Petraeus did not do the same thing, not even close. He did break the law and plead guilty to it. But what he did was hand his classified personal notes to his Biographer for reference use in preparing his biography. Yes he was having an affair with her, and no he didn't get the data declassified or approved for release, but the Biographer had a clearance (though not the need to know) and she did not release any of the classified information.
Thus while he did mishandle the classified material it never hit the general public. His crime pales compared to the roughly 700k classified documents Manning stole and released to the internet. Petraeus pled guilty, and paid a hefty fine ($100k). He could not have been Trump's Sec state as he was briefly rumored to be a candidate for.
So what if he accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan and that offends China. Taiwan is not going to rejoin China, they are two separate countries. China's outrage is feigned, they need our markets just as badly as we need the stuff they sell us.
Your outrage at his accepting a phone call is as false as China's outrage. Neither means squat. He has not harmed anything, he does not yet have authority to harm anything. Once President, I hope he continues to recognized Taiwan, the One China myth needs to die whether communist China wants to admit it or not, Taiwan is independent.
But do you see the difference between the Silicone Valley line in the OP that you quoted and the Silicon Valley that you then commented about. They are not the same thing.
Except that decades ago the speeds were set for political reasons and are far below the comfortable and safe driving speeds the roads and modern cars. The 55mph National speed limit was arbitrary and is too low. Most states have increased it, and are increasing limits more as they try to determine the safe speed. In the west that is often 75 to 80 mph, at the comfortable speed most drivers will not exceed it. But most states aren't putting their limits that high and thus the limit is still arbitrary.
It doesn't deny the President the authority to undo such a withdrawal therefore he has the authority. Our legal system is permissive, for something to not be allowed that must be specified as not being permitted, failure to specify permission does not indicate a lack of permission.
Actually he can: The relevant passage of the act states: (a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
As it does not prohibit the President from restoring lands to disposition, he can in fact restore such. For that to not be a legal act it has to be specifically prohibited. As it is not, what the President, or prior President) has withdrawn from disposition, he/she or any future president can restore to disposition.
And there is also the route of legislative reversal as well. Append a minor alteration to this bill to a critical funding bill and the power to undo it would be restored but such is not necessary.
While we shouldn't just say CA shouldn't matter, in fact the point that her margin of victory is entirely within the margin of victory in CA does establish a point. The Electoral College works. If we went purely by popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned very differently. the "fly-over" states would have been totally ignored and would be every time. All of the candidates would focus on four or five states and a few other large cities. But urbanites do not make up the whole of this country and should not have total say in politics. The college requires a broad base of support across the entire nation. And Trump had that, he won 30 states to her 20. The "popular vote" doesn't matter because we don't hold one unified election, we hold 50 state elections (plus DC). popular vote only matters within each individual state or District.
While going after botnets should be part of the plan. Going after those who hire the botnets also needs to be part of the equation. Botnets need to be attacked from both ends, both those who create them and those who use them, a botnet that never does anything wrong isn't really a problem, it could be used as a distributed computer to process complex problems with all those wasted processor cycles out there on IoT enabled devices. Only if used for DDOS or similar attacks do they become problematic. If nobody wanted to hire or use them, they would be mostly harmless. So we go after both ends, both the creators and maintainers of the nets and those who use them for nefarious purposes. And that means throw the book at the first few individuals to make the point that hiring a botnet for a DDOS is going to send you away to prison for a painful amount of time. It won't eliminate those who would do so, but it might just discourage a few more casual individuals from engaging in the crime.
Wrong he jokingly asked Russia to see if the deleted emails where in the contents of what they had hacked from her unsecure server. He did not ask or call for them to do anything that had not already been collected. And it was a Joke.
Nope that is called campaigning. If you want to complain about a foreign power participating the camp you can, but it is not directly altering the outcome. That consists of changing the vote count by hacking voting machines or other direct methods. Swaying opinions with facts is not directly altering the outcome.
