Does the GOP wish Obama left the country the way Bush left it.

[pinqy]

If someone doesn't fill out any applications, doesn't respond to any ads, doesn't place any ads or send out any resumes, doesn't bid on any contracts, doesn't even ask any friends or family if they know of anything and isn't on the union rolls...then how is he available to be hired? He isn't. No one can hire him until he actually tries to get a job.

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?

Saying that someone who wants a job and has given up is the same as a stay at home mom is just butt stupid. Play whatever games you want. The one who wants a job is an opportunity to grow the economy rather than their drawing resources without contributing anything to it.

No matter how badly someone wants a job, they will not get one unless they do something about it. They are not participating in the labor market, they are not competing for jobs....in all practical ways, someone who wants a job but isn't looking is no different from someone who doesn't want or is unable to work.

Now...for potential labor...that's a different story and why the BLS tracks discouraged, marginally attached, and those not in the labor force who want a job. They are different in that they are likely to enter the labor force in the future, if things got better.

I don't even get what you think you're trying to establish.

Think of it this way: Adam picks up a job application and fills it out. Bob picks up a job application, but doesn't fill it out yet because he isn't ready for whatever reason. Charlie doesn't pick one up.

Adam is competing for the job. He could be hired.
Bob is not competing for any job and cannot be hired...BUT he might be available in the future.
Charlie is not competing, can't be hired, and is unlikely to do anything about work soon.

You are trying to say Adam and Bob are the same from the perspective of potential and desire.
I'm saying that from a practical standpoint, Bob and Charlie are the same, but Bob should be looked at separately because he might actually do something.

BTW, I was offered a job today I hadn't applied for. They called me. If I were the discouraged worker, I'd have taken it. If I was the mom, I wouldn't have. Tell me it's the same again ...

The trick is that if you had answered or came in for an interview etc, you would no longer be discouraged and would be unemployed.

 

[kaz]

Agreed. I do my own research always first, then only ask if I can't validate someone's claim or what I find is contradictory. So really, you're not aware that people have been leaving the labor force? Seriously?

When haven't folks been leaving the labor force?

But we are inv a new phenomenon now where partime jobs is the New norm along with working males 20~50 who see how easy it is under obama not to work and get disability instead.

Yep, tens of millions of workers are now restricted to part time because their employers aren't going to give them free healthcare on their won dime because ... they aren't ... worth it ...

Bullshit. Do you ever stop kazzing?? There's only 6 million total in the entire country who are working part time for economic reasons. Where the fuck do you pull "tens of millions" from?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Where the fuck do you pull "tens of millions" from?


You're gonna have to take a number.....

I'm calling for a Mulligan on that one. I'm not sure frankly what I meant by "tens of millions." I have no idea what the number is. I don't know what I was trying to say there, but I wasn't trying to say what I said. I think I was referring to something in the conversation. The point it true that employers are limiting the hours of a lot of workers because of Obamacare, but again, I don't know what the number is

 

[CrusaderFrank]

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor is a mortal sin.

She mishandled classified information, even Comey admitted that, Fredo

 

[Al Azar]

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor is a mortal sin.

She mishandled classified information, even Comey admitted that, Fredo

Then your statement that doing so is a crime must not be correct.

 

[kaz]

You don't know what the word "available" means.. ...

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?

Saying that someone who wants a job and has given up is the same as a stay at home mom is just butt stupid. Play whatever games you want. The one who wants a job is an opportunity to grow the economy rather than their drawing resources without contributing anything to it.

No matter how badly someone wants a job, they will not get one unless they do something about it. They are not participating in the labor market, they are not competing for jobs....in all practical ways, someone who wants a job but isn't looking is no different from someone who doesn't want or is unable to work.

Now...for potential labor...that's a different story and why the BLS tracks discouraged, marginally attached, and those not in the labor force who want a job. They are different in that they are likely to enter the labor force in the future, if things got better.

I don't even get what you think you're trying to establish.

Think of it this way: Adam picks up a job application and fills it out. Bob picks up a job application, but doesn't fill it out yet because he isn't ready for whatever reason. Charlie doesn't pick one up.

Adam is competing for the job. He could be hired.
Bob is not competing for any job and cannot be hired...BUT he might be available in the future.
Charlie is not competing, can't be hired, and is unlikely to do anything about work soon.

You are trying to say Adam and Bob are the same from the perspective of potential and desire.
I'm saying that from a practical standpoint, Bob and Charlie are the same, but Bob should be looked at separately because he might actually do something.

BTW, I was offered a job today I hadn't applied for. They called me. If I were the discouraged worker, I'd have taken it. If I was the mom, I wouldn't have. Tell me it's the same again ...

The trick is that if you had answered or came in for an interview etc, you would no longer be discouraged and would be unemployed.

