Some defendants face up to 75 years in prison, despite little evidence against them.
Well, and if there is evidence that they conspired to destroy property and disrupt the inauguration with violence, they may get convicted. If there continues to be "little evidence against them", they won't get convicted.
But a new court filing reveals that investigators have been able to crack into at least eight defendants' locked cell phones.
So it looks like the question of evidence will be resolved quickly then.
As a medical condition, there's no reason why insurance should not cover that, assuming the provider is willing.
We're not talking about whether it should be covered by your insurance plan, we are talking about whether the US military should hire people with this preexisting medical condition.
And the exact treatment is pretty much none of your business.
No, but it is my business and the business of every American voter who we want to serve in the US military and what treatments we want our public healthcare system to cover. That's why we have elections, like in 2016 for example.
but since you and many others will go out of your way to shit on trans people, it tends to have severe psychological repercussions
You have no idea who I am or what I had to deal with growing up. And I don't care whether you dress up in women's clothes or chop off your willy; it's a free country. Just don't expect others to pay for it through their taxes and don't blame others if you hate your life. Whether you're happy or not is entirely up to you, and your attitude is that of a petulant, immature child.
Trump clearly was talking about "transgender" in the sense of people who require medical intervention.
If you do not require medical intervention and conform to the military code of dress and behavior, you can, of course, serve and you are not "transgender" in the sense Trump was talking about. You presumably won't get fired for dressing up as a woman on your private time, or for sleeping with men (since Trump doesn't seem to have any intention of reversing the position on gays in the military).
It hasn't been considered a mental disorder by the sciences for decades.
The medical condition is supposedly "gender dysphoria". It's obviously a mental problem (since there is nothing physically wrong with the body), and it's a disease, because according to activists, medical insurance needs to pay for its treatment. You can't have it both ways: if it's not a disease, then medical insurance shouldn't have to pay for it and it shouldn't require surgery.
Do you prevent people with high-functioning autism in the army? Do you think people with minor anxiety are prevent from joining? What about ADD? Get PTSD you should be kicked out?
Generally, yes: those conditions frequently result in discharges. And those conditions don't generally require major surgery.
In other words, there are already policies in place to handle this sort of thing and the ban is unnecessary.
What you call "the ban" is simply the military default, namely not to accept people with major medical problems. That default was overridden for political reasons by the previous administration. Trump just seeks to eliminate the special treatment of a medical condition for political reasons.
But what do you think is going to happen if in an emergency they miss their hormones?
Gender dysphoria according to activists is a serious, chronic medical condition requiring major surgery and lifelong, specialized treatment. That's how it should be handled by the military, which means not hiring people who have the condition and discharging people who acquire the condition after initial treatment.
Spend a minute and look into the literally THOUSANDS of military jobs that are not in combat zones or areas of scarcity.
So? Gender dysphoria, according to trans-gender activists, is a major medical condition requiring surgery. So, it should be treated like cancer: if you suffer from it, you shouldn't be allowed to join. If you conceal it while trying to join, you are committing fraud. After gender reassignment, you will be suffering from a chronic medical condition, plus are at high risk of suicide, which again should make you unsuitable for joining.
This is not a logistical move - if it was, it would come from the pentagon and not from a loudmouth on Twitter.
What makes you think it didn't come from the Pentagon? The military was opposed to this move but forced into it by political activists. In addition, like it or not, Trump is the commander in chief. This is his job.
Nice troll, but complete bullshit. Darwin didn't advocate "social Darwinism", and neither did Rand (Rand called social Darwinism "the junkyard of philosophy").
What liberal Western democracies have traditionally advocated is treating people like adults, meaning you make your choices and you live with the consequences.
Over the 20th century, progressives, socialists, technocrats, and fascists have tried to kill liberalism and replace it with authoritarianism and paternalism.
Can somebody can tell me how to pry the 1% away from their wealth
The usual way: through socialism or fascism. You can look at history what happens next. Recently, Venezuela tried again.
And, oh, by the way, as an educated American, you are almost certainly part of "the 1%" yourself.
