Manning is filing for candidacy for a Senate seat as a Democrat. That hardly qualifies as the Democrats running a traitor for the Senate. Anyone who satisfies a few basic requirements can run.
I don't know of anyone going to jail for what she did. I've looked. If you have an example, please post. Specifically, find someone who unintentionally leaked classified materials and served time. I'd be interested to find out.
I have no idea why you think it was deliberate mishandling, since there's no motive. I do agree that it was a highly partisan investigation, Comey marking himself as virulently anti-Clinton by his sorta-leak in October 2016.
Giving people free license to release and distribute classified materials because they think it's the right thing to release some of it is not a good idea.
Why should the US have such laws? Let the voters decide. I'd be dubious of voting for someone convicted of a serious crime, personally, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. It would be a significant campaign issue.
I don't think I ever said she was fit to serve. Fitness for service is not a requirement to run in an election (or be elected, for that matter).
It's been a while, but IIRC lots of her supporters don't really know what a war crime is. War is an ugly business, and there's a lot of horrible things that aren't war crimes, but rather are what war demands. (Obviously, there were war crimes in Iraq, possibly including waging aggressive war, but that's not what we're talking about.) We already knew about corruption.
Because other people try to mess their lives up. Seriously, I don't care about a person's genetic makeup of the details of their physiology. That's their business. The whole reason this is even a political thing is right-wingers using it as an edge issue.
Out of all those arrests, approximately 965 were fatally shot. Of those, 564 were armed with a gun, 281 had a weapon of some kind, only 90 were unarmed and essentially all of them were attacking officers, resisting arrest or felony attempting to flee.
These figures seem awfully precise, considering that there is no central registry, and researchers have to search newspaper files to find out how many people the police kill. 564 were reported to have a gun. I don't know how many of these cases were when an officer dropped a gun next to the dead person, but I do know that can happen. "Essentially all" is not very useful; we know that police have shot people who were not presenting a threat. While anyone actually attacking an officer is a valid target, resisting arrest and attempting to flee are not capital crimes, and don't present a direct threat to the police. You really want a police state, don't you?
OTOH, there have only been about 54 unjustified police killings in the last 10 years
Okay, who's counting, and are they counting all the cases? Who's classifying them as justified or unjustified, and on what criteria?
What you're saying is that lots fewer people in the EU leave their home armed, not that lots fewer people in the EU have guns in their house (although that's likely true also). This is a raid on somebody's home.
Odd thing about that default...if you had $100 in 1932, and you stuck in your sock drawer until 1934, they had roughly the same purchasing power. You'd almost think the US hadn't defaulted.
The strings of 1s and 0s in my bank account mean that I have control of a certain number of US dollars. These are valuable in that I have to have them to pay taxes and government fees and (potentially) court judgments. Moreover, everyone in the country is required to do basic accounting in US dollars, which makes it a very convenient currency to use around here. The US government has a vested interest in not letting the currency collapse, because that would allow me to pay taxes and government fees with worthless money.
There's also some of us stock market amateurs who have some of our money in index funds and some specifically in companies we think likely to do well long-term. I do, in fact, believe in get-rich-quick schemes, and their potential to make somebody else rich at their suckers' expense. I have no faith in my ability to come out on top in such a scheme.
Commodities are useful. When the wheat futures stop, somebody's got a lot of wheat, which can be sold as is or processed. Bitcoins aren't in themselves useful. They've pretty much lost their currency value.
The last administration started in a horrible economy, and worked hard and successfully at reducing the deficit. Now, Republicans are adding to the deficit, as they usually do, and running up debts as long as the economy stays good - and far faster when it goes bad, as it did at the end of Bush's term. Deficits go down under Democratic Presidents, and up under Republicans.
By Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder, I take it you mean the Trump supporters who, when they face a challenge to their Leader, campaign against Hilllary Clinton or Obama like they were contending for the Presidency as they speak.
The US of fifty years ago wasn't an immediate melting pot, where you throw a Hmong family in the pot and scoop out an American family. It's always taken a couple of generations, maybe more, to turn people from X through people born in the US from X parents, into typical Americans.
Actually, we are in something of a post-scarcity environment. We can feed the world. Anyone who goes hungry does so because of political or social-economic factors, not because we don't produce enough food. The cost of a high-quality sword in a 1300s style is far, far less than the cost of a worse sword in the 1300s. We spend lots of our money on stuff that just didn't exist a couple of centuries ago.
