Wild Bill
-
Posts
6,562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Wild Bill
-
-
Well said....funny part is that they don't even know how a digital clock circuit works, and certainly couldn't build one from scratch. A 555 what ?
Yep! I run into this attitude all the time! Just because someone can operate something they think they actually know HOW it works!
Working in the music field, I run into this all the time with so-called "sound men" who run the sound mixing console during a live performance or at a studio recording. They think that because they know what knob does what they know what is going on UNDER those knobs, inside the chassis!
We let anyone with hair in their ears DRIVE a car but when those drivers start to think they are therefore qualified to talk about mechanics there is a problem.
You know BC, Walter de la Rue made an incandescent light bulb back in 1820. That's nearly 200 years ago!
Yet if you stopped people on the street today to ask them how such a simple device actually works I'll bet you would find almost no one who could give a correct answer.
God bless our teachers! They are making our kids into lawyers and accountants and of course, more teachers!
No wonder the Chinese are cleaning our clocks. Looks like they will be on the Moon long before NASA ever makes a return.
Some days I think we just don't have it anymore.
-
Wild Bill... Would I be way off if took a wild guess that all of the digital clocks in your house were flashing 12:00 over and over again?
Actually, no they don't, Dre! I was there when digital clocks were invented. I started my career selling electronic parts the day Intel introduced the first microcomputer chip, back in 1977. That was my career till after 9/1/11/. Part of my job was to show new integrated circuits and other parts to engineers for their new designs.
I also built my first tube radio when I was 11. Friends and I built a ham radio UHF relay station in the early 80's, with what was then brand-new touch tone control and artificial speech for identification, all controlled by "computer chips".
Now I still work from home, building and repairing rock and roll guitar amplifiers. I have been fortunate enough to get a great deal of respect and support from my customers. It is not unusual for someone on the other side of the country to ship his amp to ME for service!
So I am a techie through and through, but lately I have become disinterested in much new software. I used to write programs in BASIC. In fact, I was probably one of the last to program a PDP-8 dinosaur computer in assembler code to ring a bell when you hit a certain key, long before personal computers were even invented.
I still have a streak of baby boomer strong inside me, Dr. Dre. I grew up with technology but I've learned to no longer try to keep up. Most of what's new is not of value to me. It may be faster and have more bells and whistles to dress it up but it usually doesn't do anything NEW for me!
The first personal computer invented was called the Osbourne. My company brought them into Canada. It did a good job with spreadsheets and word processing. 30 years later there is little with the new programs to make me want to buy and learn them. What's in it for me?
There was a time I had to always have the latest and greatest. Now I run an 8 year old machine with a few upgrades, like more RAM and a better video card. I still run XP. It works nearly bulletproof. Why should I buy Windows 8 when most of what it offers is compatibility with smartphones? I no longer HAVE a cell phone!
So no my good doctor, my digital displays are not flashing. Some displays on equipment in my ham station I have wired up myself! Not with patch cords but actual soldering in ICs, resistors and capacitors onto a circuit board.
I understand you were only teasing, Dre. Still, you pushed my techie button! It is my technical background that makes me so frustrated when I see bonehead approaches like McGuinty's push to green power and other expensive boondoggles that to guys like me are obviously poorly thought out and impossible to ever work as intended.
-
just for completeness... I'll touch back on your initial attempt: not sure where you got that address from, but it includes a whack of the extraneous 'stuff' I mentioned you'd need to get rid of. Again, just include the video ID (Hikfh1TMdEg) in the simple link format I mentioned;
e.g., http:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hikfh1TMdEg
(I mentioned including the media tags as you used to need them on MLW... it looks like not any more). I also didn't bother mentioning the shortened url option (that you're using in your successful use) as it presumes one exists.Well, I DID edit out the "fluff" EXACTLY as it appears above and it did not work, Waldo. I tried a number of different approaches. I had no success until I followed Dog's tip.
However, you were the first on the scene to try to help me and I do appreciate that.
-
I imagine the military will handpick exactly whos allowed to run and who isnt. It IS a military dictatorship after all, just like it was under Mubarak.
Well, perhaps that's true but as usual, there are details.
The military is well aware that if Morsi had succeeded in turning Egypt into another Iran it would mean kissing all that western aid money goodbye! No more American F-14s and other materiel either.
