The first claim makes my "rant" — about the need to use a reverse of the usual burden-of-proof principle for Executive government officials — on-topic and otherwise appropriate.
Trying to prove a negative? And you're wondering why I'm rolling my eyes at you?
And you know this from?..
From the article I linked to. Did you bother reading it?
And, maybe, they did... But seeing Clinton being in favor decided not to rock the boat and alienate the probably next President...
Yes. That's exactly what they did. *eyeroll*
A rather backwards way of conceding a point, but I'll take it. It must've been hard for you as it is.
Yeah, no. This is about the vote to give a Russian country control of 20% of US uranium production and Sec. Clinton's (non)involvement in it. If you want to spittle on about other things, find someone else who is interested.
Yeah, I kinda gathered that.
You haven't laid out anything other than a bunch of baseless accusations. You should write a book about it, I'm sure it'll sell.
Sure, if by "never contacted" you mean "given lots of money, along with other people on the panel, to vote a specific way".
Any evidence of that? Otherwise, you're just making up stuff. Please stick to the facts.
I'm gonna have to go with a [citation needed] for most of that.
Starting with this one:
The State Department is trying to delay the release of her emails until AFTER the election.
No, they're trying to delay until January 2016, a full 10 months BEFORE the election, even before the primaries. If there's anything damaging in there, it'll be far worse for her and Democrats if there's something serious enough for her to quit the race since she's effectively the only person running. Getting the e-mails out now turns it into a non-story by then since they'll have already been released.
Nonsense. She was the most influential person on that panel and among the 10 most influential members of the government. Her approval or lack thereof was, in all likelihood, the deciding factor.
You realize that she wasn't the person that voted and the person who did represent the State Department had no contact with her about it, yes? And the other departments that are represented in the vote include DHS, Defense, and Energy? If any one of them had qualms about it, I'm certain they would have brought it up (especially DHS and Defense) and recommended a veto.
The rest of what you put down is an incoherent rant that really doesn't have much to do with the issue at hand.
Very limited influence given it wasn't her that actually voted and the person who was the State Department representative said he was never contacted by her about it.
The article, headlined Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
Is completely wrong if it's implying that Sec. Clinton was the only person involved in approving the deal. She didn't have veto authority (only the president does) and she was part of a panel of 8 other members who also approved the deal. If she were the only person to approve or she was the deciding factor, the accusation might have merit and more examination done. She wasn't directly involved in the deal, there's no indication that she was a deciding factor, and there's little indication that she personally profits from money donated to the Clinton Foundation. There might be questions about the sources of money for the CF, but to imply that there's some sort of quid pro quo going on is just baseless.
2010 Prius V. My town is pretty fair towards me about valuing vehicles, so it's usually on the $50 range unless it's a really new and expensive car. The CTS-V might run a few hundred per year, which you can likely afford if you found yourself with such a vehicle (even as a lease).
That is what existing road taxes are for, and have been for for over fifty years.
If by road taxes you mean gas taxes, then yes. But now cars are more fuel efficient and people are driving less, so the amount of fuel being used is less as a portion of miles driven.
If you're thinking taxes in terms of toll roads, the money raised in that manner doesn't go into general road construction, but to maintaining that toll road.
My town has an excise tax for local roads based on the value of the car rather than how many miles driven or kind of car it is. My car is about $50 per year, or equivalent to about 3000 miles at 1.5 cents per mile. I drive a lot more than that.
Because roads still need to be maintained no matter what's driving on them. Those costs won't change. You're better off increasing the gas tax itself which then hurts less efficient (and presumably heavier) vehicles while reducing the impact on more fuel efficient (and lighter) vehicles.
Than again, all-electric vehicles don't pay a dime for road maintenance. Maybe a per-mile charge is better.
I have a Smart TV but I don't use any of the functionality of it. I have separate devices that I can use to do the exact same functions and I can replace them easily for a small amount of money if I want new/different features.
For an example of why I do this, there's how google changed their YouTube API so a bunch of older devices no longer work with it. Watch YouTube on a TV? Replace the entire TV. Watch it off a Chromecast and want to replace it? $35
Oh nice. I think the one I have didn't support that functionality (or I missed it).
Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.
