Where was the stepping down? Maybe some one should stop getting all of their news from right wing news sources that are obviously no better than gossip rags.
First off, two warning bells when watching this video. First, it's an RT network video which is Russia's state run news network. Second, the person being interviewed is Julian Assange of Wikileaks who has clearly picked a side (Trump / Russia) as clearly implied by Wikileaks constant digging on Clinton while ignoring Trump.
But let's get to actual content. You claim Hillary has "many more connections" to Russia but yet furnish a video that literally discusses one issue. Alright, so not "many" but let's talk about the single issue you brought up.
The video points to Hillary's approval, as secretary of state, of a Russian company purchasing a minority stake in a US company that processes uranium for the US government. Now, there might have been something shady in terms of donations to the Clinton Foundation tied to this but strictly in terms of her showing a bias for Russia this fails miserably. Russia has its own uranium. It's been making nuclear weapons for half a century. So what if it has this investment?
What you've furnished is nothing in the context of a Russian / Hillary connection. Meanwhile Hillary continues to denounce Russia's blatant anti-Western policies while not only is Trump going out of his way to alienate traditional US allies but you can't find him saying a single bad thing about a country that has gone out of its way to point out it's not our ally.
How much money do you want to put on your sources and where can I meet up with you to make the bet and put our money in the hands of a neutral party? If you're willing to bet enough on these sources I will fly to wherever you are to make counter bets on your claims.
I hate to be rude but I feel that I have to, how can you be so naive as to believe Clinton will drop out less than two weeks before the election when she is clearly ahead in the polls? You're straight up posting celebrity gossip level nonsense here.
This shouldn't be surprising. The only foreign country Trump praises is Russia, every traditional US ally he alienates in one form or another while Russia has shown itself directly antagonistic to Western interests and yet he still heaps praise on them. The only foreign political leader Trump ever praises is Putin. Members of his campaign staff have ties to Putin. Now we have the possibility of sketchy communications between Russia and Trump's campaign.
I loath conspiracy theories but if there was ever the case to made for one it would be a Trump / Russia one.
Seems pretty obvious to me that selling something on the internet means you're selling it everywhere that has an internet connection and permission to buy from you.
I wish half as much time and money was spent on men. We have male high school and college graduation rates at record lows and well below that of women which strikes me as far more important problem than a lack of women in a single field of business. Shoot, no one even talks about how few men become teachers when many studies show boys learn better from men than women (it's the same for female teachers and girls).
Dont get me wrong, having a good ratio of women in a workplace team is a good thing as it brings different perspectives, I just feel i hear a ton about the lack of women in computing and virtually nothing about a far more serious problem.
US workers are behind only Norway and Luxemburg in terms of productivity so your observation doesnt seem to line up with the big picture. We are getting more work done.
If this is the life style that you want, why dont you just hire prostitutes? The time spent to get laid using scenarios you describe dont seem terribly cost effective when aggregated out by what I make per hour on average.
You seem to be valuing your lifestyle choises on a terribly superficial level. Even your conversational choices amongst male friends sound completely boring to me.
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.
For starters your examples arent even anecdotal. A phone catching fire certainly isnt anecdotal. It's an event that either happens or not, human thought or oppinion doesnt really factor
As for the value of anecdotal evidence, yes with enough data points conclusions can be drawn although even then you have to be carefull because anecdotal evidence is riddled with personal bias. In this specific case however, you are only furnishng a single data point, your own experience. Your hiring practices could be garbage, your starting wage could be too low, you could be furnishing a poor work environment, and / or you could not be doing enough to advertise the positions. There are are dozens of things that arent "kids are lazy, not like in my day" that could be causing your problems.
In the context of our conversation anecdotal evidence is in fact worthless because it's just two data points, yours were you've had problems with young employees and my own where I've had quite a bit of success with younger workers. In my case, sure a few are weeded out as completely unsuitable during the hiring process and even then some dont work out but that can be said of older hires too.
And yet I see people half my age bust their asses around the work place all the time.
Either way, anecdotal evidence is garbage.
If you're in a successful part of California though the combination of high property values and rents aggravate an already low unemployment rate which makes finding quality labor hard right now. There's other parts of the country where this is happening too. This is ultimately a good thing as we might see a bit of wage recovery for the middle class and *gasp* maybe a little growth in this category which would be refreshing after 5 or 6 decades of middle class shrinkage (outside a brief period in the 90's)
Maybe the problem is you're not doing enough to get quality employees? I'm not trying to be offensive here but your post denotes an attitude that isn't particularly pleasant to work under. Also, how's your pay? I know you think it's fair (everyone does) but how does it stack up versus local living expenses and what others are offering.
I have and I find it terribly hard to believe that massive tax breaks on the wealthy, who are wealthier than they have ever been in US history, is in the average Americans best interest. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that massively lower corporate taxes will some how make US corporations, most who are sitting on unprecedented bank rolls, spend more money on creating jobs.
