He's wanting to put tariffs on imported goods. Car manufacturers rely on imported goods. Detroit is about to get a whole lot poorer. Even if more parts were made domestically, retaliatory tariffs will make American made cars unattractive overseas.
You mean car manufacturers will have incentive to make things locally?
Heavens!
What will the car manufactures do without overseas workers?
I simply cannot imagine how this will be good for the country! Our GDP will drop at the expense of creating all those jobs!
Also... kinda funny how Slashdot turns super liberal the minute Trump wins. Where did all those supporters go? Did their last check arrive or something?
I think it's a case of knowing what matters and what doesn't.
In this case, it's "let them get it out of their system, it doesn't matter and it'll let them blow off some steam".
I don't feel any particular need to come to Trump's defence, to counter baseless insults or misleading spin, today.
You may note that it was the losing side that was shrill, insulting, cheating, and at times criminal. No "calibration errors" changed votes to Republican, very few "Clinton" signs were stolen or vandalized, and no one called for the removal of someone else from their job because they supported Hillary.
We also didn't move $60 million from down-ballot elections to unfairly fix our primary, didn't hire protesters to disrupt the opposition rallys (and cause them to cancel), didn't collude with the media, get the debate questions ahead of time, and didn't get free campaigning from the president.
I've never ever laughed out loud at a Marmaduke comic, until today.
Let them get it out of their system, it'll blow over soon, and in the meantime it'll make them feel good.
Regarding the tech industry, let's look at Apple Inc. I think that article misses a really big issue: Tech Manufacturing.
Trump stated that he wanted Apple to make it's products here in the USA. That might be possible with a system of tariffs. But the bigger issue is that type of protectionism would push companies like Apple out of world markets due to not being able to be price competitive.
And here is the basic fallacy of economics.
Our national economic health is measured by the total health of our companies. The welfare of the citizens is an afterthought in these calculations, a fake "unemployment rate" tells us how people are doing.
This is what fueled the recent election.
I don't particularly care what happens to Apple. The government shouldn't either. The government should look after its people.
If the people benefit while Apple has to struggle in world markets, would that be a bad thing?
And as a followup to the previous, for all the things that counted against Hillary Clinton, being a woman wasn't one of them.
Regardless of the hallucinations and rationalizations thrown from the left, the fact that she was a woman really didn't matter. The polls back this up.
The issue almost never came up. Trump responded when Hillary brought it up by saying that being a woman isn't a qualification for the job, but when Hillary dropped the issue so did Trump.
No one cares any more, just like no one cared that Obama was black. Obama never brought it up either - he never played the race card. It didn't matter.
There is no more glass ceiling. Hillary was judged not on the basis of her gender, but on her qualifications and (largely) her ethics.
We live in a world where a woman *actually could* be the next president. She'll be judged on her talent and abilities, but not her gender.
Look, I understand you all need to vent and the previous article was full of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but it's time to put on your big-boy pants and start acting like adults.
The election isn't about "getting your way", it's about "crowdsourcing a decision". The crowd chose not to go with Clinton, and there were a lot of votes in support of that decision. Deal with it, the rules were well defined from the beginning and you had plenty of time to prepare and build your case.
We've complained about corruption in politics in this very forum for years, saying essentially "if only we could get someone in office who wasn't in the pocket of big money". I agree with that sentiment entirely: political corruption has been driving the country into the dirt for decades, and it's reached a level where that sentiment can swing the election.
If you don't like it, maybe you should have done something collectively in the last 8 years that made people less desperate for change.
Traditionally, a new president gets 100 days (in office) before we start judging his actions, let's wait and see what happens.
Insults no longer matter. Hallucinations no longer matter. Screaming and rhetoric and holding your breath no longer matter.
Have a positive outlook and help improve the mood. The guy might actually make things better.
I thought the science was settled on Newton's laws...
Firstly, Newton's laws are based on observation and assumptions.
The observations gives us formulas that seem to fit, but there's no guarantee that those formulas describe all situations in the universe.
The assumptions, from Noether's theorem stating that symmetries imply conservation laws, are that the universe is smooth, in the mathematical sense of smooth being that space is infinitely divisible. We know that last part isn't true: you cannot measure position to an arbitrary precision in the universe.
It is therefore seen that Newton's laws become increasingly inaccurate when the scale is very large (relativity), or very small (quantum mechanics).
It's not predicted by Newton's laws, but measurable and predictable using QM.
