... is the BATF defecating bricks.
... is the BATF defecating bricks.
I was going to post something about "carbonated water into wine" but vodka is more accurate.
I wonder if you'd still get only ethanol for the product if you applied this to carbonated sodas or sparkling fruit juices.
So basically he favors the state of law in the US more or less as it was circa 2005? . . . Wow,... that is "terrifying".
If I was gay I might be a little scared of Trump, but I'd be fucking terrified of Mike Pence.
What exactly do you think Mike Pence could or would do that would be reasonable grounds to be "terrified"?
Do you think he might do something as outrageous as George W. Bush? You know, the US President that spent billions of dollars fighting AIDs in Africa? (As opposed to Bill Clinton that signed DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act.)
Unless you have something quite specific that seems to be at best a highly exaggerated response to any policy he would be likely to support let alone get through Congress. At worst it is a groundless smear.
I think it goes without saying that Ecuador controls their own embassy. The question is, why such a major change in direction RIGHT NOW, essentially "turning on a dime."
I head speculation that someone was threatening to either call in some big loans to Ecuador, or call their bonds unless they unplugged Assange. That sort of raw political pressure might explain the sudden turn by Ecuador. Hillary has some very rich friends and backers.
So what does defending bragging about sexual assault say about the Trump campaign?
Good question. I've got a better one: What does actually raping women, silencing them through intimidation, plotting with campaign staff to attack them in the media, and coordinating with members of the media to silence, harass, and discredit those rape victims say about the Clintons and their campaign? (And that was going on for decades.) And what about Bill's many trips to pedophile island?
As bad as Trump is, the Clintons are worse. Of course the Clintons are "Progressives" so it's all good, right?
That "material support" argument was made at Bradly Manning's trial and was not allowed, so legally that isn't going to cut it. I'm not sure that is or should be the final word, but there it is.
As to that "making videos and speeches" line
One official said Awlaki was involved in the printer bomb packages found at East Midlands airport last year.
The Yemeni outfit had developed bombs that contained no metal and were so hard to detect that police missed the material on first inspection.
To distract police, Awlaki put a copy of Great Expectations in the packages. His finger prints were found on the book.
I don't know why you would think there is a joke, Assange's position is no laughing matter. It is quite serious.
Re droning him, I'm curious, what the rules of engagement are? He's a fugitive on the run, and arguably a national security threat. Suppose he was droned down . .
Not going to happen. The only people the US deliberately attacks and kills with drones are members or affiliates of terrorist groups like al Qaida and ISIS. For all of his faults, Assange isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists.
No, Ecuador could do it. It might look something like this:
Assange: Hello Mr. Ambassador, a pleasure to see you again.
Amb Ortiz: Hello Julian, let me come straight to the point - you can no longer use the internet connection in the embassy. The Foreign Minister has made this decision under difficult circumstances. We are doing this so that we can continue to provide you asylum from Sweden and Britain.
Assange: But Mr. Ambassador!
Amb Ortiz: No buts, Julian. No more use of the embassy internet or we will show you the door, and put you outside.
Assange: I understand Mr. Ambassador. What if I can make other arrangements?
Amb Ortiz: That is your affair, as long as it does not make use of the embassy facilities.
Assange: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador for your continued hospitality.
I wonder who had enough "juice" to make this happen?
Ecuador has been very willing to poke Sweden, Europe, and the US in the eye over Assange for years. So, why now?
Did Wallstreet firms make some threats about investment?
Did the Clinton campaign threaten vengeance when Hillary is selected as president?
Did the US State Department make some threats to cover for Hillary?
Did the CIA threaten tit for tat against Ecuador as part of rumored actions against Russia?
Are foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation leaning on Ecuador to stop Assange from exposing them?
Is the Obama administration threatening military action over the claimed interference in the US election?
Is the media threatening reports on Ecuador? Or is someone threatening to leak to the media about them?
Are there some lucrative deals Ecuador's elites have going that are in danger?
The possibilities seem almost endless. Whoever it was must have the ability to make a substantial threat, big enough for Ecuador to fold like a cheap deck chair.
But who was it?
Good point! I wonder if that trump audio has been modified!
Pull down a copy and run it through an audio spectrum analysis program. Splices stand out like a sore thumb on a frequency-vs-time graph.
Not perpetrators, opponents.
Once it's illegal, they're perpetrators. No more or less than con men or burglars.
The crime is making orders with the intent to cancel before being fulfilled.
Is it also an establishment of intent if you (as a large financial firm) deploy, in actual trading on real markets with real money, an algorithm that exhibits such behavior? If, in addition, you KEEP it deployed even after its behavior is noticed and complained about in public media of the sort likely to be read by trading professionals?
And it is something that the traders at Goldman Sachs can make a fortune without doing.
But it's something that they can make a BIGGER fortune by DOING. And something that can count toward the rise of individuals and groups through the corporate ladder and pay scale.
While don't recall if G.S. was specifically one of the organizations complained about (and am not going to spend the time right now digging through archives to check), I DO recall com"plaints about high-speed traders taking advantage of the cancellation features of the online market engines in just this way.
One of the advantages of shaving milliseconds off the communication delays and algorithms that was specifically mentioned (once the pattern was observed) was the ability to send an order and a cancellation in rapid enough succession that it could not be pounced on (and thus didn't really risk money), sending price signals that tricked competing, slightly less high-speed or well-tuned, algorithms into making other bad trades from which their operators lost and the perpetrators gained.
The only poll that showed that was the LA Times poll,
Which "that" are you referring to?
- If it's who's ahead, you have some point - though the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times "Daybreak" poll is NOT the only one showing Trump ahead by at least a small margin. (In fact it shows them neck-and-neck, crossing back-and-forth, and has Hillary up by 0.3% just now.)
- If it's how the musdslinging is changing the voters' preferences, it's not fully over that poll's one-to-two-week report delay + smoothing yet.
In particular (for both cases) I note that this morning's Rasmussen daily tracking poll has Trump slightly ahead AND is starting to have any dings to Trump from the spate of allegations within horizon. Yet they see no such dings (and comment about their absence in the accompanying analysis).
[USC/L.A. Times] is a bit notorious because it polls the same people at each iteration.
It's also notorious for being far more accurate when it comes to predicting both the winner and the margin. (The latter can turn into the former if the race is very close, as this one is.) That repeated sampling of varying subsets of the same group is a part of the methodology that they credit for avoiding certain distortions that affect other polls.
The rationalle is explained on their web site. Give it a look.
My mother is a fish. - William Faulkner