They are stupid lies - notice how there's rarely a crime alleged when Mueller charges someone with lying?
For example, manafort lied about a perfectly legal and appropriate meeting with the Russian ambassador, the issue was CHI had a transcript of call, and manafort lied about conversation. Woo-hoo, that's good for ten years hard time!
the indictment suggested that Mr. Trumpâ(TM)s campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them.
Netbooks failed because they initially only ran Linux, and to run Windows was expensive (50%, $100 upcharge for Windows). By the time the system performance caught up to the demands of Windows, the market was already burned on "netbooks" .
They were also upgrade-limited to 2 Gigs of RAM, by the time 4 Gig RAM was available, the market moved on - to low cost full-size laptops in the sub-$300 range.
Managing Chromebooks is "effectively zero" (effort? cost?) - so when a school district rolls out 1,200 chromebooks they simply manage themselves? They repair themselves?
I think not.
I suspect you think because your personal chromebook is zero maintenece, you imagine 1,200 would be just as easy to manage.
Exactly, Trump should never be re-elected. And if the midterms results are played out in 2020, then most of the traitorous Republicans lapdogs in the Senate won't be re-elected.
A third of the Senate was up for re-election, and a number of Republicans opted to retire, rather than run for re-election, and STILL the Republicans picked up seats in the Senate - increased their majority.
Are you thinking of the House, where everyone was up for re-election in 2018? The Senate was an unabashed success for the Republicans in 2018.
The TSA was created in large part to give the average traveler the sense that three or four guys with box cutters couldn't take over the plane and smash it into a big building to make a political point.
The problem is that the Republican party is now run by an admitted racist, sexist, senile bastard.
CItation? You do understand what "admitted" means, right? It means Trump, himself, said out loud that he is a "racist"... I doubt you've got that, but I'm open to your support of that claim.
First, it's not clear what it means for an "illegal border crossing" to be "kept open", but more importantly, the Democrats have already offered over a billion dollars to improve border security -- it's the $5.7B for a "wall" or "physical barrier" or "not a wall from sea to shining sea but merely a few improvements" that Trump's requesting that they're disagreeing with.
So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.
I'd also like to point out that while the scope of Trump's proposed border security "solution" keeps shrinking, the price tag does not. If he needed $5.7B to "build the wall!", then why isn't it considerably cheaper to implement his newly scaled down plan?
First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.
Second, he hasn't budged from $5.7BN because has the scope has been reduced, he's added money for improvements to detention facilities, additional judges to address the backlog, improved technology to monitor the border and additional border agents... But you knew that, right?
I agree the government's failure to review and approve lawful applications within X days (No more than, for example, 10 days) should result in automatic forced approval.
Holy crap, do you have any idea what's involved in submitting a drug for approval? If printed, the documentation would easily fill several 53' long tractor-trailers - ten days?
We could spend a fraction of that on cutting-edge detection technology devices, and maybe some on additional personnel to patrol for when crossings are detected, and have better overall broder security than some stupid-ass wall that they'll climb over, fly over, or tunnel under.
So, why don't Democrats propose tearing down all existing wall segments, thereby saving us the on-going expense of repairing and maintain the wall segments we have? I mean, why keep wasting money repairing the existing wall, now that we know they are 100% ineffective.
Trump's proposal include money for increased technology at the border ports of entry, additional judges to address the multi-year backlog of immigration cases, and improvements to immigration facilities.
But you don't know that because Democrats were too busy rejecting the proposal before he ever offered it.
Ok, but let's be honest about this. It's not about the deficit, this isn't a money question. This is about votes. The 800K people who are missing their paychecks are but pawns in this vote getting game. The 800K folks are hostages.... What are you going to do?
The vast majority of government workers are Democrats, so Republicans don't "lose" voters with the shutdown from the furloughed workers.
Politically, this only hurts Democrats, since their supporters are the only ones suffering right now.
Now that $57 on a 44k budget is a big deal. $44k isn't a lot to live on, and the $57 can go to useful things, like new clothing, healthier food, or just making this months rent.