It really wouldn't cost much to keep people in a reasonably healthy lifestyle similar to what they'd have in 1818, or even 1925 (moving the year to avoid post-WWI economic problems). We could afford to do that, no problem.
Now, if we jump to 2218, we find that the fusion reactors need people to tend them, there's a shortage of engineers to work on the teleportation system, and it's expensive to make a really good matter replicator. By your reasoning, it isn't a post-scarcity economy, and we shouldn't try a UBI to keep people living in, say, the style of 2018.
You realize that, by not contributing to having and raising children, you're being a leech on society, right? You're betting your future that other people will spend their money on something you're going to desperately need when you get older.
In other words, if someone makes a design decision you don't like, anyone working on it may as well be idle. That doesn't sound like a scalable definition.
Apple designed iPhones so they'd sell. There's competition. If everyone wanted easily replaceable batteries, then people would only by Android phones with such batteries, and they don't. Lots of people want to buy what Apple offers.
There's also competition among car manufacturers. If most people wanted to keep their cars for twenty years, some manufacturer could design cars to last and advertise that to get people to buy their cars.
Cheap stuff from China is manufactured and sent here because it sells to people. People buy it. Now, retailers can make bad decisions about how much to stock, but if they keep making bad decisions they'll wind up out of business, undercut by retailers that are better at keeping costs down.
So many of your examples are cases where someone makes something because someone else wants it, but you disapprove.
There's currently no drive that I've seen to make the UBI into a really comfortable living. I don't want to have to live on any amount I've seen proposed, which is why I would continue to work for a living and stick to what appear to be good plans for retirement.
What this would do is make the labor market more free by removing the necessity of earning money to survive. Anyone wanting to hire someone to do an arduous, unpleasant, or dangerous job would have to pay enough to lure workers, not just count on desperation. If lithium mining were unpleasant and dangerous, lithium miners would be well paid. If this raised the cost of lithium inconveniently high, well, that's the free market at work.
Home computers you could just buy, take home, plug in, and use appeared in 1977. There were home computers before then, but they needed more expertise to assemble, and appealed more to hardware types. (I read a review at the time that said that a certain kit was very easy because the reviewer only needed to use his oscilloscope once.)
Slashdot Mirror
Manning is filing for candidacy for a Senate seat as a Democrat. That hardly qualifies as the Democrats running a traitor for the Senate. Anyone who satisfies a few basic requirements can run.
I'll take her character over Trump's any day.
I don't know of anyone going to jail for what she did. I've looked. If you have an example, please post. Specifically, find someone who unintentionally leaked classified materials and served time. I'd be interested to find out.
I have no idea why you think it was deliberate mishandling, since there's no motive. I do agree that it was a highly partisan investigation, Comey marking himself as virulently anti-Clinton by his sorta-leak in October 2016.
Giving people free license to release and distribute classified materials because they think it's the right thing to release some of it is not a good idea.
Why should the US have such laws? Let the voters decide. I'd be dubious of voting for someone convicted of a serious crime, personally, but I wouldn't rule it out entirely. It would be a significant campaign issue.
I don't think I ever said she was fit to serve. Fitness for service is not a requirement to run in an election (or be elected, for that matter).
It's been a while, but IIRC lots of her supporters don't really know what a war crime is. War is an ugly business, and there's a lot of horrible things that aren't war crimes, but rather are what war demands. (Obviously, there were war crimes in Iraq, possibly including waging aggressive war, but that's not what we're talking about.) We already knew about corruption.
Because other people try to mess their lives up. Seriously, I don't care about a person's genetic makeup of the details of their physiology. That's their business. The whole reason this is even a political thing is right-wingers using it as an edge issue.
Sure. It's a mind in a body of the wrong sex. That's a disorder, all right.
These figures seem awfully precise, considering that there is no central registry, and researchers have to search newspaper files to find out how many people the police kill. 564 were reported to have a gun. I don't know how many of these cases were when an officer dropped a gun next to the dead person, but I do know that can happen. "Essentially all" is not very useful; we know that police have shot people who were not presenting a threat. While anyone actually attacking an officer is a valid target, resisting arrest and attempting to flee are not capital crimes, and don't present a direct threat to the police. You really want a police state, don't you?
Okay, who's counting, and are they counting all the cases? Who's classifying them as justified or unjustified, and on what criteria?
What you're saying is that lots fewer people in the EU leave their home armed, not that lots fewer people in the EU have guns in their house (although that's likely true also). This is a raid on somebody's home.