It would have meant severe problems in Egypt's relationship with Israel.
What's more, it sure appears that such a move would NOT have had majority support amongst the Egyptian people! That is NOT why they had their revolution!
So allowing Morsi to succeed would have inevitably caused more riots in the streets, something it has been proven that the military does not want.
So technically you may be right Dre but I think if that had meant Morsi was still in power the consequences would have been very, very bloody!
-
Thats happening anyways... The 53% of Egyptians that voted for Morsy are now being ignored, and not only that it seems the army is intentionally trying to make them angry and start a confrontation. This is evidenced by the whole-sale arrest of members of Morsys party for no legal reason at all, and the installation of an opposition leader as prime minister.
All this shows is that it doesnt even matter how people in Egypt vote. All the trappings of democracy are just an illusion and they live in a military dictatorship where whichever government they choose can be easily and quickly deposed.
You are assuming that 53% of Egyptians that voted for Morsi still support him! Considering that he campaigned under false pretences, claiming he was NOT going to try to institute a religious government and/or claim absolute power! Because of his claims, many considered him a safe compromise candidate.
He lied! He rejected a bill from their parliament that would have allowed a president to be impeached. He made moves to introduce Shaaria law.
So that 53% figure is moot!
We must also keep in mind that once a fundamentalist Islamic government successfully achieves power it takes much blood to remove it.
Perhaps if the Egyptians allow the MB to run in the next election we shall see if their support has been hurt by Morsi's actions.
-
Much simpler! And it works!
Thanks, Dog!
-
limited by the forum engine??? - yeesh! You don't lose your post... you get a message advising you're not logged in. Simply log in to another session/tab/window, and copy your retained post from your prior non-logged in session/tab/window.
You're right and that's what I do, I just find that to be an inefficient PITA.
Now if I could only figure out what I am doing wrong with embedding video clips from youtube.
-
So much for that attempt as well!
Thanks again, Waldo but it would seem that once again I failed to understand you. Appreciate your effort.
-
Again, a shameless plug of my nephews! Please add some hits to their other youtube clips, particularly the cover of Frankie. The Chairman of the Board should never be forgotten!
Readers like Kimmy may appreciate the "essence of cuteness" at about 2 min 30 secs into the clip.
-
Well, so much for that attempt!
-
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hikfh1TMdEg?hl=en_US&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hikfh1TMdEg?hl=en_US&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
This is a shameless plug for my own nephews. Youtube has more of their clips, including some great originals and even a Frank Sinatra cover.
-
to post directly (embedded within MLW) it must be a youtube hosted video (youtube is the only option opened up by MLW HQ). If so, include a link to the video between the "media... /media" tags.
make sure to get rid of 'extraneous' details within the link... only include the actual video ID; e.g.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxxxxxxxxx (where 'xxxxxxxxxx' is the actual video ID).
of course, if the youtube channel host hasn't allowed embedding, when a MLW member clicks on the video they will receive a message advising the video can't be viewed embedded... that it can only be viewed from the youtube host's channel.
Merci, mon ami!
-
Probably the zillionth time someone has asked but how do I post a video clip?
Never had the urge before until I started reading the "What are you listening to?" thread.
-
Perhaps being an older guy I am the only one experiencing this particular frustration but often I will not take the time to log in and just scan those threads of interest to me for new posts.
Sometimes a post will spark me into making a reply. The board will allow me to go through all the motions. Eventually, after perhaps one of my usual "too long" compositions I will hit the enter button.
Only to have it rejected! I haven't logged on!
Couldn't I have gotten such an error msg BEFORE I started to make a reply?
It is rather a PITA, at least for an old guy like me.
-
That's right. The Egyption parliment had tried to pass a law to allow a president to be impeached, but I think the president rejected it..
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205403055_text
And there we see why Morsi upset so many of his people!
The Egyptian revolution was driven by young people. There are parallels to the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall. These people are "hip" and do NOT want a religious dictatorship! Morsi was elected because he promised in his campaign that such was NOT his goal!
Yet no sooneer was he elected than he began working on doing exactly that! He was directly contrary to the reasons for the Egyptian revolution the year before.
