FBI officially closes Clinton email investigation - she was "reckless" but will face no charges - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soulharvester;50654716]You guys are missing the mark on savings, it would cost absurd amounts to plant and maintain minefields across the border, not to mention dangerous for the personnel meant to replace the mines when they go off. We just need to periodically saturate the area south of the border with lethal gas to prevent people from going near it in the first place, and we can do this safely from our own side of the border.[/QUOTE] I think we should just stop pandering around with half measures and just nuke Mexico and the whole of South America We also have all the nukes already built so it won't cost us anything :downs:

[QUOTE=orgornot;50655066]Yes the border is about 2000 miles but you only need 1000 miles of wall because there are natural barriers. And Mexico can and will pay for it. Donald Trump has already laid out that plan. Here they estimate the cost for 2000 miles, but you only need 1000 miles: [video=youtube;NkSo0QQLUfE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkSo0QQLUfE[/video][/QUOTE] Even if there were a thousand miles worth of natural barriers sufficient to actually block travel the way you're thinking instead of the open desert and scrublands that comprise the [I]vast[/I] majority of the US-Mexico border terrain, a thousand miles is still a pretty significant stretch of land, even that 'only' a thousand miles would still be a gargantuan money sink of questionable effectiveness just due to sheer scale Miles are [I]big[/I] Perhaps you'd like to explain to me what exactly the incentive for the Mexican government is for sinking [I]two hundred billion pesos[/I] into a wall that has no real benefit for them? Because I think that's something that could use more explanation than just 'Trump has a plan' Even if you halve that that's still [i]one hundred billion[/I] in [I]just[/I] the materials, I've already gone over how you also need the money to pay, house, feed, support, and supply the work force you'd actually need in order to actually put those materials to work

[QUOTE=Sitkero;50655215]Even if there were a thousand miles worth of natural barriers sufficient to actually block travel the way you're thinking instead of the open desert and scrublands that comprise the [I]vast[/I] majority of the US-Mexico border terrain, a thousand miles is still a pretty significant stretch of land, even that 'only' a thousand miles would still be a gargantuan money sink of questionable effectiveness just due to sheer scale Miles are [I]big[/I] Perhaps you'd like to explain to me what exactly the incentive for the Mexican government is for sinking [I]two hundred billion pesos[/I] into a wall that has no real benefit for them? Because I think that's something that could use more explanation than just 'Trump has a plan' Even if you halve that that's still [I]one hundred billion[/I] in [I]just[/I] the materials, I've already gone over how you also need the money to pay, house, feed, support, and supply the work force you'd actually need in order to actually put those materials to work[/QUOTE] The US has a ~$60 billion trade deficit with Mexico, I think the Mexicans would like to keep that trade. And here are some more good reasons: [QUOTE]Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=orgornot;50655246]The US has a ~$60 billion trade deficit with Mexico, I think the Mexicans would like to keep that trade. And here are some more good reasons:[/QUOTE] So extortion is the inventive, got it Assuming he somehow does actually force them to pay for and construct the wall, though, that still leaves the myriad millions of USD needed around to pay for upkeep of the wall, the massive fleet of ground and air vehicles required for the level of responsiveness you're hoping for, the massive amount of personnel to operate and maintain those vehicles, the upkeep of the roads and bases they'll need to use, the additional personnel needed to maintain those bases as well as house, feed, and entertain all those personnel Are they paying for that too, then?

[QUOTE=Sitkero;50655331]So extortion is the inventive, got it Assuming he somehow does actually force them to pay for and construct the wall, though, that still leaves the myriad millions of USD needed around to pay for upkeep of the wall, the massive fleet of ground and air vehicles required for the level of responsiveness you're hoping for, the massive amount of personnel to operate and maintain those vehicles, the upkeep of the roads and bases they'll need to use, the additional personnel needed to maintain those bases as well as house, feed, and entertain all those personnel Are they paying for that too, then?[/QUOTE] Trump could probably make them pay for that too. But you wouldn't need to. It would cost much less than the tens of billions wasted on immigration each year.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50655476]Trump could probably make them pay for that too. But you wouldn't need to. It would cost much less than the tens of billions wasted on immigration each year.[/QUOTE] How, exactly? US Customs and Border Patrol already have around a twelve billion yearly budget and employ around sixty thousand federal personnel already. How exactly do you expect to [I]reduce[/I] that but still have sufficient funding and personnel for fully manning nearly two thousand miles worth of manned border wall? In your own words: [QUOTE=orgornot;50654820]It would take a long time to set up a ladder & rope then climb up and down. So they would get spotted and dealt with. Not to mention the risks involved. [B]You can have a simple drone that patrols, spots intrusions, then dispatches a chopper/patrol to deal with them.[/B][/QUOTE] Even the simple hand launched RQ-11 drones run up to around $175k~ per unit, RQ-7s run up to around fifteen million. UH-60s run up around twenty million. And that's just a few air vehicles, there's the upkeep of the vehicles themselves, the trained personnel to operate and maintain them, the actual officers you'd send out and their gear and the associated infrastructure I already mentioned You're talking about beefing up border security by a huge extent and having a dedicated force for manning upwards of two thousand miles of border wall, even if you halve that I have no idea how exactly there's supposed to be a net gain with all the extra men and materiel committed

