False. Records retention rules existed before she was in office. They were amended after she left, but that only added a time frame for turning over records. The requirement to keep records already existed.
Moreover, with classified information, the onus of handling it properly is on both the sender and the receiver.
Some information is classified as soon as it's created. Hillary, as SecState, should have been trained on this. It's possible she didn't know it was classified, but that seems unlikely, and even if that's true, that doesn't speak wonders for her. Other people are also at fault here, but she isn't blameless either.
Not that I agree with the person you replied to - stereotyping Muslims for the actions of very few is wrong - but in what way is America responsible for ~52M deaths since WWII? How many lives did America save (through food, medical advances, etc.)?
And that was also wrong, from a public records perspective, but she wasn't in a federal position at the time, and therefore wasn't subject to federal records retention laws. She was also not dealing with classified material (at least, on a regular basis, I assume).
There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.
It really doesn't - it only counts homicides. You can use a gun to defend yourself without killing the other person - either just scaring them away or injuring, but not killing, them.
Canada, Britain, Australia, and Germany aren't socialist. They have varying degrees of mixed-market economies, but while they have socialized some things, the majority of the economy is not. Socializing industries works well in some countries, not well in others; a lot depends on how trustworthy the government in question is. Using that metric, I don't particularly want to give the American government more power, even if the implementation seems good otherwise.
Have you been to many "big cities" in the South? They're also pretty diverse. Honestly, I don't think it's a North/South thing; it tends to be more of a rural/city thing. Rural NY, for instance, is incredibly racist. New Orleans? Not really.
That's not correct, at least in terms of what people actually paid. Ostensibly, the rate was very high at the high income range, but very few people actually paid that, because there were even more (and larger) loopholes than there are now. Let's also not forget that the '50s were prosperous for America because most other developed countries had seen large parts of their industrial sectors destroyed (they were being rebuilt, yes, but still...) while America's was largely untouched.
Well, I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I'm with him on this. I admire his relative consistency and his desire to run a clean campaign, but I think most of his policies won't work well. Still, he should be commended for having some integrity, unlike most of the other candidates.
Without addressing the rest of your post - while it's true that the top marginal tax rate was 90% back then, there were so many exemptions that nobody actually paid that rate.
Oh, I agree - shifting demographics is going to be a real problem, one way or another. Hopefully we can get through that and then find a nice stable population level.
I'm not sure I believe that - your source makes a pretty big error. It claims that expanding Medicare for everyone would save $10T over the next decade by removing for-profit administrative costs, pharmaceutical markups, etc. but those are private savings, not public ones. Furthermore, while private administrative costs would likely go down, public ones will go up, especially initially as we have to hire people to understand the new rules. Pharmaceutical "markups" pay for research (and marketing, to be fair). As it stands now, America subsidized other countries; our high drug prices are most of the money that goes towards research. If we give the government the ability to negotiate - and I think we should, just to be clear - we can't expect costs to match what other countries are paying right now, and their costs will likely go up.
Furthermore, while I agree that making college tuition may save money overall, that's still money that the government is spending, and will count towards the national debt. Sanders hasn't proposed large enough tax increases to cover this or his other plans.
Essentially, while his plans might make things cheaper overall (depending on how they're implemented), they will add large amounts to the debt unless taxes are similarly increased. The csmonitor source makes the distinction between public and private costs, but then argues that shifting from private to public shouldn't count against him. However, it will count towards the debt, unless more of the money that would have been going to private costs goes to public ones instead.
Not 50% better. The optimal speed for fuel efficiency is higher now than it was back then, in part due to more efficient engines and better aerodynamics.
Bernie Sanders definitely wouldn't get a budget surplus. A few places have taken a look at his proposed policies and found that even with his tax hikes, we'd be adding about 11-12 trillion USD in national debt over the next decade. We can't maintain that on top of what we already have, thanks to the last two presidents.
Slashdot Mirror
False. Records retention rules existed before she was in office. They were amended after she left, but that only added a time frame for turning over records. The requirement to keep records already existed.
Moreover, with classified information, the onus of handling it properly is on both the sender and the receiver.
Some information is classified as soon as it's created. Hillary, as SecState, should have been trained on this. It's possible she didn't know it was classified, but that seems unlikely, and even if that's true, that doesn't speak wonders for her. Other people are also at fault here, but she isn't blameless either.
That's incorrect. Hillary lied and broke several laws. She did not turn over all of the data to investigators either.
If you asked me what a "mil" is, I'd say a milliliter, but I use volume measurements more often than length.
