Yes let's give this miserable, blathering fucktard the launch codes. He should be disqualified from the running for shit like this, but no, it's a new era in elections where thinly-veiled threats are open for business. What a pathetic joke of an election.
See, I love this shit. He is honest; if you truly believe these aren't the type of discussions that occur in Washington behind closed doors then I think you are allowing yourself to be deluded. Let him be elected. Letting it burn may not be the worst thing that ever happened.
Yes, I know the ignorant love this guy. Why am I calling them ignorant? Because Trump doesn't actually seem to know what the requirements of being the President are. The fact that so many people in the Caucus support him tells me, with no doubt, they also don't understand what the President can actually do. Under the Constitution (yes, I know, that tired old thing) the President has some direct influence over domestic issues, but not nearly as much as the Candidates (including Trump) talk about. For instance, they all talk about 'tax plans' but here's the crazy thing: while the President can propose anything he wants in a domestic policy context, Congress (yeah, those guys) are the ones that actually have to pass legislation. Like it or not, that's the way it works. So Trump, Clinton, Sanders and the rest of them can talk about how they're all going to roll out this legislation that is going to make the economy better (and they can in one respect, but none of them will actually do it as I'll come to in a minute) but ultimately, Congress has to pass it. And let's be realistic for a moment (again, I know, why do that?). A month ago, I would have said that you're definitely looking at a Republican controlled Congress next term - but given the passing of Scalia (and response of Republican leaders), I'm not as sure about that. I will go under the assumption that the Republicans will hold a small majority in both houses next term. So what happens? If either Clinton or Trump are elected - nothing. The Republicans have made it clear they don't like Trump, and let's be clear, if Congress thought they couldn't 'get along' with Obama, wait until Trump deals with them. Trump will be a one term President, at best. He will accomplish nothing, even though his ostensible party is in control of Congress. If Clinton gets elected? She probably won't get much done either, but she will have the advantage in that she can point to Congress (and rightfully so in domestic policy situations) and say 'hey, they never worked with me.' And she'll be right. Many think Congress doesn't work with Obama because he's black, and while that may play a small part, the biggest part of the non cooperation is the Big Money in this country has a very strong interest in protecting the status quo, because they have benefited from pretty much every policy decision since 1978. They have no interest in seeing it undone, and regardless of whether Clinton or Trump is President, nothing will get done. Now here's the part where a President actually can do quite a bit: foreign policy. No one will respect Trump internationally. Yes, he's a money guy, but ultimately, he is the quintessential buffoon that Americans are believed to be by pretty much the rest of the civilized world. Clinton has far more credibility in that regard, so she probably would be able to actually get a lot more done. The one place that a President has a lot of influence is in foreign trade. This country has been sold on the idea of 'the global market' as if it's a good thing for us. It isn't. The data, compiled over 40 years of this policy, shows that we can't compete with other nations when it comes to labor. There are many reasons for this, which I won't go into here. But ultimately, if we want a better economy including better jobs for the middle class, we are going to have to protect our labor market. We haven't done so in 40 years, and the results are what we are dealing with now. Neither candidate will do anything about it, because the Big Money benefits from the way things are now. As with most thing I learned as a lawyer, you want to know the truth? Follow the money.
We have some tech people here. What is your guys take on the fbi v Apple? I'm not up to date on the specifics. Is the fbi asking for some sort of software key be created for them? Narrowly defined as asking for only this phone be cracked? The latter is what you hear in support of the fbi, the former I've heard Apple supporters claim.
If you read hackernews.com or other "tech" heavy forums, you'll see that that the majority consensus from the beginning seems to be that the DOJ/FBI were pushing for this to use as precedent, and with the recent (stupid) release of "and we have 12 more for you to do after you've got the first one done" is pretty well that. The FBI is trying to set legal precedence, plain and simple, and in this case, it's wrong, in my opinion. Just about every tech person of power agrees that it's wrong. Even Bill Gates, who has probably the most open-minded, nuanced, and pro-government stance on government and privacy thinks this is wrong. Just about every tech company in the US is on the verge of telling the government to go fuck themselves and draw a line in the sand because of this, and it's bad enough that senators are stepping in and telling the FBI to back the fuck down. As much as everyone loves to pile on Apple as being a pretentious and over-priced fanboy nation, Tim Cook has had the balls to say, "no", and a long line of tech billionaires are getting in line behind him. We have way, way too many technical idiots making decisions about shit they don't understand, from software patents to "the internet is a series of tubes", and it's got to stop. We need to inject some sort of technical expertise into Government so something other than the desire for power or money drives the decision making.
I thought Bill Gates was siding on the FBI side? But yes everything Nett said, they just want to say well you did it once, do it again.
In this case, he's not. The "problem" with Gates' stance is that it is, like I said, nuanced. It's not easy for people to understand like "good" and "evil", it's shades of grey, and very dependent on the situation. http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/23/11098592/bill-gates-fbi-apple-comments Due to the overwhelmingly professional reporting these days some "journalists" jumped on an apparent opportunity to show some dramatic strife in the tech ranks, when there was in fact none there. Go figure.
