I laugh at the $6K a month pricing as enterprise. I personally ran a data center, a small one, representing about 25K people in a smallish dept. Even that had roughly 200 racks of equipment in it with dual generator backups. Not quite the level Cytotoxic states, but we stayed up most of the time. I also was partially responsible for a nice smallish datacenter for a startup I worked for in years past. To give you an idea of what a datacenter for a commercial going concern handles and why millions are spent on them, we ran more than $2M/min in transactions during our peak 2 or 3 hours a day. IIRC, the equipment in that datacenter was roughly $10M with a minimum goal of $3M/yr being cycled out during upgrade cycles. At a different employer, just 1 machine ran roughly $1M, and we had 20 of them in our local datacenter. And those aren't even the biggest servers you could get, even then. People these days mostly have no clue what a real datacenter is or involves, and it's sad they think their single box or a handful of VMs on Amazon make for "enterprise" deployments. They're fine for POC or startup, but sooner rather than later you're going to want to bring that in house.
You have unknown enemies that come from CA and NY? And they want to destroy your local Texas health care system? How, pray tell? By removing their ability to deny care and let people die? Do you have health insurance, because if you do you don't really have any complaints. If not, do you expect health care? The reason health insurance costs keep rising is because the health insurance industry needs ever increasing profits to make shareholders happy, and of course, bonuses. There isn't enough time to detail everything else that's wrong with the US health care industry, but it's definitely not healthy.
the five largest investment banks at the core of the crisis (including Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers) were not subject to the CRA or other depository banking regulations, and they did not originate mortgages
(From wikipedia, because it was easiest)
Thus, the CRA wasn't in play for these investment banks, nor were they regulated. Yet they were the root cause of the recession.
You can read more about it - yes, there was a housing bubble, it wasn't caused by government policy, and the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) weren't drivers with their directives. When you can offload your risk for cash to loan more, there's no incentive to strengthen your requirements, because your base risk is still low. Someone else took the risk off your hands that you had. If you recall, several of those investment banks wound up being guilty of repackaging low-quality mortgage loans as high quality investments. All of that lead to an environment where lower quality loans being less costly and risky to originators and thus more and more were written and passed into the system. That increase in demand caused, you guessed it, increased prices. Thus the bubble grew and grew and finally popped at the slightest poke.
Compared to our return on the 8 Trillion in increased debt from the Obama years with no real benefit to be shown for it - yeah, totally a bargain.
Let's see - roughly 6T of that was directly related to saving our economy from the crash of 2008, and whose fault was that again? Oh yeah, the Republican led rollback of Democratic originated regulations on the banking industry allowed that to develop. Hmm. The remainder of the deficits were the result of Republican majority Congress, so what, exactly, did Obama do to the debt? What did we get? Obamacare. A half-assed form of universal coverage, but at least they tried, which the Republicans apparently find so abhorrent they're doing everything in their power to sabotage it so it "fails". Why? Because they're incapable of replacing it, as their concept of "healthcare", short version: pay or suffer and die (restated as it's god's will)
It wasn't just debt but also a virtual destruction of our economy. If you doubt this, go back and look at what the economy did post 1987, when the cracks became apparent in the USSR and then 1989, after the wall fell. This was especially felt in the manufacturing and high tech industries of the time. It also set the ground work for the rise of China's explosive economic growth, although that was going to happen sooner or later. I'm not saying the dissolution of the USSR was a bad thing. I do believe how relations were handled post 1990 might have resulted in a different and safer world, but we allowed the current situation to develop. And now we're stuck with some new expensive problems and dangers that a few different policies could likely have muted greatly. But that's a benefit of hindsight, where you can see where you should have done 'A' even though it would have hurt then to prevent 'B' from occurring. Without the certainty of 'B' the price of 'A' seemed too high.
The difference is that in the normal operation of the criminal justice system, the system isn't overwhelmed on a daily basis with a never ending flood and criminal cases process quicker,...
If the border crosser has just crossed illegally it should be nearly that quick assuming we have enough judges to handle all the cases. But when the crosser claims asylum that throws a big wrench into the situation. Now there are a series of interviews and investigations of their claims that have to be processed and this takes time. Meanwhile thousands more enter the system every day.
And yet, only 2000 (for sake of this argument) children have been separated in 6 months. So is it thousands a day? Or a thousand a month? Or something less?
The Obama Catch and release program is a failure with over 80% of those caught and released failing to show up for their court dates. (Catch and release was they were caught, briefly processed and released into the US with a court date). It's a viable system to deal with the logistics of such large scale detention and arrests.
As far as the failure to show up for court, you have the numbers backwards. About 75% did show up. Only 25% failed. That's still a large number, but at least complain about the right things.
And ICE is required by law to separate the children from their parents, the courts blocked an attempt to do otherwise.
Is it? So they were breaking the law for the last 30 years? Perhaps all of them should go to jail?
You can't argue that one person breaks the letter of the law and must go to jail and be separated from their family and then another that systematically breaks the law, according to you daily, doesn't go to jail.
Sure. This is why my kid had on their history final that Reagan ran up the national debt and turned the US from the #1 creditor to a debtor nation.
The difference from Obama was the political parties running congress and the executive were swapped. So - the blame got swapped too.
Historical fact: Reagan and his Republican wave did run up the debt. Check your history, as in go to various gov sites and see what the historical budgets were and who voted on them. Note that the Senate was controlled by Republicans for 6 out of his 8 years. Dems controlled the house during that time so they aren't entirely clean of the debt runup.
Trump inherited a terrible economy. People really have no idea just how bad off we were.
Seriously? Are you even in touch with reality?
In Detroit they were changing neighbourhoods back into farm land. Chicago was a shooting gallery, still is due to the Democrats running things.
I don't believe either of those things have materially changed, as you note for the second.
Obama's first two years we were in free fall, sky rocketing unemployment, things were terrible.
Why, yes they were. A continuation of the Republican delivered deregulation of the banking industry that resulted in that little depression back in 2008. Do recall who handed the government over to Obama. And what was the condition Bush got the economy in? Oh right, one of the best ever handed off, at least until this latest hand-off.
He also piled on the useless regulations. It was like a land mine field. Screw up and you can go to jail. Over nothing.
I think you're confused there. Seriously confused. But, that goes back to my first statement in this post. Those regulations were useful, although they do prevent unbridled capitalism, which is a good thing actually. Unbridled capitalism leads to things like the crash of 1929 or 2008....
Obama couldn't pull even a 3% growth in GDP. There was a nice chart of all of this and for some reason I can't even pull up www.bea.gov. Sigh. Anyhow, China overtook us - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Look at average values of GDP, not nominal. We just overtook China recently Making American Great Again.
You might want to check those GDP numbers Trump's broken 3% barely, while Obama broke 5% at least one quarter. Granted, Trump's policies have only really had 6 full months of unfettered potential - neither quarter broke 3%. As for GDP, the average for 5 years includes a couple of really bad ones from the 2008 crash. In terms of GDP, we're still almost twice as large as China with 1/6th the population. We also have a lot less pollution and other issues that in concert with Trump's trade war is going to possibly crash China's economy. The only question is whether we go down with it. Making America Great shouldn't be done by sinking everyone and crawling over the corpses.
About the balanced budget - No you don't. There has been one balanced budget and it was because the Republicans made Bill Clinton sign the bill kicking and screaming by shutting down the government. I remember it all too well.
So let me bring you back to the e-mail server. This is something that there is no dispute on. She clearly violated the espionage act and I think everyone knows it. She tried to destroy all of that with bleach bit and hammers to the cell phones. Does this sound like a woman that is innocent? There is no intent in the law. If it were you or I, we'd be in a cell right now. In my case probably for what's left of my life.
