Arrests by law enforcement officers with proper warrants are perfectly legal. Breaking into private servers isn't. You're saying that, if I'm complaining about my house being broken into, I should break into yours instead.
There's a conflict there, between your employee getting serious work done and you getting your answers. You told the guy that he has to pay immediate attention to each incoming email, lest it be one of yours that you want an immediate reply to. You told him implicitly that immediate responses are more important than actually getting work done. People do pick up on those things.
Now, if you'd told him you want answers in a few hours, your employee could concentrate for a couple of hours and then take care of email. That's a much more reasonable schedule for any job that requires concentration.
My apologies for not checking thoroughly enough. Torn pantyhose, bleeding lips, and being in shock are evidence of attempted rape, and the account is consistent with attempted rape. Reporting sexual assault is not an easy decision today, and things were considerably worse then. I still consider it alleged, since I'm not going to presume to judge guilt at a distance without considerably stronger evidence. I haven't described Trump as a criminal either.
It is possible to support certain people in general while being n asshole to certain of those people. Nor have I recommended that anyone vote for Clinton because she's a woman (although I'd like to see a woman become President, just to break the white man stereotype further). I support her because she's reasonably honest, extremely competent, and generally agrees with me on the issues. I don't support her for her genitals, or for that matter her ability to hire good IT people.
Also, I'm against Trump for a whole range of reasons. The big problem I have with that particular quote is primarily that he doesn't seem to realize that what he's saying is wrong. If he'd acknowledged that he was wrong, apologized, and claimed to have learned I'd pretty much forget about it, but all I've heard of his reaction is calling it locker room talk (in which case Trump hasn't been in any of the locker rooms I've been in).
I'm not convinced that that quote turned lots of people against him, either. It was a convenient excuse for a lot of Republicans who didn't want to be associated with him to ditch him, and it's a nice easy sound bite to beat him about the head and shoulders with for people who were already against him.
As far as judgment goes, we're talking about a 1976 incident versus a 2005 incident, and standards and expectations can change over about thirty years.
There's a bit of a difference between "enough resemblance to stop someone" and "enough resemblance to shoot someone". I haven't read claims that Castillo did anything wrong during the stop, only that he told the officer that he was legally armed. The video, unfortunately, doesn't cover that time period.
"Grab" sounds more abrupt and rough than my usual lovemaking, and as far as I know my wife has no complaints about me in that department. I touch my wife's pussy in the context of privacy and a sexual relationship (which I've had with two women) and good feelings towards each other. It isn't my first move of the cuddling, and I can judge how she reacts to other things I do.
That's how it works with me. If you want a more general answer, you'll get better from someone not on the autism spectrum.
Rhode Island needs to have some measure of influence in the presidential elections. And by Rhode Island I mean both the government and its people.
And, as before, you completely fail to explain what the Rhode Island government needs to do about the elections. The people of Rhode Island deserve to have a say proportional to their numbers in the election, just like the people of every other state.
And, under the Electoral College, people in different states don't have the same say. Wyoming has a lot of electoral votes per voter, and California has a lot less per voter. Nobody's vote matters if they live in a predictable ("safe") state. If my vote matters in determining the electors from my state, said electors don't matter because the College is packed with electors voting Republican, so for practical purposes I don't get a vote..
Nor would candidates limit themselves to the larger states. Right now, candidates concentrate on states because winning individual states matters (and only rarely the margin of victory matters). If a candidate can get a bare majority in states with enough electoral votes, and loses badly in other states, that's enough to win. If the election is not state-by-state, candidates will campaign to get the popular vote, however they see fit. Normally the Democratic candidate would not care about Texas voters, since those electoral votes are almost certainly Republican, but in a popular vote situations there's value in being a fairly close second rather than an also-ran.
I'm not fine with bombing Iran if the CIA has good evidence they hacked us. I might well be in favor of non-violent forms of retaliation, depending on the situation. (For example, how bad a hack, and was it clear that this was a retaliation for Stuxnet or something, and how are other relationships doing?) Under these circumstances, if it was a Russian attack, I'm fine with some sort of retaliation. You'll notice that I didn't name any real or hypothetical Presidents here, because it really doesn't matter. The right thing to do doesn't change (although the probability that the President chooses the right thing varies between Presidents).
