Why would you think this is turning on a dime? They cut off his Internet access, which is one action. They're not going to spread the cutoff out over a year to make it look gradual. For all either of us knows, he's been making himself hated in the embassy and is wearing out his welcome. This may be a reaction to his recent attempts to influence the US election, which is not the sort of thing he was doing when Ecuador let him into the embassy.
But it is amusing to see you coming out somewhat for Assange.
We have no particular evidence that he committed any US crimes. He's ticked off some US politicians, but that's easy and meaningless. He's been annoying, but he's pretty much harmless now. If we'd wanted to extradite him, we'd have submitted requests to the UK and Sweden, when it would have been easier. Extraditing him would be harder now, and there's less reason to.
However, the US makes a great heavy to explain why Assange doesn't want to face rape charges in Sweden.
Your post reads like you're butthurt that scientists and scholars don't get paid big bucks for speeches. I can sympathize with that, but in fact there's a lot of prestige associated with getting an ex-President or ex-Cabinet member to speak at an event, and it flatters the participants, and scientists just don't have the same social impressiveness. I don't think you really understand what's going on at the events.
I'm not familiar with Broderick or Flowers, but Clinton never forced himself on Jones (or, for that matter, Lewinski). He did act like an asshole towards her when she turned him down, but stayed legal. The revelations showed that Bill Clinton is a big jerk, but that is legal.
Why does it matter what party Trump favored? The Democratic Party is not pro-sexual assault, and so Trump wasn't just parroting the party line. He spoke for himself, and is judged on that basis.
He is a fugitive on the run, but not currently from Sweden. He's a fugitive from English justice, having fled when they wanted to arrest him to return him to Sweden on a rape charge.
Nope. The soldiers would not be charged with aggressive war; that would be the province of the people who made the decision to go to war (specifically Bush, and possibly some close advisers). Even if US soldiers committed war crimes, embedded journalists wouldn't be liable as long as they didn't participate. There's a case for prosecuting Bush for war crimes, and some individual soldiers, but not for most US soldiers or journalists.
She was initially arrested for trespassing, then the AG dropped those charges (suggesting that they weren't going to stick) and went with rioting, and the charge was thrown out by judge. You seem to believe that an arrest means that someone was impartially judged to have probably violated a law, like it should be.
What video evidence? And exactly what did Wikileaks leak that is good evidence that Clinton committed a serious crime?
The people at the top of the news organizations tend to be Republicans. Nor is the media one monolithic entity. Are you saying Fox will suppress stories because they hurt Clinton?
As far as Castille goes, did you find out why the officer was pulling him over (it was recorded)? It was because he vaguely resembled a suspect; basically, right race and nose. In other words, there was very little reason to think him guilty of the robbery, and he died because he had a slight resemblance to a description of a robber. That's about as excusable as a broken taillight.
The "living Constitution" idea has nothing to do with this. States pass unconstitutional laws. It's fairly frequent. The courts strike them down. The system is working to a certain extent (it would be nice if there were consequences for trying to enforce clearly unconstitutional laws), and there's no meddling with the Constitution going on.
Why would the venue owner have any responsibility? If you have to be available on your phone, you shouldn't go to a place where you'll have to lock up or surrender your phone or be in a no-reception area. The venue owner is not responsible for knowing your responsibilities. If you want an exception from the rules, there may be someone to talk to.
There's also the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and pushed it into acceptance. Nobody had experience with a large country without a monarch, and what they basically knew was that the Articles of Confederation weren't working at all well. I believe they did a very good job of faking it, but they didn't get everything correct.
I'm a pretty well-off city folk. There are poor country folk. Our votes are counted equally. The Electoral College isn't needed for that.
If a candidate wants to appeal to the rich city folk only, that works within the system. If the candidate loses by a landslide in the countryside, and can't pick up enough city votes to counter that, that's the system in action.
