Firstly, Hillary Clinton had no control over the CIA in 2011. Sounds to me like you'd go for any fake news that came along if it generally agree with what you want to believe in anyway. BTW, did you hear that Donald Trump was a paid KGB agent in the 1980's. It's true. Believe me. Many people are saying it.

One thing is perfectly clear. The Democrats would be perfectly justified in blocking any Trump Supreme Court Nominee. The Republicans said they were waiting for the American people to speak. They did by giving Clinton about 2.9 MILLION votes more than Trump. While he was elected by the Electoral College, it's clear the American people preferred Clinton. The people have spoken and Trump has no mandate to choose any Supreme Court justices. Of course, if the Republicans had any respect for the Constitution, they would have given due consideration to Obama's court nominee since he was president at the time of Scalia's death and constitutionally required to nominate a SC justice, and the Senate constitutionally required to consider Obama's nominee. Since the Republican Senate majority disregarded the Constitution they all swore to defend and protect, the Democrats in the Senate would be in accordance with both the Constitution and the majority of Americans and, interestingly, the Republican precident, in blocking any Trump nominee until a majority of American voters agreed with the Electoral College.

Doesn't mean the Russians aren't involved. There are reports of a whole town in Macedonia alleged to be under the direction of Russian intelligence hosting up to 100 fake news sites and reaping lots from ad clicks. Check out https://www.washingtonpost.com... It's silly to assume that because one person pushing fake news has been identified that there aren't lots of others doing it. This is apparently a growth business preying on the gullible, who seem predominantly to be conservatives. Are you silly? As far are your claim about David Brock, can you cite a source that can be independently verified as I have done with my reports? Or is yours just another piece of fake news?

Actually, there's plenty of evidence. NPR had a piece recently which you can listen to at http://www.npr.org/sections/al..., They found a guy, actually a Hillary voter, who made a reasonable amount of money putting out fake news during the run-up to the election. Listen, read, and see what you think. As a side line, I was a member of a right wing meetup group during the primaries. Someone posted a story that originated with that nut job Alex Jones (I hope he sues me) saying that some TV station in Wisconsin was reporting a guy who claims his vote was switched from Cruz to Trump (primaries). Their mistake was they cited the station. I called and they not only didn't put out the story but had never heard of the person alleged to have had his vote switched. By this time, however, the story had been widely spread throughout the Alt-Right bubble. Moral, don't believe a story until the source cites enough info, links, legitimate news organizations, or whatever so that you can verify the story yourself. Without that, there is a high probability that you're being lied to. BTW, I recently saw a news item that Trump was a paid agent of the KGB during the 1980's.

OK. Then how does a small black hole become a "super massive black hole?" Did it just come into being when God created the universe 6K years ago? And what's with recent multiple observations of asteroids striking Jupiter? You'd think that our solar system would have settled into stable orbits by now. It's been over 4 billion years after all. Maybe I used the wrong term in "sucking", but you know what I mean. Maybe gravity has something to do with it.

Maybe the black hole they found used to be in the center of a super massive galaxy, but had already swallowed up most of the galaxy so there's not much left, leaving the impression that its a super massive black hole in the center of a not-so-massive galaxy?

Contrary to popular belief, Moore's Law doesn't say that processors will double in speed every 18~24 months. It says that the number of transistors that can economically be put on a single chip will double every 18~24 months. Up until recently, that has translated into a doubling of speed for two reasons: 1) more transistors can be used to optimize the processing of instructions through a variety of techniques and 2) the distances signals have to travel is lessened as the transistors shrink. More transistors contribute not only to power consumption but also more heat, which is another problem with high performance processors. This was partially dealt with by putting multiple cores on a die running at less than max clock rates, thereby distributing the heat and making it easier to deal with. It still may be economical to put more and more transistors on a die, but maybe we don't want to. More transistors consume more power. What's your priority, raw speed or power consumption. Maybe you can't optimize for both at the same time.

A person's ballot is supposed/required to be anonymous to and secret from the people counting the votes or anyone who may ever look at the votes. It is reasonable to assume that regardless of how they are stored, the Kansas voting paper trail upholds that standard. If it is ever possible to tie a specific ballot to an individual person by the methods you propose, then Kansas has a lot to answer for.