Not that I agree with the person you replied to - stereotyping Muslims for the actions of very few is wrong - but in what way is America responsible for ~52M deaths since WWII? How many lives did America save (through food, medical advances, etc.)?
And that was also wrong, from a public records perspective, but she wasn't in a federal position at the time, and therefore wasn't subject to federal records retention laws. She was also not dealing with classified material (at least, on a regular basis, I assume).
It's obvious - they have to play rock-paper-scissors each morning to see who gets to be president that day.
There are records of every "official" email to and from her in the State Department servers. They have all been reviewed. Not a single one was found out of place. Not a single one was found to not be on the "released" emails Hillary disclosed. Not a single one contained classified documents. Not a single problem was found, and every single one was scoured.
That's not true. They recently found some she didn't turn over and numerous instances of classified information were on the server. Some information is classified because of where it comes from, including a lot of satellite imagery, and that was also found there.
That's fair. I think rural racists also tend to be more open about it, while racists in cities are sometimes less public with their racism.
It really doesn't - it only counts homicides. You can use a gun to defend yourself without killing the other person - either just scaring them away or injuring, but not killing, them.
Canada, Britain, Australia, and Germany aren't socialist. They have varying degrees of mixed-market economies, but while they have socialized some things, the majority of the economy is not. Socializing industries works well in some countries, not well in others; a lot depends on how trustworthy the government in question is. Using that metric, I don't particularly want to give the American government more power, even if the implementation seems good otherwise.
Have you been to many "big cities" in the South? They're also pretty diverse. Honestly, I don't think it's a North/South thing; it tends to be more of a rural/city thing. Rural NY, for instance, is incredibly racist. New Orleans? Not really.
That's not correct, at least in terms of what people actually paid. Ostensibly, the rate was very high at the high income range, but very few people actually paid that, because there were even more (and larger) loopholes than there are now. Let's also not forget that the '50s were prosperous for America because most other developed countries had seen large parts of their industrial sectors destroyed (they were being rebuilt, yes, but still...) while America's was largely untouched.
Well, I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I'm with him on this. I admire his relative consistency and his desire to run a clean campaign, but I think most of his policies won't work well. Still, he should be commended for having some integrity, unlike most of the other candidates.
"Third World shithole"
Right... Go away, troll.
Without addressing the rest of your post - while it's true that the top marginal tax rate was 90% back then, there were so many exemptions that nobody actually paid that rate.
"USAian" is not the correct term. The correct term is American.
Oh, I agree - shifting demographics is going to be a real problem, one way or another. Hopefully we can get through that and then find a nice stable population level.
I'm not sure I believe that - your source makes a pretty big error. It claims that expanding Medicare for everyone would save $10T over the next decade by removing for-profit administrative costs, pharmaceutical markups, etc. but those are private savings, not public ones. Furthermore, while private administrative costs would likely go down, public ones will go up, especially initially as we have to hire people to understand the new rules. Pharmaceutical "markups" pay for research (and marketing, to be fair). As it stands now, America subsidized other countries; our high drug prices are most of the money that goes towards research. If we give the government the ability to negotiate - and I think we should, just to be clear - we can't expect costs to match what other countries are paying right now, and their costs will likely go up.
Furthermore, while I agree that making college tuition may save money overall, that's still money that the government is spending, and will count towards the national debt. Sanders hasn't proposed large enough tax increases to cover this or his other plans.
Essentially, while his plans might make things cheaper overall (depending on how they're implemented), they will add large amounts to the debt unless taxes are similarly increased. The csmonitor source makes the distinction between public and private costs, but then argues that shifting from private to public shouldn't count against him. However, it will count towards the debt, unless more of the money that would have been going to private costs goes to public ones instead.
Not 50% better. The optimal speed for fuel efficiency is higher now than it was back then, in part due to more efficient engines and better aerodynamics.
Bernie Sanders definitely wouldn't get a budget surplus. A few places have taken a look at his proposed policies and found that even with his tax hikes, we'd be adding about 11-12 trillion USD in national debt over the next decade. We can't maintain that on top of what we already have, thanks to the last two presidents.
Actually, childhood obesity is starting to drop. Crime rates are still going down, as they have been since the late 90s.
You don't have to be a hipster to use "edge". meta-monkey was wrong though - you're clearly an Edgelord, not just some edgy peasant.
You can't buy them in Texas. You can buy them in a different state and take them back to Texas, though.
You actually only need a Google account to review an app.