There are huge professional and personal costs to suing. She has done more by most to protect others by going public. Isn't her job to fix Uber via lawsuit.
Someone needs to do it. It's not any particular person's duty, and she has definitely gone above and beyond by writing this up, but it would be a great public service for someone to bring a (preferably class-action) lawsuit.
The personal and professional cost of bringing a lawsuit normally means it makes no sense to bring a case even if you would have a good chance of winning. You really need to be prepared to make personal sacrifice in order to try to change things by the lawsuit for it even to be worth considering.
He has espoused a non-interventionalist foreign policy.
Unfortunately though, he is not a man of principle; therefore, I don't have high hopes he would follow through unlike someone like Ron Paul.
So for libertarian leaning voters, some might opt for Trump in hopes of less war. I feel that is a bit of a wildcard though. On the other hand, those same voters likely feel that Clinton is more certain of more war and debt.
He's expressed a lot of contradictory statements, though. His recent rhetoric has been very gung ho about smashing ISIS and the like (to be fair, every candidate, even Sanders, following the Orlando attacks, has said the same). He's talked about killing the families of terrorists and bringing back torture methods worse than waterboarding. He might not be as canny or experienced as Clinton is at wielding this nation's military-intelligence systems to wage war with, but that doesn't mean he won't try, at some point. Trump just doesn't come across as a principled peace candidate.
Not to mention, there seems to be a tendency for third party, or dark horse candidates, to run on non-interventionism. Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace, even Charles Lindbergh- I think when one doesn't have previous political commitments to defense contractors and other entrenched pro-interventionist interests, there's no need to suck up on them. Instead, it becomes natural to run on a populist, America first, foreign policy deemphasized campaign to appeal to the common people.
Trump is no longer dark horse, he's no longer fringe. He no longer needs to commit to non-interventionism. If anything, he is currently trying to outmaneuver Clinton as the candidate who can bring terrorism to heel.
Honestly, Trump and Hillary aren't that different. He's a little less of a warhawk, speaks his mind, and is pro-2A. The last one is almost enough on its own for me, given Hillarys stance on that issue.
Given that he's criticized Obama/Clinton for being insufficiently aggressive in several areas, and praised Putin's aggressiveness, I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from, besides his after-the-fact claims to have opposed the Iraq War before it started (his only public statement on the war before it started appears to have been grudging support, not opposition, on the Howard Stern show in 2002, and stating that a decision on the war one way or another was important on Fox News in January 2003, without expressing support or opposition.)
He has criticized John McCain and Lindsey Graham over their pro war stances. In the debates he has mentioned problems with the interventionist foreign policy.
Surprisingly he even attracted support of Michael Scheuer ( a huge critic of our interventionist foreign policy), although I believe he has pulled back a bit on that recently.
However, yes he has also made somewhat contradictory statements as well. So, it is hard to draw any definitive conclusions what his actual policy would look like.
I don't find him credible enough to vote for him. However, what I have observed is that some feel that Clinton is a certainty in continuing our existing foreign policy and that the choice is between certain more war and maybe less war and they are opting for the maybe less war. The one facet he has been mostly consistent on to my knowledge is at least he is not trying to push an aggressive provoking stance against Russia.
It will be very interesting of Gary Johnson can succeed in getting into the debates. If he has a good performance, that could really change everything.
But he lies so much and makes so many factual errors how can you trust him on anything? His pro-torture position seems to show disregard of the 8th amendment is he really going to protect the others and is the 2A that much more important to you than all the others?
I'm no saying that you should like Hillary but congress will probably block gun reform as always and while she spins and dissembles at times it isn't the same outrageous disregard for the truth that I see from Trump.
But isn't that Clinton? We have no real idea of Trump's policies. He barely strings full sentences together, just fragments of thoughts that people turn into the full policies that they want in their own minds.
He makes things up in writing such as who wrote his wife's speech that he really doesn't need to; surely less lies is better than more.
I see the current federal gun control laws as an overreach. So the fact that she's for an additional assault weapon ban, when we should be pulling back on rules is just a total non starter on that issue.
It's just as important as any over constitutionally protected right. With the way the courts are stacked these days I'm not that worried about roe v wade flipping, or a major set back on free speech. Gun issues I only see going in a negative way unless there is a strong pro gun person at the federal level.
> Honestly, Trump and Hillary aren't that different. He's a little less of a warhawk, speaks his mind, and is pro-2A.
They differ massively on energy and climate. Trump makes coal and oil a major focus, and wants to repeal most environmental rules that affect them. Trump would cancel the Paris agreement.
I'd forgotten that Symantec had acquired Verisign at some point and they are huge certificate supplier. I was planning to untrust Symantec but not sure that is feasible for the Verisign certs too.
Only if mainstream economic theory was correct, unfortunately it is deeply flawed and much of it depends on unrealistic (and at times inconsistent) assumptions.
They don't need to. They just need to stop it becoming a full competitor.
Facebook's asset is the social network, your contacts. WhatsApp was a threat because they were getting a social network to match. That could then have been acquired (by Google) or developed a more social platform on top of it. By owning it Facebook can keep WhatsApp limited to a messaging platform only and remove the risk and limit the damage to Facebook itself. Next step moves to encourage WhatsApp users onto Facebook for group messaging type services.
