How many people of the ruling class who didn't meet with Clinton donated? If they donated in the hope that it would help them with Clinton, did it? Fun fact: TARP was a Treasury Department program, while Clinton was Secretary of State. I wouldn't donate to the Clinton Foundation in a bid to make Treasury more friendly. If this is the quality of your evidence, I don't see any reason to dig further.
You seem to be against the Clinton foundation, but you say that their financial reports reveal no slush-funding or cronies on payroll. If you have evidence that the Foundation isn't what it purports to be, and which some organizations have said it is, this would be a good time to bring it up, since the evidence is prima facie that it is a charitable organization.
I'm not claiming that Trump violated any tax laws, but the fact that he hasn't made money, net, in decades suggests that he may not be nearly as good a businessman as he likes to pretend to be.
I also await details on what this "veritable landslide of damning criminal issues" might be. I'm aware of some minor lawbreaking that doesn't warrant criminal prosecution, and I"m certainly not happy about some of the things she's done, but so far nobody's told me about a damning criminal issue that didn't turn out to be wrong, unsupported, or greatly exaggerated. Go ahead and list a few of this landslide, and I'll show you why they aren't damning.
So you're saying that President Kerry would be good for the Russians? Clinton had not been Secretary of State for over a year when the Russians attacked Ukraine.
And, of course, you assume that Clinton and Trump are equal, so the Democrats have to be better at lying. I think that Clinton is a much better person than Trump (not a really high bar, I admit), and the Democrats don't have to be better at lying.
The people you cite intentionally violated the law about handling classified material, Clinton was negligent. That's the difference. If we're talking about the Marine I most recently read about, I found no evidence that he was facing criminal prosecution, but was losing his job, even though he intentionally violated the law (and had about as many classified documents on his personal systems as Clinton had on her server).
The dividing line seems to be negligent versus intentional mishandling, without much attention to what the individual claimed was the aim (except that that Marine might be getting favorable treatment from his intent). I don't know the law well enough to know whether this is a border between lesser and greater violations, or not illegal and illegal, but I do know that people who do what Clinton did don't get serious criminal prosecution.
I seem to remember Trump being investigated for fraud about Trump University, and there's currently a court case about his alleged rape of a 13-year-old. I have some reason to believe Trump committed crimes, although it's far from conclusive.
The FBI director is not in charge of prosecutions. He recommended against one because misconduct like Clinton's has never resulted in serious criminal prosecution (the closest I've seen is a misdemeanor charge, later dropped). Everyone calling for Clinton to be indicted and prosecuted is arguing for special treatment.
If Trump did not follow the law it would have been prosecuted and we would have a verdict.
So, you're admitting that Clinton followed the law reasonably well? Or is the "innocent until proven guilty" thing only applicable to Republicans?
The FBI found misconduct on Clinton's part, at a level that has never resulted in serious criminal prosecution. The Republican Congress spent years and millions of dollars in a desperate attempt to find something she did wrong about the Benghazi attack. The DNC is a partisan organization with no mandate to be strictly neutral. I supported Bernie to try to move the country to the left politically; I never had confidence that he'd be a better President than Hillary.
Calm down and start looking through the evidence for yourself, and you'll feel more like you're living here.
If the Republicans were honest assholes, they'd never win a statewide election again. Their policies are against the interests of most Republicans, and their anti-abortion stance would be really diluted if they admitted they don't actually want to end abortion since it makes such a lovely wedge issue so they can get more votes by pretending to be against abortion.
The last-mile providers in my area seem clueless about static IP addresses and IPv6. I don't want to pay extra for a business plan, when my current plan works so well for all the use I make of it.
Of course I can recognize logic when it hits me in the face. Try using it sometime. Start by trying to find support for your claims rather than just making them and pretending there's some rational basis for them.