The US spends tens of billions of dollars each year on illegal immigrants to educate their children, provide healthcare for them, and pay for their incarceration. Many of them commit crimes and the US has to pay not only in the form of money for legal procedures and prison sentences, but also in the form of victims. So the wall would pay for itself with all the money it would save. And by the way, the National Border Patrol Council endorsed Donald Trump.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50655814]The US spends tens of billions of dollars each year on illegal immigrants to educate their children, provide healthcare for them, and pay for their incarceration. Many of them commit crimes and the US has to pay not only in the form of money for legal procedures and prison sentences, but also in the form of victims. So the wall would pay for itself with all the money it would save. And by the way, the National Border Patrol Council endorsed Donald Trump.[/QUOTE] But immigrants also work and pay taxes and therefore contribute to the local economy, and many studies have shown that this produces a net positive effect. NBPC is a labour union that represents agents and support staff of the US Border Patrol, and the statement was prepared by a small group of leaders. I wouldn't put too much weight on their opinions.

[QUOTE=Sitkero;50654917]The Hungarian border barrier is only 325 miles long, and, like the previously mentioned Israel-Egypt barrier, is not actually a wall, it's mostly just fence Do you have even the slightest notion just how small that is compared to the [I][U][B]one thousand and nine hundred eighty nine miles[/B][/U][/I] that comprise the US-Mexico border?[/QUOTE] Hold on, what does this have to do with anything? Our GDP is 126 times higher than Hungary's and our population is over 32 times higher, so what are you trying to argue by stating that the fence would be just six times longer than Hungary's?

[QUOTE=Govna;50652158]We're going to have to do something about it ourselves eventually, because at the rate things are going, nobody is going to get into office and fix it for us using the preferred/formal channels and methods within the system to do so. The system itself is just too damn rotten. It's not going to get any better, it's only going to get worse. It's going to entrench itself further and further, it's going to start interfering with our lives and our society more than it already is... and the longer we tolerate it, the more desensitized we'll become to it until we collectively stop caring altogether and just accept it as a normal, unchangeable part of existence-- which is exactly what the people in power want. If they get us to that point of frustrated passivity, then they own us entirely, and that will be the sad end of the matter.[/QUOTE] How about you just do something about it instead of saying "We have to do something about it ourselves eventually"? Seriously, I really want America to just stop taking this shit and go on a mass protest, because at this point everyone is already acting out that frustrated passivity.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50655066]Yes the border is about 2000 miles but you only need 1000 miles of wall because there are natural barriers. And Mexico can and will pay for it. Donald Trump has already laid out that plan. Here they estimate the cost for 2000 miles, but you only need 1000 miles: [video=youtube;NkSo0QQLUfE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkSo0QQLUfE[/video][/QUOTE] Hahhahaa you think so. Your crazy man I love how everybody thinks a wall is going to solve the problem. There are ways around a wall, tunnels, boats and I hear the cartels are smuggling people and drugs using homemade Subs.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;50650456]Cool so anybody else can get their careers ruined or go to jail for far less but because she has influence she gets away with no charges.[/QUOTE] Didn't you know? If you don't know something's illegal, and you're rich, the worst you'll get is a half-hearted, "please don't do that."

[QUOTE=orgornot;50654820]Walls work. You need borders [B]and [/B]you need to [B]enforce them[/B]. If you don't have borders, you don't have a country. Hungary took measures to enforce their borders and protect their people. [IMG]https://i.sli.mg/PENmG4.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] Migrants aren't really trying to go to Hungary as much as through Hungary though.

[QUOTE=SinjinOmega;50655981]How about you just do something about it instead of saying "We have to do something about it ourselves eventually"? Seriously, I really want America to just stop taking this shit and go on a mass protest, because at this point everyone is already acting out that frustrated passivity.[/QUOTE] My guess is that there aren't enough people who realize this and even less who have the time to go to Washington DC and protest. We don't have the numbers to do that. Even if there was a small protest, unfavorable media reporting would discourage more people from supporting the protest. It would be Occupy Wallstreet 2.0, with less people and more government suppression of public protests.