I haven't checked the DNC charter, but I don't see that there's anything wrong with an institutional bias. This may be because my first vote in a Presidential election was for McGovern, who was a terrible candidate who got the nomination because there was no effective pro-establishment bias. (The disillusionment began at the 1972 convention, when it became clear that the only thing changed about the smoke-filled rooms was the odor of the smoke.)
Some videos of extremely dubious provenance show unethical and possibly illegal activity. You said that Clinton fired the person responsible, and then speculated with no support that there were others.
As to everyone being anti-free-speech, show me police unions saying that Hillary supporters create a hostile environment, like that football guy who refused to stand for the National Anthem. He wasn't required to stand by any applicable laws or regulations or NFL contract, and he made a statement that people got wildly offended by and used inflammatory rhetoric about.
I never said mutual blacklisting was fine. I was showing that what happened is just what you said you wanted - people spoke their mind and other people exercised their freedom of association by not doing business with people who said things they didn't like. Or does your fondness for freedom of association apply only to people you agree with?
Nobody's advocating censorship in this thread. Get real. Blacklisting isn't applicable either. A blacklist is a result of mutual agreement. If Warner Brothers doesn't want to cast you because of your political views, that's not a blacklist. If no studio will, that looks a lot more like a blacklist. This is a case of a group of people deciding they don't want to do business with another person, not everybody connected with startups agreeing that they're not going to do business with Thiel.
BI exceeds the total GDP today or you don't have BI.
What?
Giving everybody a BI means giving everybody enough to have a low standard of living. Now, most people are at least at a low standard of living, and most people are doing better than that. The population is getting more income than UBI would give everyone, and the GDP seems to be supporting that.
Giving 320M people $20K/year (and I'd expect a BI to be much less than that, as that would give a family of three more than today's median household income) each takes about $6.4T, and the US GDP is over twice that. A BI is perfectly affordable on a national level.
The current welfare system will leave you better off in raw income if you work, although not necessarily by enough to pay for working expenses (including child care). The really big problem is medical benefits, and that would be solved by some sort of universal health care system like almost all developed nations (there's one exception) have. Universal health care (which could be a lot cheaper than we're paying now) would allow people to get off welfare.
There's plenty of issues about UBI, but you haven't addressed them.
Heat pumps are efficient when they aren't pumping against a large differential. Most heat pumps aren't at all efficient getting the inside temperature to about 25C when it's something like -20C out there, and that's a 45 kelvin spread, not a 60 kelvin spread. Trying to keep comfortable when it's 90C out is going to take an awful lot of power, which will release its own heat.
Nobody's saying "vote Democrat or you're evil". Some people are saying "if you're voting for Trump you're evil", which although a gross overgeneralization has something going for it. The DNC favored Clinton in the nomination race, and nobody's explained to me what's bad about that. They didn't subvert any voting process. Almost everybody in politics is anti-free-speech, as far as I can tell, they just differ on which speech they want to suppress (as in those who want to make standing for the National Anthem mandatory).
I expect merely for everyone to be free to speak their minds, associate how they please, and vote their conscience whatever that is..
So what are you complaining about? Thiel spoke his mind, and some people decided they didn't please to associate with him. Nobody's saying Thiel shouldn't be allowed to speak whatever stupid or offensive thing comes into his head, just that they don't want to be associated with someone who does and says what he does or says. Everybody gets to vote their conscience, if not disenfranchised somehow (which seems to be a Republican sort of thing nowadays).
So check the data and get back to us. Breitbart is not a primary source, and it's known to lie a whole lot. I'm not looking at a Breitbart article on the speculation that there might be something reliable in it that corroborates what they say, because it isn't worth my time and blood pressure. If you've got an actual believable source, or can find one, please post it.
Clinton didn't deliberately mishandle classified information. She was negligent (and I'm never accepting her recommendation of someone to do computer stuff). As such, she's treated just like other people who were negligent, and not prosecuted. I haven't checked on accusations of lying, but the ones people have told me about are not clearly lies, although they were falsehoods. She may well have had some reason to believe them when she said them.
