If I hit and injure/kill someone because they jumped out in front of me looking for Pokemon, that's really pretty much on them. I watch for pedestrians, because I don't *want* to hit someone, but there are situations where you can't avoid it.
Her predecessors didn't send non-State Department classified email on their setups. They violated retention laws, but there's no evidence they mishandled classified information, which is a more serious offense.
Mishandling classified data, by itself, is not a crime.
In some cases, it is.
Because it is. An indictment requires criminal intent. None was found regarding Hillary's email server.
Indictments do not always require criminal intent. Intent is important for many laws, but not all. Specifically, the sections of the USC she violated do not mention criminal intent at all.
I mean, she violated multiple sections of the USC regarding classified information. The FBI confirmed that. She's guilty of that, at least. What people disagree on is whether that should result in fines, jail time, loss of security clearance, etc - or no punishment at all, which is what apparently happened. Wanting her to be charged does not make one an idiot, nor does it make one a misogynist.
You linked an article about people the Clintons supposedly had killed, whereas the claim was "people who went to jail on behalf of the Clintons or have had their lives and liberties altered for doing less than the Clintons did". Your article, while useful in some cases, did absolutely nothing to refute the claims made. You seem to have poor reading comprehension.
I mean... If you're going to use the "Person X annoys people I don't like, therefore I should vote for them" argument, then Trump would get a lot more votes. That's a shitty reason to vote for anybody.
I think you're misrepresenting what Adams is saying. He never says, for instance, that Trump's bigotry is nothing to worry about, just that it isn't racism - which is, technically, true. It's also possibly true that Trump's bigotry is, at this point, a smart political move - that doesn't mean it's okay, just that it may end up benefiting Trump in the long run. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that your opponent made a smart move, even if you found it distasteful or offensive.
I completely agree that his justification for Trump's anti-Muslim bigotry is weak.
As for the women/LGBT issue - women are often treated very poorly in Islamic countries. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying that, and any real feminist should be fighting for women's rights all around the world instead of refusing to condemn their treatment for fear of appearing "Islamophobic".
If you think "before it was fashionable" has anything to do with hiring women for fashion, you have exceptionally poor reading comprehension. Adams says Trump did it before other people wanted to do it because it was popular (before it was fashionable/popular).
Trump's insults towards women are pretty much on the same level as those he levels against men - he uses different terms, of course, because he wants it to have an effect. If you insult men and women equally, I'd argue that you're maybe a misanthropist, but not a misogynist. Both are bad things for the POTUS to be, of course, and I won't be voting for Trump. But I also don't like it when people misrepresent someone's argument.
Plenty of European countries have elections where you vote for a party and the party decides who it's putting in - although they do generally tell people ahead of time who that will be, it's not always legally binding.
They weren't willing to compromise on gun control. The Republicans proposed a bill that was pretty much identical to the Democrat's, except it included provisions for challenging your placement on the no-fly/no-gun list. You know, getting closer to that pesky "due process" thing (that both parties ignore when it's convenient).
Trump won on a platform of keeping out illegal immigrants, not Mexicans in general. Also, neither Mexican nor Muslim is a race. I don't say this to excuse his bigotry, because it is bad, but if you keep using the term incorrectly, it loses its meaning.
I dunno... Trump actually polls pretty well with some of the Latino population who can legally vote here. He actually got more Hispanic votes in the GOP primaries than Cruz or Rubio.
I have a mixed reaction to this. On the one hand, while I didn't like a lot of his economic policies, I thought Bernie at least had integrity and meant well. Also, there was a pretty good chance he wouldn't have been able to do most of the stuff I didn't like, since it would have required a lot of Congressional cooperation. On the other hand, he already wasn't going to win (unless the DNC threw Hillary under the bus, and that wouldn't have happened), and it will be amusing, at least, to see some of his more rabid fans freak out.