Let's ban electricity as well. And computers. And the internal combustion engine. Imagine how much work we can create if people have to wash their clothes, ride rickshaws, do accounting by hand, etc. That way, we can quickly return to the 17th century, when everybody lived like kings and there was no unemployment or social unrest. It's what progressives crave!
I'm saying we've got some right wingers in our party who are soft on a few social issues.
Yes, the kind of people that actually represent what the majority of Americans want: small government, low taxes, individual responsibilty, and individual liberties. When the Democrats had more of those kinds of politicians, they were winning.
On the other hand, when even a fairly tepid progressive like Hillary can't win against someone as unlikable and incompetent as Donald Trump, you'd think people would figure out that the problem with the Democratic party is their actual policies and directions. Yet, it looks like Democrats are going to double down on stupid and nominate a loser like Warren or Booker next time.
If I want to blame the Republicans for something I've got multiple wars, the 2008 economic crash (though Clinton gets some of that Blame for starting the deregulation that led to it), our awful healthcare system, the war on drugs and all the horror it brings,
You're a bloody fool if you blame Republicans for that, but I guess that kind of folly and ignorance is typical for 21st century Democrats.
decades of institutionalized racism being used to drive a schism between members of the working class so wages could be suppressed.
The majority of African Americans in the US are living under institutions and in communities dominated for decades by Democrats, Democratic policies, and businesses, civil rights organizations, and charities close to Democrats. So, there is institutionalized racism alright, but it is the creation of Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, simply don't give a fuck either way about African Americans or their problems.
Much of what used to protect the American people has been torn away over the last 40 years
If by "protecting the American people", you mean the proto-fascist regulations from the progressive area and the WWII economy, guilty as charged and good riddance.
there would be talk from the main-stream Democrats to deal with the Citizens United ruling
The "corporation" in Citizens United was a non-profit making a political movie critical of Hillary. That's what we are talking about here: non-profit political organizations engaging in political speech, not Coca Cola advocating for oil pipelines. That's what you and Hillary Clinton want to see restricted: political speech.
nondisparagement agreements are increasingly included in employment contracts and legal settlements' to hide abuses that would otherwise be made public."
They can also be a quick and simple way for employers and employees to settle potential disagreements without the need for a lawsuit.
It was predicted that manufacturers would take the lazy way out by locking down the firmware/bootloaders of the routers entirely instead of partitioning off access to the radio transmit power and channel ranges.
These companies are in a competitive market and have tight deadlines; they don't have time to rewrite their software to satisfy a few nerds who want to load modified firmware.
The FCC later specified that they were not trying to block Open Source firmware modifications
Welcome to the world of regulations, where bad consequences are always unintended and ignored.
"Ok, so we accept that they don't have to, but they take the bribes anyway. See Spiro Agnew."
Spiro Agnew was worth about $700000, and much of that from bribes. He wasn't rich, he became rich through government. You know, just like the Clintons. Well, actually not like the Clintons: the Clintons have so far enriched themselves 50x more than Spiro Agnew ever did through their "government service". But I'm glad that you seem to agree that there are crooks in both parties.
"The rich history of Republican corruption includes Credit Mobiler, Teapot Dome, the Whiskey Ring, Watergate"
True, in the late 19th and early 20th century, corruption and progressivism infested both parties. Nixon has been the last gasp of that kind of Republican. I'm glad you reject those kinds of behaviors. I encourage you to apply your disapproval equally to Democrats.
"McCarthyism, Iran-Contra"
I'm not sure how these amount to corruption.
"It's particularly ludicrous to defend this particular billionaire for this sort of thing,"
I still haven't seen anything I need to defend him from; since he hasn't been in office long and hasn't done much, who would even have had opportunity to bribe him?
"his repugnant history of corruption and malfeasance includes a lawsuit settled days after the election."
I get it: you don't like the Orange One and his small hands. That's your prerogative. But none of that amounts to bribery, which we are talking about here.
Wake up, man, California High Speed Rail is dead. California is nearly bankrupt, the federal government is not going to pay for it, and as a business it makes no sense.
That comment is rich in light of the long history of Democratic corruption, influence peddling, and vote buying, and the absolutely deplorable history of the Clintons.
