Ask trump if he broke the law by possessing the documents, what does he say?


"I DECLASSIFIED THOSE" - but classification status isn't in question - and the documents are not declassified. ANDDDD it doesn't matter if they're classified or not, it's POSESSION of the documents that breaks the law.



ANNNNNNNNNND

After trump went to office HE is the one who made punishments for possessing documents that usually travel around in a handcuffed suitcase - HE is the one who made that particular law harsher and more enforceable as part of his campaign against Hillary Clinton.


Here's a full transcript of trump's first press conference where he lays out in some detail how people who handle or mishandle classified info or top secret documents are traitors and he explains what to do about them https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/16/us/politics/donald-trump-press-conference-transcript.html

Lawrence Wilkerson's dismissive comments about self defense are very disrespectful to people who have had to resort to self defense. He wouldn't say things like that had he been unfortunate enough to have had such a personal experience. (As one parent of a Fla victim said - his child would have given anything for a firearm at the time of the event.)

Re. 2nd amendment, yes, it's not for pure self defense. The reasoning is provided within the text. The government is denied legal powers over gun ownership ('shall not be infringed') in order to preserve the ability of the people to form a civilian paramilitary intended to face [presumably invading] foreign militaries in combat ('militia').

It's important to remember that the U.S. is a republic - so the citizens are literally the state (not in abstract, but actually so). As such, there is very little distinction between self defense and state defense - given that self and state are one.

Personally, I believe any preventative law is a moral non-starter. Conceptually they rely on doling out punishment via rights-denial to all people, because some subset might do harm. Punishment should be reserved for those that trespass on others - violating their domain (body/posessions/etc). Punishment should not be preemptive, simply to satiate the fears/imaginations of persons not affected by those punished. Simply, there should be no laws against private activities among consenting individuals. Folks don't have to like what other folks do, and they don't have to be liked either. It's enough to just leave one another alone in peace.

Re. Fla, the guilty party is dead. People should not abuse government to commit 3rd party trespass onto innocent disliked demographics (gun owners) just to lash out. Going after groups of people out of fear or dislike is unjustified.







---------------------------------------------------




As an aside, the focus on "assault rifles" makes gun control advocates appear not sincere, and rather knee-jerk/emotional. Practically all gun killings utilize pistols.

There are only around 400 or so total rifle deaths per year (for all kinds of rifles combined) - which is almost as many as the people who die each year by falling out of bed (ever considered a bed to be deadly? With 300 million people, even low likelihood events must still happen reasonably often. It's important to keep in mind the likelihood, and not simply the totals.).

Around 10'000 people die each day out of all causes. Realistically, rifles of all sorts, especially assault rifles, are not consequential enough to merit special attention - given the vast ocean of far more deadly things to worry about.

If they were calling for a ban+confiscation of all pistols, with a search of every home and facility in the U.S., then I'd consider the advocates to be at least making sense regarding the objective of reducing gun related death.

Also, since sidearms have less utility in a military application, a pistol ban is less anti-2nd-amendment than an assault rifle ban.







As a technical point, ar15s are not actually assault rifles - they just look like one (m4/m16).
Assault rifles are named after the German Sturm Gewehr (storm rifle). It's a rifle that splits the difference between a sub-machinegun (automatic+pistol ammo) and a battle rifle (uses normal rifle/hunting ammo).

- SMG is easy to control in automatic, but has limited damage. (historical example : ppsh-41)

- Battle rifles do lots of damage, but are hard to control (lots of recoil, using full power hunting ammo). (historical example : AVT-40)

- An 'assault rifle' uses something called an 'intermediate cartridge'. It's a shrunken down, weaker version of hunting ammo. A non-high-power rifle round, that keeps recoil in check when shooting automatic. It's stronger than a pistol, but weaker than a normal rifle. But that weakness makes it controllable in automatic fire. (historical example : StG-44)

- The ar15 has no automatic fire. This defeats the purpose of using weak ammo (automatic controlability). So in effect, it's just a weak normal rifle. (The M4/M16 have automatic, so they can make use of the weak ammo to manage recoil - and they happen to look the same).

