lol. So delusional. “Even cnn” has meant diddly squat since the first time you said it months after cnn went far right, firing multiple popular centrist and left leaning hosts and hiring dishonest maggots…which if you had 2 brain cells you would know because you’ve been told a few dozen times with proof, but you don’t, or is it pure dishonesty that has you continuing to attempt to mislead? No surprise you continue to say it, you are incapable of learning or thinking, even when a thing has been proven conclusively with citation and indisputable evidence.

Not sure what you think exonerates Trump there, but you are wrong. “Trump’s “fixer” was a skumbag” is hardly the “gotcha!” You seem to think. Trump was quite public that he was proud he had a criminal thug lawyer working for him, fixing his reputation and helping him not pay bills over and over and over and over through illicit payoffs, perjury, threats, frivolous lawsuits, etc…all for Trump. I know you don’t remember, but look at how he and Cohen acted before 2017.
What’s hilarious is he was apparently honest about this on the stand when asked, continuing to testify honestly about crimes he did when he worked for Trump in a criminal organization surrounded by other criminals…and you think it’s a shocker that he did crimes to benefit himself too!?! lol. You are so silly.
What you missed is he admitted lying about how much REIMBURSEMENT was required for (is it Redfinch, the poll fixing/faking company?), and Trump thinks he’s got him cornered because he paid that inflated reimbursement in full….FORGETTING HIS DEFENSE IS HE DID NOT PAY A REIMBURSEMENT! 😂

Even his legal team says conviction is a certainty if there isn’t a Trumpist on the jury prepared to vote against conviction for purely political reasons. The prosecution has thoroughly proven through evidence Trump’s direct total involvement in the scheme to hide his payoff to the porn star he cheated on his mistress with after cheating on his wife with her (McDougal) for nearly a full year (a story Pecker “caught and killed” to help the campaign with more criminal campaign fraud and massive unreported campaign contributions), hiding the payment through business fraud to help his campaign, which made it campaign fraud too.
Cohen just fills in the details, he doesn’t prove the crimes, mountains of documentation including recordings do. If you think a few minor details like the precise timing of a phone call from 8 years ago
(Edit: uh-oh. Photographs of Trump and Stiller together at the exact time of the call were just entered into evidence. So much for that lie.)
or the biased accusation of tangential crimes totally inconsequential to the crimes Trump committed impeach his corroboration of the documentation in evidence, documentation that proves Trump’s direct personal involvement, or that that somehow might tank the entire case, you are as dumb as I think you are.
This only gives reasonable doubt to someone searching for any excuse to vote against conviction despite all the evidence, someone who was never going to convict under any circumstances. We know there’s at least one, hopefully an alternate.

If you missed it, Friday Trump left court saying his NDA with Daniels must be the only illegal NDA ever, all others are legal but his is determined to be illegal…now stupidly admitting he had an NDA with her, something his lawyers and he have been arguing absolutely never happened.
Again, his press conferences can be admitted to the record and only Trump can contradict them on the stand…which will be his end if he testifies and his end if he doesn’t. Either way his own words are going to hang him.
Again, since you missed it, part of what Cohen was repaid for was paying the company who falsely inflated Trump poll numbers online…yes, PAYMENT TO FAKE POLL NUMBERS. I’m certain you will ignore that, then forget it before reading this sentence, because salient facts don’t matter to your ilk, only ridiculous minutiae you can distract your gnat brain with.

Keep dreaming. How many times have you said that, only to watch your exoneration dissolve in the sunlight? You will never learn though, and will believe anything good for Trump and ignore or deny anything bad or evil…which leaves you 100% divorced from reality living in Trumpist fantasy lie filled world. That’s why your predictions absolutely never come to fruition, they’re all based on a fantasy. It would be sad if you didn’t deserve it.
Keep cut and pasting…The pigeon english is almost too dumb to reply too.
“Even cnn CAN hide this…” !?!
“You orange man bad dream going up….”!?!
I’ve known people with severe brain trauma fresh out of a coma barely able to speak with better brains than yours. 😂

Sorry sunshine.
You mean all those real black supporters, all tweeting the exact same words at the same time...using only stock photos of black people, never real ones, many being bots, others being lying whites...those are your real black people. So delusional, thinking people who's IQs are above 80 would take your lying word on anything, especially anything to do with Trump or race. Go listen to more Pravda propaganda on OAN....watch soon, Biden will likely pull their license to broadcast in America since they hire KGB agents to spread Russian propaganda according to the entire intelligence community.

So dumb.

Larger percentage than 8%....unlikely.

Translator fail again, Bobski. Learn English, I might answer your question.

And more blatant lies, every left wing politician denounced ANTIFA, and they aren't an organization, you can't donate to Antifa, dumbass.
How many retrumpacans have denounced white supremacy without being forced...certainly not Trump, he had to be forced into it by his party who was ready to abandon him in self defense if he didn't, reluctantly, denounce them weakly with a prepared statement obviously written by someone else. It's clear he didn't mean it.