I guess I agree. There is much that is uncivilized that is lawful. But would you shoot the guy out of the tree?

I refer you to a wikipedia article on "expectation of privacy" in which appears the following: "In general, one cannot have a reasonable expectation of privacy in things held out to the public. A well-known example is... ...what is observed pursuant to aerial surveillance that is conducted in public navigable airspace not using equipment that unreasonably enhances the surveying government official's vision;[7][8] anything in open fields..." Note that the limitation on "unreasonably enhances the surveying" applies to government, not private, surveying. I think we can both agree that its a good idea to keep the government, with its vast resources, out of close surveillance of citizens without a warrant. The whole article is worth a read. It's worth knowing where you can expect privacy and where you can't. For instance, the article says you can expect privacy IN your home. There was no assertion by the shooter that the drone was hovering outside his window looking into his home, only that it was hovering over his yard. Another point of contention is how high the drone was. The shooter gives what may be a self-serving estimate of 20 feet, although he as no way of measuring accurately. The drone operator says it was much higher, and may actually have more objective info, either from GPS data or an analysis of any video he may have captured. I don't know, and neither do you. But the FAA has recently asserted control over all airspace from the ground up, so that would seem to make all the airspace at least controllable in a public way. One may not like it, but that's the law.

I don't understand why you think the drone operator did anything wrong. Maybe the drone operator was pausing to get his bearings. Maybe he stopped because he was trying to figure out a message his controller was showing him. His camera might not have been on at all. (My son makes and sells an aftermarket device that allows turning on and off a GoPro camera from the user's controller.) If the camera was on, maybe he was just occupying a spot from which he could take a picture of something not on the shooter's property. THE SHOOTER DID NOT KNOW WHAT THE DRONE WAS DOING, BUT SHOT ANYWAY. The fact is, he does not control the airspace over his own property. The FAA has recently asserted control over the airspace from the ground up specifically in response to the drone phenomena. Of course, by law the landowner has control of the airspace at least up to 83' up and, somewhat more murky control up to 500', but that is for building, towers, flag poles, etc, things anchored to the ground. Here in Portland, OR, a major hospital on the hill errected a tram from down by the river up to the hospital. All the home owners under the tram's path objected on privacy grounds. But it was established that one has no expectation of privacy from the air over their own property while outside. Otherwise you could shoot down news helicopters, etc.

Man, you guys are scary. What if I was hovering over my friends yard, which happens to be next door to you, showing it to my friend. The drone's camera is off, but you can't know that. There's a clear view from the drone of your back yard if the camera was on and the view of your back yard not much different than it would be if the drone was 10 feet over and directly over your back yard. Do you shoot? There really are two issues here: 1) privacy, and 2) guns. I understand the concern with privacy. But the problem with the guns is all too often, with the gun culture in this country, guns are a first resort. They should be a last resort. That's why (fact) since 9/11 more people have been killed by guns in the US than by all the islamo/pedophile/ISIS/terrorists in the US and Europe. If you are pro-life, guns and the culture surrounding them are a much bigger problem than terrorism.

You are the reason anger management classes exist. You might be compelled to attend one someday. Better for all of us if you just made your appointment now.

Tapping your phone and flying, even hovering, over your property are two different things. Firstly, you don't own nor can you control the airspace over your property. That's the law. (Interesting story, see below.) Secondly, police, news (with cameras), medivac and other helicopters fly over people's property and sometimes hover at low altitude all the time. Gonna shoot at them? Interesting story: The US had the technical means to put a satellite into orbit in 1955, but did not at the president's order because we were afraid that in those cold war times the Soviet Union would claim that we were violating their airspace in international law venues. When, in 1957, the Soviets put up Sputnik which orbited over US airspace, the issue became moot, and we started putting up more satellites, including spy satellites than they ever dreamed of.

So do you shoot at police helicopters who's indicia you maybe can't see when they might be hovering looking for a suspect? Do you shoot down medivac helicopters who might be hovering looking for a place to land? Do you realize you don't own nor can you control the airspace over your property from the ground up? This drone operator had a perfect right to hover over this guy's or your house as long as he doesn't touch ground. By any stand your ground law, if the drone was armed, it could shoot back. Why don't we all just disarm in these kinds of situations before someone gets hurt?