Google the definition of opportunity cost. The guy who gave up is an opportunity cost to the economy. He would produce value instead of destroying it. The mom isn't going to do that because she won't take a job.

Someone who wants a job and has given up in frustration is not the same as a stay at home mom who wouldn't take a job if she were offered one. You can babble all the nonsense you want, it doesn't change that

 

[pinqy]

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

 

[Al Azar]

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

No, she did not commit a crime. She may have mishandled data, but doing so without criminal intent, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It's simply mishandling it, which is why it's called "mishandling".

If she had criminal intent to go along with her actions, then a crime might have existed. But without the intent, there was no crime. Just mishandling.

 

[Faun]

When haven't folks been leaving the labor force?

But we are inv a new phenomenon now where partime jobs is the New norm along with working males 20~50 who see how easy it is under obama not to work and get disability instead.

Yep, tens of millions of workers are now restricted to part time because their employers aren't going to give them free healthcare on their won dime because ... they aren't ... worth it ...

Bullshit. Do you ever stop kazzing?? There's only 6 million total in the entire country who are working part time for economic reasons. Where the fuck do you pull "tens of millions" from?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Where the fuck do you pull "tens of millions" from?


You're gonna have to take a number.....

I'm calling for a Mulligan on that one. I'm not sure frankly what I meant by "tens of millions." I have no idea what the number is. I don't know what I was trying to say there, but I wasn't trying to say what I said. I think I was referring to something in the conversation. The point it true that employers are limiting the hours of a lot of workers because of Obamacare, but again, I don't know what the number is

And what's different in that post of yours from anything else you post? You rarely know what you're talking about.

 

[kaz]

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

No, she did not commit a crime. She may have mishandled data, but doing so without criminal intent, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It's simply mishandling it, which is why it's called "mishandling".

If she had criminal intent to go along with her actions, then a crime might have existed. But without the intent, there was no crime. Just mishandling.

Of course it was intent. She fully intended to put classified information on her server by putting everything on her server when she knew it contained classified information.

She also covered it up as she used bite bleaching software.

The woman should be behind bars. You'd be losing it if a Republican did that

 

[kaz]

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

 

[Faun]

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

No, she did not commit a crime. She may have mishandled data, but doing so without criminal intent, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It's simply mishandling it, which is why it's called "mishandling".

If she had criminal intent to go along with her actions, then a crime might have existed. But without the intent, there was no crime. Just mishandling.

The woman should be behind bars. You'd be losing it if a Republican did that

What do you mean, "if?"

Inside the Bush E-Mail Scandal

Remind me.... how outraged were you righties?

 

[Al Azar]

I think we have some wasted talent on this forum. Some of our members know more about the details of the FBI investigation than the FBI itself, and know more about prosecuting alleged violations of federal law than our own Justice Dept.

What in the world are they doing wasting time posting from their bedrooms in their parents' basements? They could be out saving the world, or at least giving Bill Gates and Warren Buffet a run for their money.

 

[pinqy]

Ok, then please explain to me how someone who is not doing anything at all about work and about whom no employer is aware is available for work.

Let's take three people. All three are just handed out applications to work at McDonalds.
Person 1 fills out the application and turns it in.
Person 2 does not fill it out because he doesn't think they'll hire him because he's Black.
Person 3 would like to work, but is too busy taking care of the kids right now and doesn't fill out the form.

Do you really want to claim that 1 and 2 should be counted the same as available to work? Neither 2 nor 3 can be hired because neither is trying to work. The reason is irrelevant for immediate availability. Neither is available.

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?

Saying that someone who wants a job and has given up is the same as a stay at home mom is just butt stupid. Play whatever games you want. The one who wants a job is an opportunity to grow the economy rather than their drawing resources without contributing anything to it.

No matter how badly someone wants a job, they will not get one unless they do something about it. They are not participating in the labor market, they are not competing for jobs....in all practical ways, someone who wants a job but isn't looking is no different from someone who doesn't want or is unable to work.

Now...for potential labor...that's a different story and why the BLS tracks discouraged, marginally attached, and those not in the labor force who want a job. They are different in that they are likely to enter the labor force in the future, if things got better.

I don't even get what you think you're trying to establish.

Think of it this way: Adam picks up a job application and fills it out. Bob picks up a job application, but doesn't fill it out yet because he isn't ready for whatever reason. Charlie doesn't pick one up.

Adam is competing for the job. He could be hired.
Bob is not competing for any job and cannot be hired...BUT he might be available in the future.
Charlie is not competing, can't be hired, and is unlikely to do anything about work soon.

You are trying to say Adam and Bob are the same from the perspective of potential and desire.
I'm saying that from a practical standpoint, Bob and Charlie are the same, but Bob should be looked at separately because he might actually do something.