As a donor to Planned Parenthood, and someone who caucuses and usually votes Democrat, let me tell you that Sanger believed in eugenics. Lincoln wasn't pushing for racial equality, either, although he did want to eliminate slavery. Lots of people who wound up doing good things had beliefs most of us would consider offensive today.
It doesn't say the country they're in can't kick them out again, if they're there illegally. You'd make more sense arguing that the rights of convicted criminals serving jail or prison sentences are violated.
There is public evidence that the attack was Russian, although certainly not conclusive evidence. The evidence I've got points at Russia, although not strongly, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. In 2003, I had actual evidence that the government was lying.
However, the CIA knows more than you or I, so Obama gets better reports than we do, and Obama is responsible for what we do. If he knows it's from Russia, he should react accordingly. If the situation is as the government says it is, I think we should retaliate in some fashion.
So, while I don't particularly trust that it was an official Russian attack, it's reasonable for the President to act as if it were without needing to convince me first. It's reasonable for the government to withhold all their evidence and reasoning, although it's also reasonable to doubt the government on this. We won't know the truth for some years now, and then we'll be better able to judge Obama's actions.
I asked about why Rhode Island per se had any interest in the election, and you ignored that question. Why are you talking about Rhode Island and not the residents of Rhode Island? Each resident of Rhode Island would have the same vote in a popular vote election as everyone else in California or Alaska. Under the Electoral College system, each resident of Rhode Island has more of a say than each resident of California.
And does this mean anyone cares about Rhode Island? Is it a battleground state? Nobody on the national level seems to care about how I vote, because my state's electoral votes are going to Clinton no matter what. In a popular vote, Clinton would want to keep my state happy to build up a greater margin of victory that might offset losses somewhere else. Even if Rhode Island is seen as a swing state, under how many scenarios are its three electoral votes going to swing the election? Group voting systems like this generally give disproportionate influence to some blocs over others.
House seats are supposed to reflect population. Senate seats are intended to balance states (and Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures).
No, there's also a difference between letting someone do something and enjoying it or even being OK with it. There also may be women who want Trump to grab their pussy, but Trump sure didn't imply that he checked that first.
Broderick claimed to have been raped, but that's an allegation with (as far as I can tell at a quick look) no outside corroboration. I haven't been following the misadventures of Bill, but what else do we have in the way of allegations of illegal behavior? What, in your opinion, makes Juanita Broderick believable and not Anita Hill? How about Broderick and the woman who claims she was raped by Trump when she was 13? How about nine woman coming forward against Trump? I find nine women more credible than one, particularly when Trump talked about committing sexual assault?
There was no attempt made to remove Clinton from office based on sexual misconduct. The impeachment was about perjury, and the Republican-controlled Senate seemed to think it was an embarrassment, from the way they quickly ditched the trial. The Democrats really didn't have much to say about it: the impeachment went through anyway, and the Republicans sidestepped the actual trial.
Lots of people treat individuals differently from how they treat groups those individuals are part of, and that isn't hypocrisy. Clinton may be hypocritical, but she's going to affect a lot more people by what she does as President to establish policy than what she does to individuals.
Also, there's plenty of reasons to think that Trump is unfit for the Presidency, and to dump him. The Democrats are going to use what they've got to convince people to vote for Clinton and not Trump, and the campaign is ugly already. The relevant difference between the two times is not Trump's party affiliation, but that he's running for President now and not then.
Fortunately, there's less than three weeks until I can stop paying any attention to the campaign.
I don't know whether anyone else got the questions ahead of time, and if Clinton did and Trump didn't it wouldn't be fair. However, Clinton getting them ahead of time is perfectly reasonable and implies no unfairness by itself.
If the guy had a store receipt for the cards, they'd become much less suspicious, and would probably have ended the investigation, so it was reasonable to ask whether the guy had a receipt. Since he didn't, the police note that a bag with over a hundred gift cards is suspicious, and are arguably justified in reading the mag strip (and are certainly justified in getting a warrant to do that). There's differences (not necessarily well-defined) between behavior that is criminal and behavior that is suspicious and behavior that is not suspicious.
If the police have a report of a guy who looks like me committing a crime in an area I'm known to have been in and driving off in a blue Civic, the fact that I drive a blue Civic becomes suspicious.That doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with driving a blue Civic.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy theory. Got any halfway trustworthy sources?
