Excuse me, but what buying power are you talking about? In my 20s, I parked cars for tips and sold magazines over the phone for $7/hr. We were coming off the era of Carter malaise and the brutal Reagan recession. Unlike you, we didn't have side gigs, or remote work, or flextime, or LinkedIn connections or anything else. Just shitty, low-paying jobs. Personally, things didn't change for me until I went back to school and then started my own business. That is what I am suggesting you should consider too. No one is gong to protect "workers" in this gig economy; those days are gone.
I wasn't talking about your personal buying power, your generations buying power compared to Millennials. If you have ever read any articles on the subject you will see that my statement is correct.
I use an investor at Merrill Lynch and I've made a ton. Right now I've taken my money out of the stock market for obvious reasons. If you have any other stocks, they will manage them for free.
I am sorry but I am not sure why you would even ask this. (Unless you are being sarcastic, I don't always recognize sarcasm.) Hillary tampered with the DNC, that is illegal, period. Trying to prove that it was somehow legal isn't even an option, obviously. If you have anything else, let me know.
Same old question. If what she did was illegal when is Trump and his henchmen going to have her indicted? Why can't I get an answer to what seems like a pretty straight forward question?
Okay, but my original question is still unanswered and it appears to me that you've got nothing but some sort of personal ax to grind with her. I've never yet seen any evidence backing up all these claims that she's crooked other than inner personal feelings. Any hard evidence would surely lead to indictments.
I think your line of thinking on this is very, very illogical. You’re free to your opinion though, so I’ll just leave at that.
I think you mean that lots of people get away with crimes, and so lack of indictment doesn't prove no crime was committed? In general I'd agree with that. Clinton is a bit of a special case, though, as there has been a huge effort over the last 30 years to find a crime to charge her with. You can argue that for a portion of that time she was protected from prosecution by friendly administrations. But it's hard to claim that the current administration is cutting her any slack. You would assume if they had any evidence of criminality in the vault, they'd be bringing charges. It would make the base very, very happy. So I think it's a fairly good bet that there isn't anything to charge her with, at least at the federal level, and within the statute of limitations. As for the particular issue of the DNC, I don't know what the specific crime would be. barfo
Its partially that, but also “hard evidence” doesnt always lead to indictments, or the law being enforced, Ive been pulled over and given a warning, they had hard evidence did they not? Also what constitutes hard evidence? Much of our decision making process as to what to believe or not is not based on what we have “heard, seen, touched”, its based on cognitive bias’, who we trust, what “sources” we trust, etc, etc. Do we expect someone to pull out an receipt from hillary to someone with 150,000k that says “Rig DNC”, on it? If we had that would it prove anything in and of itself? No thered be questions as to its validity. Its just hard to prove just about anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Its why impeachment is hard, its why indictments are hard, its why OJ got off right? Saying oh if there was,”hard evidence”, she’d be indicted it just seems like a few things here, a) hard evidence probably doesnt exist. b) if it happened there would need to be people in the know willing to step forward and even then their testimonies would be called into question. Do you have a recording of Trumps call with Ukraine on your desk? Have you met him? My guess is no but were using our abilities to deduce to determine our feelins about him, but our deduction abilities are flawed. It doesnt stop us from saying he needs to be impeached though.
True. But if the cop knew that his boss desperately wanted you to get a ticket, that that's all that his boss ever talked about, if there were rallies where they all chanted "Lock TBF Up", he might be less inclined to let you go. True, but there are standards for indictment, and for conviction. Messy, not always applied correctly or consistently standards, but standards nonetheless. Yes, although he was indicted, at least. Yeah, I think hard evidence is probably an incorrect phrasing. Sufficient evidence to indict is maybe closer? Yeah. I will stipulate that me saying that Trump is guilty doesn't mean he's guilty. I have no authority, just an opinion. And now I've kind of lost track of the thread of the argument, so I'll stop. barfo
Hillary is corrupt as they come, and that is not just a personal feeling. I have seen what she did with the whole DNC debacle, her making money wooing wall street during her last presidential run, and several other disturbing things that she has done. And, no, it is not an ax to grind (I don't hold grudges anymore, I simply post the truth as I have seen it). I could just as easily accuse you of bias yourself. But that doesn't do this conversation any good. I could also ask you to prove to me that Hillary isn't corrupt. It seems to me that, that is the magnifying glass that I am under here, yet you get off scott free not having to prove anything to me. A little bit on the unfair side I would say. We clearly both have seen this thing from opposite sides of the coin. From my point of view, from what I have seen, there is plenty of evidence that Hillary is corrupt. The problem is, you seem to need an indictment in order to believe that Hillary is corrupt. I could take days digging up all the links to all the old crap I read/watched several years ago, if I could even find them. But I doubt it would do any good. Like I said before, We will just have to agree to disagree sir. I made one seemingly uncontroversial post in this thread and opened up a giant can of worms. Who knew talking to humans could be so exhausting?
I've dedicated my life to logic so I find your statement illogical. Plus, I'm an engineer so I'm used to looking at things from a technical point of view. I think you'll find the logic behind my calculations within the category of as good as it gets. Glad to hear you're leaving it at that because if there's anything I hate it's going round and round with someone. I want to be productive rather than waste away my valuable time.
How much did you pay for school? How much did you pay for health care? How much did you pay for rent?
As a former public works employee for over 35 years, I find your claim (or allusion) that engineers are grounded in “logic” and that engineering calculations “as good as it gets” to be delusional at best and arrogant at worst. History has pretty much shown that engineers have at least as many failures as they have successes. But your comments just continue to prove what my professional lifetime has already shown me, and that is that I have yet to meet an engineer who can admit to being professionally infallible. Must be some sort of secret engineering school sacred death oath or something. But if nothing else, you guys sure make it sound plausible when called out......
Hey, I'm an SW Engineer, and probably not as skilled or as "good" as many of the incredibly bright minds out there, but I'm pretty offended right now, you're saying I've been wrong before? What the heck!! lol
Engineers don't fail. Management fails in that they have unrealistic deadlines. We use to call our part of a project as being partially complete and then thrown "over the fence" for the next poor sap to have to complete plus do his work. The farther down the road you got the worse the compressed schedule got. Also, I never said engineering calculations were as good as it gets. Try reading the whole statement taking in the context. I said the calculations were in the category of as good as it gets. Some system engineer is going to have to define the totality of the complications and then the affected engineers will do the intricate calculations. This is really tough to do when figuring the odds of finding life in the Universe, but I think you can get a rough idea. There's an old engineering joke about the three men who were shown a room with a beautiful woman on the other side. They were told that if they could walk to the other side following the rules they could have the beautiful woman. The rules were that your first step could be as big as you could make it but each succeeding step had to be half the size of it's predecessor. The first man was a physicist. He said you can't get there by those rules and stepped aside. The second man, a mathematician said "The physicist was right and here's why." and he proceeded to pencil out a proof. The third man, an engineer, said "Both the physicist and the mathematician are correct, you can't get there." But as he took a giant step he said "But you can get close enough." I hope this little allegory describes the value of engineering. Yes, engineers rule.