The only specific you addressed is the uranium deal, and you got that thoroughly mixed up. Selling shares in a mining corporation to Russians was not a decision Clinton made by herself, but as part of a committee. That was back when we were trying to be nice to Russia in the hope of improving relations, which was a reasonable approach to try even if it didn't work.
No competition for insurance providers? In Minnesota, there's several companies offering policies through MNSure. I don't know why it's not working for you; did your state set up an exchange? I've got a very good plan myself, with no particular effort on my part. Health care costs were skyrocketing before. From where I sit, the ACA has been a considerable improvement, and lots more people have some sort of access to health care.
Diminishing health care plans and rapidly rising health care costs have been with us for years, ACA or no ACA. It sounds to me like your employer was cutting benefits costs, and may have been using the ACA as an excuse. Never trust a Fortune 500 company to be honest about why it's doing things.
Which prices have been going up far faster than inflation? What you pay for your plan? That could be skyrocketing while health care costs went up moderately if that's just what the plan costs minus what your employer pays.
Literally every other developed nation has universal health care. There's differences in how they do this, but they do, and they pay much less money (last I looked, German care was the most expensive, at about two-thirds of what US health care costs per capita), and often get significantly better results. Why do you reject the idea that the US can do something as well as other governments?
It was going to stay a minor accident. That's what the drivers were for. This is experimental technology, and it isn't an experiment if you already know the result. Uber is claiming that the technology is ready for real-world supervised testing, nothing more as yet.
They're claiming that the technology is ready to test under human supervision. Nobody's doing live tests of self-driving cars without human supervision yet (although that may not be true much longer).
It's not possible to navigate by map exclusively, so the car will have to have some sort of environmental sensors (preferably able to see large trucks), and will stop when the road ends.
Driving somewhere stupid because of GPS and map will remain a primarily human phenomenon.
Without some sort of external way of knowing good from bad, computers can't really learn what's good and what's bad. Without some indicator that going the wrong way on a one-way street is bad, the only hope the car would have would be to notice anomalous traffic (like oncoming traffic in all lanes), and people don't tend to turn the wrong way if there's enough traffic for them to notice.
In which case it's a good thing that possession of classified material is legal, since I keep listening to Presidential speeches and reading things the President said. I assume the White House Press Secretary is routinely indicted, tried, and put into prison for twenty years, although I really haven't seen the turnover in the job I'd expect, or the reluctance to take it.
I can't see politico.com through the wall here, and typing that name into Wikipedia is futile. Could you tell me what you're trying to say? It would help if you cited a more reliable-appearing source.
Nobody has been punished significantly more severely for doing what Clinton did with classified materials. I'm holding to that until somebody gives me something verifiable to contradict it, and for all the generalities and horror stories, nobody's given me the slightest shred of evidence.
The FBI's response was that they didn't like what she'd done, but that historically the response had been administrative, up to firing someone and revoking their clearance. As far as I've been able to tell, they're correct on that. The reason they didn't recommend indictment in Clinton's case is that it would have been especially harsh treatment for what she did.
The "few angry Republicans" and their stooges have been claiming all sorts of things about the Clintons that turn out to be non-events or far less significant than they first appear. Unfortunately, they've been so long and so loud that they've convinced a lot of people that they needn't look at the facts and the evidence. (They've convinced me that any anti-Clinton claims are probably made up or really exaggerated, but that's me.)
Weakness doesn't provoke the likely opponent to additional military spending, but strength can. It's possible to do some primitive mathematical modeling of trade relations and military rivalry between countries, and predict whether an arms race is stable or not. As long as it's stable, it's just expensive but not otherwise dangerous. When it gets unstable, one side is likely to think that war is it's last chance to rectify the balance. It's happened before. One reason for the German role in starting WWI was that Germany was losing its perceived military superiority. I can make a case that Hitler's attack on Poland was similar, but it's not as strong.
You can understand relations of great powers to minor powers in party as bullying. It doesn't work for relations between great powers.