[QUOTE=raz r23;50656169]Hahhahaa you think so. Your crazy man I love how everybody thinks a wall is going to solve the problem. There are ways around a wall, tunnels, boats and I hear the cartels are smuggling people and drugs using homemade Subs.[/QUOTE] okay, but every politician is too worried about their career to suggest anything that includes improved border control

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50655911]But immigrants also work and pay taxes and therefore contribute to the local economy, and many studies have shown that this produces a net positive effect. NBPC is a labour union that represents agents and support staff of the US Border Patrol, and the statement was prepared by a small group of leaders. I wouldn't put too much weight on their opinions.[/QUOTE] Correction: [B]legal[/B] immigrants work and pay taxes, illegal ones do not. The sooner you understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants the better off you'll be. We want people to come into our countries. But they have to come [B]legally[/B].

[QUOTE=orgornot;50656408]Correction: [B]legal[/B] immigrants work and pay taxes, illegal ones do not. The sooner you understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants the better off you'll be. We want people to come into our countries. But they have to come [B]legally[/B].[/QUOTE] Would you two take this to another thread? We've gone through two pages of this.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50656408]Correction: [B]legal[/B] immigrants work and pay taxes, illegal ones do not. The sooner you understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants the better off you'll be. We want people to come into our countries. But they have to come [B]legally[/B].[/QUOTE] I have worked with numerous illegal immigrants. I live in Texas. You live in fucking Sweden. All of those immigrants pay taxes. They pay sales taxes - as everyone does, citizen or not. They pay property taxes - as everyone who owns a home does. They pay income taxes - as everyone who works in the state does, regardless if they are state citizens or not. The vast majority of illegal immigrants pay taxes. They don't go up to buy some chips and tell the cashier to deduct 8.825% off the final price because they're illegals and don't need to pay taxes. I know this shit. I'm from a border state. I know illegal immigrants. I know children of illegal immigrants. You're Swedish. Fuck off telling our country that illegals don't pay taxes when they absolutely do and many many studies have shown that illegals are a net tax gain to state economies.

Sweden actually has the highest amount of immigrants relative to their population in Europe. :v:

[QUOTE=Tudd;50657258]Sweden actually has the highest amount of immigrants relative to their population in Europe. :v:[/QUOTE] Sure - that's fair. But assuming that the situations are 100% the same in two different countries halfway across the world is ignorant. I've also lived in Minneapolis. It has a huge [I]refugee[/I] population. There's a lot of local frustration that Hmong and Somali refugees get preferential rent and pay technically less taxes. That's far more similar to the situation in Sweden - the government is giving them tax breaks and somewhat preferential treatment. I get why that angers Swedes - it does the same thing to Minnesotans. The Mexican immigration problem is critically different in that they aren't refugees. The governments of these border states aren't catering to them in any way - usually they're doing the opposite and actively restricting them. They don't get tax breaks for being immigrants. They don't get preferential rent like refugees do in some areas. They actually receive [I]less[/I] government assistance than the average American, because they're ineligible for a number of federal and state social programs. They pay taxes. Refugees are a very different situation, and the Swedish immigrants are largely refugees - even if you consider them economic migrants cheating the system. They get the government assistance that almost all countries give to refugees and asylum seekers. There's major, major differences. Illegal immigrants pay taxes - you can't rent a home without doing so. Part of your rent is reserved for property taxes - so even if you're an illegal paying rent, you're paying propert taxes. And Texas has the fourth higher property tax rate in the entire country. Everyone, even refugees, pay sales taxes. Refugees are eligible for welfare programs - illegal immigrants in the US are barred from welfare programs. It's not even comparable.

[QUOTE=orgornot;50656408]Correction: [B]legal[/B] immigrants work and pay taxes, illegal ones do not. The sooner you understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants the better off you'll be. We want people to come into our countries. But they have to come [B]legally[/B].[/QUOTE] Yeah, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, sorry. [b][i]Illegal immigrants do pay taxes.[/i][/b] They not only pay [i]sales[/i] and [i]property[/i] taxes, but they also often pay [i]income[/i] taxes as well. The IRS is not in the business of immigration, they want the money, and that's the end of it. Illegal immigrants are not stupid. They have enough problems as it is trying to avoid being sent back home, they don't need the IRS after them too. They can apply for an ITIN and many still file fraudulently under someone else's SSN. Granted, they are breaking the law by filing a tax return, but to say that they don't do it is ridiculous. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;50654643]Drones are too expensive, just use [land] mines and make sure they're not the kind that disable themselves.[/QUOTE] Nah. See the most cost-expensive way is to rally up all the trigger-happy xenophobe's and tell them it's open season :downs:

[QUOTE=Snowmew;50657423]Yeah, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, sorry. [B][I]Illegal immigrants do pay taxes.[/I][/B] They not only pay [I]sales[/I] and [I]property[/I] taxes, but they also often pay [I]income[/I] taxes as well. The IRS is not in the business of immigration, they want the money, and that's the end of it. Illegal immigrants are not stupid. They have enough problems as it is trying to avoid being sent back home, they don't need the IRS after them too. They can apply for an ITIN and many still file fraudulently under someone else's SSN. Granted, they are breaking the law by filing a tax return, but to say that they don't do it is ridiculous. Illegal immigrants do pay taxes.[/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers[/URL] Yeah but its nothing compared to how much they get in benefits. They pay barely 10 billion (or 1/13th of what they get). They get about 113 billion across the Federal, State and Local levels.

There's a petition to reverse the FBI decision for those still wanting to do some sort of meaningful vote against Hillary :v: [url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924[/url] [editline]6th July 2016[/editline] Aaaaand now my CNN app tells me that Lynch has officially closed the case

[QUOTE=Cold Blood;50658845]There's a petition to reverse the FBI decision for those still wanting to do some sort of meaningful vote against Hillary :v: [url]https://petitions.whitehouse.gov//petition/charge-hillary-rodham-clinton-pursuant-18-usc-641-793-794-798-952-and-1924[/url] [editline]6th July 2016[/editline] Aaaaand now my CNN app tells me that Lynch has officially closed the case[/QUOTE] I'm voting for Sanders/Stein and then I'm leaving the election to history. There are no brains to reform with, and no stomach big enough for revolution. There will be no positive change in the practices of the United States Government for the foreseeable century. What's the line I'm thinking of? "All men are created equal and some women are more equal than others?"

[URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437560/fbi-director-comeys-suggestion-congresss-gross-negligence-statute-invalid"]It looks like Comey stated his explanation for letting her off the hook more clearly[/URL] (but it would be nice to have a direct source for what he said in this regard since this post only has indirect speech). The gist: - Clinton broke the law as written but - the law was only invoked once in a century, so doing it now would be suspect - it's invalid because it defines a crime that doesn't require proof of intent I'm with McCarthy here. - Suggesting that a law loses validity just because it's not enforced (assuming this wasn't just the case because no-one broke it in the meantime), even if it never was rescinded or superseded, is really strange. - If this law was invalid only for lack of an intent clause, that would contradict the criminalisation of negligent homicide. That said, Germany uses a different legal system compared to the US (civil law vs. common law), meaning laws always apply here as written (which still leaves them open to being thrown out [I]in court[/I] if there's a contradiction). I think the only cases of laws being not applied at all here are those where the contradiction is extremely obvious.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;50665191][URL="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437560/fbi-director-comeys-suggestion-congresss-gross-negligence-statute-invalid"]It looks like Comey stated his explanation for letting her off the hook more clearly[/URL] (but it would be nice to have a direct source for what he said in this regard since this post only has indirect speech). The gist: - Clinton broke the law as written but - the law was only invoked once in a century, so doing it now would be suspect - it's invalid because it defines a crime that doesn't require proof of intent I'm with McCarthy here. - Suggesting that a law loses validity just because it's not enforced (assuming this wasn't just the case because no-one broke it in the meantime), even if it never was rescinded or superseded, is really strange. - If this law was invalid only for lack of an intent clause, that would contradict the criminalisation of negligent homicide. That said, Germany uses a different legal system compared to the US (civil law vs. common law), meaning laws always apply here as written (which still leaves them open to being thrown out [I]in court[/I] if there's a contradiction). I think the only cases of laws being not applied at all here are those where the contradiction is extremely obvious.[/QUOTE] If this is true, then what an absolute joke.

[QUOTE=bdd458;50665802]If this is true, then what an absolute joke.[/QUOTE] He also said that she lacked intent based on her being "technologically unsifisticated." Those are his words. Basically, he said that she was so ignorant of how technology works that she didn't understand what she was doing.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50665838]He also said that she lacked intent based on her being "technologically unsifisticated." Those are his words. Basically, he said that she was so ignorant of how technology works that she didn't understand what she was doing.[/QUOTE] When you consider that the government is effectively run by grandparents, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Email wasn't even introduced into the State Department until 2004 - and even then, sending secure information required handing over wireless devices and going into a secured room with a special computer to send the classified information. Instead of just encrypting the email.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50665860]When you consider that the government is effectively run by grandparents, this shouldn't surprise anyone. Email wasn't even introduced into the State Department until 2004 - and even then, sending secure information required handing over wireless devices and going into a secured room with a special computer to send the classified information. Instead of just encrypting the email.[/QUOTE] She was more incompetent than that. She thought, for example, that a computer had to be physically accessed in order to hack it.