Right. If you're in a country legally, you aren't restricted to a particular area. If you're in a country, you can leave without permission from the country you're in. It says nothing about being able to enter any particular country, and therefore countries can restrict alien entry as they please.
C++ is perfectly usable as a better C. What generally annoys us is when people think that's all C++ is, or refer to "C/C++" as if they were very similar languages, or criticize C++ on the basis of pre-standard implementations or ignorance (criticizing it for having a difficult learning curve is fine; unlike criticizing it because you don't know it - although that's been at least 75% of language flame wars for as long as I've been in the internet).
More specifically, paid not to complain about the Google C++ style guide, which makes sense only for restricting C++ code to be safe for newbies. There's LOTS of languages that are better than Google C++ (including, of course, C++).
Trump hasn't had any ability to lie about things that Clinton said falsehoods about. (I'm not analyzing whether she knowingly lied about anything specific here, so draw your own conclusions. My research this campaign has been primarily about whether there was a precedent for prosecuting Clinton on negligence with classified materials, and there wasn't. There's too many claims for me to dig into all of them.) Given the amount Trump lies, I'd expect him to lie about any subject that came up, including national security.
If she hadn't resigned, and you referred to her at all, you'd be talking about her brazen attitude towards the leaks. I'm pretty darn sure that Clinton-haters would have spun anything she did.
IIRC, she became high up in Clinton's campaign, which doesn't suggest that she and Clinton considered it a disgrace.
In criminal investigations, there's a chain of custody. The prosecutor is ready to bring forth witnesses to show where every piece of evidence was found and what was done with it to establish that X was found at the scene of the crime, and it was the same X that was sent to the lab, and the same X that the tests were performed on, and so forth.
We have emails here that were extracted by criminals or a foreign government for political purposes, and they went to Assange who released them for political purposes. My judgment is that criminals aren't trustworthy, the Russian government isn't trustworthy, and Assange isn't either. We have stuff that went through at least two layers of probable liars before we saw it.
The Russians historically have been pretty good at this sort of deception, and would make sure there was a lot of correlation with reality to make whatever they may have slipped in plausible.
Similarly, Corney said there was no precedent for prosecuting Clinton over the mishandling of classified material, and I've read a lot of people saying that that proves he's corrupt, which is an ad hominem. It's done instead of presenting evidence. I've looked at evidence, and my conclusion is that Corney was speaking the truth. There's a lot of it going around.
Okay, please point out the parts of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) that specify how elections are to be conducted. It's all up to the states. You can point me at the Constitution or the Lord of the Rings; they say much the same things about the mechanics of US elections. Would you care to say something relevant about the role of money in politics over my lifetime (and a long time before)?
I read it carefully. He said that, when you're a star, you can grab women's pussies, and sure sounded like he was speaking from experience.
You have been maintaining that "they let him" means it wasn't sexual assault. I'm bringing up an extreme case where she "let him" do anything, to emphasize that "let him" doesn't mean there was no sexual assault. Threats can be explicit, as in the case I cited, or implicit, in the form of a powerful man known for being short-tempered and possibly vindictive.
The Republican base isn't with him; that's the Trump base of disaffected people. They tended to vote and caucus Republican, although there were enough of them supporting Sanders to give him more credibility. Lots of Republicans are going to vote for not-Clinton, and probably most of them will vote for Trump.
That's not what my efforts at finding the truth then came up with, and the Wikipedia article agrees with me. It would appear that you're delusional, and I hope you get over it.
I'm not rich, but I do have very good health insurance. I lucked out on that.
I'm capable of doing Internet research (although my wife's better), and I do look things up, but my regular doctor knows more than I do after I do the research, and he's the one doctor keeping track of everything that's wrong with me (I've seen specialists in three different things this year). He's the one who tells me what to do with my heart medicine before surgery, for example.
You can read the IPCC executive summary, if you like. The predictions are rated by how confident the scientists are with them, and you can see what they do predict.
Scientists make predictions with error bars, so looking at their "most likely" projections and expecting them to be dead on is stupid. Scientists also tend to make conservative predictions, and so things will wind up worse than expected more than better than expected.
The US spends an awful lot on government-supported health care, including Medicare, the VA system, Medicaid, etc. I don't know where the US is on the list of per-capita government spending on health care, but I'd suspect it's dismayingly high.
I'm 62, and have had some health problems, and I value my primary care doctor and my pharmacist. Eliminate them and I'm not going to be as healthy.
If someone apologizes and says he's changed, fine. I'm still going to be watching the guy until I see some positive change in his actions. It's easy to say things, particularly when you have Trump's regard for the truth. I'm forgiving (and have been thoroughly insulted on Facebook for it), but I'm not stupid.
Trump lost most of the Republican establishment that was still unhappily sticking with him. He doesn't have a ground game for his campaign any more. Clinton's campaign machinery is going to to a good job of getting her supporters out to vote, and that isn't going to happen with Trump.
I know someone who knew a rape victim. A man broke into her home and threatened to kill her baby if she didn't let him do whatever he wanted. I'm happy to know this wasn't sexual assault.
When a man is known to be vindictive and powerful, it can have much the same effect as an overt physical threat.
We know Bill Clinton is a jerk to women, but he hasn't admitted to committing sexual assault. Some of us also realize that he isn't running for any political office.
Open collusion with money to install a person of their choosing instead of the People's voice in a Democracy
What do you think is anything new or special about this? It's been happening all my life, and probably lifetimes before mine.
Grabbing a pussy, without consent, is a sex crime, at least in my state. Trump described a version of sexual assault reasonably well; what he didn't do is claim he did it to any individual woman. He did claim that he did it and got away with it.
"First moves", in my limited experience, are things like holding hands, putting an arm around her, hugging and kissing, etc. You know, things that aren't sex crimes. I'm not aware of any pickup guide that suggests just going for the genitals. If you think pussy-grabbing is a reasonable first move, I'd suggest that starting in other places would improve your dating life immensely, and give you reduced chances of being hit or spending time in jail.
The primaries were not rigged. The DNC supported Clinton's campaign against Sanders. There are many fewer superdelegates than elected/selected delegates, and Sanders could have won if he'd done a lot better than Clinton. Without some sort of establishment influence, we get candidates like Goldwater, McGovern, and Trump, so I'm fine with it. (The first Presidential election I voted in was in 1972. That left me with a strong desire never to have another McGovern.)
No halfway sentient being is upset that Trump used the word "pussy". What people object to is that grabbing a woman by the pussy without consent is sexual assault, which is a crime (last I looked at Minnesota statutes, it was "criminal sexual conduct in the sixth degree"). Trump was saying that he sexually assaults women and gets away with it. I completely fail to understand why anyone would think that this is about anything but sex crime.
Don't forget that the Republican Congress refused to allocate the money Clinton asked for for embassy security, and that four people dead in such attacks really isn't bad for her tenure as Secretary of State, if you look at the history (embassy or consulate work in most countries is somewhat high-risk). For whatever reason, 40% of the nation doesn't seem to care about these things.
Anyone in public life for long enough will have a trail of suspicious deaths that can be tied to them. As it happens, people die for all sorts of reasons, and if they're politically involved some people are likely to benefit from the deaths (Archduke Franz-Ferdinand in 1914 might be an exception here). Given enough people distantly involved with a politician, the list of helpful deaths will grow, if statistics tell us anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. If you're in a country legally, you aren't restricted to a particular area. If you're in a country, you can leave without permission from the country you're in. It says nothing about being able to enter any particular country, and therefore countries can restrict alien entry as they please.
C++ is perfectly usable as a better C. What generally annoys us is when people think that's all C++ is, or refer to "C/C++" as if they were very similar languages, or criticize C++ on the basis of pre-standard implementations or ignorance (criticizing it for having a difficult learning curve is fine; unlike criticizing it because you don't know it - although that's been at least 75% of language flame wars for as long as I've been in the internet).
To be specific, it doesn't have to bounds check your array accesses. It can if it decides to.
Stroustrup suggested considering a MyVector template that exchanges the operator[]() and .at() functions for safety.
More specifically, paid not to complain about the Google C++ style guide, which makes sense only for restricting C++ code to be safe for newbies. There's LOTS of languages that are better than Google C++ (including, of course, C++).
Trump hasn't had any ability to lie about things that Clinton said falsehoods about. (I'm not analyzing whether she knowingly lied about anything specific here, so draw your own conclusions. My research this campaign has been primarily about whether there was a precedent for prosecuting Clinton on negligence with classified materials, and there wasn't. There's too many claims for me to dig into all of them.) Given the amount Trump lies, I'd expect him to lie about any subject that came up, including national security.
If she hadn't resigned, and you referred to her at all, you'd be talking about her brazen attitude towards the leaks. I'm pretty darn sure that Clinton-haters would have spun anything she did.
IIRC, she became high up in Clinton's campaign, which doesn't suggest that she and Clinton considered it a disgrace.
In criminal investigations, there's a chain of custody. The prosecutor is ready to bring forth witnesses to show where every piece of evidence was found and what was done with it to establish that X was found at the scene of the crime, and it was the same X that was sent to the lab, and the same X that the tests were performed on, and so forth.
We have emails here that were extracted by criminals or a foreign government for political purposes, and they went to Assange who released them for political purposes. My judgment is that criminals aren't trustworthy, the Russian government isn't trustworthy, and Assange isn't either. We have stuff that went through at least two layers of probable liars before we saw it.
The Russians historically have been pretty good at this sort of deception, and would make sure there was a lot of correlation with reality to make whatever they may have slipped in plausible.
Similarly, Corney said there was no precedent for prosecuting Clinton over the mishandling of classified material, and I've read a lot of people saying that that proves he's corrupt, which is an ad hominem. It's done instead of presenting evidence. I've looked at evidence, and my conclusion is that Corney was speaking the truth. There's a lot of it going around.
Feel free to distrust the State Department, but putting blind faith in Wikileaks is dumb.
Okay, please point out the parts of the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) that specify how elections are to be conducted. It's all up to the states. You can point me at the Constitution or the Lord of the Rings; they say much the same things about the mechanics of US elections. Would you care to say something relevant about the role of money in politics over my lifetime (and a long time before)?
I read it carefully. He said that, when you're a star, you can grab women's pussies, and sure sounded like he was speaking from experience.
You have been maintaining that "they let him" means it wasn't sexual assault. I'm bringing up an extreme case where she "let him" do anything, to emphasize that "let him" doesn't mean there was no sexual assault. Threats can be explicit, as in the case I cited, or implicit, in the form of a powerful man known for being short-tempered and possibly vindictive.
The Republican base isn't with him; that's the Trump base of disaffected people. They tended to vote and caucus Republican, although there were enough of them supporting Sanders to give him more credibility. Lots of Republicans are going to vote for not-Clinton, and probably most of them will vote for Trump.
That's not what my efforts at finding the truth then came up with, and the Wikipedia article agrees with me. It would appear that you're delusional, and I hope you get over it.
I'm not rich, but I do have very good health insurance. I lucked out on that.
I'm capable of doing Internet research (although my wife's better), and I do look things up, but my regular doctor knows more than I do after I do the research, and he's the one doctor keeping track of everything that's wrong with me (I've seen specialists in three different things this year). He's the one who tells me what to do with my heart medicine before surgery, for example.
You can read the IPCC executive summary, if you like. The predictions are rated by how confident the scientists are with them, and you can see what they do predict.
Scientists make predictions with error bars, so looking at their "most likely" projections and expecting them to be dead on is stupid. Scientists also tend to make conservative predictions, and so things will wind up worse than expected more than better than expected.
The US spends an awful lot on government-supported health care, including Medicare, the VA system, Medicaid, etc. I don't know where the US is on the list of per-capita government spending on health care, but I'd suspect it's dismayingly high.
I'm 62, and have had some health problems, and I value my primary care doctor and my pharmacist. Eliminate them and I'm not going to be as healthy.
Both Clinton and Sanders are unusually truthful for politicians. It isn't a high bar, unfortunately.
Given what he started with, no, it's not enough. He'd have been better off investing in index funds.
In other words, you're accusing the left in general of Swift boating. Are you familiar with the history of that term?
If someone apologizes and says he's changed, fine. I'm still going to be watching the guy until I see some positive change in his actions. It's easy to say things, particularly when you have Trump's regard for the truth. I'm forgiving (and have been thoroughly insulted on Facebook for it), but I'm not stupid.
Trump lost most of the Republican establishment that was still unhappily sticking with him. He doesn't have a ground game for his campaign any more. Clinton's campaign machinery is going to to a good job of getting her supporters out to vote, and that isn't going to happen with Trump.
I know someone who knew a rape victim. A man broke into her home and threatened to kill her baby if she didn't let him do whatever he wanted. I'm happy to know this wasn't sexual assault.
When a man is known to be vindictive and powerful, it can have much the same effect as an overt physical threat.
We know Bill Clinton is a jerk to women, but he hasn't admitted to committing sexual assault. Some of us also realize that he isn't running for any political office.
What do you think is anything new or special about this? It's been happening all my life, and probably lifetimes before mine.
Given Trump's history with contractors, do you think he'd pay them? Treating a woman as a whore does include paying her.
Grabbing a pussy, without consent, is a sex crime, at least in my state. Trump described a version of sexual assault reasonably well; what he didn't do is claim he did it to any individual woman. He did claim that he did it and got away with it.
"First moves", in my limited experience, are things like holding hands, putting an arm around her, hugging and kissing, etc. You know, things that aren't sex crimes. I'm not aware of any pickup guide that suggests just going for the genitals. If you think pussy-grabbing is a reasonable first move, I'd suggest that starting in other places would improve your dating life immensely, and give you reduced chances of being hit or spending time in jail.
The primaries were not rigged. The DNC supported Clinton's campaign against Sanders. There are many fewer superdelegates than elected/selected delegates, and Sanders could have won if he'd done a lot better than Clinton. Without some sort of establishment influence, we get candidates like Goldwater, McGovern, and Trump, so I'm fine with it. (The first Presidential election I voted in was in 1972. That left me with a strong desire never to have another McGovern.)
No halfway sentient being is upset that Trump used the word "pussy". What people object to is that grabbing a woman by the pussy without consent is sexual assault, which is a crime (last I looked at Minnesota statutes, it was "criminal sexual conduct in the sixth degree"). Trump was saying that he sexually assaults women and gets away with it. I completely fail to understand why anyone would think that this is about anything but sex crime.
Don't forget that the Republican Congress refused to allocate the money Clinton asked for for embassy security, and that four people dead in such attacks really isn't bad for her tenure as Secretary of State, if you look at the history (embassy or consulate work in most countries is somewhat high-risk). For whatever reason, 40% of the nation doesn't seem to care about these things.
Anyone in public life for long enough will have a trail of suspicious deaths that can be tied to them. As it happens, people die for all sorts of reasons, and if they're politically involved some people are likely to benefit from the deaths (Archduke Franz-Ferdinand in 1914 might be an exception here). Given enough people distantly involved with a politician, the list of helpful deaths will grow, if statistics tell us anything.