I think Comey's sudden announcement of more Emails to investigate nearly on the eve of the election, on a Friday Afternoon, seems way more influential and suspicious than the crap fake news you quoted.
You wanna talk influence and suspicion, explain why a sailor was being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking unauthorized photos of a submarine on his cell phone at the same time it was letting Hillary off for her unauthorized email server, which stored a vastly larger amount of classified information.
Democrats, far from hating on Comey, should be giving him free blow jobs for the rest of his life for not charging their Dear Leader with mishandling classified evidence and obstruction of justice, when she deleted 30,000 pieces of evidence, again without authorization.
Obama had a supermajority for a month or so around July-August, 2009
Two months, as Franken was sworn in at the end of June. But that's still a non sequitur, given Obama's drowning of the public option long before Congress could vote against it, his continuing to hold prisoners in Gitmo that had been cleared for release by Bush, why he proposed austerity through the "sequester" or placed Social Security and Medicare cuts into his budget, or why we are still working under the last minimum wage increase signed into law. By Bush, when there were a mere 51 Democrats in the Senate, as opposed to 58.60.
If this were the case the House Intelligence Committee Republicans wouldn't be dragging their feet on the Russia investigation.
Because there's no there there. There as much evidence to support the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked as the one of Russia having Jack or shit to do with election tampering. Which, even if they did, would only be a case of chickens coming home to roost. The United States has overthrown dozens of democracies since WWII and interferes with other countries elections (Ukraine, Venezuela for a mere two examples) constantly. Don't make me go look up that cover of Time in the 90's that boasts of the U.S. picking Boris Yelstin to lead Russia. Actually, fuck it, I had to Google it to spell Yeltsin correctly so here you go.
He actually WAS working on closing it down, by transferring detainees out of Guantanamo.
To a Supermax in Illinois, where they would still have no right to an attorney or trial. Seriously, this Obamabot talking point was debunked 18 ways till Sunday waaaay back in 2009. The problem with Gitmo was not that it was in Cuba, the problem with Gitmo is that it was an unconstitutional suspension of basic civil rights. One that Obama wanted to move, not end.
If there was nothing to investigate, the why did Devin Nunes as chair of the House Intelligence committee call a hearing on the subject?
That's the same "where there's smoker, there's fire" logic right-wingers have been using on the Clintons since before Vince Foster turned up dead in a park.
Sanders was never a Democrat anyway, so IMHO, they should have kept him out of the primaries.
That dead horse......Sanders has always caucused with the Democrats, registered as a Democrat for the 2016 race, and has a (token) leadership position with the Democratic Party. More importantly - he cast a crucial vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader after the 2006 elections, giving Democrats control of Congress for the last two years of the Bush presidency.
All the right wing asshole Dems who keep whining about Sanders being an independent should come out and say they would rather have had Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader during the last two years of the Bush Administration.
Of course the Ds will take the exact WRONG lesson from this and pivot left. Giving Trump eight years.
Sarcasm? Hillary Clinton lost because she was an incompetent right wing freakshow. Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump - just watch his town hall meetings where he gets Trump supporters to cheer for free-to-use college and health care minutes after talking to them.
The Clinton Administration was prosperous, had a great economy
For the rich. Workers got the shaft, hard, when Clinton picked up the Reagan/Bush free trade law and ran with it. And then Democrats wonder why Mrs. Nafta couldn't win the Rust Belt. The new jobs created in the Clinton years where 1) shitty service jobs paying a fraction of what a good unionized factory worker would make 2) part of the dotcom bubble. The Clinton's also set the stage for the 2008 housing collapse with their financial deregulation, which has seen ~10 million people and counting lose their homes.
but why on earth is the Clinton name so tarnished?
Because they've done enormous harm to working people, passing free trade laws and welfare-gutting laws that Reagan could have only dreamed of. They're also pretty fucking racist (Superpredators) and grind the poorest of the poor under the boot heel of capitalism (blocking Haiti raising the minimum wage to 66 cents an hour).
Trump is an ugly face on an ugly system. The Clintons (and Obama after them) were pretty faces on an ugly system.
And also we're now going to blame ANY climate change on mankind, even if it happened in the past, and even though the earth's climate has been constantly changing for the past 5 billion years.
And perpetual motion is real, and cheap clean affordable fission energy is only 20 years away.
Your hand waiving is noted. The only losers in a wholesale move are shareholders in fossil fuel companies and the rich who might have to pay some higher taxes. Meanwhile the rest of the economy would see the greatest boom since the post-WWII era. Kind of a no-brainer.