Why are you concerned about the influence of states in Presidential elections? Rhode Island is not its own group mind. It just contains a lot of voters, and a popular election would give each voter an equal say in the election. As it is, my vote for President is meaningless, since I don't live in a swing state. I don't think that's fair, myself.
There's media that's not pro-Clinton, and they generally have been showing Clinton as the winner. While I agree somewhat about the power of media, it isn't monolithic, and there's tension between the generally liberal reporters and editors and the generally Republican owners.
Russia cares. They have shills that post on Slashdot whenever an anti-Russian story shows up. No way they aren't monitoring this carefully, even if they're not involved.
It looks somewhat similar to the 2003 deceit, but there's quite a few differences. Iraq was a pushover for the US military. Russia isn't, and has nukes. Bush clearly wanted to invade Iraq. Obama wants to do something nonviolent. There was fairly strong evidence in 2003 that Saddam didn't have the WMD he was alleged to have. I've seen no evidence that this wasn't a Russian state-sponsored attack, so people are saying things like "I don't see any strong evidence" rather than "but Hans Blix says".
There's suggestive evidence of a Russian attack. US intelligence agencies claim that it definitely points there, and they almost certainly know a whole lot more about it than the US public does. I consider it perfectly believable that they're correct, although I don't perfectly believe it.
What do you have against doing things cheaper? If we can cut the cost of sending stuff to low Earth orbit considerably, all space missions are easier. Consider it an investment.
I tend to think of basic research as adding to the bank of unused human knowledge, and applied research as drawing from it to solve problems. Whenever you reduce basic research by having your best minds doing applied research, you're drawing more from the bank than you're putting in. This means that, in the future, you're not going to have as much research in the bank, and things will progress slower. Since devoting all the best minds to applications means you get lots of impressive applications, this is normally mistaken for progress.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you think this is turning on a dime? They cut off his Internet access, which is one action. They're not going to spread the cutoff out over a year to make it look gradual. For all either of us knows, he's been making himself hated in the embassy and is wearing out his welcome. This may be a reaction to his recent attempts to influence the US election, which is not the sort of thing he was doing when Ecuador let him into the embassy.
But it is amusing to see you coming out somewhat for Assange.
We don't want him.
We have no particular evidence that he committed any US crimes. He's ticked off some US politicians, but that's easy and meaningless. He's been annoying, but he's pretty much harmless now. If we'd wanted to extradite him, we'd have submitted requests to the UK and Sweden, when it would have been easier. Extraditing him would be harder now, and there's less reason to.
However, the US makes a great heavy to explain why Assange doesn't want to face rape charges in Sweden.
Your post reads like you're butthurt that scientists and scholars don't get paid big bucks for speeches. I can sympathize with that, but in fact there's a lot of prestige associated with getting an ex-President or ex-Cabinet member to speak at an event, and it flatters the participants, and scientists just don't have the same social impressiveness. I don't think you really understand what's going on at the events.
I'm not familiar with Broderick or Flowers, but Clinton never forced himself on Jones (or, for that matter, Lewinski). He did act like an asshole towards her when she turned him down, but stayed legal. The revelations showed that Bill Clinton is a big jerk, but that is legal.
Why does it matter what party Trump favored? The Democratic Party is not pro-sexual assault, and so Trump wasn't just parroting the party line. He spoke for himself, and is judged on that basis.
The other theory I've heard is that it's an alien lifeform controlling him.
He is a fugitive on the run, but not currently from Sweden. He's a fugitive from English justice, having fled when they wanted to arrest him to return him to Sweden on a rape charge.
Is there any actual evidence for this, or are you just assuming the US is behind every anti-Assange action in the world?
Nope. The soldiers would not be charged with aggressive war; that would be the province of the people who made the decision to go to war (specifically Bush, and possibly some close advisers). Even if US soldiers committed war crimes, embedded journalists wouldn't be liable as long as they didn't participate. There's a case for prosecuting Bush for war crimes, and some individual soldiers, but not for most US soldiers or journalists.