Anyone who says "EM drive cannot work because it violates my understanding of physics" should really check out the Casimir effect.
If your understanding of physics does not predict the Casimir effect, you probably shouldn't be commenting on the EM drive, or results from NASA rocket scientists.
Massage is done. After this election stunt, even if Ecuador let's him stay, he's brought Wikileaks disrepute that the press will ignore him. Snowden had taken his mantle.
Everything you've said is completely and totally bogus.
1) "Ecuador lets him stay": Ecuador has repeatedly reaffirmed their intention to let him stay, even after cutting his internet access.
2) "Disrepute": Wikileaks recently published the DKIM proofs for the Podesta E-mails, putting the lie to any claims of tampering. For example, Donna Brazile claimed that E-mails showing her giving debate questions to Clinton were tampered, but they were vetted using Google's gmail.com DKIM signature.
3) "Massage": Learn Engrish.
4) "Stunt": He's been publishing pretty-much continuously for 10 years, and you think "stunt" describes his actions?
5) "Press will ignore": Uh... yeah. Right. You think this is what will happen?
6) "Snowden": Snowden took his mantle... without being in the news or having done anything of recent significance?
In general, everything you said is simple sock-puppetry intended to sway uninformed people. It's intellectually dishonest, and it doesn't even promote the mainstream view.
I mean, really. Absolutely *no one* in the media is making any of your claims.
I'd ask for links, but in this case I don't think that's possible.
But in addition, "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is insane?
Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.
Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.
Instead of setting up a hair-trigger response shouldn't we first have an investigation, and then approach this through diplomatic channels?
Ye gods, Putin has to keep the appearance of strength in his country. What do you think he'll do if we start messing with their electrical grid?
And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote, which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.
Isn't it great that we live in the US, where we have freedom of the press.
The press is free to report on any story without worrying about how the government will react. They are free to cover both sides of a story, to give a different perspective, and not have to worry about what the people in charge will do.
The press is also free to leak information which would paint the government in a bad light, and which might uncover corruption, collusion, or crime. Additionally, the press isn't liable for publishing this information, as the pentagon papers have clearly shown. (Here I'm making a distinction between "publishing" and "getting". Just publishing, without addressing how the information was obtained, is allowed.)
There's also a strong sense of "protect your sources" in the mainstream media, so that anyone can feel safe identifying themselves to members of the press as they pass information.
Living in the US is great, because we have freedom of the press.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs. I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
And just to be clear, according to the Wikileaks document, this happened *after* she had left the state department and was running her campaign.
She was, at the time, a citizen with no government authority or privilege.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs. I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
That's a hillbully [twitter.com] tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.
I've gotta say, as someone who is Not With Her, that must the lamest attempt to invalidate a point of view Okian Warrior could have possibly mustered to the debate.
Oh, please. I've made attempts that are way lamer than that!!!
Tick tock Okian Warrior! Just a reminder Trump loses bigly in one week, and I've got you bookmarked so I can come back and read your angry impotent tears on the 9th after he loses.:) Have a good week!
Knock yourself out.
Anyone who thinks of the election as a personal failure larger than, say, losing a game of darts in a pub is an idiot.
We've taken things waaaaay to far in this election, and it's time we stopped and thought about who we are and what we're doing. This is not who we are, We don't fire people for supporting a candidate, we don't beat up homeless people for holding political signs, we don't egg people or key cars that show support.
Anyone American, that is. Americans believe in free speech.
I've thought through both scenarios, and it won't bother me one bit if Clinton wins, and I won't be lording it over people if Clinton loses. Half the country is on either side, so in both cases we'll be in good company.
I'm planning on just shaking hands and saying "good game, the first drink is on me".
(And privately, a CTR on Hillary's payroll posting as AC won't damage my self-esteem. I mean really, you probably base your self worth on the opinion of others, but I don't. I'm good with who I am, and see the insults for what they are: insignificant.)
They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. [...] donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.
These show a blank page; they are defensively bought domains and most certainly not Trump-bashing in any way. The fact that Clinton doesn't own similar ones could reflect on her incompetence, but most likely on her political career pre-dating the internet.
Furthermore, this isn't even very interesting or relevant. Clinton doesn't herself purchase the domains, and if there are a few bashing domains out there they aren't being run by the candidate so... so what?
We should be talking about policy and ethics. The two candidates have very clearly different approaches to national security, trade, border control, the supreme court, and a host of other topics.
Bashing by website name seems 'kinda childish in the face of serious issues.