You think so? We spend about $13,000 per student per year, nationwide.
As the average net work in a bar jumps the moment Bill Gates walks into it. You wouldn't pretend that Bill Gates has the same standard of living of someone making $7.25 an hour, so why pretend there isn't an enormous gap between schools in wealthy districts and poor ones? There's a reason why no one talks about "failing public schools" in Westchester or the Hamptons.
Average teacher salary is $55,000. but this varies pretty wildly by state. considering you only work 9 months a year and get pretty significant benefits.
You know perfectly well that teachers don't start and stop school when students do. Even if teachers didn't spend months out of the summer preparing for the rest of the school year or continuing their own education, it would be more than balanced by working 50-70 hours a week when school is in session.
That's a pretty reasonable amount, IMO,
Reasonable? The people claiming this wouldn't touch a teaching job for less than a six figure salary. Earning a masters degree, having tens of thousands in student loans to pay off, being salaried and invariably working far beyond 40 hours a week...and that's before even getting to the students. How much would you want to get paid per hour, per kid for being a babysitter, disciplinarian, nurse and social worker. Deal with the pressure of wealthy parents, coaches and principles wanting you to "take another look" at Bobby's grades so he can stay on the football team. And that's before even getting to the actual teaching part, where your performance reviews are dependent on factors entirely outside of your control. And you're also expected to continue your own education with nighttime or summer classes.
Not for a penny under six figures.
Anyone *can* go to college, that's how the system is currently set up.
Until they can't find a job that pays off their student loans, at which point it's time to sneer at them for taking on risk they couldn't afford.
You do realize, right, that the reason why doctors salaries are so high is because only wealthy families can risk the six figure cost of a medical degree
FTFY.
If you look at costs over time, the two areas that have been spiraling out of control, cost wise, are medicine and college. This is the direct result of government meddling in the field trying to be more fair and just, but really just fucking over the vast majority of Americans.
Uh huh. Found a reason yet for why countries that do far more "meddling" in health care or education than the United States cover all or most of their population for a fraction of the cost?
If you actually are smart enough to be a doctor or an engineer, there are many opportunities for free
Not outside of signing up for military service, there aren't. And then you have to get into an engineering or medical program in the military, which is no guarantee, but risk having to shoot innocent people or get shot yourself in the process.
The main driver of total student debt is people who really aren't qualified to go to college, who enroll in schools with no admission standards (especially for-profit schools) and study subjects with few job prospects.
Hand waving with no basis in reality.
I know enough people with PhD/MDs who got scholarships, tuition waivers, or loan repayments to know that it can be done.
Then the only people you know are the children of the rich or bourgeois, who can help cover what scholarships and tuition wavers do not.
So maybe the people you know just aren't very smart after all?
Or maybe the people he knows aren't snobby elitists living in a bubble.
You can't be serious. We are in the top 5 per-student expenditures for the entire western world.
In the same way that the average wealth is high in any bar Bill Gates walks into. Pretending that huge gaps don't exist between rich and poor districts is dishonest.
We have teacher's unions that protect the imbecilic assclowns
Or....maybe you are the assclown. First, there is nothing about unions that prevents workers from being fired for cause. Nothing. All the cases you wankers whine about are due to lazy administration, not collective bargaining or due process. Second, the notion of "unions only exist to protect the lazy" is dependent on Steve being happy to do Bob's work if Bob is a shitty worker. You honestly think any teacher is going to be happy if they get Bob's students from the previous year and have to catch them up because Bob was lazy and incompetent?
You can blame the government GUARANTEEING student loans for the wonderful cost of higher ed.
The problem with this facile supply-and-demand argument is that if it really was about easy student loan money, more colleges would open to compete for those dollars - forcing prices back down. But of course that hasn't happened.
And I'd much rather have a 401K than any state-sponsored pension. Why? The government keeps their fucking nose out of it. That's why.
Because you're happy putting up all of the capital, taking all of the risk, and only seeing 30% of the gains after Wells Fargo et all get done charging you with fees. And constantly at risk of watching your retirement disappear when the next stock market bubble pops. But that's how you Randians roll - cutting off your noses to spite your faces.
It's that after you pay that you still have to pay social-security (which isn't operating in the way it commissioned to operate)
Why - because it's not being run as a PaGo service? That they keep increasing the retirement age (when workers are NOT living longer) or taking away survivor benefits that allowed Paul Ryan to go to college?