It's particularly ludicrous to accuse a billionaire president of this sort of thing: billionaires don't have to prostitute themselves for a few million dollars in bribes.
Seriously, man, snap out of your stupid partisan bigotry.
Altman lays out 10 principles including lowering the cost of housing, creating single-payer healthcare, increasing clean energy use, improving education, reforming taxes and rebuilding infrastructure
US per student spending is even higher for tertiary education. There are plenty of data sources for this; the OECD publishes a lot of this data. Much of it is also on Wikipedia. You can really look it up for yourself.
I'm all for European-style public education, if we start by cutting academic/teacher salaries and benefits, and other per-student expenditures, to European levels.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, and if there is evidence that they conspired to destroy property and disrupt the inauguration with violence, they may get convicted. If there continues to be "little evidence against them", they won't get convicted.
So it looks like the question of evidence will be resolved quickly then.
So are autism and Down syndrome.
Glad you realize it's a "medical condition". Here is a long list of medical conditions that prevent people from joining the military.
We're not talking about whether it should be covered by your insurance plan, we are talking about whether the US military should hire people with this preexisting medical condition.
No, but it is my business and the business of every American voter who we want to serve in the US military and what treatments we want our public healthcare system to cover. That's why we have elections, like in 2016 for example.
You have no idea who I am or what I had to deal with growing up. And I don't care whether you dress up in women's clothes or chop off your willy; it's a free country. Just don't expect others to pay for it through their taxes and don't blame others if you hate your life. Whether you're happy or not is entirely up to you, and your attitude is that of a petulant, immature child.
Trump clearly was talking about "transgender" in the sense of people who require medical intervention.
If you do not require medical intervention and conform to the military code of dress and behavior, you can, of course, serve and you are not "transgender" in the sense Trump was talking about. You presumably won't get fired for dressing up as a woman on your private time, or for sleeping with men (since Trump doesn't seem to have any intention of reversing the position on gays in the military).
Why? The US military can change its recruitment and discharge requirements without an act of Congress. It's done so many times in the past.
The medical condition is supposedly "gender dysphoria". It's obviously a mental problem (since there is nothing physically wrong with the body), and it's a disease, because according to activists, medical insurance needs to pay for its treatment. You can't have it both ways: if it's not a disease, then medical insurance shouldn't have to pay for it and it shouldn't require surgery.
Generally, yes: those conditions frequently result in discharges. And those conditions don't generally require major surgery.
What you call "the ban" is simply the military default, namely not to accept people with major medical problems. That default was overridden for political reasons by the previous administration. Trump just seeks to eliminate the special treatment of a medical condition for political reasons.
Gender dysphoria according to activists is a serious, chronic medical condition requiring major surgery and lifelong, specialized treatment. That's how it should be handled by the military, which means not hiring people who have the condition and discharging people who acquire the condition after initial treatment.
So? Gender dysphoria, according to trans-gender activists, is a major medical condition requiring surgery. So, it should be treated like cancer: if you suffer from it, you shouldn't be allowed to join. If you conceal it while trying to join, you are committing fraud. After gender reassignment, you will be suffering from a chronic medical condition, plus are at high risk of suicide, which again should make you unsuitable for joining.
What makes you think it didn't come from the Pentagon? The military was opposed to this move but forced into it by political activists. In addition, like it or not, Trump is the commander in chief. This is his job.
Or, for that matter, why would anybody become a professional football player if they didn't have brain damage already?
What liberal Western democracies have traditionally advocated is treating people like adults, meaning you make your choices and you live with the consequences.
Over the 20th century, progressives, socialists, technocrats, and fascists have tried to kill liberalism and replace it with authoritarianism and paternalism.
The usual way: through socialism or fascism. You can look at history what happens next. Recently, Venezuela tried again. And, oh, by the way, as an educated American, you are almost certainly part of "the 1%" yourself.
Let's ban electricity as well. And computers. And the internal combustion engine. Imagine how much work we can create if people have to wash their clothes, ride rickshaws, do accounting by hand, etc. That way, we can quickly return to the 17th century, when everybody lived like kings and there was no unemployment or social unrest. It's what progressives crave!