Let's hope that we don't see more violence. Morsi has only besmirched the Moslem Brotherhood's reputation. Many believe that the MB has no interest in anything but a Shaaria law, religious dictatorship. They want to make Egypt into another Iran. Those who voted for them as a compromise will not likely do so again.
This is actually a not entirely fair attitude. All that has been PROVEN is that Morsi is a sneaky SOB, not the whole MB. Still, the perception has been born and as I repeatedly say, in politics perception IS reality!
If that were not so in Egypt Morsi would not have been ousted and we would not see strife between the different camps on the streets of Cairo this morning.
In today's high tech world of such rapid and wide-ranging communication, young people are well aware of the feel of freedom! Consequently, dictatorships of any kind are harder to achieve today, religious or otherwise.
A dictator needs more and bigger guns than ever before if he wants to stay in power. This trend shows no signs of stopping.
It is much harder to topple a dictatorship than to prevent one from taking power. That is why the situation in Egypt is so active.
The religious extremists also know this. That is why they they will go to such great lengths to achieve their goals. If violence is a necessary tool to achieve their aims they do not hesitate.
Again, this is driven by young people and more and more dictatorships are becoming an old man's game. Old men think that if they get control of the seat of laws everyone will have to abide by whatever laws they pass. Hence we saw Morsi try to pass a law giving him absolute power.
However, young people just don't care about that! They have much more passion and simply ignore such laws, if necessary with active resistance.
The key in Egypt that Morsi forgot (or perhaps, was too old in his head to ever know) was that the only way he could institute a religious dictatorship and keep himself in power was to have those more numerous and bigger guns. In other words, he needed the army! The people would never have gone along with him unless he had a gun to their heads!
As we saw, the army did not support him. Now Morsi is gone.
Let's hope things work out as painlessly as possible for the Egyptian people.
-
tis what I said... as well! I trust this will temper your enthusiasm for lambasting the "left" as the causal link to an absence of property rights in the Charter. Carry on!
I grant what you say, Waldo. Still, Ed Broadbent refused to sign on unless property rights were left out. His was the more immediate reason.
-
Actually, the tipping point probably happened back in November, when Morsi removed the ability for the courts to over-rule his decisions. (In typical "western" democracies, there are typically various checks and balances to make sure that no particular group has "too much power". You want democracy, but you don't want the rights of the minorities to be quashed.) It should also be noted that in September he made a speech to the UN where he stated he would cut down on free speech. Those sorts of things are rather big red flags.
So far, the military has gone to great lengths to distance this from being a "power grab"... they've appointed a moderate as a temporary president, and appear to be appealing to a wide base of Egyptians. While not a guarantee, things do look hopeful.
Makes sense, Steg! What really seems to be the base reason to oust Morsi is that the army and those western countries that support Egypt do not like the Moslem Brotherhood.
At the time of Morsi's election, he claimed he was NOT trying to institute an Islamist government! The choices to the Egyptian people were not that many and they had some divisions between those who wanted a secular government and those of a more religious bent.
Morsi portrayed himself as a good compromise, with no danger to the rights those championing the secular cause were expecting. However, once he got in he started doing exactly what he had promised he would not do! He started changing the legal system to give himself absolute power and began some moves towards Shaaria law!
To a secularist Egyptian, he was their worst fear come to pass! To the army, he meant a loss of support (money!) from western powers. To the business sector, he looked like he would make Egypt's tourist industry competitive with that of Iran or Iraq! No more western tourist on Egypt's beaches. No European women would take a vacation in Egypt if it meant they couldn't get a drink and worse yet, had to wear a burka!
Those who claim that this was an ouster of a democratically elected president are quite correct. However, the will of such a significant portion of Egypt's people cannot be ignored. It would appear that "the powers that be" want a democratically elected Egyptian government but ONLY a secular one!
Sadly, this might indeed lead to bloodshed. On one side we have those who want to keep their religion and their poltics separate. On the other side are those who want their religion to rule everyone in the country. We have no clear view of the numbers of either side but I suspect that the secularist supporters are in the majority. The Egyptian people for the most part are quite modern, educated in world affairs and intelligent.
However, their opponents have shown little or no hesitation in the use of violence.
We can only hope it plays out as painlessly as possible.
