There's still people out there that believe Trump is making himself look foolish as some sort of 4d chess instead of the much better explanation that he is genuinely ignorant? Sad!
Sorry, just because something makes Trump look stupid doesn't mean it's biased against him. That he lacks basic knowledge on a wide range of issues is simply a fact, and a very big problem considering his job. Surprised you didn't go with "fake news"... is it because Trump himself admitted that what he calls 'fake news' is simply anything that portrays him in a negative light?
and on and on and on, just from the first page of my links search. I'll leave finding the hundreds of stories about white people stopped in black "drug areas" as an exercise, it's not much harder to find as many as you want to know it's a problem too.
So how many have to experience this before it's a problem?
You don't understand how stopping someone because they don't match the predominant skin color in the area is profiling? "Profiling" doesn't exclusively refer to one race.
Except that *is* the point, that you and others think it's cherry picking isolated incidents. Big old blind spot for a certain type of police abuse. But go ahead, keep modding me flamebait, it's not going to make it any less true.
Don't forget alerts for more heinous crimes against children... child-was-microaggressed, child-was-misgendered, and child-heard-mean-words or god forbid child-heard-unpopular-opinion. We have get the child to a safe space right away and get that evil adult.
Well it's hard to ignore the countless voices of black people who have talked about being stopped for no reason in white neighborhoods, do you think they're all lying or something?
I do however have experience with the other side, being stopped by police asking what I'm doing for walking around certain parts of the Bronx late at night. Had a friend there in a bad neighborhood (an actual friend, I wasn't doing anything illegal), and was stopped more than once in between her apartment and the subway station.
Well that settles then, I for one totally trust that they would never intentionally (or even unintentionally) claim something was intentional instead of inadvertent.
So on one side, you have the tiny probability of some negative outcome like a tiny risk of cancer increase (if it wasn't tiny, it would show up after a couple years) or a 'comet-wipes-out-life' level of unlikely for something that would be at best moderately disruptive.
Then on the other, you have a 100% probability of continuing massive food waste contributing to hunger, disease, inefficiency, higher costs...
And you want to make the argument that the latter is preferable? Ok.
2/3rds of people in the US live in an area where customs/border patrol/INS can do that, and set up 'papers, please' checkpoints, because of the ridiculous ruling that the 'border exception' applied anywhere within 100 miles of a border (which includes the coast, and apparently international airports). That anyone can make an argument the Supreme Court doesn't wipe their ass with the Bill of Rights every time law enforcement cries about criminals is astounding.
A lot of places the police consider walking around late at night suspicious enough to stop and ask for ID, and you should know how these things go by now, if you refuse they'll come up with some 'articulated suspicion', especially in the half of states with stop-and-identify laws, that will force you to ID yourself. Anyone who says there's no 'papers, please' is likely privilege enough to e.g. never had to be walking around suburbs at night, or in an area where they have the wrong skin color (black in a white area, *and* white in a black area-- the blacks are committing some crime, and the white guys are buying drugs, until you satisfy the bigot with a badge otherwise).
People also have the right to take pictures in public, which would be impossible if you couldn't include private property in your shot. If you're that concerned, there are other options... park your car such that your plate can't be seen without trespassing on your property, or cover your plate up every time you park at home and take it off again before leaving. Or if you're really extreme unscrew the plates and take them inside with you. The latter two options there are some places with local ordinances against, so check first.
I don't know if he's innocent in or not, the point was that there's ample grounds for the investigation to take place.
Looking into the wrong person in one high profile case with intense pressure to find someone is hardly grounds to suggest he's any less competent than any other prosecutor. Don't put words in my mouth either please, I have never expressed any sentiment that would indicate I think Mueller is 'unimpeachable, honorable'; I would never describe any prosecutor in that manner. On those measures he's done nothing either way to stand out from any other person they may have assigned to this.
The problem with the memo you're talking about is that Trump specifically implied it was for other reasons, and whether the creation of the memo was directed is an open question. You once again then put words in my mouth presuming I'm some ideologically inconsistent SJW-- as a matter of fact, I *do* think a mayor warning immigrants of an ICE raid is obstruction of justice.
Kerry negotiating to save the Iran deal on the other hand has exactly what connection to impeding a law enforcement investigation into a breach of US criminal law? That makes no sense.
Again he's absolutely innocent until proven guilty as a matter of law, and I haven't even expressed a personal opinion on the question of whether Trump knew and approved. But we're talking about whether there's enough evidence to conduct an investigation, and there absolutely is. Whether that will turn up enough to convict is an open question, but if you look at all the events that sparked the investigation and can conclude it's not enough to even investigate? That's nothing but desiring to protect a politician you love.
