SivaGanesha

One has to wonder exactly how Anthony's wiener found its way onto Hillary's server. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I assume that in addition to Rep Duckworth's service and that of her family, it is probably a naturally Democratic seat. It is Barack Obama's old seat and Obama was probably given the chance to make the keynote address at the 2004 DNC--his first introduction to the national stage--in part because he was seen as a shoo-in. Dems lost the seat for awhile--and only very narrowly--only because of the corruption involved when Blago went to prison for trying to (or perhaps actually succeeding in) selling the seat to the highest bidder. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Does anyone know if a president can be impeached for something they did before taking office? Can they only be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" committed while in office? Or can they be impeached if accused of crimes that took place before they took office? For example, if a president is accused of having--in the past while a private citizen--committed a sexual assault, could they be impeached? Or if a president is accused of having--in the past while a member of cabinet--handled classified emails illegally, could they be impeached? The only three presidents against whom impeachment was seriously considered--A. Johnson, Nixon, and B. Clinton--all were accused of things while in office, although B. Clinton's impeachment had its origins in the Paula Jones case which predated his becoming president. Note that I'm not arguing either for or against these candidates being guilty of what they are accused of--nor am I arguing either for or against their being impeached. I'm just wondering whether it is theoretically possible to impeach a president for something they did before becoming president. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I usually don't get involved in discussions of the military since I've never served...but... I totally agree with you. These people accepted their bonuses and served in good faith and it is absolutely wrong to make them repay it all these years later. I would hope there would be bipartisan agreement on this among Congress, the president, and presidential candidates on this. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

You are talking about child support but the article is referring to something different--alimony. Child support supports the child; alimony supports the ex. Something about the numbers in the original story don't add up, though. He previously earned $1 million a year but was ordered to pay alimony of just $78k a year. He has been unemployed for two years. With earnings that high, he should have had enough in assets to be able to manage payments of $78k a year for a couple of years even without an income. Compared to his past earnings, that is actually quite a small alimony payment. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Pence just struck out swinging. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

For the presidency itself there hasn't been much doubt in my mind for awhile now (at least since Bernie lost the primary) that I'd be voting for HRC. Until the events of the last few days, however, I was at least toying with the idea of voting Republican in some of the down ballot races. In most elections I prefer to see checks and balances and would have considered electing HRC but voting to put some limits on her power by voting for Republicans down ballot. However, the complete chaos in the Republican party right now--which Republicans have only themselves to blame for because they nominated someone like Trump--means that I will definitely be voting Democrat all the way down the ballot. I think the Republicans need to see a historic defeat at all levels to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I think the correct approach here is a combination of the approaches of countries that legalize it and some countries that make it a crime for the customer. I think it should be legalized and regulated BUT any customer who chooses to hire a prostitute working OUTSIDE of the legal industry should be punished very heavily. The prostitute herself would not be punished, though. The thinking here is that if you make it legal and regulate it, then any prostitute still working outside of the legal industry is likely being abused in some manner. In this way you divvy up the customers who are willing to pay for the legal prostitutes who have certain rights (and hence probably cost a bit more) and the customers who are willing to tolerate the abuse of women to save a few bucks. The latter group should--as I said--face heavy penalties. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I'm asking about direct transitions so--no. Reagan didn't go directly from actor to president. He was Governor of California first. The career path of Actor->Governor of California->President is a fairly natural one because actors/actresses are very much public figures--as are governors and presidents--and Governor of California is a natural stepping stone role because of the film industry's association with California. But going directly from Actor->President would make a lot less sense. I suspect that Schwarzenegger would also have gone from Actor to Governor of CA to President had he been qualified constitutionally to be POTUS. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I don't understand--I'm asking about someone who went DIRECTLY from a position as a business executive (and I mean a CEO not a lawyer) to the Oval Office. All of the above had significant political experience before becoming president. Many presidents have had experience in the private sector before entering public life--but all or almost all had to serve an apprenticeship in lower level roles in politics before being considered serious presidential candidates. They didn't move directly from CEO to POTUS. They had to take on stepping stone roles--Governor, Congress, Senate, Cabinet, etc--first. Bloomberg--in going directly from CEO of Bloomberg to NYC mayor--is indeed probably the closest example to what I'm asking for. But even Bloomberg wasn't seriously considered as a potential presidential candidate until first doing a stint as NYC mayor. NYC mayor is clearly a powerful role but it is still a notch or two below the presidency. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

My question here goes beyond just Donald Trump but I'm asking whether any CEO or other business executive could be a good president without first having a lot of prior political experience in less powerful roles. I'm talking about going straight from the corner office to the Oval Office. On the one hand a CEO has the experience running a large organization and making the hard nosed daily decisions that surely a president must also make. On the other hand there seem to be a lot of unique aspects to the presidency--eg needing to practice sensitive diplomacy with other countries that a business executive doesn't always need to practice with other companies. I'm not just talking here about Trump but also this year there was Carly Fiorina and in the 1990's Ross Perot--all executives with little successful political experience. Can such a person ever be a good president? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