Yes, the kind of people that actually represent what the majority of Americans want: small government, low taxes, individual responsibilty, and individual liberties. When the Democrats had more of those kinds of politicians, they were winning. On the other hand, when even a fairly tepid progressive like Hillary can't win against someone as unlikable and incompetent as Donald Trump, you'd think people would figure out that the problem with the Democratic party is their actual policies and directions. Yet, it looks like Democrats are going to double down on stupid and nominate a loser like Warren or Booker next time.
You're a bloody fool if you blame Republicans for that, but I guess that kind of folly and ignorance is typical for 21st century Democrats.
The majority of African Americans in the US are living under institutions and in communities dominated for decades by Democrats, Democratic policies, and businesses, civil rights organizations, and charities close to Democrats. So, there is institutionalized racism alright, but it is the creation of Democrats. Republicans, on the other hand, simply don't give a fuck either way about African Americans or their problems.
This will be small potatoes compared to the leaks of private financial and medical data we can expect from the CFPB and the reporting required by ACA.
If by "protecting the American people", you mean the proto-fascist regulations from the progressive area and the WWII economy, guilty as charged and good riddance.
The "corporation" in Citizens United was a non-profit making a political movie critical of Hillary. That's what we are talking about here: non-profit political organizations engaging in political speech, not Coca Cola advocating for oil pipelines. That's what you and Hillary Clinton want to see restricted: political speech.
Don't blame Republicans for the corruption and crony capitalism of Democrats.
Like what? Try coming up with some concrete examples where regulation was demonstrably better than all other reasonable alternatives.
They can also be a quick and simple way for employers and employees to settle potential disagreements without the need for a lawsuit.
You mean the guy who wants to cut back on regulations because he, unlike you, understands that regulations often have serious unintended consequences?
These companies are in a competitive market and have tight deadlines; they don't have time to rewrite their software to satisfy a few nerds who want to load modified firmware.
Welcome to the world of regulations, where bad consequences are always unintended and ignored.
"Ok, so we accept that they don't have to, but they take the bribes anyway. See Spiro Agnew." Spiro Agnew was worth about $700000, and much of that from bribes. He wasn't rich, he became rich through government. You know, just like the Clintons. Well, actually not like the Clintons: the Clintons have so far enriched themselves 50x more than Spiro Agnew ever did through their "government service". But I'm glad that you seem to agree that there are crooks in both parties. "The rich history of Republican corruption includes Credit Mobiler, Teapot Dome, the Whiskey Ring, Watergate" True, in the late 19th and early 20th century, corruption and progressivism infested both parties. Nixon has been the last gasp of that kind of Republican. I'm glad you reject those kinds of behaviors. I encourage you to apply your disapproval equally to Democrats. "McCarthyism, Iran-Contra" I'm not sure how these amount to corruption. "It's particularly ludicrous to defend this particular billionaire for this sort of thing," I still haven't seen anything I need to defend him from; since he hasn't been in office long and hasn't done much, who would even have had opportunity to bribe him? "his repugnant history of corruption and malfeasance includes a lawsuit settled days after the election." I get it: you don't like the Orange One and his small hands. That's your prerogative. But none of that amounts to bribery, which we are talking about here.
Wake up, man, California High Speed Rail is dead. California is nearly bankrupt, the federal government is not going to pay for it, and as a business it makes no sense.
That comment is rich in light of the long history of Democratic corruption, influence peddling, and vote buying, and the absolutely deplorable history of the Clintons. It's particularly ludicrous to accuse a billionaire president of this sort of thing: billionaires don't have to prostitute themselves for a few million dollars in bribes. Seriously, man, snap out of your stupid partisan bigotry.
Talk about billionaires corrupting politics.
US per student spending is even higher for tertiary education. There are plenty of data sources for this; the OECD publishes a lot of this data. Much of it is also on Wikipedia. You can really look it up for yourself. I'm all for European-style public education, if we start by cutting academic/teacher salaries and benefits, and other per-student expenditures, to European levels.