While I too doubt there was personal contact between Trump and Putin (but never heard anything to suggest that's what Mueller was specifically looking for, but rather operatives of his campaign working with operatives representing Russia, of which he might have approved or had knowledge of), the fact is we have no idea what evidence the investigation has/will turn up. All you Trumpsters have this preordained conclusion where despite all the smoke, you insist since we can't see the fire, the absolutely is none and the investigation into the matter should just be shut down before it looks. Further, there's other components of the investigation, like obstruction. The underlying crime doesn't even need to have occurred, and busting people for that alone is routine criminal procedure, not some loophole they just made up specifically to nail Trump.
And yet another angle is that Trump and his sons have explicitly stated they've borrowed large amounts from Russian banks, which could potentially give them significant leverage over our President on one end, and probably involves laundering on the other. These are critical to investigate.
Not that any of this will matter to you, no matter what is presented when Mueller actually reveals his findings, you'll still think he's innocent, it's a witch hunt, Trump Did No Wrong, it's all a partisan hit job, and on and on to protect your boy.
The judge in that case, who's married to vocal MeToo activist but thinks that's not a conflict, was incredibly biased and made rulings that are almost certainly going to get the case overturned on appeal. The parade of women not a party to the case, an "expert witness" telling the jury that inconsistencies and inaccuracies in a womans story are proof she's telling the truth (it's also proof if there are none of those), her waiting to bring the claim is proof she's telling the truth (doesn't matter if it's right away or decades later, it's always evidence of credibility), if she stays friends with him after it's proof, if she doesn't it's proof, and on and on about why everything that seems to impugn credibility actually bolsters it, all based on ridiculous "research" by gender studies professors with no grounding in objective fact. Admitting that as expert was a mockery of Daubert. At the peak of the MeToo movement the jury had 'ignore the facts, believe the victim' drilled into them with the full blessing of the judge; there's a reason the last jury deadlocked and this one didn't.
Look, I think Cosby was guilty, did similar to lots of other women, and is generally a bad person. But that doesn't justify denying him due process. And the precedents are going to be used in the future against people who are likely not guilty.
Arbitrators are hired by the company. They're allegedly neutral, but do you honestly think one who rules against the company too often will continue to be called? As bad a regular courts are, mandatory arbitration isn't reasonable. I hope you were complaining about court costs for the customer and not the corporation, to which I'd say give them the option... allow the customer to choose arbitration if they so wish, but do not make it mandatory.
Well there's plenty of things that are clearly unconstitutional but SCOTUS pretends otherwise because too many people (well, people that matter) would be upset about it. See: Commerce clause allows police to arrest you for plant grown on own land for personal use legally under state law; a dog trained to please its master 'alerting' is a reasonable grounds for search; the entire war on drugs in general; civil asset forfeiture; permanently revoking from a free person a civil right granted in the Bill of Rights simply as a punishment; a border exception to the 4th that covers 2/3rds of all Americans; NSA spying on US citizens without a warrant in bulk; measuring if it's a 'speedy trial' in years; Sex Offender Registries are regulatory and not a punishment... need I go on? They won't risk pissing off every big company in the country no matter how severe the contortions they have to make to lie about it being constitutional like they do with those other things.
But he's not negotiating through strength, he's negotiating from a position of lunatic-with-weapon. So the question is 'is this guy crazy enough to pull the trigger and hurt the hostage, knowing that the police will then open fire on him?'. It might work as they appease you until they find another way to neutralize the threat, but it seriously undermines everyones willingness to deal with the guy in the future.
Your DACA comment is extremely disingenuous for 2 reasons. First, all his calls for Congress to do something for them come with unacceptable demands, that he likely knows are unacceptable, which allows him to pretend he's not against the program, and to fool people like you into thinking the Democrats are blocking it for reasons other than the attached conditions. And two, after everything he's done in his life, and all the executive actions he's taken, you're out of your mind if you think Trump gives the tiniest shit about the legality of the order.
Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for party-line propaganda so hard?
Plenty of sane people do b), just like lots of parents explain to their toddler that it's quiet time now; with about the same results... they might from time to time listen, and don't have any real comprehension of the reasons behind it.
If a member of the Democratic candidates team has such extensively documented ties to a hostile foreign power as Page did, I for one would absolutely support that person being investigated as well (they went after Carter Page specifically during the campaign, not "the Trump Campaign". Trumps phone wasn't tapped).
Just tell rich people that the eggs of the ultra-rare Europan Sturgeon in the subsurface oceans are a delicacy so rare and delectable that Earth caviar is plebeian trash they should be embarassed to be seen eating. Then bam, forget a simple landing, we'll have the funding to drill down right into that thing.
Slashdot Mirror
There's still people out there that believe Trump is making himself look foolish as some sort of 4d chess instead of the much better explanation that he is genuinely ignorant? Sad!
Sorry, just because something makes Trump look stupid doesn't mean it's biased against him. That he lacks basic knowledge on a wide range of issues is simply a fact, and a very big problem considering his job. Surprised you didn't go with "fake news"... is it because Trump himself admitted that what he calls 'fake news' is simply anything that portrays him in a negative light?
https://slate.com/news-and-pol...
https://whyy.org/segments/blac...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
https://www.bitchmedia.org/art...
and on and on and on, just from the first page of my links search. I'll leave finding the hundreds of stories about white people stopped in black "drug areas" as an exercise, it's not much harder to find as many as you want to know it's a problem too.
So how many have to experience this before it's a problem?
You don't understand how stopping someone because they don't match the predominant skin color in the area is profiling? "Profiling" doesn't exclusively refer to one race.
Except that *is* the point, that you and others think it's cherry picking isolated incidents. Big old blind spot for a certain type of police abuse. But go ahead, keep modding me flamebait, it's not going to make it any less true.
Don't forget alerts for more heinous crimes against children... child-was-microaggressed, child-was-misgendered, and child-heard-mean-words or god forbid child-heard-unpopular-opinion. We have get the child to a safe space right away and get that evil adult.
Well it's hard to ignore the countless voices of black people who have talked about being stopped for no reason in white neighborhoods, do you think they're all lying or something?
I do however have experience with the other side, being stopped by police asking what I'm doing for walking around certain parts of the Bronx late at night. Had a friend there in a bad neighborhood (an actual friend, I wasn't doing anything illegal), and was stopped more than once in between her apartment and the subway station.
lol that someone thinks that's Flamebait really drives my point home. Sorry if that upsets you, but that's the reality out there.
Well that settles then, I for one totally trust that they would never intentionally (or even unintentionally) claim something was intentional instead of inadvertent.
It is kinda annoying that he manually types it in so that those of us with sigs disabled still see it.
Uh, the first sentence of that article is "As of 2015, no GM wheat is grown commercially, although many field tests have been conducted."
Are you suggesting he was eating test bread he got from the researchers?
So on one side, you have the tiny probability of some negative outcome like a tiny risk of cancer increase (if it wasn't tiny, it would show up after a couple years) or a 'comet-wipes-out-life' level of unlikely for something that would be at best moderately disruptive.
Then on the other, you have a 100% probability of continuing massive food waste contributing to hunger, disease, inefficiency, higher costs...
And you want to make the argument that the latter is preferable? Ok.
2/3rds of people in the US live in an area where customs/border patrol/INS can do that, and set up 'papers, please' checkpoints, because of the ridiculous ruling that the 'border exception' applied anywhere within 100 miles of a border (which includes the coast, and apparently international airports). That anyone can make an argument the Supreme Court doesn't wipe their ass with the Bill of Rights every time law enforcement cries about criminals is astounding.
A lot of places the police consider walking around late at night suspicious enough to stop and ask for ID, and you should know how these things go by now, if you refuse they'll come up with some 'articulated suspicion', especially in the half of states with stop-and-identify laws, that will force you to ID yourself. Anyone who says there's no 'papers, please' is likely privilege enough to e.g. never had to be walking around suburbs at night, or in an area where they have the wrong skin color (black in a white area, *and* white in a black area-- the blacks are committing some crime, and the white guys are buying drugs, until you satisfy the bigot with a badge otherwise).
People also have the right to take pictures in public, which would be impossible if you couldn't include private property in your shot. If you're that concerned, there are other options... park your car such that your plate can't be seen without trespassing on your property, or cover your plate up every time you park at home and take it off again before leaving. Or if you're really extreme unscrew the plates and take them inside with you. The latter two options there are some places with local ordinances against, so check first.
I don't know if he's innocent in or not, the point was that there's ample grounds for the investigation to take place.
Looking into the wrong person in one high profile case with intense pressure to find someone is hardly grounds to suggest he's any less competent than any other prosecutor. Don't put words in my mouth either please, I have never expressed any sentiment that would indicate I think Mueller is 'unimpeachable, honorable'; I would never describe any prosecutor in that manner. On those measures he's done nothing either way to stand out from any other person they may have assigned to this.
The problem with the memo you're talking about is that Trump specifically implied it was for other reasons, and whether the creation of the memo was directed is an open question. You once again then put words in my mouth presuming I'm some ideologically inconsistent SJW-- as a matter of fact, I *do* think a mayor warning immigrants of an ICE raid is obstruction of justice.
Kerry negotiating to save the Iran deal on the other hand has exactly what connection to impeding a law enforcement investigation into a breach of US criminal law? That makes no sense.
Again he's absolutely innocent until proven guilty as a matter of law, and I haven't even expressed a personal opinion on the question of whether Trump knew and approved. But we're talking about whether there's enough evidence to conduct an investigation, and there absolutely is. Whether that will turn up enough to convict is an open question, but if you look at all the events that sparked the investigation and can conclude it's not enough to even investigate? That's nothing but desiring to protect a politician you love.
