The server logs and server contents have been released for analysis.
In one breath you chide anyone for daring to hint at even a *smidgen* of wrongdoing, and just as quickly assert that all information has been fully divulged.
Can you understand that, especially in the context of the last couple of administrations, there might be healthy skepticism afoot?
Then why do you keep expending so much energy into this conspiracy if you are so certain that nothing will come of it?
This is going to sound just a bit kinky, but every time you refer to criticism of events (which any reasonable person would find problematic) as a "conspiracy", it's kind of erotic to me, in a silly way. I'm not seeking understanding here, and I really can't elaborate on why it's such a turn-on, but OH, BABY!
Feel free to go find democracies (or non-democracies) in other lands that better fit your belief structure, nobody is stopping you, right?
You must have confused me with a wretched loser like Michael Moore. I still believe the ideals inherent in our founding documents are worth preserving, and our republican system of government worth restoring from the godless Commie sodomite infestation.
If she publicly admitted to having classified information go through her private email server
I'm sorry; we're talking about a lawyer. Please explain why you think she would admit to, well, anything. I don't think her an honest person, and kinda doubt that the depths of her "official" activities will ever be properly understood. Nor do I think anything resembling "justice" will ever be applied to her case. Nor do I think there will ever be anything pertaining to a legal procedure of any sort applied to her.
We're basically talking about someone who operates completely as a law unto herself.
The open questions are:
Whether the past eight years are enough of a cautionary tale to drive the electorate to resist Her Majesty.
How much difference resistance will make in an era where one is inclined to wonder to what degree elections are just a joke anyway.
Maybe. My thought has always been that if fusion is close enough to get ballpark figures, we can build the necessary infrastructure and much of the housing in parallel with fusion development. Because the energy distribution will impose novel demands on the grid, it's going to require a major rethink on communications protocols, over-generation procedures, action plans on what to do if lines are taken out.
With fusion, especially, it's expensive at best to learn after the fact. Much better to get all the learning done in the decade until working fusion.
With all that in place, the ramp time until fusion is fully online at a sensible price will be greatly reduced.
Parallelize, don't serialize. Only shredded wheat should be cerealized.
You are trying to establish a "fallacy" that can never apply to you, in spite of the fact that no fallacy on the site currently exists in such a narrow focus.
I am? Help me understand in what way you think that this is actually occurring.
like the way you do when your tribal chiefs are in charge
No, that would be the opposite.
All Finagle Laws may be bypassed by learning the simple art of doing without thinking.