Slashdot Mirror
How many people of the ruling class who didn't meet with Clinton donated? If they donated in the hope that it would help them with Clinton, did it? Fun fact: TARP was a Treasury Department program, while Clinton was Secretary of State. I wouldn't donate to the Clinton Foundation in a bid to make Treasury more friendly. If this is the quality of your evidence, I don't see any reason to dig further.
You seem to be against the Clinton foundation, but you say that their financial reports reveal no slush-funding or cronies on payroll. If you have evidence that the Foundation isn't what it purports to be, and which some organizations have said it is, this would be a good time to bring it up, since the evidence is prima facie that it is a charitable organization.
It used to, anyway. Assange pretty much destroyed it.
I'm not claiming that Trump violated any tax laws, but the fact that he hasn't made money, net, in decades suggests that he may not be nearly as good a businessman as he likes to pretend to be.
I also await details on what this "veritable landslide of damning criminal issues" might be. I'm aware of some minor lawbreaking that doesn't warrant criminal prosecution, and I"m certainly not happy about some of the things she's done, but so far nobody's told me about a damning criminal issue that didn't turn out to be wrong, unsupported, or greatly exaggerated. Go ahead and list a few of this landslide, and I'll show you why they aren't damning.
So you're saying that President Kerry would be good for the Russians? Clinton had not been Secretary of State for over a year when the Russians attacked Ukraine.
And, of course, you assume that Clinton and Trump are equal, so the Democrats have to be better at lying. I think that Clinton is a much better person than Trump (not a really high bar, I admit), and the Democrats don't have to be better at lying.
So you agree that Clinton is not guilty of anything serious, since she hasn't been caught?
The people you cite intentionally violated the law about handling classified material, Clinton was negligent. That's the difference. If we're talking about the Marine I most recently read about, I found no evidence that he was facing criminal prosecution, but was losing his job, even though he intentionally violated the law (and had about as many classified documents on his personal systems as Clinton had on her server).
The dividing line seems to be negligent versus intentional mishandling, without much attention to what the individual claimed was the aim (except that that Marine might be getting favorable treatment from his intent). I don't know the law well enough to know whether this is a border between lesser and greater violations, or not illegal and illegal, but I do know that people who do what Clinton did don't get serious criminal prosecution.
I seem to remember Trump being investigated for fraud about Trump University, and there's currently a court case about his alleged rape of a 13-year-old. I have some reason to believe Trump committed crimes, although it's far from conclusive.
The FBI director is not in charge of prosecutions. He recommended against one because misconduct like Clinton's has never resulted in serious criminal prosecution (the closest I've seen is a misdemeanor charge, later dropped). Everyone calling for Clinton to be indicted and prosecuted is arguing for special treatment.
So, you're admitting that Clinton followed the law reasonably well? Or is the "innocent until proven guilty" thing only applicable to Republicans?
The FBI found misconduct on Clinton's part, at a level that has never resulted in serious criminal prosecution. The Republican Congress spent years and millions of dollars in a desperate attempt to find something she did wrong about the Benghazi attack. The DNC is a partisan organization with no mandate to be strictly neutral. I supported Bernie to try to move the country to the left politically; I never had confidence that he'd be a better President than Hillary.
Calm down and start looking through the evidence for yourself, and you'll feel more like you're living here.
If the Republicans were honest assholes, they'd never win a statewide election again. Their policies are against the interests of most Republicans, and their anti-abortion stance would be really diluted if they admitted they don't actually want to end abortion since it makes such a lovely wedge issue so they can get more votes by pretending to be against abortion.
The last-mile providers in my area seem clueless about static IP addresses and IPv6. I don't want to pay extra for a business plan, when my current plan works so well for all the use I make of it.
Of course I can recognize logic when it hits me in the face. Try using it sometime. Start by trying to find support for your claims rather than just making them and pretending there's some rational basis for them.
The only specific you addressed is the uranium deal, and you got that thoroughly mixed up. Selling shares in a mining corporation to Russians was not a decision Clinton made by herself, but as part of a committee. That was back when we were trying to be nice to Russia in the hope of improving relations, which was a reasonable approach to try even if it didn't work.