Arrests by law enforcement officers with proper warrants are perfectly legal. Breaking into private servers isn't. You're saying that, if I'm complaining about my house being broken into, I should break into yours instead.
There's a conflict there, between your employee getting serious work done and you getting your answers. You told the guy that he has to pay immediate attention to each incoming email, lest it be one of yours that you want an immediate reply to. You told him implicitly that immediate responses are more important than actually getting work done. People do pick up on those things.
Now, if you'd told him you want answers in a few hours, your employee could concentrate for a couple of hours and then take care of email. That's a much more reasonable schedule for any job that requires concentration.
This isn't a debate competition, and I don't see that the audience really needs to know the mechanics.
My apologies for not checking thoroughly enough. Torn pantyhose, bleeding lips, and being in shock are evidence of attempted rape, and the account is consistent with attempted rape. Reporting sexual assault is not an easy decision today, and things were considerably worse then. I still consider it alleged, since I'm not going to presume to judge guilt at a distance without considerably stronger evidence. I haven't described Trump as a criminal either.
It is possible to support certain people in general while being n asshole to certain of those people. Nor have I recommended that anyone vote for Clinton because she's a woman (although I'd like to see a woman become President, just to break the white man stereotype further). I support her because she's reasonably honest, extremely competent, and generally agrees with me on the issues. I don't support her for her genitals, or for that matter her ability to hire good IT people.
Also, I'm against Trump for a whole range of reasons. The big problem I have with that particular quote is primarily that he doesn't seem to realize that what he's saying is wrong. If he'd acknowledged that he was wrong, apologized, and claimed to have learned I'd pretty much forget about it, but all I've heard of his reaction is calling it locker room talk (in which case Trump hasn't been in any of the locker rooms I've been in).
I'm not convinced that that quote turned lots of people against him, either. It was a convenient excuse for a lot of Republicans who didn't want to be associated with him to ditch him, and it's a nice easy sound bite to beat him about the head and shoulders with for people who were already against him.
As far as judgment goes, we're talking about a 1976 incident versus a 2005 incident, and standards and expectations can change over about thirty years.
There's a bit of a difference between "enough resemblance to stop someone" and "enough resemblance to shoot someone". I haven't read claims that Castillo did anything wrong during the stop, only that he told the officer that he was legally armed. The video, unfortunately, doesn't cover that time period.
"Grab" sounds more abrupt and rough than my usual lovemaking, and as far as I know my wife has no complaints about me in that department. I touch my wife's pussy in the context of privacy and a sexual relationship (which I've had with two women) and good feelings towards each other. It isn't my first move of the cuddling, and I can judge how she reacts to other things I do.
That's how it works with me. If you want a more general answer, you'll get better from someone not on the autism spectrum.
And, as before, you completely fail to explain what the Rhode Island government needs to do about the elections. The people of Rhode Island deserve to have a say proportional to their numbers in the election, just like the people of every other state.
And, under the Electoral College, people in different states don't have the same say. Wyoming has a lot of electoral votes per voter, and California has a lot less per voter. Nobody's vote matters if they live in a predictable ("safe") state. If my vote matters in determining the electors from my state, said electors don't matter because the College is packed with electors voting Republican, so for practical purposes I don't get a vote..
Nor would candidates limit themselves to the larger states. Right now, candidates concentrate on states because winning individual states matters (and only rarely the margin of victory matters). If a candidate can get a bare majority in states with enough electoral votes, and loses badly in other states, that's enough to win. If the election is not state-by-state, candidates will campaign to get the popular vote, however they see fit. Normally the Democratic candidate would not care about Texas voters, since those electoral votes are almost certainly Republican, but in a popular vote situations there's value in being a fairly close second rather than an also-ran.
I'm not fine with bombing Iran if the CIA has good evidence they hacked us. I might well be in favor of non-violent forms of retaliation, depending on the situation. (For example, how bad a hack, and was it clear that this was a retaliation for Stuxnet or something, and how are other relationships doing?) Under these circumstances, if it was a Russian attack, I'm fine with some sort of retaliation. You'll notice that I didn't name any real or hypothetical Presidents here, because it really doesn't matter. The right thing to do doesn't change (although the probability that the President chooses the right thing varies between Presidents).