-
Good to see you back WB
Missing from this , while true, is the fact that the PC's proposed an amendment, a non confidence one .This brought the process to a halt and such be the rules of Parliament, they could not reintroduce it in that session.
All ten provinces, particularly Manitoba and PEI wer against any prop rights enshrined.
Most were concerned because no determination of prop rights had been discussed. What are they , or could they be, apart from land it includes benefits, welfare, native land claims and so on. Quite the can of worms.
Thanks, Guyser2! Hope to stick around. I have been reading for a while and in general people seem to be more mature and polite than when I left.
And thanks for the info about the other provinces not being on board. I did not know that! The argument that property rights would have needed more debate than there was time left makes sense.
Still, like several things about our Charter and Constitution, they have not always been universally supported by the citizenry at large. Sooner or later they must be addressed or negative things might happen. The fact that our amending formula is such that in the real world is not likely to ever happen was a big mistake. Not only did it make the arrogant assumption that the Charter and Constitution were perfect from their inception but also times change and people change with them. The American example is admirable in that it allows more power to the will of the people.
I don't think I am the only Canadian who thinks that what Trudeau and the others did at the time was more of a "top-down" approach.
The less of populism in such endeavours the less pride citizens can take when they are enacted.
-
you brought up the attribution point... you attached accountability to the left for the absence of property rights in the Charter. When I bring reality to that claim, you now want to label it "a moot point"! Nice.
WB, I never tire of your 'Classic liberal' claim... I just note that your positions seem to perpetually line up with Harper Conservatives. When do repeat coincidences take on another meaning?
Well, since Ed Broadbent was the leader of the party of the left at the time, I would think my claim had at least some validity.
As for my positions always lining up with those of Harper Conservatives, that is your opinion alone. I would say that because so rarely can I agree with positions taken by the LIberals and the NDP I am left with those of the CPC by default.
Believe me, when I do agree with Harper and his bunch I seldom do it with any enthusiasm. I lost that when Stockwell Day nearly destroyed the Reform Movement with his loopy evangelical church brand of politics. Then when the same old bunch that ran the PC party got control of the new CPC, I was effectively left with the least smelly skunk in the woods.
If you want to claim that i actually LIKE the smell then there's nothing for us to talk about.
-
So you're saying people outside of Toronto live in denial, or ... don't accept facts. I guess you're right, then, we won't change their minds, or maybe even yours.
You said: "This is not a concern unless they bleed more tax money from the rest of us. I would support Toronto becoming independent and no longer financially tied to our provincial or federal governments."
Keep on repeating the error that the countryside bails out the city, then, as I can't change the mind who people who prefer to hold on to incorrect information...
Michael, politics deals with pubic perception. If someone can't handle that concept, they would be useless as a campaign manager in an election.
People rarely deal with truth. If they did, advertising agencies would starve!
Also, the idea of Toronto being the breadwinner for the province is a matter of opinion, not necessarily fact. People will not accept it simply because YOU say it!
If that were not so, all the pages posted here at MLW would never have been written.
Consider, a man in Owen Sound is reading his morning paper. He notes an article that says in Toronto pieces of the Gardiner Expressway are falling onto cars passing below. The next day, he reads that money for maintenance was budgeted 10 years earlier, but has mysteriously disappeared.
This actually is true, by the way!
The next day, he reads that Toronto Council is demanding that McWinty give them more money. What impression would you expect them to have?
Now, you might be quite correct that economics says that supporting Toronto is in the best interest of the rest of the province but our Owen Sound reader is not likely to believe it.
I have travelled all through Ontario and visited many, many of the small towns. I've talked with the people in them and chat with many here on the Net most every day. I believe MY perception of THEIR perceptions to be true. Not universal for every such citizen but certainly a large and significant number.
Few people think deeply on such topics. Look at many of the threads here on MLW! Many of the arguments made about climate change, a useful new plane for our military or how cost-effective is wind and solar power seem about as deep as religion - not scientific at all!
That is just human nature and while the baseline may vary a bit in essence it is never going to change. That is why we need experts and why we so desperately need better political leadership!
I would think the mess McGuinty made of our electrical system and its cost to the citizen would speak for itself.
PLease note I am NOT saying you are wrong about some of these things! I am saying that there are wide spread popular perceptions and to blythely toss a lecture at people is not the way to change them.