Unlike you, I actually worked in a job with those types of restrictions. I also happen to know about a few real violations. Trust me, I have yet to see anything on Hillary that violates anything other than policy. I've had this discussion with others and they have failed to provide any proof other than... but but but.. she must be dirty. She can't even be nailed for using private email for government work, as that was apparently "acceptable" at the time. Not in my job, but apparently my dept works under different and more strict rules.
In your response I see a lot of basic misunderstandings. The last part a lot of people don't understand. Your party affiliation is important during t
Yes, batteries are the issue. It's always been the issue, all the way back to the dawn of cars (first taxis in NYC were electric in 1897) It seems like several EVs have solved that issue (GM, Nissan, Tesla, BMW) so at least 4 manufacturers appear to have resolved battery issues well enough to sell plugin battery vehicles.
By 2020 it sounds like BMW and VW/Audi will have EVs in production. For higher end vehicles you can add Porsche to the current mix. I don't recall Mercedes stance, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them release an EV at the same time or within a year. 2023 was the original time-line IIRC for EU EV production. There are pressures outside of Tesla and the US that are driving EV development. If you've ever stepped outside in a typical city, e.g., Paris, on a non-breezy weekday, your lungs would quickly tell you why.
I haven't had interest in Ford since they did away with adjustable headrests back in the 90s (they only recently came back). Deathtraps if you weren't the proper size for their cars. That coupled with terrible service and a lack-luster line of vehicles in the last 20 years made me look elsewhere. There's a reason Trump sees so many BMW/Mercedes/Audis driving around, GM/Chrysler/Ford don't make any desirable/decent cars especially for the money asked.
If you think about it, while what you said makes sense in the perfectly legal world, this is the real world and Tesla has had some negative external pressures that just got a gut punch. Libel? I'll bet Elon's smart enough to only repeat those pieces that are in the police report.
So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.
Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation?
Ever hear of Uranium one?... and so on.
So, what in the WashPo indicates anything was wrong, other than 1 $500K donation in 2010? And the only thing wrong there appears to be clerical. And you don't think the IRS audited them? I know they audited them again in 2016, at the behest of 64 Republicans. Where are those Republicans when it's time to audit the Trump Organization charities? As for them taking money - please provide proof. That they take money for speaking? Yes they do. As does every other single ex-president. Uranium One - again, provide proof. I've seen a lot of accusations, zero proof. And that's the problem.
Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.
A reference to an editorial that links to another set of editorials? That's the best you can do? In fact, your second link proves that there was nothing untoward with the Uranium One deal. If anything, it shows extreme partisan bias being wielded to denigrate a potential candidate. (After all, where's the investigation of the other 8 departments that approved U-One, or even the assertion that Clinton swung the vote somehow, or influenced the other 8?)
How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...
Ah yeah, Gruber, the self-important self-grandizing model that Gulliani is out-grandizing.... Anyone that didn't get the message that the healthy would pay in to help lower (subsidize) the costs for the unhealthy should probably be in a mental ward. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it at least attempted to address the healthcare issues for the people, no matter how badly. The then existing system was setup to only support healthy people and maximize profits. Not really a healthcare solution.
The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.
The only argument I have with your statement is that Hillary was not disbarred. Facts are important. And FWIW, back in 2000 or so, when people said Hillary would make a run for president, I pointed to the TV and stated that the only way Hillary would be elected is if someone like Trump, standing next to Bill and Hillary, was her opponent. I really do wish I'd bet on her presidential run. Make no mistake about it, the only reason she lost to asshat Trump is because of large amounts of disinformation floating about the rather fertile minefie
Proof? Only 10 were classified in the first review IIRC. It's been a while, but what I reviewed when I had this discussion in depth was that this entire email thing was a red herring as far as classification went, at least with what we the public had access to. The only thing that really should have been addressed is that private email accounts should not be used for government business. Various government agencies had such policies back in the 90s already and it's inexcusable IMNSHO that the State dept didn't have such policies and that a 4 star general (Powell) who was subject to those policies used non-government email providers for state dept business.
Sorry but the Clinton era helped usher in a new acceptance of sexual infidelity.
