Or even just extend the version number field out one extra
Or even just extend the version number field out one extra
Look I am not going to get drawn into a research project of pointing out specific records handling laws and sub paragraphs for an AC.
Its not the same thing as you calling me a child molester. You're accusation is baseless. In Hillary's case classified documents were found on system they should not be on. That is fact. Now how they got there matters. Did she send them before or after the classification was applied, should she have recognized them as materials that should be classified even if they were no so labeled etc. All that matters as it if she is specifically guilty of violating the law. To say there isn't evidence though is false. It just might not be proof.
To use your example it would be like if there was a kid screaming about how someone just molested them and a whiteness could put me in the general vicinity but could not confirm I was alone with the child. That would be evidence against me, but not proof I did anything wrong. I could not stop people from forming their own conclusions and while I would not like it I would expect and understand some limited action on their part, like not leaving me alone with their kids.
So it is with Hillary, she is a little to connected to a few to many ugly things. So while we don't lock her up, responsible people don't hand her the country to run either.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say.
I would say correctness requires both sending and correctly interpreting the message. If your use of English is such that your audience correctly understands the message with your original meaning and was not distracted by the character of the message itself, so as to drive its content from their minds, it is correct English.
That fact it never went to trial means she was never cleared. Its pretty plain to most people that she most likely violated federal laws for handling classified documents; but because it never went to trial we can't say she was proven guilty. It remains technically speaking an open question.
How serious an infraction it was, and how likely prosecution would have been successful, what the likely sentences could have been are all questions and largely matters of opinion for which you will find different ones offered by many qualified people who have experiences in those matters.
The Clintons were simply party to many scandals over two long a period to be trust worthy. Some of that perception has to do with a concerted partisan effort to to tie them to things, but its also true most of us even most other politicians don't lead such colorful lives.
She was not a good candidate! That should have been obvious to the big money contributors, it should have obvious to the other politicians that were going to have to back her candidacy, and it should have been obvious to the party. Next you have all the evidence that the DNC deliberately scudded the Sanders campaign, a man who did not have all of Clinton's liabilities.
I can think of only two reasons to go forward with HRC in the begging (IE when the RNC field was still 12+ people of varied quality)
1) Usually the incumbent party looses the White House after a two term presidency. So she was always secretly a throw away candidate, it was consider by many to be her turn, and backing her got her out of the way so she would not be around for a 202 election they more likely could win.
2) She really had enough friends and dirt on people to force them to cooperate.
I am not making any apology for the left or the protesters. Don't read this that way. I think they are viscous mob opposed to the values that built this nation and make it the greatest on earth.
You have to understand their mindset though, they don't care about opinions and thinking. I and likely you see individualism as being about to explore your own ideas, do you own thing to the extent it allows you to earn a living and lawfully procure the food and shelter you require. You and I probably don't care or seek to control where or in whom they stick their genitals (provided the other party consents), we don't care what clothes they wear etc. We do care that we are permitted to form our own opinion of them.
If someone looks like a girl I am going to use the pronouns and language I am familiar with to talk about them, that is my freedom. To demand otherwise is to oppress me. I might think they are crazy person, I am entitled to that opinion and I should be entitled to act on that opinion when it comes to doing something like deciding to employ them.
They see that as antiindividualistic, in their warped view, you and I must validate and enable their choices or they are being oppressed. This is obviously madness, and if society is allowed to go down the road were everyone is their own little god entitled to a reality all their own, actual reality is certain to come crashing down upon us sooner or later. They don't get that though because their entire lives have been selfish, this is a generation of people who grew up without values. They only know if they scream loud enough they get what they want. It always worked before, so now that they are not getting their way they only know to try an scream louder.
It won't end well for them. The question is are we going to allow them to make it not end well for us too, or are we going to "Make America Great Again" and put a stop to it.
Right, As much as I hate seeing people get hurt I am hopeful this how the left with its us against them identity politics it always engages in finally burns itself out. Hopefully regular will wake up a look around in 2 years and realize that all the damage all the violence came about from left wing protesting and all of them reached their point of justification not from Trump but from supposedly respectable news media, entertainers, politicians and the like.
Trump does some peevish name calling but its almost always directed at an individual and its *usually* based on something they did or failed to do, got poor ratings, gained a bunch of weight, got hacked, etc. That is different than the left were they toss around words like bigot and fascist quite often with no real historical justification at least not in terms of scope, they will outright fabricate claims of bigotry and racism which they will than often level not at individuals but at entire groups; the whole things really translates as "I know you are but what am I".
Hopefully middle America and lots women especially who went Hillary because they bought into the lefts lies about the "war on women" will wake up and see that:
1) They are at least as safe from external and domestic terror threats as before (Albright/Rice/Bush/Obama/Clinton/Kerry) were not foreign policy savants.
2) Their darker skinned friends and neighbors have not been dragged away in the night
3) They still have access to healthcare similar in quality to what they got before
4) Public schools still exist and maybe someone is actually trying to make them better in a meaningful way besides just pumping in more money which has not worked for the last 30 years.
5) Taxes are lower and people have a little more in their pockets
If all that comes to pass hopefully many of the remaining leftists will be removed from the Senate. We can get back to group of well meaning sensible liberals and traditional ( Taft style ) conservatives.
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Actually yes it is protesting, what is no longer is peaceful assembly. You therefore enjoy no right to do it.
No he did not. There was no need to issue any stay or injunction against enforcement of the order, while the mater is being resolved. None, you only do that when you strongly believe the legal challenge is going to succeed.
It won't the states don't have standing, in the first place. The president clearly has the legal authority given by congress in the second. This was a political stunt by this judge. He should have dismissed the case because of the standing issue actually. Even if he did think the case could succeed why is the temporary order national? Why not just Washington and Minnesota? This was activism, and he should be removed!
