No, and I say this having been on both sides of the equation. The rules are not different for political appointees, unless you're an elite, and likely to have presidential cover.
That would have been interesting if Trump had ended up as a 3rd party candidate. The election then would go to the House, which has to choose from the three who are running. It's all covered here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your conspiracy theory is a bit wacky if you simply consider that people with all sorts of political beliefs are career bureaucrats, and remain there no matter which party is in office. Any attempt to play favorites would get called out or leaked to the media.
The office that has the final decision on what state department information is or is not classified is the secretary of state who, at the time, was Hillary Rodham Clinton
And that's all spelled out in a document that HRC would have had to acknowledged understanding. She doesn't get to retroactively go redefine what was or was not classified. And, with that knowledge, the whole diversion regarding the documents being unmarked is totally irrelevant. Items are classified or not regardless of markings.
Your link seems to contradict what you're stating. The pardoned person can't introduce the pardon into court proceedings without there having been charges.
A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court. To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject. A pardon carries an "imputation of guilt", and accepting a pardon is "an admission of guilt".
The big concern the Republicans keep raising is "classified" material, which makes whose non-governmental server it resides on irrelevant since any server would be open to compromise;
Incorrect, and you'd know this if you had a clue wtf you're talking about.
You're aware that you get a huge Foreign Earned Income exclusion? You're also aware that if you didn't work at all, you didn't have income, and there wouldn't be any tax, unless it was investment income? You're also aware that you can decide to leave if you don't like it? Or, just maybe you like holding a U.S. passport, and don't like the other options?
There's a big difference between being 37th and "worst in the world". And there's also a big difference between claiming Cuba is best, and them not even being ahead of the U.S. Pay attention.
Nobody is going to incriminate themselves when they know that doing so is likely going to result in a malpractice suit, or higher payout if one was already started.
Trax, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think you're referring to concierge style service, no? My wife and I signed up for this kind of service about a year ago, at a cost of $2k each. It's been night and day better than my old primary care. We get same day appointments, email responses (from our doctor) to medical questions, and it included the most complete (4-5 hour) physical I've ever been through, and additional time with a personal trainer and dietitian. For me, it's been well worth the cost.
I'm mostly with you on the malpractice lawyers, but tell me, should my mother pay for her own care, when she got her cervix perforated in a doctor's office? What about her lost time at work, and any pain & suffering, or should she just suck it up?
and yet doctors sneer at you when you tell them you looked something up on the internet.
Because the vast majority will do a simple Google search, and not do any serious homework. That doesn't mean that others won't do some significant reading, but the likelihood of you picking up more knowledge with your internet search than someone who does this fulltime with a medical degree is slim. And either way, they shouldn't sneer.
Sometimes it works. Other times, as in my aunt's case with a brain tumor, it didn't. Sure, she got free healthcare in Ontario, and the delays in getting it likely cost her some time on this planet.
From Wikipedia: Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.
Don't worry, they'll soon try to extract a tax for that too. This is the US government we're talking about, they want their greedy little hands in everything.
I haven't even lived in the US for more than a decade and the IRS still thinks I should pay them income tax. My answer every time is "go fuck yourselves".
Ummm, if you've lived/worked her at all, you should pay them income tax. Now, I won't dispute that we're taxed too much, but live here?...work here?...then pay your fucking share.
Understood, I'm also in NoVA, but was mostly referring to inside the beltway, and various areas such as Fairfax Co., Columbia (I used to live there too), etc.
Ten years ago, anyone could buy a house...on any income, not that you were really qualified. That wouldn't happen today.
I can't recall us hiring anyone for less than double that figure in the last few years, and that includes a few fresh out of school.
Trump as an Independent, would not win enough electoral votes. Guess who wins in the event nobody pulls that off.... Clue... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... And, that would mean the Republican candidate would be a lock.
You seem to be forgetting a few things about the 80s. Until the recent recession, the one in '81-82 was the worst since the great depression...trust me, I was looking for my first job, just out of the military, with an Associates in Computer Tech, and it took months. The housing market wasn't what you stated either...prices dropped from ~'85 through the end of the decade...I bought my first him that year, and it's value didn't come back until the early '90s. Your claim of "of course it couldn't last" fails to take into consideration the major events of the time. It's like blaming a particular president for the internet bubble, or the housing market collapse, or 9/11. We were "fighting" the Cold War throughout the 80s, and the end of it brought a large number of former military folks into the ranks of the unemployed in the early 90s. The rise of the internet helped fix that problem up through Y2k, but then...9/11, Iraq, Housing bubble, etc.
Personally I opt out. Don't drive. Don't use the roads. Don't need sidewalks. Never been to prison. Don't carry cash. If I could opt out tomorrow I would. Gimme the papers to sign. I want nothing to do with society. Let me out.
Could you give a reference? I don't doubt it, but it would be handy to show to libertarians and their ilk.
You and your ilk, fail to realize that libertarians are not for no regulations. Monopolies are not equal to a free market, and absolutely do need to be regulated against.
Slashdot Mirror
No, and I say this having been on both sides of the equation. The rules are not different for political appointees, unless you're an elite, and likely to have presidential cover.
what if no one get's 270?
That would have been interesting if Trump had ended up as a 3rd party candidate. The election then would go to the House, which has to choose from the three who are running. It's all covered here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Your conspiracy theory is a bit wacky if you simply consider that people with all sorts of political beliefs are career bureaucrats, and remain there no matter which party is in office. Any attempt to play favorites would get called out or leaked to the media.
The office that has the final decision on what state department information is or is not classified is the secretary of state who, at the time, was Hillary Rodham Clinton
And that's all spelled out in a document that HRC would have had to acknowledged understanding. She doesn't get to retroactively go redefine what was or was not classified. And, with that knowledge, the whole diversion regarding the documents being unmarked is totally irrelevant. Items are classified or not regardless of markings.
Your link seems to contradict what you're stating. The pardoned person can't introduce the pardon into court proceedings without there having been charges.
A pardoned person must introduce the pardon into court proceedings, otherwise the pardon must be disregarded by the court.
To do this, the pardoned person must accept the pardon. If a pardon is rejected, it cannot be forced upon its subject.
A pardon carries an "imputation of guilt", and accepting a pardon is "an admission of guilt".
The big concern the Republicans keep raising is "classified" material, which makes whose non-governmental server it resides on irrelevant since any server would be open to compromise;
Incorrect, and you'd know this if you had a clue wtf you're talking about.
You're aware that you get a huge Foreign Earned Income exclusion? You're also aware that if you didn't work at all, you didn't have income, and there wouldn't be any tax, unless it was investment income? You're also aware that you can decide to leave if you don't like it? Or, just maybe you like holding a U.S. passport, and don't like the other options?
There's a big difference between being 37th and "worst in the world". And there's also a big difference between claiming Cuba is best, and them not even being ahead of the U.S. Pay attention.
Nobody is going to incriminate themselves when they know that doing so is likely going to result in a malpractice suit, or higher payout if one was already started.
Trax, correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think you're referring to concierge style service, no? My wife and I signed up for this kind of service about a year ago, at a cost of $2k each. It's been night and day better than my old primary care. We get same day appointments, email responses (from our doctor) to medical questions, and it included the most complete (4-5 hour) physical I've ever been through, and additional time with a personal trainer and dietitian. For me, it's been well worth the cost.
I'm mostly with you on the malpractice lawyers, but tell me, should my mother pay for her own care, when she got her cervix perforated in a doctor's office? What about her lost time at work, and any pain & suffering, or should she just suck it up?
and yet doctors sneer at you when you tell them you looked something up on the internet.
Because the vast majority will do a simple Google search, and not do any serious homework. That doesn't mean that others won't do some significant reading, but the likelihood of you picking up more knowledge with your internet search than someone who does this fulltime with a medical degree is slim. And either way, they shouldn't sneer.
Nope, Cuba is behind us.
http://thepatientfactor.com/ca...
And why? Because of greedy pharma, hospitals and lawyers. This monopoly needs to be busted.
Sometimes it works. Other times, as in my aunt's case with a brain tumor, it didn't. Sure, she got free healthcare in Ontario, and the delays in getting it likely cost her some time on this planet.
From Wikipedia:
Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney's office, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.
You pick it out of the SkyMall catalog.
Sorry, but your "Oh please" doesn't make you correct. The SCOTUS ruled on this (and many other topics) based upon the Constitution.
Don't worry, they'll soon try to extract a tax for that too. This is the US government we're talking about, they want their greedy little hands in everything.
I haven't even lived in the US for more than a decade and the IRS still thinks I should pay them income tax. My answer every time is "go fuck yourselves".
Ummm, if you've lived/worked her at all, you should pay them income tax. Now, I won't dispute that we're taxed too much, but live here?...work here?...then pay your fucking share.
Understood, I'm also in NoVA, but was mostly referring to inside the beltway, and various areas such as Fairfax Co., Columbia (I used to live there too), etc.
Ten years ago, anyone could buy a house...on any income, not that you were really qualified. That wouldn't happen today.
I can't recall us hiring anyone for less than double that figure in the last few years, and that includes a few fresh out of school.
Trump as an Independent, would not win enough electoral votes. Guess who wins in the event nobody pulls that off.... Clue...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And, that would mean the Republican candidate would be a lock.
It turns out Karl Marx was wrong. Who would have thought?
Fun fact: Most people who say that have never read anything written by Marx.
Fun fact: Your claim is unsubstantiated.
You seem to be forgetting a few things about the 80s. Until the recent recession, the one in '81-82 was the worst since the great depression...trust me, I was looking for my first job, just out of the military, with an Associates in Computer Tech, and it took months. The housing market wasn't what you stated either...prices dropped from ~'85 through the end of the decade...I bought my first him that year, and it's value didn't come back until the early '90s. Your claim of "of course it couldn't last" fails to take into consideration the major events of the time. It's like blaming a particular president for the internet bubble, or the housing market collapse, or 9/11. We were "fighting" the Cold War throughout the 80s, and the end of it brought a large number of former military folks into the ranks of the unemployed in the early 90s. The rise of the internet helped fix that problem up through Y2k, but then...9/11, Iraq, Housing bubble, etc.
Personally I opt out. Don't drive. Don't use the roads. Don't need sidewalks. Never been to prison. Don't carry cash. If I could opt out tomorrow I would. Gimme the papers to sign. I want nothing to do with society. Let me out.
Then get off of our Internet.
Could you give a reference? I don't doubt it, but it would be handy to show to libertarians and their ilk.
You and your ilk, fail to realize that libertarians are not for no regulations. Monopolies are not equal to a free market, and absolutely do need to be regulated against.