Odd thing about that default...if you had $100 in 1932, and you stuck in your sock drawer until 1934, they had roughly the same purchasing power. You'd almost think the US hadn't defaulted.
The strings of 1s and 0s in my bank account mean that I have control of a certain number of US dollars. These are valuable in that I have to have them to pay taxes and government fees and (potentially) court judgments. Moreover, everyone in the country is required to do basic accounting in US dollars, which makes it a very convenient currency to use around here. The US government has a vested interest in not letting the currency collapse, because that would allow me to pay taxes and government fees with worthless money.
There's also some of us stock market amateurs who have some of our money in index funds and some specifically in companies we think likely to do well long-term. I do, in fact, believe in get-rich-quick schemes, and their potential to make somebody else rich at their suckers' expense. I have no faith in my ability to come out on top in such a scheme.
Yup. A tulip bulb has intrinsic value. A Bitcoin doesn't.
Commodities are useful. When the wheat futures stop, somebody's got a lot of wheat, which can be sold as is or processed. Bitcoins aren't in themselves useful. They've pretty much lost their currency value.
Deficits went down under Clinton, up under Bush, down under Obama, and look to be going up again with Trump.
Sure we know why. It's because the cuts were primarily for the ultra-rich, and will swell the deficit like Republicans normally do.
The last administration started in a horrible economy, and worked hard and successfully at reducing the deficit. Now, Republicans are adding to the deficit, as they usually do, and running up debts as long as the economy stays good - and far faster when it goes bad, as it did at the end of Bush's term. Deficits go down under Democratic Presidents, and up under Republicans.
By Trump Acceptance Resistance Disorder, I take it you mean the Trump supporters who, when they face a challenge to their Leader, campaign against Hilllary Clinton or Obama like they were contending for the Presidency as they speak.
The US of fifty years ago wasn't an immediate melting pot, where you throw a Hmong family in the pot and scoop out an American family. It's always taken a couple of generations, maybe more, to turn people from X through people born in the US from X parents, into typical Americans.
Actually, we are in something of a post-scarcity environment. We can feed the world. Anyone who goes hungry does so because of political or social-economic factors, not because we don't produce enough food. The cost of a high-quality sword in a 1300s style is far, far less than the cost of a worse sword in the 1300s. We spend lots of our money on stuff that just didn't exist a couple of centuries ago.
It really wouldn't cost much to keep people in a reasonably healthy lifestyle similar to what they'd have in 1818, or even 1925 (moving the year to avoid post-WWI economic problems). We could afford to do that, no problem.
Now, if we jump to 2218, we find that the fusion reactors need people to tend them, there's a shortage of engineers to work on the teleportation system, and it's expensive to make a really good matter replicator. By your reasoning, it isn't a post-scarcity economy, and we shouldn't try a UBI to keep people living in, say, the style of 2018.
You realize that, by not contributing to having and raising children, you're being a leech on society, right? You're betting your future that other people will spend their money on something you're going to desperately need when you get older.
In other words, if someone makes a design decision you don't like, anyone working on it may as well be idle. That doesn't sound like a scalable definition.
Apple designed iPhones so they'd sell. There's competition. If everyone wanted easily replaceable batteries, then people would only by Android phones with such batteries, and they don't. Lots of people want to buy what Apple offers.
There's also competition among car manufacturers. If most people wanted to keep their cars for twenty years, some manufacturer could design cars to last and advertise that to get people to buy their cars.
Cheap stuff from China is manufactured and sent here because it sells to people. People buy it. Now, retailers can make bad decisions about how much to stock, but if they keep making bad decisions they'll wind up out of business, undercut by retailers that are better at keeping costs down.
So many of your examples are cases where someone makes something because someone else wants it, but you disapprove.
There's currently no drive that I've seen to make the UBI into a really comfortable living. I don't want to have to live on any amount I've seen proposed, which is why I would continue to work for a living and stick to what appear to be good plans for retirement.
What this would do is make the labor market more free by removing the necessity of earning money to survive. Anyone wanting to hire someone to do an arduous, unpleasant, or dangerous job would have to pay enough to lure workers, not just count on desperation. If lithium mining were unpleasant and dangerous, lithium miners would be well paid. If this raised the cost of lithium inconveniently high, well, that's the free market at work.
Home computers you could just buy, take home, plug in, and use appeared in 1977. There were home computers before then, but they needed more expertise to assemble, and appealed more to hardware types. (I read a review at the time that said that a certain kit was very easy because the reviewer only needed to use his oscilloscope once.)