There's only one thing that will make either of these players spend more money on creating jobs and it's not handing them more money. It's the increased consumer demand that comes from a middle class that hasn't been shrinking for the last 50 years. It's simple supply and demand economics. If the demand is there, the affluent will spend more money to create the supply and in doing so create jobs. Shoveling more money at the wealthy does nothing to increase demand for goods and thus there is no correlating benefit to those who provide labor.
Obviously there are ceilings for these claims (you cant tax the wealthy endlessly like some third world country's failed populous policy) but we're miles from that.
It seems like your life experience is based around porno and that you actually talk to or really know very few women. Don't get me wrong, I like me some porn, but your "scenarios" are retarded. If any of those are actually based on real life they're based on taking advantage of those with low self esteem, something I've seen both men and women do.
And really "APEX" predator? I can't believe you weren't laughed at (I laughed at you). I started responding before i read the whole post and now that I'm at that, good god you're ridiculous. Why not tell her you're batman while you're at it? You were sleeping with an idiot. I guess getting off is great and all but you're certainly not sleeping with quality.
Trump is Wall Street much like the rest of the oligarch class he belongs to. How on earth did people start believing that a guy like this was of the common clay? His tax plan is a dream to Wall Street.
I was talking about estate taxes, not an individual candidate. That's why I said estate taxes and not a candidate's name. I was however replying to a post you might visit which might tie my post into the greater discussion. The poster was questioning Clinton wanting to increase the estate tax and I thus informed them about how that might help.
As for your other comment, pointing out that a minor tax full of loop holes doesnt perform a stated goal is like wondering why a bike tire doesnt work anymore after it got a hole punched in it. It doesnt do what I stated because it has been made to not do what I stated.
Yes, they stay the same at the expense of a ballooning national debt and negative levels of job creation. Meanwhile wealthy inequality grows at an even faster rate because our wealthiest benefit the most from his plan.
Sounds like a great way to continue the dismantling of the middle class to me.
Fun Fact: No you're a fucking idiot! (calling names sure is fun! I feel like an adult!) Fun Fact: I know plenty of people with degrees who I would not want to be president Fun Fact This is a great mechanic you've got here Fun Fact: Hillary making money off speaking to various groups = I'm falling for something? That's not even a coherent statement. Fun Fact: Trump has made all of his money off real estate and you're falling for it! Fun Fact: Trump doesn't have " wealth, power , history status" to gain from becoming president? That's just literally not true, he has all of those things to gain. Fun Fact: Please lay out the exact policy goals of Clinton that tell you she wants no more middle class. I ask because I look at Trumps tax plan that will significantly add to the debt and cost us jobs and then I look at Hillary's that will create jobs and lessen the debt and I feel like you're terribly confused.
And this is why i don't normally respond to AC posts because it brings out the idiots.
Yes I know no one getting over a few hundred grand isn't on the table, that's why I prefaced that with "If you ask me" thus establishing the part where I start to talk about my opinion.
I honestly don't understand your list or how it applies to our conversation. It looks like stream of consciousness based on whatever was coming into your head at the time.
If you think high estate taxes = communism you are either horribly uneducated, willfully ignorant, or both.
And then you're demanding a doctoral thesis because I said a wealthy class that did not earn their money isn't good for a democracy?
Finally, why do you keep talking about private colleges? It's like some one told some one who told some one who told you about my post and you replied to it without reading it yourself.
I normally don't do replies to AC comments as my profile tag suggests but I couldn't refuse this one.
Estate taxes are taxes designed to establish social equity. We don't need royalty in this country, which is to say children of billionaires who have done nothing to earn their wealth. A person should always benefit from wise commercial actions but a wealthy class completely distant from how that wealth was made is not good for a democracy.
If you ask me, no one should get more than a few hundred thousand from their parents. A few hundred thousand sets one up pretty well by any reasonable standard (while still making sure one has to work) but does not make one royalty by birth right.
So we should vote for Trump since he's straight up telling us he's going to fuck the middle class in the ass? It doesnt matter what you think Hillary might do because Trump has literally told us he's going to fuck us in the ass. He hasnt even promised to use lube. He straight up wants to increase wealth for the affluent to the rest of ours determent.
I'll take Hillary over a clear member of the oligarch class any day of the week, thank you.
Your ignorance is on display here. You're basically saying "Trump is better because he is different" when all I see is an oligarch playing for power. Please tell me, when his tax plan so clearly favors the affluent, how can you say he is for us "common folk".
Slashdot Mirror
Hahahaha.
Well said.
Where was the stepping down? Maybe some one should stop getting all of their news from right wing news sources that are obviously no better than gossip rags.
I'm sure he owns shares in lots of companies. Doesn't make him a Paul Manafort by any stretch.