Unless I miss my guess, you never would have had much faith in Mike Harris' reasoning yet because of public perceptions he won two of the largest majorities in Ontario's history!
It was perceptions that not only swept Rob Ford into the mayor's office of Toronto but even after all the recent scandal has not only kept his public approval rating as high as before but actually increased it a few points!
In politics, perception beats reality, or rather yours and my perceptions of reality every time, six ways from Sunday!
You and Guyser2 might say that I am saying that hinterland people are believing a lie. That may or may not be true. I am simply saying that it doesn't matter if it is true or not. What matters is if the perception is actually there.
I am saying that it is and that any politician must deal with it. You think the "rural divide" that has LIberals solid in Toronto and sparse everywhere else is imaginary? That there is no reason for such a thing to happen?
It is because of different political perceptions between Toronto voters and those in the rest of the province. Over the past few decades the divide has grown to where the promises of a campaign for one area cannot win many votes in the other.
-
You really aren't getting it. The issue is that Toronto already pays the bill for people in the country.
No Michael, I feel it is YOU who doesn't get it!
Go ahead and lecture the "hinterlands" about what you feel is the true state of affairs. They will not believe you!
In fact, you wll likely be hooted off the stage!
You remind me of a character who appeared years ago on that British soap opera, Coronation Street. His name was Percy Sugden and he was the nitpicker of the neighbourhood, always expounding on any neighbourhood issue and expecting his views to be considered gospel. If someone differed, he would threaten to write a letter to the local newspaper editor!
Often Percy actually was right but it didn't matter. His neighbours paid him little or no mind. They believed what they believed and Percy's arguments carried no weight with them.
The attitude of the populace outside of Toronto is a fact of life and something with which any politicians or government in Queens Park must deal. It doesn't matter if you have an iron clad argument. You are not going to change their minds by lecturing them.
No, what it would take is some very public examples of Toronto's council being truly fiscally prudent! Folks in the rest of Ontario demand to be shown, not told.
I will leave it to you to find such examples and to then change the minds of all those non-Torontonian citizens.
I'm too old and fat to go tilting at windmills.
-
WB, champions of the left??? Not sure here - are you suggesting the "left" championed the absence of property rights within the Charter? The history I read suggests most of the opposition to including property rights came from the provinces... but yes, some also from women's groups, some from native groups, some from unions, some from environmental groups, etc.
since your guy Harper has the wheel, shouldn't you be directing your concerns that way? Why haven't Harper Conservatives chosen to champion this, apparently, so "egregious" oversight... and looked for the remedy you clearly desire?
Well Waldo, you have your sources and I have mine.
What I have read said that the move was made under time pressure to get all parties on side. Omitting the right to property was the deal maker to get support from Ed Broadbent.
I have read this repeatedly over the years. Perhaps you will disagree.
However, don't expect me to ransack my library researching the point for you. I have better things to do and besides, you wouldn't accept it anyway.
I would suggest that the point s moot. It's not what you or I believe happened to frame our Charter that's important. Rather, we have large numbers of our citizens who feel a certain way. This of course has great influence upon our politics and any poltician who ignores it may get a comeuppance sooner or later at the polls.
As for Harper being "my guy", those are your words, not mine! I lost any confidence in Harper when he allowed the power workers of the old PC party to have control over policy with the new CPC, in effect making it a clone of the Mulroney party that I had left decades ago.
Why you persist in referring to me as a Harper conservative is beyond me. Perhaps you label anyone not on side with YOUR politics as such, I dunno.
Or maybe its just mental laziness on your part.
If you really need to label me you might try "Classic Liberal". If you look for the dictionary definition of the term you will quickly understand why I do not have a distinct choice for my ballot, just "whoever smells the least".
Still, as a Canadian I am in good company and I suppose I have no right to complain.
-
Cities are far more economically efficient than towns and disparate populations scattered over a wide area. Roads, infrastructure and services cost far more for the hinterlands. The cities actually are begging for more infrastructure money, as typified recently in Toronto's one cent now campaign.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2007/02/26/miller-gst.html
The idea that the urban economic engine 'bleeds money' is proof that the cities have no sympathies for their situation in the hinterland. No wonder we see foreign citizens who live in Toronto as closer to our ideals than complainers from the sticks.