Shut up, you're being stupid.
It's 0.1% of your income at $44K/yr. It's ONE DOLLAR/WEEK. How much clothing, "healthier food" can you buy for $1/week?
Someone that makes $44K/yr, earns about $900/wk - you're saying $1 more, making it $901 would lead to a profound life change?
I'm reminded of the Democrats arguing that $20/week was a life-changing amount for most Americans under the Obama Administration, but then turned around and called the Trump tax cuts "peanuts" and ran last year on a platform of taking away those "crumbs".
Do the Democrats not understand that financial windfall even one mere dollar/week (nearly 2.5 cents/hour for a full-time worker!) represents?
We spend $4.4 Trillion/year, and borrow about $800 Billion/year to make up for spending that outstrips receipts.
Question, how long must the federal government be "shutdown" until the back-pay, for no work, exceeds the $5 Billion the President wants? In the not too-distant future, Democrats will approve spending $5BN on workers that did nothing, to avoid paying $5BN employing workers to build the wall segments Trump wants.
By having to spend billions through the years replacing sections that get cut through with household tools?
Please, describe these "household" tools that can cut though steel. I'm not saying the steel can't be breeched, I'm saying it can't be done with what the average person keeps in their house.
Build a wall and it either gets breached in the first few weeks and then is worthless, or you throw millions and billions at it every few years to keep it repaired and up to date. This is a never-ending money pit.
Really? It will take BILLIONS of dollar/year to maintain a wall that cost a few BILLION to build? You're just inventing outlandish numbers.
We have several hundred (700, IIRC) miles of existing fencing, what is the annual cost to repair and maintain it? Seems to me the cost is known, and easily calculated by anyone interested in a honest debate of the cost, as opposed to a Carl Sagan-like debate about "billions and billions".
The president is the one who is supposed to submit the budget in the US system. Don't they teach US civics over there?
The President PROPOSES a budget to Congress, Congress (The House in particular) controls government spending, and it is Congress that drafts the budget, passes it and sends it on to the Senate, who approves it and passes it on to the President to sign it.
The President does not set the budget, and the President can not exercise a "line-item veto" on the budget put on his desk - he either signs or vetoes the entire bill.
It's cute that you imagine the President sets the budget.
The Democratic House has already passed several bills to reopen the government in the past couple of weeks. The Senate GOP won't even allow a vote on them.
The bills spinning around in Congress fail to address the crisis at the border - ask the residents in Tijuana Mexico about the "manufactured crisis" at the border.
Border walls work - if they didn't, why hasn't the wall near San Diego been taken down?
My favorite video clip was of CNN's Jim Acosta, standing next to a section of border wall, arguing that there's no need for a border wall because there was no issue where he stood, in the shadow of the existing border wall.
And Obama promised our healthcare costs wouldn't go up, we could keep our doctors/health plans, and that PPACA (ObamaCare) "wouldn't add one thin dime to the debt."
So what? Politicians make statements on the campaign trail that they fail to live up to - that's worth shutting down the government for a month?
Trump also didn't give the Democrats anything near what they wanted. He only promised to kick the DACA can down the road for 3 years, and this after he's trying to cancel the program outright.
When Trump ended the "created out of whole cloth" DACA program it was hot on the heels of the finding that the related DAPA (Dreamer parent program) was unconstitutional and about a dozen states were lining up to challenge DACA with the same argument, and there was every indication it too would be found unconstitutional. Trump pre-emptively announced an end date, giving Congress time to propose an alternative. Congress failed to do so, and the program expired when Congress failed to come up with an alternative. You may recall the President offered protection to 1.7 million DACA enrollees and future enrollees, but Democrats refused to accept that offer.
Democrats have been demanding "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" for the past twenty years, using that as an excuse to refuse any incremental improvement to our current immigration policy, yet they never put forth their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill, under either Republican/Democrat administrations.
The wall has nothing to do with border security. The cost of the wall far exceeds its overall benefit. Most of the crime that comes from the border comes from the legal ports of entry.
The wall (actually the disconnected segments of barriers spread across the 2,000 mile southern border) will direct border crossers to legal ports of entry.
Lets face it. If your goal is to be a criminal, and sell black market goods, your margins are rather slim, to risk your life wondering the desert or crossing tough mountains, or just having to traverse many miles to sell such goods. Just isn't worth it. You are better off risking a random check at the borders.
You obviously don't understand the criminal mind - loading your pockets/car/truck with illegal goods and driving to a border control station isn't a smuggler's first choice. The reason smugglers funnel through legal ports of entry is because existing walls make cross desert travel much more dangerous, encouraging them to attempt to get past the border control agents.
He expected Dems to just fold once he finished painting everyone in the corner and had no consideration on what to do in case Dems didn't fold. And now he has no idea on how to weasel out of the situation without folding himself.
Trump has an out, Pelosi/Dems don't.
Trump can declare a national emergency at the border and direct the Pentagon to redirect funds to wall construction - and with that Trump gets to build the wall, as promised.
Pelosi/Democrats have declared the wall "immoral" - how do you back down from that position without being seen as "caving"? Oh wait, it's only immoral in the desert - here in El Paso, over in San Diego, etc, it's actually quite effective?
Pelosi over-played her hand, now 800K federal employees are stuck without a paycheck because Pelosi said "immoral" not "a bad idea".
Walls work, $5BN in the federal budget is peanuts, and Trump has publicly offered a compromise - Democrats decided to reject the offer before it was even offered.
There are about 5.7 billion different dollar amounts Democrats could counter-offer with for border wall construction, they chose zero and keep repeating the Schumer fantasy about Trump slamming his hand on the table and walking out when they refused to compromise no matter what the President offered.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous cowards have UIDs?
Reminds me of this famous SNL sketch
They are stupid lies - notice how there's rarely a crime alleged when Mueller charges someone with lying?
For example, manafort lied about a perfectly legal and appropriate meeting with the Russian ambassador, the issue was CHI had a transcript of call, and manafort lied about conversation. Woo-hoo, that's good for ten years hard time!
the indictment suggested that Mr. Trumpâ(TM)s campaign knew about additional stolen emails before they were released and asked Mr. Stone to find out about them.
I've never heard of that CPU...
Netbooks failed because they initially only ran Linux, and to run Windows was expensive (50%, $100 upcharge for Windows). By the time the system performance caught up to the demands of Windows, the market was already burned on "netbooks" .
They were also upgrade-limited to 2 Gigs of RAM, by the time 4 Gig RAM was available, the market moved on - to low cost full-size laptops in the sub-$300 range.
Managing Chromebooks is "effectively zero" (effort? cost?) - so when a school district rolls out 1,200 chromebooks they simply manage themselves? They repair themselves?
I think not.
I suspect you think because your personal chromebook is zero maintenece, you imagine 1,200 would be just as easy to manage.
Microsoft will not wine and dine administrators, Microsoft doesn't sell these devices, except possibly in their Microsoft Retail store.
Exactly, Trump should never be re-elected. And if the midterms results are played out in 2020, then most of the traitorous Republicans lapdogs in the Senate won't be re-elected.
A third of the Senate was up for re-election, and a number of Republicans opted to retire, rather than run for re-election, and STILL the Republicans picked up seats in the Senate - increased their majority.
Are you thinking of the House, where everyone was up for re-election in 2018? The Senate was an unabashed success for the Republicans in 2018.
The TSA was created in large part to give the average traveler the sense that three or four guys with box cutters couldn't take over the plane and smash it into a big building to make a political point.
The problem is that the Republican party is now run by an admitted racist, sexist, senile bastard.
CItation? You do understand what "admitted" means, right? It means Trump, himself, said out loud that he is a "racist"... I doubt you've got that, but I'm open to your support of that claim.
First, it's not clear what it means for an "illegal border crossing" to be "kept open", but more importantly, the Democrats have already offered over a billion dollars to improve border security -- it's the $5.7B for a "wall" or "physical barrier" or "not a wall from sea to shining sea but merely a few improvements" that Trump's requesting that they're disagreeing with.