So, first off - I think this guy is clearly guilty. That being said, any evidence that isn't gathered properly should never be allowed in the courtroom. Given that it's the 9th Circuit though - and the shitty rulings they've been making for a long time now - I doubt they'll do the right thing.
You ignored that I mentioned both Freddie Gray and Alton Sterling. Both of them had arrest records and mug shots available. Neither had their mug shot used as the primary picture in most news stories.
One was a rapist, who had a bunch of hostages and a fortified compound. The cops fucked up the initial assault, and went ahead even though the people inside had been tipped off. It was a disaster for them - they retreated because they suffered heavy casualties and were running out of ammo. Komesh was not protected, and he certainly wasn't celebrated. The cops got him to release a bunch of children, and they didn't want to assault the compound with young children still inside. When the cops finally did go in, the people inside burned the building down. Lots of children died.
We're talking about police here, remember? What media organizations do or don't do is off-topic. You're moving the goalposts. But hey, let's play along anyway. Philando Castile doesn't appear to have any mugshots in his pictures. There's pictures of him in t-shirts and his work clothes. Lots of positive pieces written about him and how he was loved by the kids at his school. Likewise, Freddie Gray's main picture is just him in a red shirt. No mugshot, nothing to set him apart from anybody else. Alton Sterling's main picture is him smiling, wearing a polo shirt. He was a convicted felon; they surely could have used a mug shot for him, but didn't.
I didn't say you were disgusting and untrue, just the statement.
If we're talking about unjustly killing people, then yeah, it's a killers problem. There are probably plenty of other things wrong with the Dallas PD, but that's not the topic we were on.
Slashdot Mirror
It would mean that Nintendo released the Nintendo NX.
Most everyday words have more than one meaning, especially in certain contexts.
Your point might have been made better if you had actually spelled out the word "four".
That really depends both on their university and their major(s). There are still good universities out there.
If I hit and injure/kill someone because they jumped out in front of me looking for Pokemon, that's really pretty much on them. I watch for pedestrians, because I don't *want* to hit someone, but there are situations where you can't avoid it.
Her predecessors didn't send non-State Department classified email on their setups. They violated retention laws, but there's no evidence they mishandled classified information, which is a more serious offense.
Mishandling classified data, by itself, is not a crime.
In some cases, it is.
Because it is. An indictment requires criminal intent. None was found regarding Hillary's email server.
Indictments do not always require criminal intent. Intent is important for many laws, but not all. Specifically, the sections of the USC she violated do not mention criminal intent at all.
I mean, she violated multiple sections of the USC regarding classified information. The FBI confirmed that. She's guilty of that, at least. What people disagree on is whether that should result in fines, jail time, loss of security clearance, etc - or no punishment at all, which is what apparently happened. Wanting her to be charged does not make one an idiot, nor does it make one a misogynist.
You linked an article about people the Clintons supposedly had killed, whereas the claim was "people who went to jail on behalf of the Clintons or have had their lives and liberties altered for doing less than the Clintons did". Your article, while useful in some cases, did absolutely nothing to refute the claims made. You seem to have poor reading comprehension.
I mean... If you're going to use the "Person X annoys people I don't like, therefore I should vote for them" argument, then Trump would get a lot more votes. That's a shitty reason to vote for anybody.
I don't live in a swing state. Me voting third party is not "effectively" voting for either major candidate; it's voting third party.
I think you're misrepresenting what Adams is saying. He never says, for instance, that Trump's bigotry is nothing to worry about, just that it isn't racism - which is, technically, true. It's also possibly true that Trump's bigotry is, at this point, a smart political move - that doesn't mean it's okay, just that it may end up benefiting Trump in the long run. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that your opponent made a smart move, even if you found it distasteful or offensive.
I completely agree that his justification for Trump's anti-Muslim bigotry is weak.