I believe the Clinton era ushered in a new level of partisan rancor about sexual infidelity and attempted to use it as a tool to remove a relatively popular president. You need to go back to LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, and Harding to see how open and accepted sexual infidelity was.
Nothing in there explicitly states she sent any such email that originated from her. She did receive email from the gov system which had some classified info on it. Email that was classified after the fact is irrelevant. In fact, the whole thing even from politifact is rather light on specific details only stating aggregated numbers. This means there's no meaningful conclusions you can draw from the information presented, other than to answer "yes, there was some classified info on HRC's servers" Who originated said classified information can only be known by reviewing the specific emails, which obviously we cannot see.
I think you're going to require some other source - that only details her statements that she asked for those portions that were unclassified to be sent to her via the unclassified system so she could work as much as possible while awaiting the full document via secure fax. And this is just a transcript of an interview with nothing damning in it.
Further, it's clear she used her position for financial gain. Very clear. At the expense of the United States.
Is it? Is it really? Want to provide some proof of that financial gain? After all, if it's so clear, you should be able to provide whatever's needed for those hapless FBI guys so she can be charged tomorrow, right? TBH, I'm sick of you conspiracy nutjobs (both sides) that just keep on repeating some tripe you heard in one of your echo chambers. Put up some real documentation or shut up.
A Republican would already be years into his prison sentence by now if he did what she did at the same time.
Well, Trump's still going, and it's been documented that he's benefiting from his elected position. (His hotel in DC alone has a 50% increase in revenues since the presidency started, along with the sudden large number of legal actions in China going his and his family's way post election) I think you'll see more unsavory stories as administration actions are traced back to those that benefitted from them. Zinke is my personal favorite for next indictable current administration official. His actions as EPA head and interactions with lobbyists are billowing smoke. All that's needed is to find the fire.
Those are helpful points.
In all the news about Hillary Clinton's email servers, I never saw ANYTHING that would indicate Hillary Clinton has any technical knowledge.
She doesn't, and she had someone help set all this up for here. At some point, I believe it was documented as to who that party was, but it is truly irrelevant, as it was merely someone following orders.
Many people think the October 28, 2016 message from James Comey about Hillary's emails was enough to cause people to avoid voting for her. See the bottom third of page 197 for the beginning of his discussion of that.
To me, Comey seems like someone who realizes the importance of social sophistication, struggles for greater social understanding, but often does not deal well with social issues.
Comey was between a rock and a hard place, I'll grant you that. But he should have stuck to dept policy, especially considering he was also on the Russia investigation. He single handedly threw a grenade of unknown type into the election process. For that he should be punished, according to the policies and statements in hand. He did not deserve what Trump pulled on him, or others, for that matter.
As for the effect on the election, given Hillary's unpopularity with the populace at large, yes, something as simple as that statement from Comey could throw the election. And that should tell you something about how unpopular Trump is. I happen to have some folks I know living in an over 55 area in a solidly red zone. They are not happy. This election cycle could be interesting.
I think you need to see a difference here. It seems like Hillary, Strzok and Page were all trying to hide things by using their personal email.
Hillary - following example set by Powell and reinforced by Rice. Wasn't the bulk of her primary contacts for all government business email government servers?
Strzok/Page? Really? I thought the problem there was that they were sending personal messages on government devices and services. Stupid is what I call that those two.
Slashdot Mirror
I laugh at the $6K a month pricing as enterprise. I personally ran a data center, a small one, representing about 25K people in a smallish dept. Even that had roughly 200 racks of equipment in it with dual generator backups. Not quite the level Cytotoxic states, but we stayed up most of the time. I also was partially responsible for a nice smallish datacenter for a startup I worked for in years past. To give you an idea of what a datacenter for a commercial going concern handles and why millions are spent on them, we ran more than $2M/min in transactions during our peak 2 or 3 hours a day. IIRC, the equipment in that datacenter was roughly $10M with a minimum goal of $3M/yr being cycled out during upgrade cycles. At a different employer, just 1 machine ran roughly $1M, and we had 20 of them in our local datacenter. And those aren't even the biggest servers you could get, even then. People these days mostly have no clue what a real datacenter is or involves, and it's sad they think their single box or a handful of VMs on Amazon make for "enterprise" deployments. They're fine for POC or startup, but sooner rather than later you're going to want to bring that in house.