I haven't checked the DNC charter, but I don't see that there's anything wrong with an institutional bias. This may be because my first vote in a Presidential election was for McGovern, who was a terrible candidate who got the nomination because there was no effective pro-establishment bias. (The disillusionment began at the 1972 convention, when it became clear that the only thing changed about the smoke-filled rooms was the odor of the smoke.)
Some videos of extremely dubious provenance show unethical and possibly illegal activity. You said that Clinton fired the person responsible, and then speculated with no support that there were others.
As to everyone being anti-free-speech, show me police unions saying that Hillary supporters create a hostile environment, like that football guy who refused to stand for the National Anthem. He wasn't required to stand by any applicable laws or regulations or NFL contract, and he made a statement that people got wildly offended by and used inflammatory rhetoric about.
I never said mutual blacklisting was fine. I was showing that what happened is just what you said you wanted - people spoke their mind and other people exercised their freedom of association by not doing business with people who said things they didn't like. Or does your fondness for freedom of association apply only to people you agree with?
Nobody's advocating censorship in this thread. Get real. Blacklisting isn't applicable either. A blacklist is a result of mutual agreement. If Warner Brothers doesn't want to cast you because of your political views, that's not a blacklist. If no studio will, that looks a lot more like a blacklist. This is a case of a group of people deciding they don't want to do business with another person, not everybody connected with startups agreeing that they're not going to do business with Thiel.
What?
Giving everybody a BI means giving everybody enough to have a low standard of living. Now, most people are at least at a low standard of living, and most people are doing better than that. The population is getting more income than UBI would give everyone, and the GDP seems to be supporting that.
Giving 320M people $20K/year (and I'd expect a BI to be much less than that, as that would give a family of three more than today's median household income) each takes about $6.4T, and the US GDP is over twice that. A BI is perfectly affordable on a national level.
The current welfare system will leave you better off in raw income if you work, although not necessarily by enough to pay for working expenses (including child care). The really big problem is medical benefits, and that would be solved by some sort of universal health care system like almost all developed nations (there's one exception) have. Universal health care (which could be a lot cheaper than we're paying now) would allow people to get off welfare.
There's plenty of issues about UBI, but you haven't addressed them.
Heat pumps are efficient when they aren't pumping against a large differential. Most heat pumps aren't at all efficient getting the inside temperature to about 25C when it's something like -20C out there, and that's a 45 kelvin spread, not a 60 kelvin spread. Trying to keep comfortable when it's 90C out is going to take an awful lot of power, which will release its own heat.
Nobody's saying "vote Democrat or you're evil". Some people are saying "if you're voting for Trump you're evil", which although a gross overgeneralization has something going for it. The DNC favored Clinton in the nomination race, and nobody's explained to me what's bad about that. They didn't subvert any voting process. Almost everybody in politics is anti-free-speech, as far as I can tell, they just differ on which speech they want to suppress (as in those who want to make standing for the National Anthem mandatory).
So what are you complaining about? Thiel spoke his mind, and some people decided they didn't please to associate with him. Nobody's saying Thiel shouldn't be allowed to speak whatever stupid or offensive thing comes into his head, just that they don't want to be associated with someone who does and says what he does or says. Everybody gets to vote their conscience, if not disenfranchised somehow (which seems to be a Republican sort of thing nowadays).
So check the data and get back to us. Breitbart is not a primary source, and it's known to lie a whole lot. I'm not looking at a Breitbart article on the speculation that there might be something reliable in it that corroborates what they say, because it isn't worth my time and blood pressure. If you've got an actual believable source, or can find one, please post it.
Clinton didn't deliberately mishandle classified information. She was negligent (and I'm never accepting her recommendation of someone to do computer stuff). As such, she's treated just like other people who were negligent, and not prosecuted. I haven't checked on accusations of lying, but the ones people have told me about are not clearly lies, although they were falsehoods. She may well have had some reason to believe them when she said them.
As a donor to Planned Parenthood, and someone who caucuses and usually votes Democrat, let me tell you that Sanger believed in eugenics. Lincoln wasn't pushing for racial equality, either, although he did want to eliminate slavery. Lots of people who wound up doing good things had beliefs most of us would consider offensive today.