Trump is more loyal to Putin than to Obama. He's more loyal to Russia than America. If he gets power, he'll hand over control of the middle east to Putin. That's all the oil, that's resources, that's geopolitical advantage. Either by incompetence or design.
Republicans, jfdavis668, I appreciate you want to get him elected, but do you really want your guy in power so much that you'd sell out your country?
You don't hold power when Putin has power, you have fake elections and lots of Putin statues and astroturf.
That's a hillbully tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.
While this is certainly interesting and deserves attention (I voted it up in the firehose), it's unlikely to be of any use during the campaign.
For one, the server was registered in 2009 and is unlikely to be anything related to the elections. Trump's business is pretty big, and he has contacts all over the world.
For another, if it's nefarious it's more likely to be some sort of mole or agent within Trump's organization. Again, Trump's business is huge, and there are probably one or more foreign government agents working for him (also in Google, Facebook, and a hundred other big organizations).
Also, there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation. We should wait for the Trump campaign explanation, then see if their explanation seems reasonable. God only knows how many times we've done that for the Clintons!
And finally, it might be too little too late. Word on the street is that Clinton will be stepping down on Tuesday (tomorrow), Veritas is planning a "blockbuster" drop this week, Wikieaks is about to start phase three of its election coverage, and internal leaks from the campaign indicate that Hillary is coming apart at the seams: binge drinking, uncontrolled anger, and poor judgement in general.
In other words, they've improved it from storing $1 worth of electricity to $1.40. But you still need to cycle it many thousands of times with FREE electricity before it breaks even.
A quick search shows that the average household electricity usage is about 10K kWh per year (900-ish per month), ranging from 14K in Louisiana to 6K in Hawaii.
Using your numbers, that would be roughly $1000/yr. The powerwall costs roughly $7000 installed with inverter and other extras, or you can lease it for 9 years for $5,000 which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems.
Tesla is offering a ten year warranty on the batteries, and there's some discussion about how a battery can last for 3650 cycles (mostly because the 14K powerwall is a 20K battery pack that's discharged much more shallowly than if it was an actual 14K battery, and other tricks).
The total cost comes out to about 0.15/kWh.
"Tentative Conclusion: The battery is right on the verge of being cost effective to buy across most of the US for day/night arbitrage. And it’s even more valuable if outages come at a high economic cost."
That's the point I'm making - Comey was the only one who didn't want to indict her. Which is why I'd like him to be removed, and the FBI to do a trial w/o fear of what the president may or may not do
Sorry - I read your post as pro-Clinton instead of pro-justice.
There's so many shenanigans going on right now that I've honestly lost track of the right thing to do. I 'kinda agree with your position.
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win.
That's not how it works.
If the candidate cannot finish the race for some reason (death or infirmity is the supposed scenario), the party chooses a new candidate. That's Democratic party rules.
In this particular situation, and so close to the election they would *probably* select Tim Kaine, but the party is not obliged to choose him.
Slashdot Mirror
He's wanting to put tariffs on imported goods. Car manufacturers rely on imported goods. Detroit is about to get a whole lot poorer. Even if more parts were made domestically, retaliatory tariffs will make American made cars unattractive overseas.
You mean car manufacturers will have incentive to make things locally?
Heavens!
What will the car manufactures do without overseas workers?
I simply cannot imagine how this will be good for the country! Our GDP will drop at the expense of creating all those jobs!
Also... kinda funny how Slashdot turns super liberal the minute Trump wins. Where did all those supporters go? Did their last check arrive or something?
I think it's a case of knowing what matters and what doesn't.
In this case, it's "let them get it out of their system, it doesn't matter and it'll let them blow off some steam".
I don't feel any particular need to come to Trump's defence, to counter baseless insults or misleading spin, today.
You may note that it was the losing side that was shrill, insulting, cheating, and at times criminal. No "calibration errors" changed votes to Republican, very few "Clinton" signs were stolen or vandalized, and no one called for the removal of someone else from their job because they supported Hillary.
We also didn't move $60 million from down-ballot elections to unfairly fix our primary, didn't hire protesters to disrupt the opposition rallys (and cause them to cancel), didn't collude with the media, get the debate questions ahead of time, and didn't get free campaigning from the president.
I've never ever laughed out loud at a Marmaduke comic, until today.
Let them get it out of their system, it'll blow over soon, and in the meantime it'll make them feel good.
Regarding the tech industry, let's look at Apple Inc. I think that article misses a really big issue: Tech Manufacturing.
