msj

BS.

Why, what kind of sad pathetic attempt at an ad hominem attack is this? We know the guy is a judge. This presumes years of higher education and then years practicing as a lawyer and then years as a judge. The guy is 63 and will likely sit on the SC til he is 75. Probably will have worked harder than many fisherman during that time and likely collected less EI than them too. But so f'ing what. What a BS lame excuse of a BS lame ad hominem attack.

Interesting press release from Ecuador today about cutting off Assange's internet at their embassy in London: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6f997f97c5f140a29f385ea05f1b642c/wikileaks-assanges-internet-link-severed-state-actor Cutting off his internet is a good start....

Oh look, another topic that will become a matter of a candidate is proven to be qualified but we have no ability to determine if he is the best candidate because we lack the details of the process and were not involved in the selection.

The thing is what we do know about Trump is awful as already explained ad nauseum in this thread. But it's worse than that: what don't we know? What can we only speculate at that makes it worse for him? His tax returns may help assess certain ties to, say, Russian backers. But he won't release them. Then we have a guy who will tell anyone and everyone what a successful businessman he is and that this somehow qualifies him for government. Well, even if he was successful, 6 bankruptcies and $916 million in losses for which he has likely not earned enough after 18 years to crawl out of to start paying tax, prove otherwise (even if one could demonstrate how a businessperson would be effective in government). Either way the man is a complete and total fraud unless he were to release his tax returns and they showed otherwise. But again, if that were the case then he would have turned them over by now. He will lose the election, lose Melania, and will die a lonely and broke man. Worse than Conrad Black but just as deserving. Sad!

Sorry haven't listened yet. But you should follow Ken Rogoff on twitter and read this blog post: https://medium.com/@krogoff/a-world-of-difference-between-less-cash-and-cashless-88e102e034ae#.793fxii1m I think he is right that we should always have small bills. Sounds like he wants the US to go down to having the $10 as its largest bill (which would imply $20 in Canada). It's harder to commit certain criminal acts and evade taxes when you have to carry a stack of tens/twenties!

Oh I'm sure people, smart people, have been talking...

Agreed. Though I think customers likely pay more of the fees than the sellers in the end the amount is so small as to make the point irrelevant.

Agreed. Those working or seeking work are counted if they are over 16 years old. The CBO reference talks about an aging population as it effects the economy rather than retirees effecting the participation rate which is a different effect. But I think the point remains: demographic change is big and should be considered even though there may not be much we can do about it. I wish China had the same quality of stats as the US as I'm pretty sure they are going through a demographic nightmare which started last year (at least). Also too bad they don't have democratic elections which provide outlets for sociological gnashing of teeth. But then, China may be ripe with revolutionary forces within the next 10 to 15 years because they don't have democracy. Now think about that as we ponder a future of Trump voters feeling rejected within a rigged system meme.

I note from the CBO link contained within the article that it is an aging workforce that is to blame for half the change: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/45011 That may not be so much retirees as it is just plain demographics: as people move from their high spending years (30-50) and into the empty nest and saving for retirement years (50-65) the economy is going to see a shift. Funny that with millenials growing up we will now see a reversal of this trend. Hillary is going to oversee an economy with better demographics than Obama had and, of course, unlike Obama, she is inheriting a better economy than he did.

No I don't think that is right. See glossary definitions of labour force participation rate, unemployed, employed, and civilian non institutional population where it talks about being 16 years and older (but no mention of a cap at 64). Also see this chart which clearly shows participation rates for those > 64: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_303.htm

According to my link and the CBO it accounts for half so take it up with them.

oh, I wonder what all those people could be doing? Maybe retirement accounts for half of the change? Then there is just plain business cycle reasons. The GFC, after all, was a recession built upon by debt and bubble asset prices. Those types of recessions have a history of slow recovery. But yes, there is no doubt discouraged workers are still too high and employment among the 25-54 crowd still too low. Once again, see the history of recoveries from debt/asset bubble recessions. It is not different every single f'ing time for those who know their history. As for the BLS participation? See this link: http://qz.com/286213/the-chart-obama-haters-love-most-and-the-truth-behind-it/

Agreed. Here we see what some are capable of: domestic terrorism. https://www.buzzfeed.com/salvadorhernandez/militia-men-arrested-in-alleged-plot-to-bomb-kansas-mosque?utm_term=.qi9BRqAgMA#.ix46Lw5Vn5 Although I don't know if they support Trump or not I'm willing to bet they are no fans of Clinton.

Which is why I use my credit card for anything and everything I pay for. Since the cost is embedded in the price anyway I am better off getting my travel rewards to partially offset the cost I would have paid if paying with cash or debit. It's a vicious circle.

All I know is that I don't want Trump anywhere near any women's washrooms nor change rooms: http://www.gocomics.com/nickanderson/2016/10/14 Note: this opinion is based on his known behaviour and his self admission that he sexually assaults women. It seems reasonable to bar individuals on this basis.

Ah, yes, the positive consequences of coming forward with a claim. Hopefully for her it was worth it.

In the political realm it's too bad, so sad. Just like Trump doesn't get to be President because of his past. Publicly shamed and a political loser. He never should of played the game with his history but "know thyself" is a foreign concept to such an egoist.

Who cares how much she was involved. Of course investigators were hired. As they SHOULD be.

Never said that she has never done anything wrong. Just do not think that what you claim she has done has been substantiated in any factual way. Even then, I do not see how what was done is not would typically be done by any campaign (see Trump 2016) and in many cases should be done by a campaign. These are the consequences for making allegations and entering the political arena. If one does not like it then either do not enter it by staying silent, make the claim in a court of law (i.e. press charges and deal with the consequences in that way), or make the claims and deal with the political blow back. That's the way the world goes round and it may not be perfect but too bad.

I suppose if there is a tape somewhere of Hillary stating that she "grabbed Paula Jones [or whoever] by the pussy" and kissed Gennifer Flowers on the lips (mafia style if you know what I mean) then I would agree that it looks bad for Hillary. Until then this is just typical campaign tactics undertaken by any team trying to elect their guy to office. BTW, Trump is now, or his campaign team is, doing what is alleged of Hillary so even here they come out, at worst, even on this score. And I find little to no fault, so far, with Trump's campaign scrutinizing the women making claims against him. That should be done and is part of the consequences for anyone making any allegations.

In ten years I will be dating her. - Donald Trump about a ten year old In ten years I will be marrying her. - Mohammed to one of his future wives So who's the Muslim now, Republicans? Checkmate Christians!

The funny thing is that the "moral majority" is getting caught out for being neither moral nor a majority.

Agreed Bonam. The real reason to be a cash only business is to reduce taxes through tax evasion. That is a significant enough savings to warrant extra security/procedures and lost business from CC customers like me who generally avoid such places unless they serve up an excellent bowl of pho with tripe.