Before anyone goes there, no, I don't think Hillary would be doing any better.
A sack of potatoes would be doing better.
You have unknown enemies that come from CA and NY? And they want to destroy your local Texas health care system? How, pray tell? By removing their ability to deny care and let people die? Do you have health insurance, because if you do you don't really have any complaints. If not, do you expect health care? The reason health insurance costs keep rising is because the health insurance industry needs ever increasing profits to make shareholders happy, and of course, bonuses. There isn't enough time to detail everything else that's wrong with the US health care industry, but it's definitely not healthy.
Yeah, some of us hate the Ewoks that much.
(From wikipedia, because it was easiest)
Thus, the CRA wasn't in play for these investment banks, nor were they regulated. Yet they were the root cause of the recession.
You can read more about it - yes, there was a housing bubble, it wasn't caused by government policy, and the GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) weren't drivers with their directives. When you can offload your risk for cash to loan more, there's no incentive to strengthen your requirements, because your base risk is still low. Someone else took the risk off your hands that you had. If you recall, several of those investment banks wound up being guilty of repackaging low-quality mortgage loans as high quality investments. All of that lead to an environment where lower quality loans being less costly and risky to originators and thus more and more were written and passed into the system. That increase in demand caused, you guessed it, increased prices. Thus the bubble grew and grew and finally popped at the slightest poke.
Compared to our return on the 8 Trillion in increased debt from the Obama years with no real benefit to be shown for it - yeah, totally a bargain.
Let's see - roughly 6T of that was directly related to saving our economy from the crash of 2008, and whose fault was that again? Oh yeah, the Republican led rollback of Democratic originated regulations on the banking industry allowed that to develop. Hmm. The remainder of the deficits were the result of Republican majority Congress, so what, exactly, did Obama do to the debt? What did we get? Obamacare. A half-assed form of universal coverage, but at least they tried, which the Republicans apparently find so abhorrent they're doing everything in their power to sabotage it so it "fails". Why? Because they're incapable of replacing it, as their concept of "healthcare", short version: pay or suffer and die (restated as it's god's will)
It wasn't just debt but also a virtual destruction of our economy. If you doubt this, go back and look at what the economy did post 1987, when the cracks became apparent in the USSR and then 1989, after the wall fell. This was especially felt in the manufacturing and high tech industries of the time. It also set the ground work for the rise of China's explosive economic growth, although that was going to happen sooner or later. I'm not saying the dissolution of the USSR was a bad thing. I do believe how relations were handled post 1990 might have resulted in a different and safer world, but we allowed the current situation to develop. And now we're stuck with some new expensive problems and dangers that a few different policies could likely have muted greatly. But that's a benefit of hindsight, where you can see where you should have done 'A' even though it would have hurt then to prevent 'B' from occurring. Without the certainty of 'B' the price of 'A' seemed too high.
The difference is that in the normal operation of the criminal justice system, the system isn't overwhelmed on a daily basis with a never ending flood and criminal cases process quicker, ...
If the border crosser has just crossed illegally it should be nearly that quick assuming we have enough judges to handle all the cases. But when the crosser claims asylum that throws a big wrench into the situation. Now there are a series of interviews and investigations of their claims that have to be processed and this takes time. Meanwhile thousands more enter the system every day.
And yet, only 2000 (for sake of this argument) children have been separated in 6 months. So is it thousands a day? Or a thousand a month? Or something less?
The Obama Catch and release program is a failure with over 80% of those caught and released failing to show up for their court dates. (Catch and release was they were caught, briefly processed and released into the US with a court date). It's a viable system to deal with the logistics of such large scale detention and arrests.
As far as the failure to show up for court, you have the numbers backwards. About 75% did show up. Only 25% failed. That's still a large number, but at least complain about the right things.