She still could have had it addressed here in the US, at a price. US health care doesn't refuse foreigners who can pay.
No competition for insurance providers? In Minnesota, there's several companies offering policies through MNSure. I don't know why it's not working for you; did your state set up an exchange? I've got a very good plan myself, with no particular effort on my part. Health care costs were skyrocketing before. From where I sit, the ACA has been a considerable improvement, and lots more people have some sort of access to health care.
Diminishing health care plans and rapidly rising health care costs have been with us for years, ACA or no ACA. It sounds to me like your employer was cutting benefits costs, and may have been using the ACA as an excuse. Never trust a Fortune 500 company to be honest about why it's doing things.
Which prices have been going up far faster than inflation? What you pay for your plan? That could be skyrocketing while health care costs went up moderately if that's just what the plan costs minus what your employer pays.
Why do you despise America?
Literally every other developed nation has universal health care. There's differences in how they do this, but they do, and they pay much less money (last I looked, German care was the most expensive, at about two-thirds of what US health care costs per capita), and often get significantly better results. Why do you reject the idea that the US can do something as well as other governments?
It was going to stay a minor accident. That's what the drivers were for. This is experimental technology, and it isn't an experiment if you already know the result. Uber is claiming that the technology is ready for real-world supervised testing, nothing more as yet.
They're claiming that the technology is ready to test under human supervision. Nobody's doing live tests of self-driving cars without human supervision yet (although that may not be true much longer).
It's not possible to navigate by map exclusively, so the car will have to have some sort of environmental sensors (preferably able to see large trucks), and will stop when the road ends.
Driving somewhere stupid because of GPS and map will remain a primarily human phenomenon.
Without some sort of external way of knowing good from bad, computers can't really learn what's good and what's bad. Without some indicator that going the wrong way on a one-way street is bad, the only hope the car would have would be to notice anomalous traffic (like oncoming traffic in all lanes), and people don't tend to turn the wrong way if there's enough traffic for them to notice.
In which case it's a good thing that possession of classified material is legal, since I keep listening to Presidential speeches and reading things the President said. I assume the White House Press Secretary is routinely indicted, tried, and put into prison for twenty years, although I really haven't seen the turnover in the job I'd expect, or the reluctance to take it.
I can't see politico.com through the wall here, and typing that name into Wikipedia is futile. Could you tell me what you're trying to say? It would help if you cited a more reliable-appearing source.
Nobody has been punished significantly more severely for doing what Clinton did with classified materials. I'm holding to that until somebody gives me something verifiable to contradict it, and for all the generalities and horror stories, nobody's given me the slightest shred of evidence.
The FBI's response was that they didn't like what she'd done, but that historically the response had been administrative, up to firing someone and revoking their clearance. As far as I've been able to tell, they're correct on that. The reason they didn't recommend indictment in Clinton's case is that it would have been especially harsh treatment for what she did.
The "few angry Republicans" and their stooges have been claiming all sorts of things about the Clintons that turn out to be non-events or far less significant than they first appear. Unfortunately, they've been so long and so loud that they've convinced a lot of people that they needn't look at the facts and the evidence. (They've convinced me that any anti-Clinton claims are probably made up or really exaggerated, but that's me.)
Weakness doesn't provoke the likely opponent to additional military spending, but strength can. It's possible to do some primitive mathematical modeling of trade relations and military rivalry between countries, and predict whether an arms race is stable or not. As long as it's stable, it's just expensive but not otherwise dangerous. When it gets unstable, one side is likely to think that war is it's last chance to rectify the balance. It's happened before. One reason for the German role in starting WWI was that Germany was losing its perceived military superiority. I can make a case that Hitler's attack on Poland was similar, but it's not as strong.
You can understand relations of great powers to minor powers in party as bullying. It doesn't work for relations between great powers.