There is a very real risk that I will NOT get social security and medicare back when I am old - if I make it that long. The systems have been on the verge of collapse every since congress looted them.
The "SS wont be around for me" line is propaganda cooked up by people like Pete Peterson. But even capitalist pieces of shit like Peterson wouldn't dare renege on the trust fund's trillions in government bonds - if that happens the U.S. dollar will officially be a banana republic currency.
Are the services we're paying for something that we democratically agree is necessary and useful or are the services the remnants of failed policy? Do our taxes get funneled into bailing out rich banks instead of helping the middle class or helping the poor move up into the middle class?
That puts it in a rather unique position as far as having a government structure that encourages less taxation and instead forces dependence on useless, exploitative corporate interests
FTFY. It's not "self reliance" to pay several times as much for health care, pharmaceuticals, education and retirement compared to other first world countries.
They backstab every part of their base - workers, unions, minorities - except for the donor class. At least Republicans will stab you in front. It's not that Republicans have increased in popularity - its that Obama and the Clintons have driven the party so far into the ground that they've lost at every level around the country. They are completely and utterly incapable of saying what they stand for besides "we're not Republicans."
And no, the other side isn't as bad.
You're right. The Democrats are worse. NAFTA. TPP. Gramm-Leach-Bliley. 1996 Telecom Act which means 6 companies control almost all print and broadcast media. Putting SS and Medicare cuts into federal budget proposals. Printing trillions to bail out fraudulent banks while letting those banks illegally foreclose on millions of homes. Starting a war and explicitly not asking Congress for permission first (Libya). Starting regime change to "protect Arab Spring protestors" in Libya and Syria while at the same time selling weapons to Bahrain, who were violently putting down their Arab Spring protests. Repealing the cornerstone of all civil rights, habeas corpus, with an NDAA that allows the military to detain you without warrant or trial, on American soil.
Trump is an ugly face on an ugly system, but he's going to have to work long and hard just to catch up to the Clinton and Obama freakshows, who were pretty faces on an ugly system. But Stepford Democrats DGAF because they are willfully blind partisan tribalists.
You sound like one of those sheriffs who protests that he doesn't have quotas for his deputy's to write a certain number of tickets per month, he has "performance expectations." And then expects the listener to be impressed by his cleverness.
Unlike liberals, who were going to filibuster Gorsich for what, altruistic reasons?
Ruling that a trucking company was right to fire a worker for....not freezing to death alone disqualifies him. Since you're obviously a partisan hack, I'll point out I said in 2010 that Elena Kagan had no business being on the Supreme Court after she argued you have no right to not be framed by cops for a crime you didn't commit.
Claiming the Dems use of the nuclear option was for "good reasons" and the Republicans for "pure politics simply makes you a hypocrite.
Pretending the first proposed filibuster (Trump's other nominees got up-or-down votes) is equivalent to 8 years of obstruction makes you an idiot as well as a partisan hack.
"But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden
Keep fucking that chicken. Pretending the opinion of one senator (who boasted about writing the Patriot Act) means Jack or shit has been a popular talking point in the right wing nutosphere for the last few weeks. It's like you've been taking lessons from your fellow right winger, Hillary Clinton, and her paid CTR trolls on how to disseminate bullshit.
Right. Because the whole body of knowledge called Political Economy ceased to advance after Marx.
Right. In the same way that Isaac Newton was a dullard because our knowledge of physics has advanced in the centuries since he helped develop calculus, Mr. Unique Snowflake.
Slashdot Mirror
Except he wasn't making an analogy. Thus the mocking.
You wanna talk influence and suspicion, explain why a sailor was being prosecuted by the DOJ for taking unauthorized photos of a submarine on his cell phone at the same time it was letting Hillary off for her unauthorized email server, which stored a vastly larger amount of classified information.
Democrats, far from hating on Comey, should be giving him free blow jobs for the rest of his life for not charging their Dear Leader with mishandling classified evidence and obstruction of justice, when she deleted 30,000 pieces of evidence, again without authorization.
Buy your knee pads and get busy.
Two months, as Franken was sworn in at the end of June. But that's still a non sequitur, given Obama's drowning of the public option long before Congress could vote against it, his continuing to hold prisoners in Gitmo that had been cleared for release by Bush, why he proposed austerity through the "sequester" or placed Social Security and Medicare cuts into his budget, or why we are still working under the last minimum wage increase signed into law. By Bush, when there were a mere 51 Democrats in the Senate, as opposed to 58.60.