As for the women/LGBT issue - women are often treated very poorly in Islamic countries. There's nothing inherently wrong with saying that, and any real feminist should be fighting for women's rights all around the world instead of refusing to condemn their treatment for fear of appearing "Islamophobic".
If you think "before it was fashionable" has anything to do with hiring women for fashion, you have exceptionally poor reading comprehension. Adams says Trump did it before other people wanted to do it because it was popular (before it was fashionable/popular).
Trump's insults towards women are pretty much on the same level as those he levels against men - he uses different terms, of course, because he wants it to have an effect. If you insult men and women equally, I'd argue that you're maybe a misanthropist, but not a misogynist. Both are bad things for the POTUS to be, of course, and I won't be voting for Trump. But I also don't like it when people misrepresent someone's argument.
Plenty of European countries have elections where you vote for a party and the party decides who it's putting in - although they do generally tell people ahead of time who that will be, it's not always legally binding.
They weren't willing to compromise on gun control. The Republicans proposed a bill that was pretty much identical to the Democrat's, except it included provisions for challenging your placement on the no-fly/no-gun list. You know, getting closer to that pesky "due process" thing (that both parties ignore when it's convenient).
"Socialist" isn't an empty label if someone uses it properly. Bernie didn't, but his use of it did still mean something.
Trump won on a platform of keeping out illegal immigrants, not Mexicans in general. Also, neither Mexican nor Muslim is a race. I don't say this to excuse his bigotry, because it is bad, but if you keep using the term incorrectly, it loses its meaning.
I dunno... Trump actually polls pretty well with some of the Latino population who can legally vote here. He actually got more Hispanic votes in the GOP primaries than Cruz or Rubio.
I have a mixed reaction to this. On the one hand, while I didn't like a lot of his economic policies, I thought Bernie at least had integrity and meant well. Also, there was a pretty good chance he wouldn't have been able to do most of the stuff I didn't like, since it would have required a lot of Congressional cooperation. On the other hand, he already wasn't going to win (unless the DNC threw Hillary under the bus, and that wouldn't have happened), and it will be amusing, at least, to see some of his more rabid fans freak out.
He didn't know it was fake, right? He attempted to kill Americans, but had no real chance of doing so.
So, first off - I think this guy is clearly guilty. That being said, any evidence that isn't gathered properly should never be allowed in the courtroom. Given that it's the 9th Circuit though - and the shitty rulings they've been making for a long time now - I doubt they'll do the right thing.
You ignored that I mentioned both Freddie Gray and Alton Sterling. Both of them had arrest records and mug shots available. Neither had their mug shot used as the primary picture in most news stories.
I look forward to it.
You don't know how humor works. Maybe some day you'll learn.
One was a rapist, who had a bunch of hostages and a fortified compound. The cops fucked up the initial assault, and went ahead even though the people inside had been tipped off. It was a disaster for them - they retreated because they suffered heavy casualties and were running out of ammo. Komesh was not protected, and he certainly wasn't celebrated. The cops got him to release a bunch of children, and they didn't want to assault the compound with young children still inside. When the cops finally did go in, the people inside burned the building down. Lots of children died.
We're talking about police here, remember? What media organizations do or don't do is off-topic. You're moving the goalposts. But hey, let's play along anyway. Philando Castile doesn't appear to have any mugshots in his pictures. There's pictures of him in t-shirts and his work clothes. Lots of positive pieces written about him and how he was loved by the kids at his school. Likewise, Freddie Gray's main picture is just him in a red shirt. No mugshot, nothing to set him apart from anybody else. Alton Sterling's main picture is him smiling, wearing a polo shirt. He was a convicted felon; they surely could have used a mug shot for him, but didn't.
I didn't say you were disgusting and untrue, just the statement.
I've considered Marx, and rejected him already. He misunderstood capitalism pretty severely.
If we're talking about unjustly killing people, then yeah, it's a killers problem. There are probably plenty of other things wrong with the Dallas PD, but that's not the topic we were on.