And ICE is required by law to separate the children from their parents, the courts blocked an attempt to do otherwise.
Is it? So they were breaking the law for the last 30 years? Perhaps all of them should go to jail?
You can't argue that one person breaks the letter of the law and must go to jail and be separated from their family and then another that systematically breaks the law, according to you daily, doesn't go to jail.
Sure. This is why my kid had on their history final that Reagan ran up the national debt and turned the US from the #1 creditor to a debtor nation.
The difference from Obama was the political parties running congress and the executive were swapped. So - the blame got swapped too.
Historical fact: Reagan and his Republican wave did run up the debt. Check your history, as in go to various gov sites and see what the historical budgets were and who voted on them. Note that the Senate was controlled by Republicans for 6 out of his 8 years. Dems controlled the house during that time so they aren't entirely clean of the debt runup.
Trump inherited a terrible economy. People really have no idea just how bad off we were.
Seriously? Are you even in touch with reality?
In Detroit they were changing neighbourhoods back into farm land. Chicago was a shooting gallery, still is due to the Democrats running things.
I don't believe either of those things have materially changed, as you note for the second.
Obama's first two years we were in free fall, sky rocketing unemployment, things were terrible.
Why, yes they were. A continuation of the Republican delivered deregulation of the banking industry that resulted in that little depression back in 2008. Do recall who handed the government over to Obama. And what was the condition Bush got the economy in? Oh right, one of the best ever handed off, at least until this latest hand-off.
He also piled on the useless regulations. It was like a land mine field. Screw up and you can go to jail. Over nothing.
I think you're confused there. Seriously confused. But, that goes back to my first statement in this post. Those regulations were useful, although they do prevent unbridled capitalism, which is a good thing actually. Unbridled capitalism leads to things like the crash of 1929 or 2008....
Obama couldn't pull even a 3% growth in GDP. There was a nice chart of all of this and for some reason I can't even pull up www.bea.gov. Sigh. Anyhow, China overtook us - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Look at average values of GDP, not nominal. We just overtook China recently Making American Great Again.
You might want to check those GDP numbers Trump's broken 3% barely, while Obama broke 5% at least one quarter. Granted, Trump's policies have only really had 6 full months of unfettered potential - neither quarter broke 3%. As for GDP, the average for 5 years includes a couple of really bad ones from the 2008 crash. In terms of GDP, we're still almost twice as large as China with 1/6th the population. We also have a lot less pollution and other issues that in concert with Trump's trade war is going to possibly crash China's economy. The only question is whether we go down with it. Making America Great shouldn't be done by sinking everyone and crawling over the corpses.
About the balanced budget - No you don't. There has been one balanced budget and it was because the Republicans made Bill Clinton sign the bill kicking and screaming by shutting down the government. I remember it all too well.
And you're wrong again.
So let me bring you back to the e-mail server. This is something that there is no dispute on. She clearly violated the espionage act and I think everyone knows it. She tried to destroy all of that with bleach bit and hammers to the cell phones. Does this sound like a woman that is innocent? There is no intent in the law. If it were you or I, we'd be in a cell right now. In my case probably for what's left of my life.
Unlike you, I actually worked in a job with those types of restrictions. I also happen to know about a few real violations. Trust me, I have yet to see anything on Hillary that violates anything other than policy. I've had this discussion with others and they have failed to provide any proof other than... but but but.. she must be dirty. She can't even be nailed for using private email for government work, as that was apparently "acceptable" at the time. Not in my job, but apparently my dept works under different and more strict rules.
In your response I see a lot of basic misunderstandings. The last part a lot of people don't understand. Your party affiliation is important during t
Yes, batteries are the issue. It's always been the issue, all the way back to the dawn of cars (first taxis in NYC were electric in 1897) It seems like several EVs have solved that issue (GM, Nissan, Tesla, BMW) so at least 4 manufacturers appear to have resolved battery issues well enough to sell plugin battery vehicles.
