In no way are the Democrats left-wing. They are overwhelmingly of the centre. It is center/right Democrats vs far-right Republicans. Calling the Democrats left-wing is just nonsense.

Are your sure this isn't a fake news story, about fake applications for fake job openings, posted to generate fake clicks by AI bots, to earn money from fake adverts.

Trying to stir up a controversy to keep himself and Twitter in the news. Seems like 50% of what he says isn't true or he says the opposite a few days later. So, maybe it's true and maybe it isn't. Toss a coin.

I'm always surprised that Americans love the free market, except when it effects them.

What ever happened to "Well you agree a contract when you buy an iPhone. If you don't like it's terms, such as repair provisions then don't buy it. That's the free market. If enough people don't like it, they won't buy it, demand goes down, there's too much supply and they'll have to change the contract."

I think that this is a stupid viewpoint but I laugh when I hear the cognitive disassociation from Americans who love free enterprise and free market but want more regulation.

It's not a good comparison to compare the conduct of past Popes with general human history.

The 16th Century might have been a long time ago, but the whole point of the Bible and the continuum of Popes (as the voice of God on earth), is that it is supposed to be eternally true. ( P. J. Toner, Infallibility, Catholic Encyclopedia, 1910).

The Pope is supposed to be infallible, "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church"

So it doesn't matter if it was in the 16th Century on the 21st Century, the Pope is supposed to be infallible.

Don't blame the states, blame the big corporations and blame us for looking the other way while we got to the situation, where $2.6 billion of reported lobbying (bribery) donations are given to the House and Senate every year.

You say, "Classification depends on content". However, we don't know if the content was of a classified nature when it was sent. It could have been innocent information at that time but became problematic later. Or not. It is not possible to tell at the moment.

I think that you are the one flunking math, science and need a eye test. Have a look at this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl... and you will see the alternative pipeline from Port Arthur, Texas, through Steele City, Nebraska to Hardisty, Alberta. It may be a longer pipeline but it doesn't mean everything has to go by truck and rail.

I think that the point is that we shouldn't have to wait 18 months, with an insecure, defective phone.

I don't understand what the poster is talking about. According to 23andMe information about access from their public APIs, "Each app will request that you log in to your 23andMe account and provide access. Each app will specify the data it is requesting and what use it will make of that data. If you don’t want to give a particular app access to your 23andMe data, simply deny access to that app." So, a website cannot just go and check any genetic data. Sounds like nonsense to me.

Over time most things that are only available to the wealthy, filter down into general society. Air travel, cars, cellphones etc etc.

Maybe one of the main differentiates in the future will be that the more wealthy you are, the more you will be able to avoid the advertising.

I'm not talking about the super rich but the upper middle class, who will find ways to avoid most of the time and attention stealing.

Down the scale we will find most public places, public transportation, shopping malls etc, full of 3D, moving, colourful, unavoidable advertising.

Websites etc will charge extra for advertising less content.

You'll need to be wealthy or an obsessive to avoid it all.

There can be a great inertia to something like this.

If you can push car owners to try public transport, there is a chance that many will stick with it.

I have a choice of driving or cycling to work. If for some reason I drive for a few days, I hate having to go back to cycling and will use any silly excuse to take the car. Once I've started cycling for a few days, I love the fresh air and freedom, and can't see any reason to take the car.

It's like swapping banks, it might be a good idea, save money and be more convenient but we don't unless something happens to push us into doing it and they we are generally happy we did.

I hope that you are not pretending that USA TV stations are in any way independent and are anything but the spokespersons for their billionaire, right-wing owners and shareholders.

Better to live in a country, where you don't need health insurance to get treated.