So Democrats want money for improved detainment facilities, additional judges to address the backlog of cases, and improved technology to provide a "virtual wall" in many locations, along with additional border agents? Hold that thought.
I'd also like to point out that while the scope of Trump's proposed border security "solution" keeps shrinking, the price tag does not. If he needed $5.7B to "build the wall!", then why isn't it considerably cheaper to implement his newly scaled down plan?
First off, it was always a "scaled-down" solution - he never proposed a border-to-border wall fro $5.7BN, he wanted $25BN for a border-to-border wall, to be built over time - you know, the wall Democrats voted for in 2006.
Second, he hasn't budged from $5.7BN because has the scope has been reduced, he's added money for improvements to detention facilities, additional judges to address the backlog, improved technology to monitor the border and additional border agents... But you knew that, right?
Can an explosive-sniffing dog detect a ceramic knife, or even a box cutter?
I agree the government's failure to review and approve lawful applications within X days
(No more than, for example, 10 days) should result in automatic forced approval.
Holy crap, do you have any idea what's involved in submitting a drug for approval? If printed, the documentation would easily fill several 53' long tractor-trailers - ten days?
We could spend a fraction of that on cutting-edge detection technology devices, and maybe some on additional personnel to patrol for when crossings are detected, and have better overall broder security than some stupid-ass wall that they'll climb over, fly over, or tunnel under.
So, why don't Democrats propose tearing down all existing wall segments, thereby saving us the on-going expense of repairing and maintain the wall segments we have? I mean, why keep wasting money repairing the existing wall, now that we know they are 100% ineffective.
Trump's proposal include money for increased technology at the border ports of entry, additional judges to address the multi-year backlog of immigration cases, and improvements to immigration facilities.
But you don't know that because Democrats were too busy rejecting the proposal before he ever offered it.
Ok, but let's be honest about this. It's not about the deficit, this isn't a money question. This is about votes. The 800K people who are missing their paychecks are but pawns in this vote getting game. The 800K folks are hostages.... What are you going to do?
The vast majority of government workers are Democrats, so Republicans don't "lose" voters with the shutdown from the furloughed workers.
Politically, this only hurts Democrats, since their supporters are the only ones suffering right now.
Now that $57 on a 44k budget is a big deal. $44k isn't a lot to live on, and the $57 can go to useful things, like new clothing, healthier food, or just making this months rent.
Shut up, you're being stupid.
It's 0.1% of your income at $44K/yr. It's ONE DOLLAR/WEEK. How much clothing, "healthier food" can you buy for $1/week?
Someone that makes $44K/yr, earns about $900/wk - you're saying $1 more, making it $901 would lead to a profound life change?
I'm reminded of the Democrats arguing that $20/week was a life-changing amount for most Americans under the Obama Administration, but then turned around and called the Trump tax cuts "peanuts" and ran last year on a platform of taking away those "crumbs".
Do the Democrats not understand that financial windfall even one mere dollar/week (nearly 2.5 cents/hour for a full-time worker!) represents?
We spend $4.4 Trillion/year, and borrow about $800 Billion/year to make up for spending that outstrips receipts.
Question, how long must the federal government be "shutdown" until the back-pay, for no work, exceeds the $5 Billion the President wants? In the not too-distant future, Democrats will approve spending $5BN on workers that did nothing, to avoid paying $5BN employing workers to build the wall segments Trump wants.
By having to spend billions through the years replacing sections that get cut through with household tools?
Please, describe these "household" tools that can cut though steel. I'm not saying the steel can't be breeched, I'm saying it can't be done with what the average person keeps in their house.
Build a wall and it either gets breached in the first few weeks and then is worthless, or you throw millions and billions at it every few years to keep it repaired and up to date. This is a never-ending money pit.
Really? It will take BILLIONS of dollar/year to maintain a wall that cost a few BILLION to build? You're just inventing outlandish numbers.
We have several hundred (700, IIRC) miles of existing fencing, what is the annual cost to repair and maintain it? Seems to me the cost is known, and easily calculated by anyone interested in a honest debate of the cost, as opposed to a Carl Sagan-like debate about "billions and billions".