It doesn't say the country they're in can't kick them out again, if they're there illegally. You'd make more sense arguing that the rights of convicted criminals serving jail or prison sentences are violated.
There is public evidence that the attack was Russian, although certainly not conclusive evidence. The evidence I've got points at Russia, although not strongly, and I don't have any evidence to the contrary. In 2003, I had actual evidence that the government was lying.
However, the CIA knows more than you or I, so Obama gets better reports than we do, and Obama is responsible for what we do. If he knows it's from Russia, he should react accordingly. If the situation is as the government says it is, I think we should retaliate in some fashion.
So, while I don't particularly trust that it was an official Russian attack, it's reasonable for the President to act as if it were without needing to convince me first. It's reasonable for the government to withhold all their evidence and reasoning, although it's also reasonable to doubt the government on this. We won't know the truth for some years now, and then we'll be better able to judge Obama's actions.
I asked about why Rhode Island per se had any interest in the election, and you ignored that question. Why are you talking about Rhode Island and not the residents of Rhode Island? Each resident of Rhode Island would have the same vote in a popular vote election as everyone else in California or Alaska. Under the Electoral College system, each resident of Rhode Island has more of a say than each resident of California.
And does this mean anyone cares about Rhode Island? Is it a battleground state? Nobody on the national level seems to care about how I vote, because my state's electoral votes are going to Clinton no matter what. In a popular vote, Clinton would want to keep my state happy to build up a greater margin of victory that might offset losses somewhere else. Even if Rhode Island is seen as a swing state, under how many scenarios are its three electoral votes going to swing the election? Group voting systems like this generally give disproportionate influence to some blocs over others.
House seats are supposed to reflect population. Senate seats are intended to balance states (and Senators were originally selected by the state legislatures).
No, there's also a difference between letting someone do something and enjoying it or even being OK with it. There also may be women who want Trump to grab their pussy, but Trump sure didn't imply that he checked that first.
My source was the radio transmission. What's yours?
I've seen journalists in the field, and they didn't act like getting a fact wrong cost them points.
Broderick claimed to have been raped, but that's an allegation with (as far as I can tell at a quick look) no outside corroboration. I haven't been following the misadventures of Bill, but what else do we have in the way of allegations of illegal behavior? What, in your opinion, makes Juanita Broderick believable and not Anita Hill? How about Broderick and the woman who claims she was raped by Trump when she was 13? How about nine woman coming forward against Trump? I find nine women more credible than one, particularly when Trump talked about committing sexual assault?
There was no attempt made to remove Clinton from office based on sexual misconduct. The impeachment was about perjury, and the Republican-controlled Senate seemed to think it was an embarrassment, from the way they quickly ditched the trial. The Democrats really didn't have much to say about it: the impeachment went through anyway, and the Republicans sidestepped the actual trial.
Lots of people treat individuals differently from how they treat groups those individuals are part of, and that isn't hypocrisy. Clinton may be hypocritical, but she's going to affect a lot more people by what she does as President to establish policy than what she does to individuals.
Also, there's plenty of reasons to think that Trump is unfit for the Presidency, and to dump him. The Democrats are going to use what they've got to convince people to vote for Clinton and not Trump, and the campaign is ugly already. The relevant difference between the two times is not Trump's party affiliation, but that he's running for President now and not then.
Fortunately, there's less than three weeks until I can stop paying any attention to the campaign.
I don't know whether anyone else got the questions ahead of time, and if Clinton did and Trump didn't it wouldn't be fair. However, Clinton getting them ahead of time is perfectly reasonable and implies no unfairness by itself.
If the guy had a store receipt for the cards, they'd become much less suspicious, and would probably have ended the investigation, so it was reasonable to ask whether the guy had a receipt. Since he didn't, the police note that a bag with over a hundred gift cards is suspicious, and are arguably justified in reading the mag strip (and are certainly justified in getting a warrant to do that). There's differences (not necessarily well-defined) between behavior that is criminal and behavior that is suspicious and behavior that is not suspicious.
If the police have a report of a guy who looks like me committing a crime in an area I'm known to have been in and driving off in a blue Civic, the fact that I drive a blue Civic becomes suspicious.That doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with driving a blue Civic.
Why shouldn't the debaters get the questions ahead of time?