Obama's corrupt Justice Department was never going to indict her no matter how obvious the evidence because Obama himself would have been implicated.
Indict her for what? For her to get indicted, she'd have to do something worth being indicted for. She didn't. People who did what she did with classified information have not been criminally prosecuted. Every other thing I've seen her accused of has been a big stretch at best.
The influence peddling evidenced by outrageous speaking fees is also obvious, but nobody's going to squeal.
Would you care to point to something actually illegal? The speaking fees are documented, and presumably an investigation could get evidence as to whether a big speaking fee got access or influence. If anybody has bothered to do such an investigation, I haven't heard of it, which suggests there's no point in doing so because no real wrongdoing would be found.
And then, there's Benghazi. Clear case of treason, and no Democrat is interested.
The Republicans sure were, and Clinton faced a surprisingly large number of Congressional investigations, which found no actual wrongdoing.
In Minnesota, adultery is defined as a married woman having sex with someone (the law might say some man) who is not her husband. I suspect that if anyone actually tried to use that statute on someone it would be tossed out.
If the demand for certain employees is enormous, they'll get paid very well indeed. If there was a shortage of crop laborers, the farmers would have to pay more money. Obviously, there's enough people who want those jobs in order to survive.
Throw in a UBI, and backbreaking work will have to command a high rate of pay.
Clinton was faced by Trump and the Republicans, Wikileaks, probably Russia, and the FBI director, and lost by almost negative three million votes. There's some evidence that voting machines might have been hacked to help Trump, but that's pretty inconclusive.
In the 19th Century New Navy and on through WWII, battleships got state names (USS Kearsage being the exception), cruisers were named after cities, destroyers after people who'd been in the Navy and seemed worth commemorating, submarines after fish (although late in WWII they had to make up fishy-sounding names and kinda hope somebody would find a fish and use that name sometime). The first carrier was USS Langley, and the first real carriers were battlecruiser conversions and adopted the intended battlecruiser naming scheme of old famous warships. Later they named carriers after battles, and with the production of escort carriers they got pretty obscure.
The modern use of state names for ballistic missile submarines and city names for attack submarines seems more or less reasonable, but naming carriers after politicians always seemed sad to me. There was some justification for USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, but having capital ships named after Vinson and Stennis seemed wrong to me.
The semantics of "theft" are generally that someone is unlawfully deprived of something. This can be things, or it can be work time ("theft of service").
The copyright holder is not deprived of anything by copyright infringement. The copyright holder might miss a potential sale, but there's lots of reasons to lose sales, and negative reviews are not considered theft.
Apparently, you don't understand what "semantics" means, and you have a pet phrase you like to pull out to cover your lack of insight. Copyright infringement and theft are semantically different.
40 knots is awfully fast, requiring well over twice the power of 30 knots, and I don't know what the Enterprise's hull speed is offhand. She's about as long as ships that made 33 knots in WWII, so that would be my estimate.
Liar: the list of countries is not from the Obama administration. It was added by Congress to an appropriations bill.
The fact that ISIS is operating in those countries makes things pretty dire for people, leading to refugees. They need to be extensively vetted before coming to the US, and they are. We're not talking about additional vetting, which we probably don't need, but a block on people we're already pretty darn sure are harmless.
The smart people screaming about him thought he would do stupid things while posturing as someone who keeps his campaign promises. So far, that looks on target, although I hadn't expected him to be quite so flagrant in giving government offices to people who don't care about Trump's voters.
Today's high school kids are no lazier than their counterparts going back in history. The circumstances are somewhat different.
There's limits on the number of MDs the US produces, and that's not based on the market. If there were no such limit, the high pay would get more people to study medicine, and we'd see the same sort of over and underproduction we see in any field that takes a long time to get into.
People keep saying they want immigrants checked properly. They never say exactly what they find deficient in the rigorous vetting the US does, which typically lasts years.
The reason they mention Obama's action is that they're liars. Obama put a hold on people getting visas. Trump tried to put a stop to people with visas entering the country. Different things entirely.
The injunction issued by a whiny, politically motivated judge whose argument was nothing but "my fee-fees!" is not going to stand. The power to halt the entry of any class of alien for whatever reason is a power that has been granted to the President by Congress,
The question is exactly what power Congress has granted to the President. Does it include the power to immediately close the borders to people of specified nationality? Now, Congress could certainly grant such power, there's no Constitutional question here, but did it?