Because there's no there there. There as much evidence to support the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked as the one of Russia having Jack or shit to do with election tampering. Which, even if they did, would only be a case of chickens coming home to roost. The United States has overthrown dozens of democracies since WWII and interferes with other countries elections (Ukraine, Venezuela for a mere two examples) constantly. Don't make me go look up that cover of Time in the 90's that boasts of the U.S. picking Boris Yelstin to lead Russia. Actually, fuck it, I had to Google it to spell Yeltsin correctly so here you go.
To a Supermax in Illinois, where they would still have no right to an attorney or trial. Seriously, this Obamabot talking point was debunked 18 ways till Sunday waaaay back in 2009. The problem with Gitmo was not that it was in Cuba, the problem with Gitmo is that it was an unconstitutional suspension of basic civil rights. One that Obama wanted to move, not end.
That's the same "where there's smoker, there's fire" logic right-wingers have been using on the Clintons since before Vince Foster turned up dead in a park.
That dead horse......Sanders has always caucused with the Democrats, registered as a Democrat for the 2016 race, and has a (token) leadership position with the Democratic Party. More importantly - he cast a crucial vote for Harry Reid as Majority Leader after the 2006 elections, giving Democrats control of Congress for the last two years of the Bush presidency.
All the right wing asshole Dems who keep whining about Sanders being an independent should come out and say they would rather have had Mitch McConnell as Majority Leader during the last two years of the Bush Administration.
Sarcasm? Hillary Clinton lost because she was an incompetent right wing freakshow. Sanders would have wiped the floor with Trump - just watch his town hall meetings where he gets Trump supporters to cheer for free-to-use college and health care minutes after talking to them.
For the rich. Workers got the shaft, hard, when Clinton picked up the Reagan/Bush free trade law and ran with it. And then Democrats wonder why Mrs. Nafta couldn't win the Rust Belt. The new jobs created in the Clinton years where 1) shitty service jobs paying a fraction of what a good unionized factory worker would make 2) part of the dotcom bubble. The Clinton's also set the stage for the 2008 housing collapse with their financial deregulation, which has seen ~10 million people and counting lose their homes.
Because they've done enormous harm to working people, passing free trade laws and welfare-gutting laws that Reagan could have only dreamed of. They're also pretty fucking racist (Superpredators) and grind the poorest of the poor under the boot heel of capitalism (blocking Haiti raising the minimum wage to 66 cents an hour).
Trump is an ugly face on an ugly system. The Clintons (and Obama after them) were pretty faces on an ugly system.
/wankery
If you're willfully obtuse, sure.
Has it routinely emptied across another continental divide? Nope. Then what's your point?
Your hand waiving is noted. The only losers in a wholesale move are shareholders in fossil fuel companies and the rich who might have to pay some higher taxes. Meanwhile the rest of the economy would see the greatest boom since the post-WWII era. Kind of a no-brainer.
As the average net work in a bar jumps the moment Bill Gates walks into it. You wouldn't pretend that Bill Gates has the same standard of living of someone making $7.25 an hour, so why pretend there isn't an enormous gap between schools in wealthy districts and poor ones? There's a reason why no one talks about "failing public schools" in Westchester or the Hamptons.
You know perfectly well that teachers don't start and stop school when students do. Even if teachers didn't spend months out of the summer preparing for the rest of the school year or continuing their own education, it would be more than balanced by working 50-70 hours a week when school is in session.
Reasonable? The people claiming this wouldn't touch a teaching job for less than a six figure salary. Earning a masters degree, having tens of thousands in student loans to pay off, being salaried and invariably working far beyond 40 hours a week...and that's before even getting to the students. How much would you want to get paid per hour, per kid for being a babysitter, disciplinarian, nurse and social worker. Deal with the pressure of wealthy parents, coaches and principles wanting you to "take another look" at Bobby's grades so he can stay on the football team. And that's before even getting to the actual teaching part, where your performance reviews are dependent on factors entirely outside of your control. And you're also expected to continue your own education with nighttime or summer classes.
Not for a penny under six figures.
Until they can't find a job that pays off their student loans, at which point it's time to sneer at them for taking on risk they couldn't afford.
FTFY.
Uh huh. Found a reason yet for why countries that do far more "meddling" in health care or education than the United States cover all or most of their population for a fraction of the cost?
Not outside of signing up for military service, there aren't. And then you have to get into an engineering or medical program in the military, which is no guarantee, but risk having to shoot innocent people or get shot yourself in the process.
Hand waving with no basis in reality.
Then the only people you know are the children of the rich or bourgeois, who can help cover what scholarships and tuition wavers do not.
Or maybe the people he knows aren't snobby elitists living in a bubble.
In the same way that the average wealth is high in any bar Bill Gates walks into. Pretending that huge gaps don't exist between rich and poor districts is dishonest.
Or....maybe you are the assclown. First, there is nothing about unions that prevents workers from being fired for cause. Nothing. All the cases you wankers whine about are due to lazy administration, not collective bargaining or due process. Second, the notion of "unions only exist to protect the lazy" is dependent on Steve being happy to do Bob's work if Bob is a shitty worker. You honestly think any teacher is going to be happy if they get Bob's students from the previous year and have to catch them up because Bob was lazy and incompetent?
The problem with this facile supply-and-demand argument is that if it really was about easy student loan money, more colleges would open to compete for those dollars - forcing prices back down. But of course that hasn't happened.
Because you're happy putting up all of the capital, taking all of the risk, and only seeing 30% of the gains after Wells Fargo et all get done charging you with fees. And constantly at risk of watching your retirement disappear when the next stock market bubble pops. But that's how you Randians roll - cutting off your noses to spite your faces.
You'll probably also die before you ever have a house fire. That mean your local fire department is a waste of money?
Why - because it's not being run as a PaGo service? That they keep increasing the retirement age (when workers are NOT living longer) or taking away survivor benefits that allowed Paul Ryan to go to college?
The "SS wont be around for me" line is propaganda cooked up by people like Pete Peterson. But even capitalist pieces of shit like Peterson wouldn't dare renege on the trust fund's trillions in government bonds - if that happens the U.S. dollar will officially be a banana republic currency.
Elephant in the room: The Real US National Security Budget: 1.2 Trillion
Have to have money to save money. Wages have remained stagnant for decades while the costs of housing, health care and education have exploded.
FTFY. It's not "self reliance" to pay several times as much for health care, pharmaceuticals, education and retirement compared to other first world countries.
Low taxes have high costs.
Or as I like to say, "low taxes have high costs".
They backstab every part of their base - workers, unions, minorities - except for the donor class. At least Republicans will stab you in front. It's not that Republicans have increased in popularity - its that Obama and the Clintons have driven the party so far into the ground that they've lost at every level around the country. They are completely and utterly incapable of saying what they stand for besides "we're not Republicans."
You're right. The Democrats are worse. NAFTA. TPP. Gramm-Leach-Bliley. 1996 Telecom Act which means 6 companies control almost all print and broadcast media. Putting SS and Medicare cuts into federal budget proposals. Printing trillions to bail out fraudulent banks while letting those banks illegally foreclose on millions of homes. Starting a war and explicitly not asking Congress for permission first (Libya). Starting regime change to "protect Arab Spring protestors" in Libya and Syria while at the same time selling weapons to Bahrain, who were violently putting down their Arab Spring protests. Repealing the cornerstone of all civil rights, habeas corpus, with an NDAA that allows the military to detain you without warrant or trial, on American soil.
Trump is an ugly face on an ugly system, but he's going to have to work long and hard just to catch up to the Clinton and Obama freakshows, who were pretty faces on an ugly system. But Stepford Democrats DGAF because they are willfully blind partisan tribalists.
You sound like one of those sheriffs who protests that he doesn't have quotas for his deputy's to write a certain number of tickets per month, he has "performance expectations." And then expects the listener to be impressed by his cleverness.
Ruling that a trucking company was right to fire a worker for....not freezing to death alone disqualifies him. Since you're obviously a partisan hack, I'll point out I said in 2010 that Elena Kagan had no business being on the Supreme Court after she argued you have no right to not be framed by cops for a crime you didn't commit.
Pretending the first proposed filibuster (Trump's other nominees got up-or-down votes) is equivalent to 8 years of obstruction makes you an idiot as well as a partisan hack.
Keep fucking that chicken. Pretending the opinion of one senator (who boasted about writing the Patriot Act) means Jack or shit has been a popular talking point in the right wing nutosphere for the last few weeks. It's like you've been taking lessons from your fellow right winger, Hillary Clinton, and her paid CTR trolls on how to disseminate bullshit.
Right. In the same way that Isaac Newton was a dullard because our knowledge of physics has advanced in the centuries since he helped develop calculus, Mr. Unique Snowflake.