Practically speaking, a semi-auto hunting rifle is more lethal. A Remington 7400 with box mag is a world deadlier than an ar15. An M1A looks like a hunting rifle, and is likewise deadlier than an ar15. Neither are viewed as evil or dangerous.

You can also get hunting rifles that shoot intermediate cartridges (eg. Ruger Mini14). The lethality is identical to an ar15, but because it doesn't look black and scary, no one complains.

In practice, what makes the ar15 scary is its appearance. The pistol grip, the adjustable stock, the muzzle device, the black color, all are visual identifiers, and those visuals have become politically more important than what it actually does.

You can see the lack of firearms awareness in the proposed laws - proposed bans focus on those visual features. No pistol grips, no adjustable stocks, etc. Basically a listing of ancillary features that evoke scary appearance, and nothing to do with the core capabilities of a firearm.

What has made the ar15 the most popular rifle in the country, is that it has very good ergonomics, and is very friendly to new shooters. The low recoil doesn't scare new shooters away, and the great customizability makes it like a gun version of a tuner-car.

I think its massive success, popularity, and widespread adoption, have made it the most likely candidate to be used in a shooting. It's cursed to be on-hand whenever events like Fla happen.

-scheherazade

Nope. A stereotype contains always a form of evaluation (is good at x, is a bad x, can't do x) and is therefore a prejudice. It is a commonly know, maybe even commonly accepted prejudice.
ChaosEngine plays chess. That is a prejudice. I judged that since you seem to be smart and smart people know how to play it, you must be able to play chess. You play chess.
See, I judged you and made a claim based on that judgement. The same way I could argue that because you are black (Shut up, you're black now! So say we all!) you must smell terribly like sausage because it is my experience that black people smell that way(Don't you complain about being black, I have to carry the burden of racism here). Both are not stereotypes (at least not as far as I know) but the facts that you, brother ChaosEngine, are great at basketball and posess a giant penis, are stereotypes.
I can't prove any of those right know, they are premature judgements. You may not know how to play chess and maybe you don't smell like sausages but at least both claims are not commonly made about black people. Because they're not stereotypes.
You still rule at dunking. And let's not discuss the other thing we all secretly suspect about you.

Now we're arguing semantics. Yummy.

racism:"noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement"
See, the keyword here is achievement. There are no achievements without any form of judgement. Think of it in the most simple terms, X Box or Steam achievements. Let's say you play Call Of Duty 18 and get the "Used a gun!" achievement for firing the very first shot in the game. You got this because the game's code made a judgement. Did the player fire a shot? Yes or no. Sure, it's easy to judge that, the facts are very clear and easy to read. Are you worthy of this achievement? Are you as much worth as I am, the guy who finished the game and got the achievement?
And what about the guy who never got that achievement because he played the entire game only using a knife? Think about it, playing any Call Of Duty single player campaign using only melee weapons and throwing knives. Who's worthy know? Who achieved more?
Achievement depends entirely on the definition and who's making them. The knife guy played the way harder game and got no recognition but the guy who got the "Used A Gun!" and the "1000 Headshots!" achievement is the one bragging online about his achievements and medals next to his name.
Who has achieved more, the ethnic group that developed many different technologies (like, say, guns) or the ethnic group that still runs naked through the jungle and considers knives high-tech? "Those naked dudes are clearly stupid and less developed than I am because I got guns!" said the white man in Africa.
One of the biggest racist prejudices black americans hear is that they are lazy because they achieve so much less than white folk. They guys with the titles and medals and guns.
Achievements are the acknowledgements that you gained skills, positions, posessions, knowledge or reputation. That can only be acknowledged becaused somebody judged you. Like the test or dissertation I have to write to become a Professor of Physics. This achievement will cause other to have prejudices about me, like "He's a professor, he must be smart!"
The definition of racism you posted says this:
"racism is the belief that depending on your race you can develop in a certain way or to a certain level"
This is a modern definition based on racist expirience. It says that racists think you can not achieve more than they can based on the achievements your ancestors had compared to theirs. "Once a slave, always a slave. If black people weren't so lazy, they wouldn't need a good whipping!" That train of thought.
All that of course underplays the emotional component of hatred, the driving force of racism in its worst forms.
Now my fingers hurt.