In the case of Alton Sterling the police had him completely pinned to the ground --the police had complete control of the situation --and they still shot him. This doesn't justify the actions of the two non peaceful people tonight in Dallas. But there is a reason why people are angry at cops and I don't think the cops are sensitive enough to that. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Also you are using a tactic that authority figures since 9/11 have tended to use to close off debate. And it stinks. You and the original poster are using the 'terrorism' label to cut off debate. On 9/11 America was indeed attacked by foreign terrorists. But that is not the current situation. We are currently dealing with a domestic situation involving Americans. Neither side has the right to kill each other. But both sides have the right to speak their minds. I recognize the 'terrorism' label for what it is: an attempt to silence free speech. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

I believe the mostly peaceful protesters tonight were protesting one or more such incidents. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Until the suspect actually reveals a weapon, yes, that is precisely what I am saying. As an ordinary civilian I don't get to kill someone just because they are fumbling around in their pockets in what I interpret as a threatening manner. Why should it be any different for a cop? Now if the person actually does reveal a weapon then of course the cops can shoot in self defense. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Rationally of course you are right. But viscerally I just feel much more anger when the police shoot an unarmed suspect. Sorry but that is just how I feel at a deep visceral emotional level. No crime makes me as angry as the police killing of an unarmed person. Because the police are recognized authority figures I see the police killing of an unarmed person as the act of a bully. And I hate bullies more than anything else. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Since the protest was mostly peaceful we should be focusing primarily on the legitimate grievances of the protesters and only secondarily on the officers who died. In this particular case the officers may have been the innocent parties but we shouldn't allow this to distract us from the larger message: that the police have been behaving nationally in ways that are anything but innocent. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

This is the intelligent way to behave. But stupid behavior on the part of a suspect is not a license for the police to commit murder. If the police shoot and kill a stupid, but unarmed, suspect at the very least they need to be apologizing to the community. If the suspect is unarmed and the police shoot then the police are wrong. Period. If they were reaching into their pocket and the police thought they had a gun--and it turns out they didn't --then the police are in the wrong. And they must apologize and beg on hands and knees for the forgiveness of the suspect's mother. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The police in this country have to stop murdering young black men. Period. While what happened in Dallas tonight was wrong, the police in this country should be first and foremost apologizing for their role in murdering young black men and only secondarily focusing on their own losses. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

The first Brexit was in 1534. Tonight's decision merely ratifies that historical precedent. Henry made his decision to be with Anne and past and future wives would need to take a back seat--especially those wives of continental European extraction (Anne herself was a proud Englishwoman). The short and long of it is that tonight was Anne Boleyn's night. Now if only the Brits could wind down the night in perfect style by dealing effectively with that rat faced illegal alien from America who was found in Scotland tonight it would be a truly perfect night for the Union Jack and Her Majesty. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Congratulations to the UK! Very proud of the decision you folks made tonight. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

Yes there does seem to be a growing body of evidence against this judge. If he is removed from office I hope it is on the basis of the combination of many cases--not just a single case. A long track record of incompetence by a judge is grounds for removal from office. A single incompetent decision weighed against a lifetime of otherwise good decisions--that's what appeals courts are for. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

If you can call 7.5 years of living unemployed in Mommy and Daddy's basement "freedom" then yes. He better hope that Mommy and Daddy don't live too close to a school, though, because if so he'll be in violation of his sex offender restrictions even then. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

It depends partly on whether there is a close knit culture (subculture) supporting something. 1-2% of the population in a close knit group constitutes a culture (subculture). 1-2% of the population consisting of isolated individuals, not so much. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014

To get a somewhat broader sample I read all the comments in the following thread: https://www.yahoo.com/news/juror-stanford-sex-assault-case-appalled-sentence-012055809.html Of 140 comments posted (at the time I read them) 138 were condemning of the rapist (most extremely harshly) and only 2 by my count were supportive of him. A few more--but still only a small minority--took my view: condemning the rapist but also feeling the judge should be treated with just a tad more respect. Most were highly condemning both of the rapist and of the judge--and the comments that did offer qualified support to the judge were highly, highly downvoted. With only 1-2% of people supporting a rapist, I think it is hard to describe that as "rape culture"--although, yes, there are still a few people out there who need to be educated. I guess in one sense--and one sense only--you might call it a "rape culture"--many people seem to be supporting rape of either Turner, the judge, or both. Generally speaking Turner seems to generate more rage even than Omar Mateen. "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014