BTW, I was offered a job today I hadn't applied for. They called me. If I were the discouraged worker, I'd have taken it. If I was the mom, I wouldn't have. Tell me it's the same again ...

The trick is that if you had answered or came in for an interview etc, you would no longer be discouraged and would be unemployed.

Google the definition of opportunity cost. The guy who gave up is an opportunity cost to the economy. He would produce value instead of destroying it. The mom isn't going to do that because she won't take a job.

Someone who wants a job and has given up in frustration is not the same as a stay at home mom who wouldn't take a job if she were offered one. You can babble all the nonsense you want, it doesn't change that

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

No, she did not commit a crime. She may have mishandled data, but doing so without criminal intent, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It's simply mishandling it, which is why it's called "mishandling".

If she had criminal intent to go along with her actions, then a crime might have existed. But without the intent, there was no crime. Just mishandling.

Criminal intent isn't an element of the crime. Knowing and willfully violating the rules is an element, but that doesn't require criminal intent.

 

[Al Azar]

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?

Saying that someone who wants a job and has given up is the same as a stay at home mom is just butt stupid. Play whatever games you want. The one who wants a job is an opportunity to grow the economy rather than their drawing resources without contributing anything to it.

No matter how badly someone wants a job, they will not get one unless they do something about it. They are not participating in the labor market, they are not competing for jobs....in all practical ways, someone who wants a job but isn't looking is no different from someone who doesn't want or is unable to work.

Now...for potential labor...that's a different story and why the BLS tracks discouraged, marginally attached, and those not in the labor force who want a job. They are different in that they are likely to enter the labor force in the future, if things got better.

I don't even get what you think you're trying to establish.

Think of it this way: Adam picks up a job application and fills it out. Bob picks up a job application, but doesn't fill it out yet because he isn't ready for whatever reason. Charlie doesn't pick one up.

Adam is competing for the job. He could be hired.
Bob is not competing for any job and cannot be hired...BUT he might be available in the future.
Charlie is not competing, can't be hired, and is unlikely to do anything about work soon.

You are trying to say Adam and Bob are the same from the perspective of potential and desire.
I'm saying that from a practical standpoint, Bob and Charlie are the same, but Bob should be looked at separately because he might actually do something.

BTW, I was offered a job today I hadn't applied for. They called me. If I were the discouraged worker, I'd have taken it. If I was the mom, I wouldn't have. Tell me it's the same again ...

The trick is that if you had answered or came in for an interview etc, you would no longer be discouraged and would be unemployed.

Google the definition of opportunity cost. The guy who gave up is an opportunity cost to the economy. He would produce value instead of destroying it. The mom isn't going to do that because she won't take a job.

Someone who wants a job and has given up in frustration is not the same as a stay at home mom who wouldn't take a job if she were offered one. You can babble all the nonsense you want, it doesn't change that

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

No, she did not commit a crime. She may have mishandled data, but doing so without criminal intent, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It's simply mishandling it, which is why it's called "mishandling".

If she had criminal intent to go along with her actions, then a crime might have existed. But without the intent, there was no crime. Just mishandling.

Criminal intent isn't an element of the crime. Knowing and willfully violating the rules is an element, but that doesn't require criminal intent.

Bucking for the job of "expert witness"?

 

[kaz]

They want a job
They gave up looking

Buy a dictionary

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?

Saying that someone who wants a job and has given up is the same as a stay at home mom is just butt stupid. Play whatever games you want. The one who wants a job is an opportunity to grow the economy rather than their drawing resources without contributing anything to it.

No matter how badly someone wants a job, they will not get one unless they do something about it. They are not participating in the labor market, they are not competing for jobs....in all practical ways, someone who wants a job but isn't looking is no different from someone who doesn't want or is unable to work.

Now...for potential labor...that's a different story and why the BLS tracks discouraged, marginally attached, and those not in the labor force who want a job. They are different in that they are likely to enter the labor force in the future, if things got better.

I don't even get what you think you're trying to establish.

Think of it this way: Adam picks up a job application and fills it out. Bob picks up a job application, but doesn't fill it out yet because he isn't ready for whatever reason. Charlie doesn't pick one up.

Adam is competing for the job. He could be hired.
Bob is not competing for any job and cannot be hired...BUT he might be available in the future.
Charlie is not competing, can't be hired, and is unlikely to do anything about work soon.

You are trying to say Adam and Bob are the same from the perspective of potential and desire.
I'm saying that from a practical standpoint, Bob and Charlie are the same, but Bob should be looked at separately because he might actually do something.

BTW, I was offered a job today I hadn't applied for. They called me. If I were the discouraged worker, I'd have taken it. If I was the mom, I wouldn't have. Tell me it's the same again ...