Please cite evidence of them directly altering the outcome. If the claim is true they hacked the DNC and revealed a great deal of corruption, but that does not directly alter the outcome. To do that would involve directly changing the vote count someway. As voting machines are not networked, and many areas use various paper ballots such is not possible.
They do health screenings for insurance purposes as well. They are thus in fact a health care organization even though they don't offer care services. They are more than just drug testing. I have to go to them every year for a health screening to get a discount on my employer's insurance.
Additionally the sitting President has no say in whether or not we hold a constitutional convention. The Congress or the States can call for one, NOT the President. I suggest you go back to school and actually learn something about how our system works before telling us what we should be doing.
Why aren't we fighting him? Because he's not in power yet, and has done nothing of what you claim he has or will do. He can't seize power like you claim, our separation of power with three equal branches of government will prevent that. Congress does not trust him and will not be rubberstamping his actions as both parties distrust him. The courts take time to swing with appointments, and just filling Scalia's seat on the Supreme court will not give him the carte blanche you so incorrectly assume.
Yes the founding fathers were worried about what could happen, and thus they built extensive protections into our system.
It would be nice if people would actually try and research someone before they make bs claims about them. Ryan has only run for the VP once, as Romney's choice. He had the nomination handed to him. Other than that he's won every time he's run for Federal Office which have all been for his seat in the House. I get it, you don't like him because he is a Republican. But at least try to be accurate in your description of his political career.
Because if you can't get basic documented history correct how can we expect your claims on his positions to have any more credibility.
They change to a removeable card. Being locked into a carrier is not a good idea. Not only for the problem of movoing to an area where the carrier for your computer has lousy service. The idea is being pushed to aid business travelers who hate having to hunt for wi-fi access. In the US one of the big four will cover most metro areas, but what about the rest of the world where, travel 20 minutes to another country and you have to choose a different national carrier.
If locked to one carrier the answer is no. Micro$oft needs to implement this with changeable sims. Add that feature to a larger antenna than you can fit into a phone and allow it to act as a hotspot as well and you have something of value. Well except for those afraid of a little telemetry. But for the other 99% of customers it would be a great Idea. Especially if I can get it on a large data cap plan (or true unlimited data like my Sprint account) without breaking the bank each month. If data caps are the norm then let me go into the store and adjust my plan for the month or even the week to allow for more data for a short term when needed.
It has to be able to switch carriers and do it quickly and easily. No Sprint in this area, Let me pick up a pay as I go Verizon SIM, or AT&T SIM, heading overseas I can swap in the local sim of my choice .
Actually they can. That is the power of checks and balances. Congress writes the laws, The President signs and enforces the laws, and the Court determines whether the laws are valid. You are claiming better knowledge of how things work than all 8 Justices. It was a Unanimous decision by a very divided Court. Guess who we are going to trust, some random internet poster, or the SCOTUS ruling in unison.
How long until the first iDrone strikes beging? They'll start by taking out, the most vocal critics of the Apple Universe (Appleverse). Before long anyone holding a non-iDevice will risk being a target. Apple won't seek to establish a monopoly on the business side, but will on the buyer side. Nobody will dare touch anything else.;)
ISIS is not a country, they are an organization that has declared unilaterally that they have established a caliphate over the territory they control, but that territory is part of established nations who are fighting very hard to take that land and territory back. No nation has recognized any such new country or their borders. They are not a country, and they are losing the territory they control.
the voters almost never support primary challengers against incumbents of either party, but challenges DO happen anyway when voters are sufficiently pissed.
Sorry about getting hooked on multiple felony counts of mishandling classified information. Protecting the secrets of this Nation is something I find rather important, especially for the person sitting in what is basically the second most important position in this nation.
As opposed to someone who is sometimes mean to people. Trump was not my ideal candidate, but he was far better than the Queen of Corruption.
Slashdot Mirror
Petraeus did not do the same thing, not even close. He did break the law and plead guilty to it. But what he did was hand his classified personal notes to his Biographer for reference use in preparing his biography. Yes he was having an affair with her, and no he didn't get the data declassified or approved for release, but the Biographer had a clearance (though not the need to know) and she did not release any of the classified information.