I also dont think two bunk claims qualifies as "many". I'm sure if you keep watching RT news they'll tell you many more though.
That's your evidence?
First off, two warning bells when watching this video. First, it's an RT network video which is Russia's state run news network. Second, the person being interviewed is Julian Assange of Wikileaks who has clearly picked a side (Trump / Russia) as clearly implied by Wikileaks constant digging on Clinton while ignoring Trump.
But let's get to actual content. You claim Hillary has "many more connections" to Russia but yet furnish a video that literally discusses one issue. Alright, so not "many" but let's talk about the single issue you brought up.
The video points to Hillary's approval, as secretary of state, of a Russian company purchasing a minority stake in a US company that processes uranium for the US government. Now, there might have been something shady in terms of donations to the Clinton Foundation tied to this but strictly in terms of her showing a bias for Russia this fails miserably. Russia has its own uranium. It's been making nuclear weapons for half a century. So what if it has this investment?
What you've furnished is nothing in the context of a Russian / Hillary connection. Meanwhile Hillary continues to denounce Russia's blatant anti-Western policies while not only is Trump going out of his way to alienate traditional US allies but you can't find him saying a single bad thing about a country that has gone out of its way to point out it's not our ally.
How much money do you want to put on your sources and where can I meet up with you to make the bet and put our money in the hands of a neutral party? If you're willing to bet enough on these sources I will fly to wherever you are to make counter bets on your claims.
I hate to be rude but I feel that I have to, how can you be so naive as to believe Clinton will drop out less than two weeks before the election when she is clearly ahead in the polls? You're straight up posting celebrity gossip level nonsense here.
This shouldn't be surprising. The only foreign country Trump praises is Russia, every traditional US ally he alienates in one form or another while Russia has shown itself directly antagonistic to Western interests and yet he still heaps praise on them. The only foreign political leader Trump ever praises is Putin. Members of his campaign staff have ties to Putin. Now we have the possibility of sketchy communications between Russia and Trump's campaign.
I loath conspiracy theories but if there was ever the case to made for one it would be a Trump / Russia one.
Seems pretty obvious to me that selling something on the internet means you're selling it everywhere that has an internet connection and permission to buy from you.
It's what one would call "a start"
I wish half as much time and money was spent on men. We have male high school and college graduation rates at record lows and well below that of women which strikes me as far more important problem than a lack of women in a single field of business. Shoot, no one even talks about how few men become teachers when many studies show boys learn better from men than women (it's the same for female teachers and girls).
Dont get me wrong, having a good ratio of women in a workplace team is a good thing as it brings different perspectives, I just feel i hear a ton about the lack of women in computing and virtually nothing about a far more serious problem.
US workers are behind only Norway and Luxemburg in terms of productivity so your observation doesnt seem to line up with the big picture. We are getting more work done.
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
If this is the life style that you want, why dont you just hire prostitutes? The time spent to get laid using scenarios you describe dont seem terribly cost effective when aggregated out by what I make per hour on average.
You seem to be valuing your lifestyle choises on a terribly superficial level. Even your conversational choices amongst male friends sound completely boring to me.
Really?
Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony.
For starters your examples arent even anecdotal. A phone catching fire certainly isnt anecdotal. It's an event that either happens or not, human thought or oppinion doesnt really factor
As for the value of anecdotal evidence, yes with enough data points conclusions can be drawn although even then you have to be carefull because anecdotal evidence is riddled with personal bias. In this specific case however, you are only furnishng a single data point, your own experience. Your hiring practices could be garbage, your starting wage could be too low, you could be furnishing a poor work environment, and / or you could not be doing enough to advertise the positions. There are are dozens of things that arent "kids are lazy, not like in my day" that could be causing your problems.
In the context of our conversation anecdotal evidence is in fact worthless because it's just two data points, yours were you've had problems with young employees and my own where I've had quite a bit of success with younger workers. In my case, sure a few are weeded out as completely unsuitable during the hiring process and even then some dont work out but that can be said of older hires too.
And yet I see people half my age bust their asses around the work place all the time.
Either way, anecdotal evidence is garbage.
If you're in a successful part of California though the combination of high property values and rents aggravate an already low unemployment rate which makes finding quality labor hard right now. There's other parts of the country where this is happening too. This is ultimately a good thing as we might see a bit of wage recovery for the middle class and *gasp* maybe a little growth in this category which would be refreshing after 5 or 6 decades of middle class shrinkage (outside a brief period in the 90's)
Maybe the problem is you're not doing enough to get quality employees? I'm not trying to be offensive here but your post denotes an attitude that isn't particularly pleasant to work under. Also, how's your pay? I know you think it's fair (everyone does) but how does it stack up versus local living expenses and what others are offering.