Trump stated that he wanted Apple to make it's products here in the USA. That might be possible with a system of tariffs. But the bigger issue is that type of protectionism would push companies like Apple out of world markets due to not being able to be price competitive.
And here is the basic fallacy of economics.
Our national economic health is measured by the total health of our companies. The welfare of the citizens is an afterthought in these calculations, a fake "unemployment rate" tells us how people are doing.
This is what fueled the recent election.
I don't particularly care what happens to Apple. The government shouldn't either. The government should look after its people.
If the people benefit while Apple has to struggle in world markets, would that be a bad thing?
You're insane or profoundly stupid [...]
No, I just think the tidal wave insults should stop.
This is a forum of information and insight.
Get over yourself, post something of value.
And as a followup to the previous, for all the things that counted against Hillary Clinton, being a woman wasn't one of them.
Regardless of the hallucinations and rationalizations thrown from the left, the fact that she was a woman really didn't matter. The polls back this up.
The issue almost never came up. Trump responded when Hillary brought it up by saying that being a woman isn't a qualification for the job, but when Hillary dropped the issue so did Trump.
No one cares any more, just like no one cared that Obama was black. Obama never brought it up either - he never played the race card. It didn't matter.
There is no more glass ceiling. Hillary was judged not on the basis of her gender, but on her qualifications and (largely) her ethics.
We live in a world where a woman *actually could* be the next president. She'll be judged on her talent and abilities, but not her gender.
Hillary broke the glass ceiling.
Look, I understand you all need to vent and the previous article was full of wailing and gnashing of teeth, but it's time to put on your big-boy pants and start acting like adults.
The election isn't about "getting your way", it's about "crowdsourcing a decision". The crowd chose not to go with Clinton, and there were a lot of votes in support of that decision. Deal with it, the rules were well defined from the beginning and you had plenty of time to prepare and build your case.
We've complained about corruption in politics in this very forum for years, saying essentially "if only we could get someone in office who wasn't in the pocket of big money". I agree with that sentiment entirely: political corruption has been driving the country into the dirt for decades, and it's reached a level where that sentiment can swing the election.
If you don't like it, maybe you should have done something collectively in the last 8 years that made people less desperate for change.
Traditionally, a new president gets 100 days (in office) before we start judging his actions, let's wait and see what happens.
Insults no longer matter. Hallucinations no longer matter. Screaming and rhetoric and holding your breath no longer matter.
Have a positive outlook and help improve the mood. The guy might actually make things better.
We're tired of your insults.
Get over it.
I thought the science was settled on Newton's laws...
Firstly, Newton's laws are based on observation and assumptions.
The observations gives us formulas that seem to fit, but there's no guarantee that those formulas describe all situations in the universe.
The assumptions, from Noether's theorem stating that symmetries imply conservation laws, are that the universe is smooth, in the mathematical sense of smooth being that space is infinitely divisible. We know that last part isn't true: you cannot measure position to an arbitrary precision in the universe.
It is therefore seen that Newton's laws become increasingly inaccurate when the scale is very large (relativity), or very small (quantum mechanics).
You might check out the Casimir effect some time.
It's not predicted by Newton's laws, but measurable and predictable using QM.
Anyone who says "EM drive cannot work because it violates my understanding of physics" should really check out the Casimir effect.
If your understanding of physics does not predict the Casimir effect, you probably shouldn't be commenting on the EM drive, or results from NASA rocket scientists.
Curiously, the total money bet favors Clinton, while the total number of bets favors Trump.
In a situation where everyone has exactly one vote, it's not clear which measure has predictive power.
Nate Silver is predicting that Trump will win Florida.
He also says Hillary is one state away from losing the election (ie - if even one D state flips to an R, she loses).
It's a close race - I'm looking forward to seeing the results.
Massage is done. After this election stunt, even if Ecuador let's him stay, he's brought Wikileaks disrepute that the press will ignore him. Snowden had taken his mantle.
Everything you've said is completely and totally bogus.
1) "Ecuador lets him stay": Ecuador has repeatedly reaffirmed their intention to let him stay, even after cutting his internet access.
2) "Disrepute": Wikileaks recently published the DKIM proofs for the Podesta E-mails, putting the lie to any claims of tampering. For example, Donna Brazile claimed that E-mails showing her giving debate questions to Clinton were tampered, but they were vetted using Google's gmail.com DKIM signature.