A fascinating episode in the struggle between unions and the establishment is currently taking place over here. A change in the regulations of union membership within a company allowed the union of railroad engineers to grow a pair and actually represent their members in a meaningful way.

Keep in mind, unions over here were not busted, but subverted instead. "Domesticated", you might say. Now here's a small union in posession of tremendous leverage: if the trains stop rolling, half the country grinds to a halt.

Many corporate lackeys in government got scared and a new law was proposed to curtail the power of smaller unions. A law that is deemed quite unconstitutional, by the way.

And that's when the umbrella organisation of this small union pitched in with a statement that can be summed up unequivocally as "it's on, bitches". It's just rhetoric so far, but the small union already made good on their threats last month, so I'm somewhat hopeful that we'll finally get to see some meaningful pushback against the war on unions.

I do not posess the technology to keep track of those things and stuffs. >> ^ant:

>> ^lurgee:
I plan on getting stoned in 2h22m22s. It does a brain good. >> ^gwiz665:
Stoning is pretty offensive to me, but some people love it.


You forgot 22ms and 22ns.

I would call America the Greatest,but I judge Greatest by different criteria.

Resources,and the management of them,basicly. How self sufficient a country can be if the raw materials the land posesses were properly utilized. We have farmland,oil metal and other harvestable materials ,industry and tecnology ,and the space for a huge population. If our corporate masters had an interest in it,we could provide ourselves the highest standard of living for all citizens if these phenomenal potentials were focused to that end. What other country commands such wealth of assets? And imagine our Gross National Product if we STOPPED tossing money at these other nations.America need Noone in the end.

But,I dream. America was an interesting experiment:give common people the Vote and they'll vote for the happiest Fiction they are shown,and soon our politicians will just do away with that illusion of choice and bring us into the new Corporate Feudalism where we'll be serfs enthralled to the yokes of global conglomerates.

>> ^quantumushroom:

All too easy, Slapnuts.

Now deny it cause the stats don't come from SocialistWorker.org

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^quantumushroom:
Drug use, rapes, murders and random deaths are in every camp, all the attendant chaos one would expect when socialists, anarchists, code pink commies and feed-the-flames libmedia descend anywhere. These protestors are not even 1% of the 99%.

Citation needed, motherfucker.



Idiots put all their links in an image, so you can't click on them and read the reports for yourself... hmm, I wonder why?? Oh, it's because there were no reported murders in the links! And no reported rapes in the links! Lesser events? Yes, a few. Completely unrelated events? Why, yes, several!

Here, for your reading pleasure, are all the links the right-wing crypto-fascist zombie airheads can come up with to marginalize the "dirty hippies" on the lawn:

Links originally from Pundit Press:

From Oregon Live: Primarily about a man who showed up at Occupy Portland, dismissed it as "an eyesore" and criticized its "lack of cohesion", and was arrested within days for starting fires. Also includes a few other accounts of minor drug posession, disorderly conduct, a weapons charge, and arrests of people for charges unrelated to the Occupy camp. Occupy Portland had a problem from near the beginning with homeless people joining the camp, and there were no services from the city or state to help them.

From Denver Post: A man who made an impassioned speech in favor of the Occupy Fort Collins camp was arrested as a suspect in an ENTIRELY UNRELATED arson charge.