By 2020 it sounds like BMW and VW/Audi will have EVs in production. For higher end vehicles you can add Porsche to the current mix. I don't recall Mercedes stance, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them release an EV at the same time or within a year. 2023 was the original time-line IIRC for EU EV production. There are pressures outside of Tesla and the US that are driving EV development. If you've ever stepped outside in a typical city, e.g., Paris, on a non-breezy weekday, your lungs would quickly tell you why.
My guess is that they'll go to the new solid lithium batteries first for higher capacity and much better safety.
I haven't had interest in Ford since they did away with adjustable headrests back in the 90s (they only recently came back). Deathtraps if you weren't the proper size for their cars. That coupled with terrible service and a lack-luster line of vehicles in the last 20 years made me look elsewhere. There's a reason Trump sees so many BMW/Mercedes/Audis driving around, GM/Chrysler/Ford don't make any desirable/decent cars especially for the money asked.
tons of people that react to electric like: "I DON'T WANT A GOLF CART. THAT'S A GLORIFIED GOLF CART." Etc.
I have not seen anyone react to a Tesla with anything other than a major jaw drop as it disappears down the road, not even in "insane" mode.
If you think about it, while what you said makes sense in the perfectly legal world, this is the real world and Tesla has had some negative external pressures that just got a gut punch. Libel? I'll bet Elon's smart enough to only repeat those pieces that are in the police report.
Tesla is part of a keiretsu, and as such can easily be as huge as Apple. You just need to expand your vision a tad.
Really? I don't even know where to start.
Here, I don't think you can call the WashPo a right wing paper. So have at it - https://www.washingtonpost.com...
So how come the IRS never audited them? I think it's certain they took money from the foundation from what I've read.
Ever hear of the Clinton Foundation? Ever hear of Uranium one? ... and so on.
So, what in the WashPo indicates anything was wrong, other than 1 $500K donation in 2010? And the only thing wrong there appears to be clerical. And you don't think the IRS audited them? I know they audited them again in 2016, at the behest of 64 Republicans. Where are those Republicans when it's time to audit the Trump Organization charities? As for them taking money - please provide proof. That they take money for speaking? Yes they do. As does every other single ex-president. Uranium One - again, provide proof. I've seen a lot of accusations, zero proof. And that's the problem.
Not hard to find. Not hard to find references to actual court cases and such though that doesn't seem to matter to liberals. Nothing does. They're far to emotional to listen to reason. Let's see how you do.
https://www.investors.com/poli... https://www.theatlantic.com/po... http://thehill.com/policy/nati...
A reference to an editorial that links to another set of editorials? That's the best you can do? In fact, your second link proves that there was nothing untoward with the Uranium One deal. If anything, it shows extreme partisan bias being wielded to denigrate a potential candidate. (After all, where's the investigation of the other 8 departments that approved U-One, or even the assertion that Clinton swung the vote somehow, or influenced the other 8?)
How about the health care bit that she couldn't shove down our throats in 1994, shoved it down our throats as the ACA? Here, listen to Mr. Gruber (the "expert" that pushed it through) tell you how stupid you are - http://thehill.com/policy/heal...
Ah yeah, Gruber, the self-important self-grandizing model that Gulliani is out-grandizing.... Anyone that didn't get the message that the healthy would pay in to help lower (subsidize) the costs for the unhealthy should probably be in a mental ward. I'm no fan of Obamacare, but it at least attempted to address the healthcare issues for the people, no matter how badly. The then existing system was setup to only support healthy people and maximize profits. Not really a healthcare solution.
The Clintons seem to be as corrupt as they come. From Hillary nearly getting disbarred when she worked at the Rose law firm to Bill & Hillary being disbarred after they left the WH. They are not nice people.