3) "Massage": Learn Engrish.
4) "Stunt": He's been publishing pretty-much continuously for 10 years, and you think "stunt" describes his actions?
5) "Press will ignore": Uh... yeah. Right. You think this is what will happen?
6) "Snowden": Snowden took his mantle... without being in the news or having done anything of recent significance?
In general, everything you said is simple sock-puppetry intended to sway uninformed people. It's intellectually dishonest, and it doesn't even promote the mainstream view.
I mean, really. Absolutely *no one* in the media is making any of your claims.
I'd ask for links, but in this case I don't think that's possible.
But in addition, "U.S. military hackers have penetrated Russia's electric grid, telecommunications networks and the Kremlin's command systems, making them vulnerable to attack by secret American cyber weapons should the U.S. deem it necessary, according to a senior intelligence official and top-secret documents reviewed by NBC News."
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that this is insane?
Assange never gives out details about who his leakers are, but even he took the time to state categorically that the Podesta leakers are did not come from the Russian government.
Clearly he feels that there is some danger here for him to take this extraordinary step.
Instead of setting up a hair-trigger response shouldn't we first have an investigation, and then approach this through diplomatic channels?
Ye gods, Putin has to keep the appearance of strength in his country. What do you think he'll do if we start messing with their electrical grid?
And in other news, we have Obama encouraging illegals to vote, which would appear at first glance to be Obama committing a felony on camera.
What the fuck is happening to this country?
Isn't it great that we live in the US, where we have freedom of the press.
The press is free to report on any story without worrying about how the government will react. They are free to cover both sides of a story, to give a different perspective, and not have to worry about what the people in charge will do.
The press is also free to leak information which would paint the government in a bad light, and which might uncover corruption, collusion, or crime. Additionally, the press isn't liable for publishing this information, as the pentagon papers have clearly shown. (Here I'm making a distinction between "publishing" and "getting". Just publishing, without addressing how the information was obtained, is allowed.)
There's also a strong sense of "protect your sources" in the mainstream media, so that anyone can feel safe identifying themselves to members of the press as they pass information.
Living in the US is great, because we have freedom of the press.
Yay.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
And just to be clear, according to the Wikileaks document, this happened *after* she had left the state department and was running her campaign.
She was, at the time, a citizen with no government authority or privilege.
Not really clear that there's anything here. A news organization always checks with the subject of an article before running the article-- this is standard procedure, and it's also standard procedure to correct errors of fact that are pointed out-- it is desirable to do this BEFORE an article runs.
I think they're stretching on this.
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point.
It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
That's collusion between government and the Clinton campaign.
Are you comfortable with government agencies checking with a campaign (of their choosing) during an election?
I'm not.
That's a hillbully [twitter.com] tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.
I've gotta say, as someone who is Not With Her, that must the lamest attempt to invalidate a point of view Okian Warrior could have possibly mustered to the debate.
Oh, please. I've made attempts that are way lamer than that!!!
Here's one.
(I'm having far too much fun right now!)
Wow!
A google image search of pathological liar shows:
a) Hillary Clinton as the 1st entry
b) Hillary Clinton at least once on each line
Go get 'em, CTR!
The newswire is getting pretty interesting.
I don't know when I've had this much fun!
Here's a video you might find interesting. Let's see if it goes viral or is picked up by the MSM.
Clinton's last-ditch efforts have failed, you guys got cock-blocked by the intelligence community.
(Oh, and BTW: it was American intelligence who leaked the E-mails to Assange, not Russian.)
Have a nice day! :-)
Tick tock Okian Warrior! Just a reminder Trump loses bigly in one week, and I've got you bookmarked so I can come back and read your angry impotent tears on the 9th after he loses. :) Have a good week!
Knock yourself out.
Anyone who thinks of the election as a personal failure larger than, say, losing a game of darts in a pub is an idiot.
We've taken things waaaaay to far in this election, and it's time we stopped and thought about who we are and what we're doing. This is not who we are, We don't fire people for supporting a candidate, we don't beat up homeless people for holding political signs, we don't egg people or key cars that show support.
Anyone American, that is. Americans believe in free speech.
I've thought through both scenarios, and it won't bother me one bit if Clinton wins, and I won't be lording it over people if Clinton loses. Half the country is on either side, so in both cases we'll be in good company.
I'm planning on just shaking hands and saying "good game, the first drink is on me".