Holy shit and what the hell? We're 55 days into the new year and NYPD has recorded 567 slashing attacks, most of them random. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/2...ten-citizens-puzzle-experts.html?intcmp=hpbt2
That's only a 20% increase if you compare last year's numbers and not that scary if you consider it's an average of 10.3 per day on a transit system that averaged 5.6 million riders, daily, in 2014. http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffsubway.htm
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval is being vetted by the White House as a possible nominee to the United States Supreme Court, according to a report by the Washington Post on Wednesday http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/31305017/report-sandoval-being-vetted-for-supreme-court#ixzz417IEgBW0
And here it comes. "A person identified as Witness No. 1 told the detective that Marquez smelled of alcohol and appeared intoxicated. He said there was a group near the door at the restaurant and when the Marquez passed by, he said, "Excuse me, ‘N word’ and then another expletive when the suspect questioned what he said." "The detective also testified about a second witness who backed up what Marquez told police. The detective said this witness saw Marquez being asked by the group about Black Lives Matter. This witness said the victim didn't respond and later observed Marquez being struck." And now the victim has to prove he's not a racist. http://www.fox5dc.com/news/95384415-story
What about The Bern? You left him out of your analysis. If people think Obama got nowhere with Congress, wait til you see how far The Bern gets. He also doesn't seem to discuss much about foreign policy beyond bracing his argument for social program expansion with discussion of the costs of foreign adventurism. I assume that to mean he will end all of the foreign wars?
Because he's so far behind with delegates that he basically has to run the table. In other words, I don't see Bern really having a shot at getting the nomination. Right now, Clinton has 505 and Bern has 71. You need a bit under 2,400 (with about 4,200 available) delegates to win the nomination. I just don't see Bern (as you call him) being able to win it out. Even if they split (which I highly doubt as the primaries move to the South and Midwest), Clinton wins fairly handily. Hence, he wasn't in my analysis.
And there is the fact that Hillary may still be indicted at any time over her handling of top secret e-mails. 10.3 random knife attacks on strangers each and every day isn't that scary? Damn. I'd bet my home in Mississippi has had 10 people randomly attacked with a knife in the past 20 years, probably more the past 50. Hell, I'd doubt there's been 10 random knifings here in Las Vegas this year.
This is the next level of messed up. In the latest high-profile rape hoax, five teens from Brownville NY (who despite being minors were named in the press, is that legal there?) were charged with chasing off the father of an 18 year old woman and gang-raping her in a park at night. The twist isn't just that she and her dad railroaded these kids, it's that apparently she was fucking her father in the park and they came across it. So they happy couple conspired to ruin five young lives. NYPD has no intention of charging the woman with anything. She had better have the mind of a three-year--old: Link: https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20...st-5-teens-accused-of-attack-brownsville-park
Yes, but Obama had several things going for him that Bernie doesn't: 1) Obama was a rising star in the party; 2) He did not have much of a record to get nailed down on 3) The economy was a disaster; 4) We were involved in two - by that time - very unpopular wars. Hillary at that time was seen as just a continuation of the status quo that got us there - G H W Bush, B. Clinton, George W Bush, whereas Obama was not. 5) The party machine could support Obama. Sanders just doesn't have those advantages. While I like what Sanders has to say quite a bit, he's not a Democrat (he's an Independent that caucuses with the Democrats), he's on the downside of his career, and he has a record that will hurt him outside of the very liberal Northeast. Barring a major misstep by Clinton, I just don't see him getting the nomination. But the biggest reason I don't see it happening is because it really looks like Trump will win the Republican nomination, and if that happens, the Democrats will want someone who has been bashed and well vetted by the public like Hillary, because you won't get surprises out of her. And frankly, in the general election when push comes to shove, Trump's act will get tired and ultimately people will want someone who doesn't look like a complete asshole. The comparison will be very kind to Hillary.
This article has more interesting details about the rape case. Sounds like she has had a fucked up life if it led her to this, based on how much the prosecutors, et al feel sorry for her even after she's nuked their case. http://gawker.com/brooklyn-district-attorney-drops-charges-against-all-5-1761137121
After reading multiple accounts of the recent events in the case....Wow. It also leaves me wondering....were there threats made against the family which made them change their story? I mean, they pulled a complete 180 on their story and then clammed up. Nope. Don't want to press charges. Just drop it. Never happened. I'm also curious about the video taped consent. What teenager asks for video consent? The whole story is severely fucked up no matter what angle you look at it from. Either the girl was fucking her father in public and let a bunch of minors join in (Which leads to the question of why isn't she being charged with statutory rape if she agreed on video?) or she was gang raped and then threatened/coerced into changing her story. Also why did the father just wander off and try to notify the cops? "Yeah I was just fucking my daughter in the park and these guys came up, so I left." I think there is much more going on here then we know.