All you are accomplishing is convincing more people the left outright lie, like you are doing, and there is actually a cover up because of all the lying involved.
I'm fairly certain you thought that already. But I'm not lying. Trump made a specific allegation and can't back it up.
Who the fuck said anything about illegal? Not Trump's tweet, not anyone else. The only illegal thing I've seen is Comey lying under oath to Congress.
So you have to literally MAKE UP what Trump claims and then prove what you said he claims is false?
You are an outright liar and not to be trusted. Your comments are defamation of character with intention to smear reputation. This is why people support Trump. He is so evil and horrible the ONLY things people can say about bad about him are easily proven lies.
Your mistress Hillary lost, get over it.
Wow, no wonder you keep buying what this guy is selling. Obama ordering a wiretap of trump would have been illegal. From this article, "The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant.... Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President."
And then there's this article, which states, "By blaming Obama directly, Trump accused the former president of reaching into a federal investigation and signing off on an illegal wiretap, which is a felony." I'm so sorry to break it to you, but Trump accused Obama of committing a crime, with no evidence to back it up. I am not lying. This information is available for anyone who caress to look. You are apparently not one of those people.
Trump's allegation was that he was specifically wiretapped at the orders of Obama. Not that his conversations were swept up in a dragnet.
Because no one ever uses the President's name to refer to the action of an administration?
No, because Trump specified it himself. "Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory." He said "Obama had my wires tapped". That means Obama specifically ordered his communications to be monitored.
Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance".
Republicans where after Obama on this because he KNEW what he was saying wasn't true when he said it, but the bill had to pass so it was about PR over truth.
Perhaps so. The problem with Trump is that he doesn't seem to consider whether or not something is true when he says it. He just says whatever sounds good at the time.
Yes, let's. Trump accused Obama, not the FBI, of wiretapping Trump Tower, not surveilling members of his campaign. It was a specific claim. There has been no evidence published that it is true.
Pretty cut and dry. Trump made a claim, there is a FISA warrant as proof that his claim is true. And here you are calling him a liar.
Again, it is not cut and dry, because the FBI getting a FISA warrant to investigate a member of the campaign is not the same thing as Obama illegally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower, which is what Trump claimed. I'm not calling Trump a liar. He isn't lying, he simply has no idea what he is talking about.
Not that expect him to actually stand by what he says, because he's Donald Trump...
That's actually funny. Let me correct it for you:
Not that [anyone with a brain] would expect any president to stand by what they say... for myriad reasons; not the least of which is that they'd quickly catch a bullet in the brain, JFK-style.
Fair enough. But are you seriously arguing that Trump's complete and total inconsistency is just like any other President? Sure, other Presidents have changed direction, for various reasons. Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance". On the other hand, Trump says something in the evening that is the opposite of what he said in the morning.
In this case he accused the previous President of committing a crime by wiretapping him. When asked for his evidence of such a serious charge he was basically like, "I don't know, Congress should look into it." If you don't see why that's not a good thing, I don't know what to tell you.
Despite the mounting evidence that the phone surveillance was in full force even last year, most of the news media will still pretend that those 151 million phone records couldn't possibly include Donald Trump or his associates. Obama allowed and expanded the surveillance despite promisingâ during his campaign to abolish it. It should be clearer than ever that Obama was indeed responsible for monitoring the phones of Trump and his associates.
Trump's allegation was that he was specifically wiretapped at the orders of Obama. Not that his conversations were swept up in a dragnet. Not that expect him to actually stand by what he says, because he's Donald Trump and changes positions daily. But the rest of us can at least be clear.
So, it seems that America's poor are wealthier than middle-class Europeans, while at the same time America's middle-class is not as wealthy as Europe's middle-class. Aren't statistics fun? It's almost as if anyone can find a data set that confirms their preferred outlook.
25 % of households with children living in large cities are food-insecure.
Oh, the kind of suffering kids are subjected to in inner cities is tragic and deeply offensive. But it is clearly not due to absolute poverty: the US government redistributes tens of thousands of dollars on each of those kids per year already, on education, nutritional assistance, welfare, and other expenses, so they are clearly not suffering from absolute poverty. What they are suffering from is misguided social policies, single motherhood, inefficient schools, a bad social environment, etc. Another way of seeing that the problem is policy, not absolute income, is to realize that much of the European middle class lives below the US poverty line. I myself grew up in a household that, by US standards, would probably be considered poor.
The question you should be asking is how you can sleep at night, since you seem to be advocating policies that will keep children living under these conditions for generations to come.
I advocated which policies, now?
Am I to understand that poverty is determined by how it is caused, and not the actual condition/outcome? You think poverty in Africa, for example, is not also caused by policies? In response to your assertion about "absolute" poverty (whatever that distinction is) being non existent in the USA, I posted a link about people going hungry in the richest, most powerful country in the world. I consider someone who goes hungry to be impoverished, generally speaking. You can sling statistics about the median income in the US compared to Europe all you want. Those people are still impoverished in the US.
There are two methods of distributing wealth: voluntarily through markets, and using force through the government. The first one works, the second one doesn't.
For the already wealthy, yes. Money has been redistributed to them quite efficiently by market forces.
Do you mean like the way the Koch brothers used their money and power to put Jeb Bush in the White House?
Yes, one example of rich people not being able to buy the leadership they want invalidates the entire concept. If you really don't perceive the dynamic of wealth begetting power, I'm not sure what to tell you.
That's not an option in America, the people are too smart and too well armed to stand for that.
You say that when Donald Trump is President of the United States. I guess I agree on the well-armed part. But people have shown that they are quite susceptible to having their attention diverted from the real source of their difficulties.
Yes, if half of people lose their jobs and the idiots at the top don't figure out a new way to spread the money around then there will be a bloody revolution.
When have those idiots ever figured that out? Any business wants to pay people as little as possible while retaining as much as possible for said idiots. That won't change until they realize the benefits of broad-based prosperity. But that reduces their level of power and control. AI doesn't change that equation. If anything, businesses will like it precisely because it reduces their labor costs.
"These are things that are superhuman, and we think this will be in every industry, will probably replace 50% of human jobs, create a huge amount of wealth for mankind and wipe out poverty,"
So, he thinks we will replace 50% of human jobs and that will somehow wipe out poverty? It seems he hasn't noticed that when a huge amount of wealth is created, it often doesn't result in reducing poverty. Will AI be replacing Capitalism too?
File this under who gives a crap. I make a fraction of that money. I go home exhausted, work frequently out of town. Work long hours for no extra money. With this guys credentials he couldn't get another job? Give me a break.
I'm surprised that you have to work that hard and travel so much, just to be an asshole. And really, I wouldn't expect being an asshole to pay all that well. Plenty of people are willing to do it. You probably just love the job, eh?
I can see that higher diversity might be some kind of "super awake" state.
Talk to people who've practiced meditation for years. "Super awake" is a way to describe it, but it doesn't quite do it justice.
"Super awake" does not accurately describe meditation; "Self-delusion', on the other hand, does.
I'm always a bit amused when someone feels they have the authority to tell someone else that they are not experiencing what they are experiencing.
Whatever floats your boat. I'm always amused by people who feel that their spiritual and religious experiences are objective.
I'm not sure they do. But it is still their experience. I'm not sure on what basis you can claim it isn't what they think it is, having not experienced it yourself. I think what you're really expressing is that someone's experience doesn't comport with your concept of reality, so you reject their experience and conclude they must be delusional.
Marijuana had never, in the history of mankind, caused those events to occur.
No, of course not. As I said, marijuana has absolutely no effect on anyone. It's just coincidence when someone smokes/eats weed they suddenly behave completely differently than they always have and jump out a window or shoot themselves or drive really, really slowly or drive the wrong way on a road.
Nope, no effect whatsoever. Speaking of idiots. ..
I think the point was that the vast majority of marijuana smokers do none of those things. Those behaviors are outliers. So while they may happen, it's not accurate to characterize the effects of the drug that way in general.
Slashdot Mirror
All you are accomplishing is convincing more people the left outright lie, like you are doing, and there is actually a cover up because of all the lying involved.
I'm fairly certain you thought that already. But I'm not lying. Trump made a specific allegation and can't back it up.
Who the fuck said anything about illegal? Not Trump's tweet, not anyone else. The only illegal thing I've seen is Comey lying under oath to Congress.
So you have to literally MAKE UP what Trump claims and then prove what you said he claims is false?
You are an outright liar and not to be trusted. Your comments are defamation of character with intention to smear reputation. This is why people support Trump. He is so evil and horrible the ONLY things people can say about bad about him are easily proven lies.
Your mistress Hillary lost, get over it.
Wow, no wonder you keep buying what this guy is selling. Obama ordering a wiretap of trump would have been illegal. From this article, "The former senior US official with direct knowledge of the Justice Department's investigations said Obama could not have ordered such a warrant. ... Warrants to tap into someone's phones in the course of a federal investigation would be sought by the Department of Justice, which conducts investigations independent of the White House and the President."
And then there's this article, which states, "By blaming Obama directly, Trump accused the former president of reaching into a federal investigation and signing off on an illegal wiretap, which is a felony." I'm so sorry to break it to you, but Trump accused Obama of committing a crime, with no evidence to back it up. I am not lying. This information is available for anyone who caress to look. You are apparently not one of those people.
Because no one ever uses the President's name to refer to the action of an administration?
No, because Trump specified it himself. "Just found out that Obama had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory." He said "Obama had my wires tapped". That means Obama specifically ordered his communications to be monitored.
Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance".
Republicans where after Obama on this because he KNEW what he was saying wasn't true when he said it, but the bill had to pass so it was about PR over truth.
Perhaps so. The problem with Trump is that he doesn't seem to consider whether or not something is true when he says it. He just says whatever sounds good at the time.
Lets be honest here.
Yes, let's. Trump accused Obama, not the FBI, of wiretapping Trump Tower, not surveilling members of his campaign. It was a specific claim. There has been no evidence published that it is true.
Pretty cut and dry. Trump made a claim, there is a FISA warrant as proof that his claim is true. And here you are calling him a liar.
Again, it is not cut and dry, because the FBI getting a FISA warrant to investigate a member of the campaign is not the same thing as Obama illegally ordering a wiretap of Trump Tower, which is what Trump claimed. I'm not calling Trump a liar. He isn't lying, he simply has no idea what he is talking about.
Not that expect him to actually stand by what he says, because he's Donald Trump...
That's actually funny. Let me correct it for you:
Not that [anyone with a brain] would expect any president to stand by what they say... for myriad reasons; not the least of which is that they'd quickly catch a bullet in the brain, JFK-style.
Fair enough. But are you seriously arguing that Trump's complete and total inconsistency is just like any other President? Sure, other Presidents have changed direction, for various reasons. Hell, the Republicans were on Obama's nuts for years because he said, "If you like your health insurance, you can keep your health insurance". On the other hand, Trump says something in the evening that is the opposite of what he said in the morning.
In this case he accused the previous President of committing a crime by wiretapping him. When asked for his evidence of such a serious charge he was basically like, "I don't know, Congress should look into it." If you don't see why that's not a good thing, I don't know what to tell you.
He was in charge. No repercussions. That's all you need to know.
Laws and the consequences for breaking them are for the poor and unconnected.
Despite the mounting evidence that the phone surveillance was in full force even last year, most of the news media will still pretend that those 151 million phone records couldn't possibly include Donald Trump or his associates. Obama allowed and expanded the surveillance despite promisingâ during his campaign to abolish it. It should be clearer than ever that Obama was indeed responsible for monitoring the phones of Trump and his associates.
Trump's allegation was that he was specifically wiretapped at the orders of Obama. Not that his conversations were swept up in a dragnet. Not that expect him to actually stand by what he says, because he's Donald Trump and changes positions daily. But the rest of us can at least be clear.
As with most statistics, it really depends on how you slice it.
http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/11/news/economy/middle-class-wealth/
So, it seems that America's poor are wealthier than middle-class Europeans, while at the same time America's middle-class is not as wealthy as Europe's middle-class. Aren't statistics fun? It's almost as if anyone can find a data set that confirms their preferred outlook.
Oh, the kind of suffering kids are subjected to in inner cities is tragic and deeply offensive. But it is clearly not due to absolute poverty: the US government redistributes tens of thousands of dollars on each of those kids per year already, on education, nutritional assistance, welfare, and other expenses, so they are clearly not suffering from absolute poverty. What they are suffering from is misguided social policies, single motherhood, inefficient schools, a bad social environment, etc. Another way of seeing that the problem is policy, not absolute income, is to realize that much of the European middle class lives below the US poverty line. I myself grew up in a household that, by US standards, would probably be considered poor.
The question you should be asking is how you can sleep at night, since you seem to be advocating policies that will keep children living under these conditions for generations to come.
I advocated which policies, now?