From Gawker: A military veteran died of a self-inflicted gunshot, and the city used it as an excuse to halt all camping.

From Fox News: A "rash" of reports that consists of 1 accusation of sexual abuse and 1 accusation of sexual assault in Zuccotti park, 1 accusation of sex with a minor in Dallas, and 1 alleged sexual assault in Cleveland. Fox inflates this to "nearly a half-dozen" reports. The article also includes a number of unsubstantiated rumors of destructive behavior by Occupy protestors in various locations around the country.

From Komo News: A man accused of indecent exposure (completely unrelated to the Occupy movement) is arrested when spotted taking part in an Occupy Seattle protest.

From Redstate: Blantaly right-wing opinion piece which includes a number of links purportedly supporting the premise that the Occupy movement is full of criminals. The very first link is about the police entrapment on the Brooklyn Bridge. One of the links is the above piece from Komo News about an unrelated exposure charge. And another is about how Iran supports the Occupy movement (fear the boogeyman!).

From Reuters: This article is about the man shot by Berkeley police in a computer lab at UC Berkeley. No ties to the Occupy movement at all. But the Occupy protest was nearby, so it must be related, right???

From ABC News: A man is arrested for firing an assault rifle at the White House. He "may have spent time with Occupy D.C. protesters."

From The Daily Cardinal: Link broken; defaults to University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal homepage.

From New York Post: Article is about theives preying on the lack of security at the Occupy camp. Apparently all that police overtime is really helping...

So! All these articles, and they amount to... a few isolated issues that don't nearly account for all the numbers posted, and a couple of them are for unrelated charges where the person might have been caught in or near an Occupy event.

My overall analysis: Aside from QM being full of shit as usual, it's time to let the camps go. They made a splash, but now they are just being used as fodder for the right wing lie-machines. There are just too many unrelated crazies that come to the camps and interfere with the message. It's time to Occupy the polls, and put the energy into publicly supported legislation.

6 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

Just say no to trolling.>> ^shinyblurry:

Marijuana has been used by witches and occultists to tap into satanic realms for centuries. It is spiritual poison and invites demonic posession. Just say no kids.

Marijuana has been used by witches and occultists to tap into satanic realms for centuries. It is spiritual poison and invites demonic posession. Just say no kids.

"Yippee yo, you know this kid? I said I didn't but I know he did."

And in Paul Revere's own words,

"It began," he writes, when "it was observed, that a number of [British] Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets."

And then he offers this account of being captured and telling the British that there was a militia waiting for them:

"I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that. When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back, and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared to have the command, examined me, where I came from, & what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he asked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River, and that There would be five hundred Americans there in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."

[All copy "as is" except the bold, which we inserted to highlight the line.]

The Associated Press adds that "Revere was probably bluffing the soldiers about the size of any advancing militia, since he had no way of knowing, according to Joel J. Miller, author of The Revolutionary Paul Revere. And while he made bells, Revere would never have rung any on that famous night because the Redcoats were under orders to round up people just like him. 'He was riding off as quickly and as quietly as possible,' Miller said. 'Paul Revere did not want the Redcoats to know of his mission at all.' "

Indeed, Revere says elsewhere in the letter that "it was then a common opinion, that there was a Traytor in the provincial Congress, & that [Gen.] Gage was posessed of all their Secrets."

Are plays real? Is ballet real? It's not a real competition but to say it's a fake thing completely is to not understand fiction...or beauty. Can't talk...weeping.

EDIT: http://videosift.com/video/Obasan-demon-posessed-girl-and-professional-wrestler

Check and Mate sir.

>> ^Payback:

I thought the Constitution only protected American citizens. Assange isn't American.


True that he isn't American, but I would've hoped that a government of a country that has a constitutionally-enshrined free press wouldn't seek to censor a press source from any other country that comes into posession of leaked documents. In other words, one would hope that the American government would respect their own constitution enough to consider its fundamental protections to be universally applicable.