The only argument I have with your statement is that Hillary was not disbarred. Facts are important. And FWIW, back in 2000 or so, when people said Hillary would make a run for president, I pointed to the TV and stated that the only way Hillary would be elected is if someone like Trump, standing next to Bill and Hillary, was her opponent. I really do wish I'd bet on her presidential run. Make no mistake about it, the only reason she lost to asshat Trump is because of large amounts of disinformation floating about the rather fertile minefie
Proof? Only 10 were classified in the first review IIRC. It's been a while, but what I reviewed when I had this discussion in depth was that this entire email thing was a red herring as far as classification went, at least with what we the public had access to. The only thing that really should have been addressed is that private email accounts should not be used for government business. Various government agencies had such policies back in the 90s already and it's inexcusable IMNSHO that the State dept didn't have such policies and that a 4 star general (Powell) who was subject to those policies used non-government email providers for state dept business.
Sorry but the Clinton era helped usher in a new acceptance of sexual infidelity.
I believe the Clinton era ushered in a new level of partisan rancor about sexual infidelity and attempted to use it as a tool to remove a relatively popular president. You need to go back to LBJ, JFK, Eisenhower, and Harding to see how open and accepted sexual infidelity was.
Nothing in there explicitly states she sent any such email that originated from her. She did receive email from the gov system which had some classified info on it. Email that was classified after the fact is irrelevant. In fact, the whole thing even from politifact is rather light on specific details only stating aggregated numbers. This means there's no meaningful conclusions you can draw from the information presented, other than to answer "yes, there was some classified info on HRC's servers" Who originated said classified information can only be known by reviewing the specific emails, which obviously we cannot see.
I think you're going to require some other source - that only details her statements that she asked for those portions that were unclassified to be sent to her via the unclassified system so she could work as much as possible while awaiting the full document via secure fax. And this is just a transcript of an interview with nothing damning in it.
Further, it's clear she used her position for financial gain. Very clear. At the expense of the United States.
Is it? Is it really? Want to provide some proof of that financial gain? After all, if it's so clear, you should be able to provide whatever's needed for those hapless FBI guys so she can be charged tomorrow, right? TBH, I'm sick of you conspiracy nutjobs (both sides) that just keep on repeating some tripe you heard in one of your echo chambers. Put up some real documentation or shut up.
A Republican would already be years into his prison sentence by now if he did what she did at the same time.
Well, Trump's still going, and it's been documented that he's benefiting from his elected position. (His hotel in DC alone has a 50% increase in revenues since the presidency started, along with the sudden large number of legal actions in China going his and his family's way post election) I think you'll see more unsavory stories as administration actions are traced back to those that benefitted from them. Zinke is my personal favorite for next indictable current administration official. His actions as EPA head and interactions with lobbyists are billowing smoke. All that's needed is to find the fire.
Those are helpful points. In all the news about Hillary Clinton's email servers, I never saw ANYTHING that would indicate Hillary Clinton has any technical knowledge.
She doesn't, and she had someone help set all this up for here. At some point, I believe it was documented as to who that party was, but it is truly irrelevant, as it was merely someone following orders.
Many people think the October 28, 2016 message from James Comey about Hillary's emails was enough to cause people to avoid voting for her. See the bottom third of page 197 for the beginning of his discussion of that. To me, Comey seems like someone who realizes the importance of social sophistication, struggles for greater social understanding, but often does not deal well with social issues.
Comey was between a rock and a hard place, I'll grant you that. But he should have stuck to dept policy, especially considering he was also on the Russia investigation. He single handedly threw a grenade of unknown type into the election process. For that he should be punished, according to the policies and statements in hand. He did not deserve what Trump pulled on him, or others, for that matter.
As for the effect on the election, given Hillary's unpopularity with the populace at large, yes, something as simple as that statement from Comey could throw the election. And that should tell you something about how unpopular Trump is. I happen to have some folks I know living in an over 55 area in a solidly red zone. They are not happy. This election cycle could be interesting.
I think you need to see a difference here. It seems like Hillary, Strzok and Page were all trying to hide things by using their personal email.
Hillary - following example set by Powell and reinforced by Rice. Wasn't the bulk of her primary contacts for all government business email government servers?
Strzok/Page? Really? I thought the problem there was that they were sending personal messages on government devices and services. Stupid is what I call that those two.