She was initially arrested for trespassing, then the AG dropped those charges (suggesting that they weren't going to stick) and went with rioting, and the charge was thrown out by judge. You seem to believe that an arrest means that someone was impartially judged to have probably violated a law, like it should be.
What video evidence? And exactly what did Wikileaks leak that is good evidence that Clinton committed a serious crime?
The people at the top of the news organizations tend to be Republicans. Nor is the media one monolithic entity. Are you saying Fox will suppress stories because they hurt Clinton?
As far as Castille goes, did you find out why the officer was pulling him over (it was recorded)? It was because he vaguely resembled a suspect; basically, right race and nose. In other words, there was very little reason to think him guilty of the robbery, and he died because he had a slight resemblance to a description of a robber. That's about as excusable as a broken taillight.
Where did Clinton promise scrapping the first two Amendments? I think I missed the memo. And here I thought the rest of the conspiracy respected me!
The "living Constitution" idea has nothing to do with this. States pass unconstitutional laws. It's fairly frequent. The courts strike them down. The system is working to a certain extent (it would be nice if there were consequences for trying to enforce clearly unconstitutional laws), and there's no meddling with the Constitution going on.
Why would the venue owner have any responsibility? If you have to be available on your phone, you shouldn't go to a place where you'll have to lock up or surrender your phone or be in a no-reception area. The venue owner is not responsible for knowing your responsibilities. If you want an exception from the rules, there may be someone to talk to.
Liking pussy != grabbing pussy without prior consent, formal or informal
There's also the fact that the Founding Fathers didn't really know what they were doing when they wrote the Constitution and pushed it into acceptance. Nobody had experience with a large country without a monarch, and what they basically knew was that the Articles of Confederation weren't working at all well. I believe they did a very good job of faking it, but they didn't get everything correct.
I'm a pretty well-off city folk. There are poor country folk. Our votes are counted equally. The Electoral College isn't needed for that.
If a candidate wants to appeal to the rich city folk only, that works within the system. If the candidate loses by a landslide in the countryside, and can't pick up enough city votes to counter that, that's the system in action.
Why are you concerned about the influence of states in Presidential elections? Rhode Island is not its own group mind. It just contains a lot of voters, and a popular election would give each voter an equal say in the election. As it is, my vote for President is meaningless, since I don't live in a swing state. I don't think that's fair, myself.
There's media that's not pro-Clinton, and they generally have been showing Clinton as the winner. While I agree somewhat about the power of media, it isn't monolithic, and there's tension between the generally liberal reporters and editors and the generally Republican owners.
Russia cares. They have shills that post on Slashdot whenever an anti-Russian story shows up. No way they aren't monitoring this carefully, even if they're not involved.
It looks somewhat similar to the 2003 deceit, but there's quite a few differences. Iraq was a pushover for the US military. Russia isn't, and has nukes. Bush clearly wanted to invade Iraq. Obama wants to do something nonviolent. There was fairly strong evidence in 2003 that Saddam didn't have the WMD he was alleged to have. I've seen no evidence that this wasn't a Russian state-sponsored attack, so people are saying things like "I don't see any strong evidence" rather than "but Hans Blix says".
There's suggestive evidence of a Russian attack. US intelligence agencies claim that it definitely points there, and they almost certainly know a whole lot more about it than the US public does. I consider it perfectly believable that they're correct, although I don't perfectly believe it.
Yes, and I'm shocked! Shocked! to hear that there is illegal gambling in Las Vegas.
What do you have against doing things cheaper? If we can cut the cost of sending stuff to low Earth orbit considerably, all space missions are easier. Consider it an investment.
I tend to think of basic research as adding to the bank of unused human knowledge, and applied research as drawing from it to solve problems. Whenever you reduce basic research by having your best minds doing applied research, you're drawing more from the bank than you're putting in. This means that, in the future, you're not going to have as much research in the bank, and things will progress slower. Since devoting all the best minds to applications means you get lots of impressive applications, this is normally mistaken for progress.