(And privately, a CTR on Hillary's payroll posting as AC won't damage my self-esteem. I mean really, you probably base your self worth on the opinion of others, but I don't. I'm good with who I am, and see the insults for what they are: insignificant.)
They found that the Trump Organization owns more than 3,600 web addresses, including names of his properties, products and progeny, as well as Trump-bashing names. [...] donaldtrumpsucks.com, no2trump.com, trumpmustgo.com and two dozen others that appear to be bashing the billionaire Republican presidential nominee.
These show a blank page; they are defensively bought domains and most certainly not Trump-bashing in any way. The fact that Clinton doesn't own similar ones could reflect on her incompetence, but most likely on her political career pre-dating the internet.
Furthermore, this isn't even very interesting or relevant. Clinton doesn't herself purchase the domains, and if there are a few bashing domains out there they aren't being run by the candidate so... so what?
We should be talking about policy and ethics. The two candidates have very clearly different approaches to national security, trade, border control, the supreme court, and a host of other topics.
Bashing by website name seems 'kinda childish in the face of serious issues.
Trump is more loyal to Putin than to Obama. He's more loyal to Russia than America. If he gets power, he'll hand over control of the middle east to Putin. That's all the oil, that's resources, that's geopolitical advantage. Either by incompetence or design.
Republicans, jfdavis668, I appreciate you want to get him elected, but do you really want your guy in power so much that you'd sell out your country?
You don't hold power when Putin has power, you have fake elections and lots of Putin statues and astroturf.
That's a hillbully tell: hallucinate something outrageous, then ridicule the hallucination.
I think that's #16 on the list.
Tell us about ethics. Tell us why Hillary's brand of integrity would be better for the country.
While this is certainly interesting and deserves attention (I voted it up in the firehose), it's unlikely to be of any use during the campaign.
For one, the server was registered in 2009 and is unlikely to be anything related to the elections. Trump's business is pretty big, and he has contacts all over the world.
(For comparison, the Podesta group is registered with the U.S. government as a lobbyist for Sberbank. Google "Podesta Russia" for lots of links and info.)
For another, if it's nefarious it's more likely to be some sort of mole or agent within Trump's organization. Again, Trump's business is huge, and there are probably one or more foreign government agents working for him (also in Google, Facebook, and a hundred other big organizations).
Also, there might be a perfectly reasonable explanation. We should wait for the Trump campaign explanation, then see if their explanation seems reasonable. God only knows how many times we've done that for the Clintons!
And finally, it might be too little too late. Word on the street is that Clinton will be stepping down on Tuesday (tomorrow), Veritas is planning a "blockbuster" drop this week, Wikieaks is about to start phase three of its election coverage, and internal leaks from the campaign indicate that Hillary is coming apart at the seams: binge drinking, uncontrolled anger, and poor judgement in general.
As the saying goes, it's not over until its over.
Let's just wait for the election.
In other words, they've improved it from storing $1 worth of electricity to $1.40. But you still need to cycle it many thousands of times with FREE electricity before it breaks even.
A quick search shows that the average household electricity usage is about 10K kWh per year (900-ish per month), ranging from 14K in Louisiana to 6K in Hawaii.
Using your numbers, that would be roughly $1000/yr. The powerwall costs roughly $7000 installed with inverter and other extras, or you can lease it for 9 years for $5,000 which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems.
Tesla is offering a ten year warranty on the batteries, and there's some discussion about how a battery can last for 3650 cycles (mostly because the 14K powerwall is a 20K battery pack that's discharged much more shallowly than if it was an actual 14K battery, and other tricks).
The total cost comes out to about 0.15/kWh.
"Tentative Conclusion: The battery is right on the verge of being cost effective to buy across most of the US for day/night arbitrage. And it’s even more valuable if outages come at a high economic cost."
That's the point I'm making - Comey was the only one who didn't want to indict her. Which is why I'd like him to be removed, and the FBI to do a trial w/o fear of what the president may or may not do
Sorry - I read your post as pro-Clinton instead of pro-justice.
There's so many shenanigans going on right now that I've honestly lost track of the right thing to do. I 'kinda agree with your position.
Uh, no. If she were to drop out now, the ballots couldn't be undone, but Tim Kaine, as the surviving member of the ticket, would become president if the Dems win.
That's not how it works.
If the candidate cannot finish the race for some reason (death or infirmity is the supposed scenario), the party chooses a new candidate. That's Democratic party rules.
In this particular situation, and so close to the election they would *probably* select Tim Kaine, but the party is not obliged to choose him.