Under the assumption that all these companies aren't run by idiots, the CEOs and boards have considered that already, and concluded that confrontation is the way to go here. I find that interesting.
I read of a case of a woman who was born in Iraq or Iran (which is irrelevant here), holds Australian citizenship, and was really uncertain about leaving the country on business. A halfway decent EO would have made it clear, one way or another.
That's an argument for carefully vetting immigrants. It's not an argument that our current vetting is insufficient. I note that you mention an attack in Paris, not one in the US.
On the other hand, I've seen lots of racist justifications for doing things that are not necessarily legal, and certainly not definitely part of enforcing the law. There's all sorts of patriotism, also. Trump's EO on immigration, for example, was suspended by the courts for being questionably legal.
This ties in with my observation that law-and-order types want order and don't care about the law, particularly any part of it affording rights to accused individuals.
Why do we need further barriers to letting foreigners in? The current ones seem to be working pretty well.
That's difficult to answer, and depends on what gets automated away. There will likely be a very limited number of jobs for the unskilled, but AI isn't going to take over high-creativity fields any time soon.
What percentage of the population will work really hard for a relatively small increase in their income?
Wrong question. With UBI in place, if you want someone to work really hard or perform an icky or dangerous job, you won't rely on peons taking your jobs rather than starving. You'll have to pay enough to make it worthwhile for someone. If it turns out that's not economical for you, deal with it. You don't have a right to force people to work for you.
Does not take into account that the cost will always increase.
Does not take into account that productivity will always increase.
What percentage of people will work in this grand and glorious future?
Lots. Given the amount a UBI can be, most people would rather work and have more money. Some people would work for under what would be minimum wage, and some would find that their jobs went up considerably in pay.
Communist countries generally tried to keep the elite in power and make them richer. This isn't exactly what Marx and Engels had in mind, but that's how the large-scale attempts to implement Communism worked. I don't understand what you mean by attaching non-economic value to people, particularly since Communism is typically collectivist rather than individualist and doesn't seem to value its citizens.
Slashdot Mirror
Indict her for what? For her to get indicted, she'd have to do something worth being indicted for. She didn't. People who did what she did with classified information have not been criminally prosecuted. Every other thing I've seen her accused of has been a big stretch at best.
Would you care to point to something actually illegal? The speaking fees are documented, and presumably an investigation could get evidence as to whether a big speaking fee got access or influence. If anybody has bothered to do such an investigation, I haven't heard of it, which suggests there's no point in doing so because no real wrongdoing would be found.
The Republicans sure were, and Clinton faced a surprisingly large number of Congressional investigations, which found no actual wrongdoing.
In Minnesota, adultery is defined as a married woman having sex with someone (the law might say some man) who is not her husband. I suspect that if anyone actually tried to use that statute on someone it would be tossed out.
If the demand for certain employees is enormous, they'll get paid very well indeed. If there was a shortage of crop laborers, the farmers would have to pay more money. Obviously, there's enough people who want those jobs in order to survive.
Throw in a UBI, and backbreaking work will have to command a high rate of pay.
Guess how I know you aren't talking about the real world.
Clinton was faced by Trump and the Republicans, Wikileaks, probably Russia, and the FBI director, and lost by almost negative three million votes. There's some evidence that voting machines might have been hacked to help Trump, but that's pretty inconclusive.
In the 19th Century New Navy and on through WWII, battleships got state names (USS Kearsage being the exception), cruisers were named after cities, destroyers after people who'd been in the Navy and seemed worth commemorating, submarines after fish (although late in WWII they had to make up fishy-sounding names and kinda hope somebody would find a fish and use that name sometime). The first carrier was USS Langley, and the first real carriers were battlecruiser conversions and adopted the intended battlecruiser naming scheme of old famous warships. Later they named carriers after battles, and with the production of escort carriers they got pretty obscure.
The modern use of state names for ballistic missile submarines and city names for attack submarines seems more or less reasonable, but naming carriers after politicians always seemed sad to me. There was some justification for USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, but having capital ships named after Vinson and Stennis seemed wrong to me.