Thus while he did mishandle the classified material it never hit the general public. His crime pales compared to the roughly 700k classified documents Manning stole and released to the internet. Petraeus pled guilty, and paid a hefty fine ($100k). He could not have been Trump's Sec state as he was briefly rumored to be a candidate for.
Even worse, when a Federal Agent overhears your kid singing about brining home a baby bumble bee at preschool and throws him or her into jail.
So what if he accepted a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan and that offends China. Taiwan is not going to rejoin China, they are two separate countries. China's outrage is feigned, they need our markets just as badly as we need the stuff they sell us.
Your outrage at his accepting a phone call is as false as China's outrage. Neither means squat. He has not harmed anything, he does not yet have authority to harm anything. Once President, I hope he continues to recognized Taiwan, the One China myth needs to die whether communist China wants to admit it or not, Taiwan is independent.
But do you see the difference between the Silicone Valley line in the OP that you quoted and the Silicon Valley that you then commented about. They are not the same thing.
Except that decades ago the speeds were set for political reasons and are far below the comfortable and safe driving speeds the roads and modern cars. The 55mph National speed limit was arbitrary and is too low. Most states have increased it, and are increasing limits more as they try to determine the safe speed. In the west that is often 75 to 80 mph, at the comfortable speed most drivers will not exceed it. But most states aren't putting their limits that high and thus the limit is still arbitrary.
It doesn't deny the President the authority to undo such a withdrawal therefore he has the authority. Our legal system is permissive, for something to not be allowed that must be specified as not being permitted, failure to specify permission does not indicate a lack of permission.
And it's already been done once.
Actually he can: The relevant passage of the act states:
(a) Withdrawal of unleased lands by President
The President of the United States may, from time to time, withdraw from disposition any of the unleased lands of the outer Continental Shelf.
As it does not prohibit the President from restoring lands to disposition, he can in fact restore such. For that to not be a legal act it has to be specifically prohibited. As it is not, what the President, or prior President) has withdrawn from disposition, he/she or any future president can restore to disposition.
And there is also the route of legislative reversal as well. Append a minor alteration to this bill to a critical funding bill and the power to undo it would be restored but such is not necessary.
While we shouldn't just say CA shouldn't matter, in fact the point that her margin of victory is entirely within the margin of victory in CA does establish a point. The Electoral College works. If we went purely by popular vote, the candidates would have campaigned very differently. the "fly-over" states would have been totally ignored and would be every time. All of the candidates would focus on four or five states and a few other large cities. But urbanites do not make up the whole of this country and should not have total say in politics. The college requires a broad base of support across the entire nation. And Trump had that, he won 30 states to her 20. The "popular vote" doesn't matter because we don't hold one unified election, we hold 50 state elections (plus DC). popular vote only matters within each individual state or District.
While going after botnets should be part of the plan. Going after those who hire the botnets also needs to be part of the equation. Botnets need to be attacked from both ends, both those who create them and those who use them, a botnet that never does anything wrong isn't really a problem, it could be used as a distributed computer to process complex problems with all those wasted processor cycles out there on IoT enabled devices. Only if used for DDOS or similar attacks do they become problematic. If nobody wanted to hire or use them, they would be mostly harmless. So we go after both ends, both the creators and maintainers of the nets and those who use them for nefarious purposes. And that means throw the book at the first few individuals to make the point that hiring a botnet for a DDOS is going to send you away to prison for a painful amount of time. It won't eliminate those who would do so, but it might just discourage a few more casual individuals from engaging in the crime.
Wrong he jokingly asked Russia to see if the deleted emails where in the contents of what they had hacked from her unsecure server. He did not ask or call for them to do anything that had not already been collected. And it was a Joke.
Nope that is called campaigning. If you want to complain about a foreign power participating the camp you can, but it is not directly altering the outcome. That consists of changing the vote count by hacking voting machines or other direct methods. Swaying opinions with facts is not directly altering the outcome.