Michael, I don't think the "hinterlands" resent the idea of cities per se. Rather, they in the main believe that many cities such as Toronto are responsible for their own plight, including the cost of infrastructure maintenance. They don't see why they should be taxed to bail out those who they perceive to be spendthrifts!
Toronto is an easy target for such feelings. As long as I have been old enough to read a newspaper I have seen accounts of Toronto wasting their money. Now pieces of the Spadina are falling down on the heads of motorists. If you put money for arts councils before repairing your infrastructure then to someone in a more rural area, where the demands of life force you to be more practical, a city perhaps deserves a reality check.
We can argue about the degree of waste in Toronto's municipal governance but that's just a diversion. The fact is plain that many if not most of those who live outside big cities believe they are being forced to pay for wastrels. Everyday they read their papers and see stories like Toronto Councl closing their bid for expensive programs like new street cars to send the work to a union shop, despite the higher cost.
Then when budget time comes around, Toronto demands more from the province and the feds.
There may not be a solution to this political problem. We have two groups with diametrically opposed values. Resentments will only grow and fester over the years.
Unless of course Toronto becomes a paragon of fiscal responsibility within the next few years! Despite the efforts of Rob Ford, I wouldn't hold your breath.
Given the population of Toronto, perhaps making it it's own province or some similar political unit may be a positive step in the right direction.
-
Sorry for the quick response, but just about to go sit down for dinner………..Simply put, guns are property……..Canadians right to property was purposely not included into the Charter……both avenues are intertwined, as is the individuals perceived right in Canada not to be encroached upon………
Derek, I think you have made an important point. Much of the outrage over what the RCMP may or may not have done stems from a feeling of a right to property.
It's true that this right was deliberately omitted from our Charter. However, it didn't end there! Large numbers of Canadians never agreed with that decision and have never accepted it. The passage of time has not changed their minds. If anythng, their resentment has only festered.
The right to property to such people is so basic as to be almost instinctive. Asking them to accept the idea is like asking a man with no legs to dance for you. No matter how persuasive you may be and no matter how you may control his education as he grows up, it is never going to happen.
This feeling is perhaps more intense on the prairies as on the streets of Toronto. People there seem to be more self-reliant and when you have to work hard for what you have there is a natural tendency to resent and resist someone taking it from you.
The RCMP has made a huge PR mistake that will cost them dearly, at least in that part of Canada. It doesn't matter if you have the power to do whatever you want. It is impossible to prevent victims of your power from resenting it and sooner or later wanting payback. That payback in Canada thankfully tends to come at the ballot box. In other countries such as Egypt, Syria or Libya it may be violent.
It all comes back to the concept of "consent to be governed". Respect can never be demanded or taken for granted. It must be earned and freely given.
The ommission of property rights in our Charter will be a contentious issue FOREVER!
No matter what the champions of the left may desire.
Wynne Open to allowing Non-Citizens to vote
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by Wild Bill
My side? It doesn't work that way, Michael. There are no sides, just human nature.
There is a valid argument for Toronto having a wastrel-run council. The city's financial problems and policies have been featured in the MSM for decades. They are the reason for Rob Ford's decisive victory in their last mayoralty election and the reason why despite the scandals, true or false, his popularity is actually a bit higher than when he took power.
"Stand up and educate people"? Oh, if only that's all it would take! Unfortunately, that is a very academic viewpoint. The problem is that although few academics ever seem to realize it, theirs is a very minority view. Politically, no one can possibly hope to be elected solely from the academic vote.
The world is what it is. Trying to be a rock against the waves only gets you worn down. Much better to be a surfboard!
Politicians understand this instinctively. They not only cater to public perception but they also are skilled in creating it. If not themselves then certainly their aides and handlers.
Idealism can be a great motivator but in politics, it tends to be a loser approach. Unless it can be turned into widespread public perception. Richard Nixon was brought down by public perception, even though his crimes were not all that serious. Bill Clinton 'crimes were much more blatant yet he survived what should have been a slam dunk impeachment.
Again, because of a large enough public perception!
You are entitled to your opinion Michael but I am as well. I have reasoning and evidence to support my POV and what's more, I am FAR from alone in holding it! You certainly are free to disagree but please, don't shoot the messenger!