Not for Trump or election related news
The FBI’s decision is inexplicable. If I you were asked to come up with a perfect synonym for gross negligence, it would be extreme carelessness. They are one and the same. If Comey had evidence demonstrating extreme carelessness, he had a fantastic case.
This was a political decision.
This reminds me of how referees in NBA playoff games refuse to call certain fouls at the end of a close game because they don’t want the referees to take the game away from the players to decide. They’d rather miss a call and let the ending play out rather than make the call, risk being wrong, and face the responsibility of having taken the game away from a team.
Same with Comey. He has the evidence and a case with legs - by his own admission - he just doesn’t want to be responsible for affecting the outcome of the 2016 election and taking it away from a candidate this late in the contest. And he’s using the vagaries of prosecutorial discretion to get out of doing so.
4 Likes
Okay…then I would have to ask this question, Bolt (because I don’t know):
Wouldn’t that make “pushing” the time-table of the investigation to fall when it did also Political?
One could argue better now than AFTER an election…and that would be a fair argument…but in either case, it would have the appearance of people in Power trying to effect outcomes.
It’s all crazy, if you ask me.
Welcome the fuck back !
2 Likes
I want to know the difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence.
I also want to know how far apart they are, and I mean I want to know specifics.
My final question, why should I vote for someone the FBI determined to be a fucking idiot.
2 Likes
Fuckin A! Glad to see you around again!!
2 Likes
This is probably the only topic in this thread where everyone is in agreement
1 Like
Since one of the main issues of this election is immigration, I wanted to pose a question relating to the argument that low skilled immigrants (legal but especially illegal) take on jobs that natives have no interest in doing.
Right now the borders are akin to an open faucet with 100s of thousands of people pouring in annually. According to the argument they fill the factories, work farms/plantations, clean toilets and perform low end construction work generally.
My question: what would happen hypothetically if the borders mostly closed and immigration (both legal and illegal) went from a wave to a trickle? How would business owners that employ low skilled labor en masse react to a change? How would society react?
We don’t have to wonder…we got a small glimpse of it with the “Alabama/Georgia Experiment” when they tried to clamp down on illegal Migrant Farm Workers.
Crops were left dying in the fields as farmers could not 1) find a fraction of the numbers of workers that they needed to fill and positions and 2) when filled, the work was found to be a) “too hard” for many and they quit and b) they were not nearly productive enough to meet demand when they DID work.
We would be hit…and hit HARD in the agriculture and Service industries the most (just to name two).
As far as I am aware, nobody here other than maybe you is advocating slowing LEGAL immigration to a trickle or closing the borders completely.
Fairly obviously wages would have to rise for those that kept themselves afloat due, if nothing else, to minimum wage laws and reporting requirements. It would ripple, but it would not be the end of the world.
Possibly, but then wages would have to rise. I think that is a win-win, but it would happen without government interference via minimum wage (which wouldn’t matter anyway in the short term because illegals work for cash and often not minimum wage). However intuitively I surmise that minimum wage would probably not be enough to get people into the fields. So it would have to rise above that. Food costs may go up, but it remains to be seen. Very complicated question.
1 Like
VERY complicated (as is the Middle East).
Neither situation can be boiled down to Internet rants and MEMES…or sound bites…
2 Likes
Why you gotta ruin our fun Mufasa?? WHY?
LOL!
Sorry, Aragorn!
1 Like
Lol, okay…
Translation:
“They’re a great source except when they disagree with my narrative.”
1 Like
Well to clarify, I don’t mean “political” to mean “partisan”. I don’t he had an agenda to exonerate Clinton because he supports her - I think he’d have done the same if the subject was a Republican.
But ironically, his unorthodox editorializing about her conduct - damning to say the least, but really unusual - could have an impact on her chances all the same.
1 Like
There’s not one. Negligence is considered to be a failure to exercise reasonable care, so, carelessness. Gross negligence is something beyond ordinary negligence, or carelessness, and what is higher than characterizing the negligence, or carelessness, as “extreme”?
The FBI had a case to recommend, pure and simple. That isn’t subject to political preferences, or whether you love or hate Hillary. On the disinterested facts alone, by his own admission, Coney should have recommended charges.
2 Likes
I suppose, based on the way you framed it ie as a referee not wanting to make a call that changes the outcome of a game, I can see it as political. I would probably call it anti-political more so than anything, but you’ve made a good point.
Dana Perino (sp?) went on a twitter tirade that hit some solid points too.
Me too.
You shouldn’t.
Agreed.
Is this with or without mass deportation?
Agree with this assessment for the most part.
You’d see an immediate drop in production. It’s not like Americans are lining up at the door hoping to get these jobs.
I don’t think you would see a substantial change in the unemployment, underemployment, or labor participation rates for citizens. You still have the problem where you can receive more in government assistance than from working a minimum wage job. There’s no incentive to spend 40/h a week working for the same payout. Note I don’t support this, but it is a fact.
Agree here as well. Legal immigration is a very important part of our culture and success.
Maybe; except, especially in agriculture, you have government subsidies and artificial price floors to contend with. I think you would either see an increase in wages covered via a transfer of wealth (tax dollars) through subsidies, a reduction in headcount in non-subsidised business’, a price hike, or a combination of the three.
The problem. from the business’ perspective, is that the level of production in this scenario remains the same (would likely decline really), but overhead does not. That is a problem for company’s operating on tight margins.
Agreed. Very complex issue.
1 Like
Cool pic, bro. Based on this, you should totally not vote for Obama in 2016.
1 Like