The semantics of "theft" are generally that someone is unlawfully deprived of something. This can be things, or it can be work time ("theft of service").
The copyright holder is not deprived of anything by copyright infringement. The copyright holder might miss a potential sale, but there's lots of reasons to lose sales, and negative reviews are not considered theft.
Apparently, you don't understand what "semantics" means, and you have a pet phrase you like to pull out to cover your lack of insight. Copyright infringement and theft are semantically different.
40 knots is awfully fast, requiring well over twice the power of 30 knots, and I don't know what the Enterprise's hull speed is offhand. She's about as long as ships that made 33 knots in WWII, so that would be my estimate.
Why? When you have two complicated systems doing the same basic thing that were written by two different teams, why would you expect agreement?
Liar: the list of countries is not from the Obama administration. It was added by Congress to an appropriations bill.
The fact that ISIS is operating in those countries makes things pretty dire for people, leading to refugees. They need to be extensively vetted before coming to the US, and they are. We're not talking about additional vetting, which we probably don't need, but a block on people we're already pretty darn sure are harmless.
The smart people screaming about him thought he would do stupid things while posturing as someone who keeps his campaign promises. So far, that looks on target, although I hadn't expected him to be quite so flagrant in giving government offices to people who don't care about Trump's voters.
Today's high school kids are no lazier than their counterparts going back in history. The circumstances are somewhat different.
There's limits on the number of MDs the US produces, and that's not based on the market. If there were no such limit, the high pay would get more people to study medicine, and we'd see the same sort of over and underproduction we see in any field that takes a long time to get into.
That's pretty much what happened in the US in the first part of the Twentieth Century, and it seems to have worked fine.
People keep saying they want immigrants checked properly. They never say exactly what they find deficient in the rigorous vetting the US does, which typically lasts years.
The reason they mention Obama's action is that they're liars. Obama put a hold on people getting visas. Trump tried to put a stop to people with visas entering the country. Different things entirely.
The question is exactly what power Congress has granted to the President. Does it include the power to immediately close the borders to people of specified nationality? Now, Congress could certainly grant such power, there's no Constitutional question here, but did it?
Until you know that, you're babbling.
Under the assumption that all these companies aren't run by idiots, the CEOs and boards have considered that already, and concluded that confrontation is the way to go here. I find that interesting.
And now I'll list the countries mentioned in the travel ban whose citizens have killed anybody in the US in a terrorist incident:
I read of a case of a woman who was born in Iraq or Iran (which is irrelevant here), holds Australian citizenship, and was really uncertain about leaving the country on business. A halfway decent EO would have made it clear, one way or another.
I wouldn't have been for it, but at least it would have had some justification if it included those four countires.
That's an argument for carefully vetting immigrants. It's not an argument that our current vetting is insufficient. I note that you mention an attack in Paris, not one in the US.
On the other hand, I've seen lots of racist justifications for doing things that are not necessarily legal, and certainly not definitely part of enforcing the law. There's all sorts of patriotism, also. Trump's EO on immigration, for example, was suspended by the courts for being questionably legal.
This ties in with my observation that law-and-order types want order and don't care about the law, particularly any part of it affording rights to accused individuals.
Why do we need further barriers to letting foreigners in? The current ones seem to be working pretty well.
That's difficult to answer, and depends on what gets automated away. There will likely be a very limited number of jobs for the unskilled, but AI isn't going to take over high-creativity fields any time soon.
Wrong question. With UBI in place, if you want someone to work really hard or perform an icky or dangerous job, you won't rely on peons taking your jobs rather than starving. You'll have to pay enough to make it worthwhile for someone. If it turns out that's not economical for you, deal with it. You don't have a right to force people to work for you.
Does not take into account that productivity will always increase.
Lots. Given the amount a UBI can be, most people would rather work and have more money. Some people would work for under what would be minimum wage, and some would find that their jobs went up considerably in pay.
Communist countries generally tried to keep the elite in power and make them richer. This isn't exactly what Marx and Engels had in mind, but that's how the large-scale attempts to implement Communism worked. I don't understand what you mean by attaching non-economic value to people, particularly since Communism is typically collectivist rather than individualist and doesn't seem to value its citizens.