While I too doubt there was personal contact between Trump and Putin (but never heard anything to suggest that's what Mueller was specifically looking for, but rather operatives of his campaign working with operatives representing Russia, of which he might have approved or had knowledge of), the fact is we have no idea what evidence the investigation has/will turn up. All you Trumpsters have this preordained conclusion where despite all the smoke, you insist since we can't see the fire, the absolutely is none and the investigation into the matter should just be shut down before it looks. Further, there's other components of the investigation, like obstruction. The underlying crime doesn't even need to have occurred, and busting people for that alone is routine criminal procedure, not some loophole they just made up specifically to nail Trump.
And yet another angle is that Trump and his sons have explicitly stated they've borrowed large amounts from Russian banks, which could potentially give them significant leverage over our President on one end, and probably involves laundering on the other. These are critical to investigate.
Not that any of this will matter to you, no matter what is presented when Mueller actually reveals his findings, you'll still think he's innocent, it's a witch hunt, Trump Did No Wrong, it's all a partisan hit job, and on and on to protect your boy.
The judge in that case, who's married to vocal MeToo activist but thinks that's not a conflict, was incredibly biased and made rulings that are almost certainly going to get the case overturned on appeal. The parade of women not a party to the case, an "expert witness" telling the jury that inconsistencies and inaccuracies in a womans story are proof she's telling the truth (it's also proof if there are none of those), her waiting to bring the claim is proof she's telling the truth (doesn't matter if it's right away or decades later, it's always evidence of credibility), if she stays friends with him after it's proof, if she doesn't it's proof, and on and on about why everything that seems to impugn credibility actually bolsters it, all based on ridiculous "research" by gender studies professors with no grounding in objective fact. Admitting that as expert was a mockery of Daubert. At the peak of the MeToo movement the jury had 'ignore the facts, believe the victim' drilled into them with the full blessing of the judge; there's a reason the last jury deadlocked and this one didn't.
Look, I think Cosby was guilty, did similar to lots of other women, and is generally a bad person. But that doesn't justify denying him due process. And the precedents are going to be used in the future against people who are likely not guilty.
Arbitrators are hired by the company. They're allegedly neutral, but do you honestly think one who rules against the company too often will continue to be called? As bad a regular courts are, mandatory arbitration isn't reasonable. I hope you were complaining about court costs for the customer and not the corporation, to which I'd say give them the option... allow the customer to choose arbitration if they so wish, but do not make it mandatory.
Well there's plenty of things that are clearly unconstitutional but SCOTUS pretends otherwise because too many people (well, people that matter) would be upset about it. See: Commerce clause allows police to arrest you for plant grown on own land for personal use legally under state law; a dog trained to please its master 'alerting' is a reasonable grounds for search; the entire war on drugs in general; civil asset forfeiture; permanently revoking from a free person a civil right granted in the Bill of Rights simply as a punishment; a border exception to the 4th that covers 2/3rds of all Americans; NSA spying on US citizens without a warrant in bulk; measuring if it's a 'speedy trial' in years; Sex Offender Registries are regulatory and not a punishment... need I go on?
They won't risk pissing off every big company in the country no matter how severe the contortions they have to make to lie about it being constitutional like they do with those other things.
But he's not negotiating through strength, he's negotiating from a position of lunatic-with-weapon. So the question is 'is this guy crazy enough to pull the trigger and hurt the hostage, knowing that the police will then open fire on him?'. It might work as they appease you until they find another way to neutralize the threat, but it seriously undermines everyones willingness to deal with the guy in the future.
Your DACA comment is extremely disingenuous for 2 reasons. First, all his calls for Congress to do something for them come with unacceptable demands, that he likely knows are unacceptable, which allows him to pretend he's not against the program, and to fool people like you into thinking the Democrats are blocking it for reasons other than the attached conditions. And two, after everything he's done in his life, and all the executive actions he's taken, you're out of your mind if you think Trump gives the tiniest shit about the legality of the order.
Why do otherwise intelligent people fall for party-line propaganda so hard?
Plenty of sane people do b), just like lots of parents explain to their toddler that it's quiet time now; with about the same results... they might from time to time listen, and don't have any real comprehension of the reasons behind it.
But his alternative facts are just as good as your real facts!
If a member of the Democratic candidates team has such extensively documented ties to a hostile foreign power as Page did, I for one would absolutely support that person being investigated as well (they went after Carter Page specifically during the campaign, not "the Trump Campaign". Trumps phone wasn't tapped).
Just tell rich people that the eggs of the ultra-rare Europan Sturgeon in the subsurface oceans are a delicacy so rare and delectable that Earth caviar is plebeian trash they should be embarassed to be seen eating. Then bam, forget a simple landing, we'll have the funding to drill down right into that thing.