Your metadata has been sent to the IT department of Antifa for identification, collection, and reNeducation....diddly

I've known at least two cases of people who made threats over the internet, who were absolute psychos and probably wouldn't have bothered with threats at all had they been able to be there in person. They'd have simply shown up with their blowtorch and baseball bat.
The fact that threats are made over the internet means diddly-squat. Threats were made, that's the only part that matters.

That's just the point! There's too many programmers that don't know diddly about computer science, wouldn't know how to analyze an algorithm. So, instead of coming up with a useful algorithm that works on real world inputs, too often they'll devise something way more complicated to handle worst case scenarios or give only marginally improved performance (or none at all in the real world). Pre-optimization is a horribly Bad Thing. But so is not knowing how to use the algorithms that have already been written and optimized.

The quote is from a presentation by Sedgewick titled "Algorithms for the Masses." The whole point of it is to start teaching the fundamentals of computer science to everyone (that needs to do programming). I'd love to find a video of it somewhere, but all I've been able to come up with is the presentation slides (which themselves are worth a read through).

Here, let me google that for you...violence and lead poisoning

.23 seconds later, 6.5 million results.

Nothing in the FBI's numbers for those decades would suggest that banning leaded gasoline would reduce violent crime. But because research wasn't suppressed, we have an extremely clear case for that now.

I don't get why you're having problems comprehending this...you yourself said it was a difficult question to answer. I have agreed, and pointed out over and over that you learn NOTHING by looking at the raw FBI numbers. Those tell you diddly shit about other factors. But you continue to ignore the fact that those numbers take no other factors into account and claim they prove something you want to find.

The only research into those other factors was killed by the gun lobby. In spite of your false equivalence, it was not, and has rarely if ever, been the progressives that kill research into contentious issues...progressives generally prefer to have some facts to base their approach on. Lobbying organizations care only about money..facts have no bearing on their stance, and they are more likely to bury them than display them.

He does have a point. As @braindonut said there isn't an exclusive relationship between having a degree and being educated.

Out of the graduates I've worked with most of their experiences are described in this video. Students follow the orders of the curriculum and end up burnt out and disinterested.

I think a lot of the problem is in school guidance and social attitudes towards what education actually is. Most see and communicate it as a necessary tool to gain employment opportunities. Because of this, students choose their higher education subjects based on job outcomes, so a hell of a lot of students aren't actually interested in their classes.

Then numbers led government set targets for education institutions. When measurements are made into goals they stop being measurements. This leads to curriculums that focus on test outcomes rather than knowledge and skill.

All of the people mentioned in this video that were successful had something else in common apart from the fact that they didn't complete higher education. They pursued their dreams despite their formal education, not because of it, and they all pursued their own education.

Jobs, Wozniak and Gates taught themselves everything about computers. They didn't wait around for anyone to plan out their education.

Beckham trained in football since he could walk.

Richard Branson didn't wait around for a degree, he started selling mail order records from his garage and started learning the business by doing rather than reading.

I could go on.

One thing I find very common with graduates is that when I ask them what projects they've worked on during their education; what projects they started themselves; what they've created and put out there out of their own passion for their industry... 95% have nothing.

I would hire someone who has done their own thing and does not have a degree rather than someone who has 5 masters to their name and has done diddly squat outside of the requirements of their education.

Good catch. Fixed!>> ^hpqp:

Love the look of that diddly-bow, very DIY.
Also, @Fusionaut, I believe there is in fact only one gentleman playing, although the mistake is understandable.

Love the look of that diddly-bow, very DIY.

Also, @Fusionaut, I believe there is in fact only one gentleman playing, although the mistake is understandable.

I'm seeing diddly... dead?

Is it just me or does the picnic husband look and act like Ned Flanders? Particularly between 2:00 and 2:10?

Hi-diddly diddly neighbor!

The force is strong with this one

http://chzgifs.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/funny-gifs-love-that-jiggle.gif


>> ^gwiz665:

Lool.
WITH THE DOWHOP DIDDLY DOO SHLAPPAH CLAPPAH MAFFAH WHOOGLY A SHING SHONG SHAMMA LAMMA
http://i.imgur.com/fqIBY.gif
>> ^Skeeve:
Rooja Cosby... Cosby!? Damn.

Lool.
WITH THE DOWHOP DIDDLY DOO SHLAPPAH CLAPPAH MAFFAH WHOOGLY A SHING SHONG SHAMMA LAMMA
http://i.imgur.com/fqIBY.gif

>> ^Skeeve:

Rooja Cosby... Cosby!? Damn.

This has diddly to do with a market, free or otherwise.

Paul's stance is simple. Charity will solve all. The fact that charity is not currently solving all is due to ..... government?

Paul doesn't want any government spending on areas like this, or perhaps anything, so he sees it all as a waste. What he has to contribute to a debate like this other than simple nay saying is diddly squat.

His call of absurdity is only highlighted by his inability to recognise that the 2 billion suggested meets a certain threshold of minimal subsistence. He seems to have a disconnect between money as mere figures and money actually making a material difference to people that aren't himself.

In his defence, Sanders and Franken could have done more research and offered him figures concerning net savings to satisfy his concerns but it does appear that he has a blind disregard for such matters. I feel it is still best to present such information in the interests of thoroughness and providing a watertight argument.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong diddly wrong wrong...