The trick is that if you had answered or came in for an interview etc, you would no longer be discouraged and would be unemployed.

Google the definition of opportunity cost. The guy who gave up is an opportunity cost to the economy. He would produce value instead of destroying it. The mom isn't going to do that because she won't take a job.

Someone who wants a job and has given up in frustration is not the same as a stay at home mom who wouldn't take a job if she were offered one. You can babble all the nonsense you want, it doesn't change that

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

No, she did not commit a crime. She may have mishandled data, but doing so without criminal intent, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It's simply mishandling it, which is why it's called "mishandling".

If she had criminal intent to go along with her actions, then a crime might have existed. But without the intent, there was no crime. Just mishandling.

Criminal intent isn't an element of the crime. Knowing and willfully violating the rules is an element, but that doesn't require criminal intent.

True, but again, she clearly had criminal intent. She intended to take classified e-mails and put them on her server, that was an intent to commit a crime

 

[pinqy]

She mishandled classified information, that is undisputed....you will defend her forever because laws are for little people

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

By destroying evidence: the cell phones, servers and emails, she also manifested a consciousness of guilt.

 

[Al Azar]

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Because there's no criminal intent.

Edward Snowden, on the other hand, has a lot to worry about and answer for.

 

[pinqy]

Available
adjective
1.
suitable or ready for use; of use or service; at hand:
I used whatever tools were available.
2.
readily obtainable; accessible:

Someone not trying to get a job is not at hand, ready for use readily obtainable, or accessible.

If an employer has 20 positions open, and there are 50 people in town who say they want jobs, but only 10 apply for work...how many workers are available for the employer to hire? Can he hire 10, 20, or 50?

Saying that someone who wants a job and has given up is the same as a stay at home mom is just butt stupid. Play whatever games you want. The one who wants a job is an opportunity to grow the economy rather than their drawing resources without contributing anything to it.

No matter how badly someone wants a job, they will not get one unless they do something about it. They are not participating in the labor market, they are not competing for jobs....in all practical ways, someone who wants a job but isn't looking is no different from someone who doesn't want or is unable to work.

Now...for potential labor...that's a different story and why the BLS tracks discouraged, marginally attached, and those not in the labor force who want a job. They are different in that they are likely to enter the labor force in the future, if things got better.

I don't even get what you think you're trying to establish.

Think of it this way: Adam picks up a job application and fills it out. Bob picks up a job application, but doesn't fill it out yet because he isn't ready for whatever reason. Charlie doesn't pick one up.

Adam is competing for the job. He could be hired.
Bob is not competing for any job and cannot be hired...BUT he might be available in the future.
Charlie is not competing, can't be hired, and is unlikely to do anything about work soon.

You are trying to say Adam and Bob are the same from the perspective of potential and desire.
I'm saying that from a practical standpoint, Bob and Charlie are the same, but Bob should be looked at separately because he might actually do something.

BTW, I was offered a job today I hadn't applied for. They called me. If I were the discouraged worker, I'd have taken it. If I was the mom, I wouldn't have. Tell me it's the same again ...

The trick is that if you had answered or came in for an interview etc, you would no longer be discouraged and would be unemployed.

Google the definition of opportunity cost. The guy who gave up is an opportunity cost to the economy. He would produce value instead of destroying it. The mom isn't going to do that because she won't take a job.

Someone who wants a job and has given up in frustration is not the same as a stay at home mom who wouldn't take a job if she were offered one. You can babble all the nonsense you want, it doesn't change that

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

No, she did not commit a crime. She may have mishandled data, but doing so without criminal intent, it doesn't rise to the level of a crime. It's simply mishandling it, which is why it's called "mishandling".

If she had criminal intent to go along with her actions, then a crime might have existed. But without the intent, there was no crime. Just mishandling.

Criminal intent isn't an element of the crime. Knowing and willfully violating the rules is an element, but that doesn't require criminal intent.

Bucking for the job of "expert witness"?

I had the briefings every year for 26 years. I've been security officer for a SCIF, so yeah, I know what I'm talking about.

 

[kaz]

She didn't commit a criminal act. We only prosecute people who do.

Mishandling classified information is in fact, a criminal act

Either you're wrong about that, or a very thorough investigation into the matter did not turn up sufficient evidence to support the allegation.

Which is it?

Option 3. A distinction has always been made between deliberate and accidental and even deliberate but not damaging violations. She committed a crime. But it was not severe enough, and the odds of winning a trial not certain enough, to make prosecution feasible.

If she wasn't a high ranking Democrat, there would be no problem winning a conviction. What she did was way beyond what they prosecute and win all the time

Democrat, Republican...no difference. No politician has ever been prosecuted for security violations or leaking classified that I'm aware of.

Um ... Petraeus?