Am I to understand that poverty is determined by how it is caused, and not the actual condition/outcome? You think poverty in Africa, for example, is not also caused by policies? In response to your assertion about "absolute" poverty (whatever that distinction is) being non existent in the USA, I posted a link about people going hungry in the richest, most powerful country in the world. I consider someone who goes hungry to be impoverished, generally speaking. You can sling statistics about the median income in the US compared to Europe all you want. Those people are still impoverished in the US.
You'll have to hook me up with your vendor, because the software I use costs quite a bit more than that.
That's because your software is written by a human who expects to be paid, not an AI that works for free.
And the development and licensing of that AI? Does that happen for free too? Or did someone develop it in expectation of being paid for it?
(Absolute) poverty has already been wiped out in the US.
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.
https://www.nokidhungry.org/problem/hunger-facts
There are two methods of distributing wealth: voluntarily through markets, and using force through the government. The first one works, the second one doesn't.
For the already wealthy, yes. Money has been redistributed to them quite efficiently by market forces.
Just use a sintering 3D printer to make the parts, and the rest is just software, which has a marginal cost of $0.
You'll have to hook me up with your vendor, because the software I use costs quite a bit more than that.
there will be no way to gain power through money
Do you mean like the way the Koch brothers used their money and power to put Jeb Bush in the White House?
Yes, one example of rich people not being able to buy the leadership they want invalidates the entire concept. If you really don't perceive the dynamic of wealth begetting power, I'm not sure what to tell you.
In horrific poverty lacking food security.
That's not an option in America, the people are too smart and too well armed to stand for that.
You say that when Donald Trump is President of the United States. I guess I agree on the well-armed part. But people have shown that they are quite susceptible to having their attention diverted from the real source of their difficulties.
Yes, if half of people lose their jobs and the idiots at the top don't figure out a new way to spread the money around then there will be a bloody revolution.
When have those idiots ever figured that out? Any business wants to pay people as little as possible while retaining as much as possible for said idiots. That won't change until they realize the benefits of broad-based prosperity. But that reduces their level of power and control. AI doesn't change that equation. If anything, businesses will like it precisely because it reduces their labor costs.
So, he thinks we will replace 50% of human jobs and that will somehow wipe out poverty? It seems he hasn't noticed that when a huge amount of wealth is created, it often doesn't result in reducing poverty. Will AI be replacing Capitalism too?
File this under who gives a crap. I make a fraction of that money. I go home exhausted, work frequently out of town. Work long hours for no extra money. With this guys credentials he couldn't get another job? Give me a break.
I'm surprised that you have to work that hard and travel so much, just to be an asshole. And really, I wouldn't expect being an asshole to pay all that well. Plenty of people are willing to do it. You probably just love the job, eh?
Talk to people who've practiced meditation for years. "Super awake" is a way to describe it, but it doesn't quite do it justice.
"Super awake" does not accurately describe meditation; "Self-delusion', on the other hand, does.
I'm always a bit amused when someone feels they have the authority to tell someone else that they are not experiencing what they are experiencing.
Whatever floats your boat. I'm always amused by people who feel that their spiritual and religious experiences are objective.
I'm not sure they do. But it is still their experience. I'm not sure on what basis you can claim it isn't what they think it is, having not experienced it yourself. I think what you're really expressing is that someone's experience doesn't comport with your concept of reality, so you reject their experience and conclude they must be delusional.
bernie is a socialist. i don't like socialism. i think socialism killed more people than world war 2.
What am I to take from this? That Bernie Sanders would kill a lot of people if elected?
So what I'm curious about is if the extra activity is productive, or if it's just the firing of synapses without purpose.
I wonder that about the entire human race.
Talk to people who've practiced meditation for years. "Super awake" is a way to describe it, but it doesn't quite do it justice.
"Super awake" does not accurately describe meditation; "Self-delusion', on the other hand, does.
I'm always a bit amused when someone feels they have the authority to tell someone else that they are not experiencing what they are experiencing.
Marijuana had never, in the history of mankind, caused those events to occur.
No, of course not. As I said, marijuana has absolutely no effect on anyone. It's just coincidence when someone smokes/eats weed they suddenly behave completely differently than they always have and jump out a window or shoot themselves or drive really, really slowly or drive the wrong way on a road.
Nope, no effect whatsoever. Speaking of idiots. . .
I think the point was that the vast majority of marijuana smokers do none of those things. Those behaviors are outliers. So while they may happen, it's not accurate to characterize the effects of the drug that way in general.
Only Bernie would have done better.
This is the nation's tragedy and the Democrats' shame.