I have and I find it terribly hard to believe that massive tax breaks on the wealthy, who are wealthier than they have ever been in US history, is in the average Americans best interest. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that massively lower corporate taxes will some how make US corporations, most who are sitting on unprecedented bank rolls, spend more money on creating jobs.
There's only one thing that will make either of these players spend more money on creating jobs and it's not handing them more money. It's the increased consumer demand that comes from a middle class that hasn't been shrinking for the last 50 years. It's simple supply and demand economics. If the demand is there, the affluent will spend more money to create the supply and in doing so create jobs. Shoveling more money at the wealthy does nothing to increase demand for goods and thus there is no correlating benefit to those who provide labor.
Obviously there are ceilings for these claims (you cant tax the wealthy endlessly like some third world country's failed populous policy) but we're miles from that.
It seems like your life experience is based around porno and that you actually talk to or really know very few women. Don't get me wrong, I like me some porn, but your "scenarios" are retarded. If any of those are actually based on real life they're based on taking advantage of those with low self esteem, something I've seen both men and women do.
And really "APEX" predator? I can't believe you weren't laughed at (I laughed at you). I started responding before i read the whole post and now that I'm at that, good god you're ridiculous. Why not tell her you're batman while you're at it? You were sleeping with an idiot. I guess getting off is great and all but you're certainly not sleeping with quality.
Trump is Wall Street much like the rest of the oligarch class he belongs to. How on earth did people start believing that a guy like this was of the common clay? His tax plan is a dream to Wall Street.
I couldn't agree more.
Oh, let me help you here.
I was talking about estate taxes, not an individual candidate. That's why I said estate taxes and not a candidate's name. I was however replying to a post you might visit which might tie my post into the greater discussion. The poster was questioning Clinton wanting to increase the estate tax and I thus informed them about how that might help.
As for your other comment, pointing out that a minor tax full of loop holes doesnt perform a stated goal is like wondering why a bike tire doesnt work anymore after it got a hole punched in it. It doesnt do what I stated because it has been made to not do what I stated.
What on earth does the chamber of commerce have to be nervous about? Trump has promised them a dream of a tax plan.
Yes, they stay the same at the expense of a ballooning national debt and negative levels of job creation. Meanwhile wealthy inequality grows at an even faster rate because our wealthiest benefit the most from his plan.
Sounds like a great way to continue the dismantling of the middle class to me.
Fun Fact: No you're a fucking idiot! (calling names sure is fun! I feel like an adult!)
Fun Fact: I know plenty of people with degrees who I would not want to be president
Fun Fact This is a great mechanic you've got here
Fun Fact: Hillary making money off speaking to various groups = I'm falling for something? That's not even a coherent statement.
Fun Fact: Trump has made all of his money off real estate and you're falling for it!
Fun Fact: Trump doesn't have " wealth, power , history status" to gain from becoming president? That's just literally not true, he has all of those things to gain.
Fun Fact: Please lay out the exact policy goals of Clinton that tell you she wants no more middle class. I ask because I look at Trumps tax plan that will significantly add to the debt and cost us jobs and then I look at Hillary's that will create jobs and lessen the debt and I feel like you're terribly confused.
And this is why i don't normally respond to AC posts because it brings out the idiots.
Yes I know no one getting over a few hundred grand isn't on the table, that's why I prefaced that with "If you ask me" thus establishing the part where I start to talk about my opinion.
I honestly don't understand your list or how it applies to our conversation. It looks like stream of consciousness based on whatever was coming into your head at the time.
If you think high estate taxes = communism you are either horribly uneducated, willfully ignorant, or both.
And then you're demanding a doctoral thesis because I said a wealthy class that did not earn their money isn't good for a democracy?
Finally, why do you keep talking about private colleges? It's like some one told some one who told some one who told you about my post and you replied to it without reading it yourself.
I normally don't do replies to AC comments as my profile tag suggests but I couldn't refuse this one.
Estate taxes are taxes designed to establish social equity. We don't need royalty in this country, which is to say children of billionaires who have done nothing to earn their wealth. A person should always benefit from wise commercial actions but a wealthy class completely distant from how that wealth was made is not good for a democracy.
If you ask me, no one should get more than a few hundred thousand from their parents. A few hundred thousand sets one up pretty well by any reasonable standard (while still making sure one has to work) but does not make one royalty by birth right.
So we should vote for Trump since he's straight up telling us he's going to fuck the middle class in the ass? It doesnt matter what you think Hillary might do because Trump has literally told us he's going to fuck us in the ass. He hasnt even promised to use lube. He straight up wants to increase wealth for the affluent to the rest of ours determent.
I'll take Hillary over a clear member of the oligarch class any day of the week, thank you.
Your ignorance is on display here. You're basically saying "Trump is better because he is different" when all I see is an oligarch playing for power. Please tell me, when his tax plan so clearly favors the affluent, how can you say he is for us "common folk".