Please cite evidence of them directly altering the outcome. If the claim is true they hacked the DNC and revealed a great deal of corruption, but that does not directly alter the outcome. To do that would involve directly changing the vote count someway. As voting machines are not networked, and many areas use various paper ballots such is not possible.
They do health screenings for insurance purposes as well. They are thus in fact a health care organization even though they don't offer care services. They are more than just drug testing. I have to go to them every year for a health screening to get a discount on my employer's insurance.
Additionally the sitting President has no say in whether or not we hold a constitutional convention. The Congress or the States can call for one, NOT the President. I suggest you go back to school and actually learn something about how our system works before telling us what we should be doing.
Why aren't we fighting him? Because he's not in power yet, and has done nothing of what you claim he has or will do. He can't seize power like you claim, our separation of power with three equal branches of government will prevent that. Congress does not trust him and will not be rubberstamping his actions as both parties distrust him. The courts take time to swing with appointments, and just filling Scalia's seat on the Supreme court will not give him the carte blanche you so incorrectly assume.
Yes the founding fathers were worried about what could happen, and thus they built extensive protections into our system.
Early in his Presidency? His party controlled both houses of Congress early in his presidency. Try again with the blame.
It would be nice if people would actually try and research someone before they make bs claims about them. Ryan has only run for the VP once, as Romney's choice. He had the nomination handed to him. Other than that he's won every time he's run for Federal Office which have all been for his seat in the House. I get it, you don't like him because he is a Republican. But at least try to be accurate in your description of his political career.
Because if you can't get basic documented history correct how can we expect your claims on his positions to have any more credibility.
Naw you're okay, unless you are eating the lead paint flakes as well. If you are doing that you are toast!
They change to a removeable card. Being locked into a carrier is not a good idea. Not only for the problem of movoing to an area where the carrier for your computer has lousy service. The idea is being pushed to aid business travelers who hate having to hunt for wi-fi access. In the US one of the big four will cover most metro areas, but what about the rest of the world where, travel 20 minutes to another country and you have to choose a different national carrier.
If locked to one carrier the answer is no. Micro$oft needs to implement this with changeable sims. Add that feature to a larger antenna than you can fit into a phone and allow it to act as a hotspot as well and you have something of value. Well except for those afraid of a little telemetry. But for the other 99% of customers it would be a great Idea. Especially if I can get it on a large data cap plan (or true unlimited data like my Sprint account) without breaking the bank each month. If data caps are the norm then let me go into the store and adjust my plan for the month or even the week to allow for more data for a short term when needed.
It has to be able to switch carriers and do it quickly and easily. No Sprint in this area, Let me pick up a pay as I go Verizon SIM, or AT&T SIM, heading overseas I can swap in the local sim of my choice .
Actually they can. That is the power of checks and balances. Congress writes the laws, The President signs and enforces the laws, and the Court determines whether the laws are valid. You are claiming better knowledge of how things work than all 8 Justices. It was a Unanimous decision by a very divided Court. Guess who we are going to trust, some random internet poster, or the SCOTUS ruling in unison.
How long until the first iDrone strikes beging? They'll start by taking out, the most vocal critics of the Apple Universe (Appleverse). Before long anyone holding a non-iDevice will risk being a target. Apple won't seek to establish a monopoly on the business side, but will on the buyer side. Nobody will dare touch anything else. ;)
ISIS is not a country, they are an organization that has declared unilaterally that they have established a caliphate over the territory they control, but that territory is part of established nations who are fighting very hard to take that land and territory back. No nation has recognized any such new country or their borders. They are not a country, and they are losing the territory they control.
the voters almost never support primary challengers against incumbents of either party, but challenges DO happen anyway when voters are sufficiently pissed.
FTFY
Both parties keep incumbents.
Sorry about getting hooked on multiple felony counts of mishandling classified information. Protecting the secrets of this Nation is something I find rather important, especially for the person sitting in what is basically the second most important position in this nation.
As opposed to someone who is sometimes mean to people. Trump was not my ideal candidate, but he was far better than the Queen of Corruption.
He's a multi-billionaire. He doesn't need to get a job anywhere.