The president is the one who is supposed to submit the budget in the US system. Don't they teach US civics over there?
The President PROPOSES a budget to Congress, Congress (The House in particular) controls government spending, and it is Congress that drafts the budget, passes it and sends it on to the Senate, who approves it and passes it on to the President to sign it.
The President does not set the budget, and the President can not exercise a "line-item veto" on the budget put on his desk - he either signs or vetoes the entire bill.
It's cute that you imagine the President sets the budget.
The Democratic House has already passed several bills to reopen the government in the past couple of weeks. The Senate GOP won't even allow a vote on them.
The bills spinning around in Congress fail to address the crisis at the border - ask the residents in Tijuana Mexico about the "manufactured crisis" at the border.
Border walls work - if they didn't, why hasn't the wall near San Diego been taken down?
My favorite video clip was of CNN's Jim Acosta, standing next to a section of border wall, arguing that there's no need for a border wall because there was no issue where he stood, in the shadow of the existing border wall.
And Obama promised our healthcare costs wouldn't go up, we could keep our doctors/health plans, and that PPACA (ObamaCare) "wouldn't add one thin dime to the debt."
So what? Politicians make statements on the campaign trail that they fail to live up to - that's worth shutting down the government for a month?
Trump also didn't give the Democrats anything near what they wanted. He only promised to kick the DACA can down the road for 3 years, and this after he's trying to cancel the program outright.
When Trump ended the "created out of whole cloth" DACA program it was hot on the heels of the finding that the related DAPA (Dreamer parent program) was unconstitutional and about a dozen states were lining up to challenge DACA with the same argument, and there was every indication it too would be found unconstitutional. Trump pre-emptively announced an end date, giving Congress time to propose an alternative. Congress failed to do so, and the program expired when Congress failed to come up with an alternative. You may recall the President offered protection to 1.7 million DACA enrollees and future enrollees, but Democrats refused to accept that offer.
Democrats have been demanding "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" for the past twenty years, using that as an excuse to refuse any incremental improvement to our current immigration policy, yet they never put forth their "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" bill, under either Republican/Democrat administrations.
The wall has nothing to do with border security. The cost of the wall far exceeds its overall benefit. Most of the crime that comes from the border comes from the legal ports of entry.
The wall (actually the disconnected segments of barriers spread across the 2,000 mile southern border) will direct border crossers to legal ports of entry.
Lets face it. If your goal is to be a criminal, and sell black market goods, your margins are rather slim, to risk your life wondering the desert or crossing tough mountains, or just having to traverse many miles to sell such goods. Just isn't worth it. You are better off risking a random check at the borders.
You obviously don't understand the criminal mind - loading your pockets/car/truck with illegal goods and driving to a border control station isn't a smuggler's first choice. The reason smugglers funnel through legal ports of entry is because existing walls make cross desert travel much more dangerous, encouraging them to attempt to get past the border control agents.
He expected Dems to just fold once he finished painting everyone in the corner and had no consideration on what to do in case Dems didn't fold. And now he has no idea on how to weasel out of the situation without folding himself.
Trump has an out, Pelosi/Dems don't.
Trump can declare a national emergency at the border and direct the Pentagon to redirect funds to wall construction - and with that Trump gets to build the wall, as promised.
Pelosi/Democrats have declared the wall "immoral" - how do you back down from that position without being seen as "caving"? Oh wait, it's only immoral in the desert - here in El Paso, over in San Diego, etc, it's actually quite effective?
Pelosi over-played her hand, now 800K federal employees are stuck without a paycheck because Pelosi said "immoral" not "a bad idea".
Walls work, $5BN in the federal budget is peanuts, and Trump has publicly offered a compromise - Democrats decided to reject the offer before it was even offered.
There are about 5.7 billion different dollar amounts Democrats could counter-offer with for border wall construction, they chose zero and keep repeating the Schumer fantasy about Trump slamming his hand on the table and walking out when they refused to compromise no matter what the President offered.