to vote they would have voted to join Russia. (Just as the Spanish Catalonians would vote to leave Spain if they were allowed.)