WAIT how does the Constitution clearly say this in unlawful! Citation please or shut the fuck up. I don't believe you, I have read the Constitution. I researched this issue when Khizr Khan was spouting his pro-Hillary lies! There is quire a lot of settled at the SCOTUS level case law on this.
What is different here? I think you are full of shit.
yes well the next thing out of the mouths of people bitching about the immigration orders will be more bitching about the wealth gap. Hint constrict the labor supply than the value of laybor goes up.
Want to get existing US citizens to move to places where the work is, pay a wage that commands their attention.
Hmm list of TBTFs make extra legal argument to try and influence what should be a narrow legal question about the scope of a 1952 immigration act.
It does not matter if you or anyone else things the action is a good idea. What matters is a very simple Question of did the legislation enacted by congress give the president the power to do what he did or not. Washington State and these mega corps are conflating irrelevant issues and trying to get the courts to act outside the law. They don't care about the rule of law. They care about their influence and want to prove theirs is greater than POTUS.
This is ACTUAL fascism folks, what these corporations are doing right here. Judge James Robart ought to be impeached, because he never should have issued a stay on something so impactful when the legal challenge is as weak as it is. I don't care who appointed him or how unanimously he was confirmed. Those things also are not relevant, the only thing that matters is can and will he do his job today and he showed he cant!
I am going toss this out there. The whole reason to use a binary try is for efficient searching. If the tree is so big that you potentially can't search it because of stack space burned in a recursive walk, than a binary tree was probably the wrong choice for a top level data structure anyway.
Really, hmm you have done much research. That isn't surprising, I would not except the sort to call Trump supporters monkeys goes far out of his way to find alternative view points.
Go read the dailywire, or stream.org, or even the weeklystandard. There are lots of articles and lots of comments on those articles by people who are pretty happy Trump is keeping promises he made on the campaign trail. Support his foreign policy both in terms of style and agenda, support his trade policy, see gains being made in the direction of returning to our values of religious freedom.
There are critics on those sites too naturally because no thinking person would agree on everything the president does even if he is 'their guy'.
I didn't read a threat, just a warning to fascists that history hasn't shown positive outcomes for two of the three European examples.
It absolutely was a threat , it was plain call for a military coup, with execution of the current leader as baked into the plan. The left is so concerned about 'causal violence' but they don't apparently listen to the violence implicit in their own rhetoric. Now do I think spouting off on social media and awards shows is likely to lead to a riot or violence, no so it does not meet the standards for which speech can or should be restrained. It was neither a credible threat nor is it likely to provoke action. Kinda like all the stuff people upset with a decade of Obama rule have said. Recall though the left has demanded they be silenced, created safe spaces, and generally advocated for a culture of fear, its their bed and now as a conservative I am more than happy they should lie in it.
I think, really, a sizable number of Trump supporters are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even follow the news, and had little idea of what he was before they voted for him, just looking at him as "Not Clinton."
Interesting I think a sizable number, a large majority actually, of Trump detractors are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even watch the news, they watch the Daily Show, read a collection of facebook posts, and unresearched buzz feed blogs and tell themselves how informed they are, they had little idea of who what Trump was before they voted against him (if they bothered to vote at all). They only knew about a few bits he did for entertainment programs and a bunch of context free soundbites.
Those in denial won't recognize the warning, because they don't want to believe that it applies. From their point of view, Trump is just another President. They've never heard of Bannon. On the odd occasion they've heard something worrying about Trump, it's been "balanced" by an exaggeration of something done by "the other side".
I would suggest most of the people worried about Trump are in denial, they don't want to believe what it implies. From their point of view, they are so much smarter than everyone else. Loosing the election implies that might not be true, their certainty of victory right up until election evinces there ability to be very wrong. It suggest their other unexamined but cherished beliefs about how the world works and underlying philosophy might also be counter factual. They can't admit that. So they create daemons like Bannon who has to be one of these terrible racist, sexist, bigots, or homophobes because everyone knows you don't have to listen to those people, but even though nobody listens to them they are still all powerful and wield their secret privilege to control the nation. Never mind that nobody can find actual evidence of Bannon doing anything conventionally thought of as racist, sexist, or homophobic, nope his publication ran some clickbait headlines once upon a time where he wasn't even the by line; but they got his number, he is a scary bigoted Illuminati member!
Will Trump end up hung on meathooks by an angry mob?
No. he won't, just like the right-wing survivalist militia types never actually led any bloody siege on Washing DC dragging the Obama's from the beds under the cover of darkness!
I hope it won't go that far.
I am not sure I believe that in general but I'll take you at your word you personally would not want that. A lot of anti-trump folks like yourself though are seemingly happy to see antifa types pepper spraying young women who disagree with you. Violence is fine if the victim has a "Make America Great Again" hat on.
I hope Congress will impeach
That would be both unlike and pretty sad day for our democratic republic. Trump is more inside the lines of law than the last guy was on most matters. Its pretty early yet, I freely admit. Even the emoluments clause everyone is so worried about reads, " accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind" no where in there does it list agreed compensation for goods and services or talk about payments made to a separate legal entity the president happens to own. Everywhere else in our law people enjoy a strong legal separation for corporate assets they happen to own. I am not suggesting the conflicts are not concerning but I am suggesting they are not illegal except under the most radical readings of the Constitution and this is a nation of laws. You don't get to impeach someone because you don't like their perfectly licit if troubling actions. I
Mozilla probably should have focused on writing software and staying out politics rather than screw up their fund raising potential by going full on SJW.
Let this be a lesson to companies and non profits a like, its really better to stay out of politics which are beyond your area of direct interest. You will only get hurt.
You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone