OT: Yee! Haa!

with

that

the

sual.

ss

facts"

Not actually true, but Trump did claim it until he could have done somethin g about it, when he suddenly became magnanimous (rather than trying for a p rosecution that was never going to stick).

You don't have to be a fortune-teller to know that Donald Trump has a shady past.

and there's the little matter of Trump University, where Trump has spent $2

You don't need to know much about US politics to know that the claims about corruption in the Clinton Foundation are more Swift Boat People election p ropaganda. If John Larkin knew more about US politics, he wouldn't have sho wn himself up as gullible idiot by recyling the nonsense.

I'm my own employer - I'm sure I lie to myself about many things but not turning up for my own purge just seems like clear common sense.

My impression was that they weren't hiding it, but wanted to make it freely available on independent servers for anyone to look at. It's public information - taxpayer-funded much like the bailouts for DT's many failed business ventures.

As for "draining the swamp", well, two words: Carly Fiorina. It'll be disappointing if he drains the swamp only to fill the basin with septic tank sludge. While I can't be sure she knows anything about being a CEO or running a successful business, I know that she knows how to kiss some serious keister.

I'm sure she'll do fine.

Ask /anybody/ that worked at HP at the time.

ISTR seeing on the corporate usenet that Hewlett had listened to her pitch in silence, and finally said "Get me out of here".

I wish I could verify that.

That's a frightening thought.

Do you have no idea what the quote was about???

What are you talking about? The data isn't being "hidden", it is being posted publicly so it can't be destroyed like ISIS has done to the ziggurat of Nimrud, for no other reason that... well, we don't know why. Just like it would not be unexpected for those who think like KRW and JT to bulldoze facts that contradict them.

It figures that you fully support lying. That's what leftism is and in particular your scum-slithering branch leftism, the moral relativists.

They're hiding themselves, you blithering idiot.

YOu really are clueless. But that's been obvious since you showed up here.

I bet she will. I certainly would have voted for her.

Your means of access would be through your tax collecting organization, not direct via the researchers. Have you asked your Congressman?

Yes, I think we all have a clear understanding of your idea of a "democracy"... freedom to think anything that is directly in line with your thinking. What if the new government decides you need to be reeducated?

I have read about this and I don't think he did anything *obviously* improper. The issue would be based on whether he inflated prices charged to his campaign or if the charges were usual and customary. Jury is still out on that one.

Not just California. This *is* going to be fun.

FOIA allows taxpayer to request directly.

Where did you get that idea???

"Since 1967, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has provided the public the right to request access to records from any federal agency." "Federal agencies" are not the researchers you are asking the information from.

BTW, what does this have to do with your "trust" in the data?

DT couldn't do anything to Californica that they haven't already done to themselves. No, they'll keep voting for nutcases, like Moon.

From Washington, D.C.

Quote "As many of you know, last year Congress passed and the President signed new law requiring that research data gathered under federally funded projects be made available to the public via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)".

If data that has been obtained via taxpayer-funded research is held back with the notion "We do not consider you an expert in the matter so you don't need to know", what else other than suspicion should this cause?

You really are a Slowman clone.

I think you should be the first one educated, you still don't get it! does the Word "Democracy" need to be pounded out of your head?

Jamie

Maybe maybe not.

But he has a good point and your your only response (of ad hominen attacks) does you no favours.

I agree with that assessment of his past actions; it isn't anything wrong, even if it might be "sharp practice"

On the principle that "a leopard can't change its spots", will he do analogous things in the future? In his next position that would be an issue.

No question.

Another lefty moron heard from. Happy now?