"The Obama administration should not have attempted to misuse its instruments of state to stop criticism of its ruling party candidate."
When foreign entities hack the email of a U.S. political party and then tries to influence U.S. elections with that information, you better believe the PotUS should step in and stop it.
Nope, it's not "way more susceptible". As Paul Gronke said, election fraud is rare. It's generally isolated to smaller community elections where a few hundred votes can sway the outcome. But even then it's hard to hide, just like the case in West Virginia that was cited. Trying this same technique on the state or national level and get away with it would be a herculean effort. Also, simple practices would make vote-by-mail far more safe than it is now. Oregon seems to be doing just fine with it. They haven't collapsed into a pit of corruption.
I'm wagering that you only read the headline of the first link in your Google search. The article actually makes an argument for the pros and cons of vote-by-mail. You concerns are kind of silly because they aren't any different than someone picking up the local paper and voting exactly how they "recommend" you vote. Vote-by-mail has been going on for decades and there is no evidence that the system is fatally flawed. Voting will never be 100% secured.
We don't live under a parliamentary government where 3rd, 4th, or 5th elected parties get a proportion of the power which they can then use to broker deals and influence the course of government. This is a winner take all democracy....at least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system. It's not because some malign agency made it that way. It evolved to be this way. You may not like being told that your vote for 3rd party candidates is a throw away vote. But it is. The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this. At best they serve to focus attention on certain issues that may never get the proper spot light within a major party's platform (something the current 3rd parties are bereft of). At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.
Well, she did break the law, and she did lie, and I'm not willing to overlook that and vote for her. Is she better than Trump? Yes. But, sorry man, "better than Trump" is just not a reason to vote for someone to be the goddamn president. Seriously, the best thing that people can say about Clinton is that she is better than Trump. That's a major problem. But that doesn't stop you from trying to argue about her crimes and lies by saying that without knowledge of what she deleted (which she very obviously took pains to make sure that we don't know), we shouldn't judge her. We'll never know. Yeah, whatever, that's exactly the line she wants you to say. To me, that's enough to disqualify her. I don't want her in office doing shady shit behind everyone's back and covering it up and then saying "hey, you'll never know what I was doing so you shouldn't judge me for it." She's a lawyer, and she knows that if there's no body then she's not going to get convicted, so she's doing everything she can to get rid of the body. That's not someone I want leading the country, regardless of any opponent she faces.
Talk about bias.
Stop pushing that bullshit line and trying to convince everyone who believes your crap that they only have two choices. Let them vote for who they think represents their beliefs instead of trying to shame them or guilt them into voting for a lying criminal.
Nope, I'm going to continue pushing everyone I know to vote Clinton. You're delusional if you think that Stein or Johnson have anything close to a chance. You can rage all you want against that cold hard fact, but you won't change a damn thing. And it's not because people like me telling them that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. It's because they are both terrible candidates in their own right.
If you want people to take third party candidates seriously then you go find an actual popular individual who can grab votes from both the right and left sides of the country, who isn't corrupt, who garners enough respect in order to form compromises, and who has the ability to generate enough funds to run a successful national presidential campaign. I'd love it if you would, but frankly better people than you have already tried. So good luck with that.
I have a bias against Trump. There's a big difference there. My support of Clinton is mere pragmatism. Whether she broke the law or lied or whatever, she is still, by a wide wide margin, the far better option in this election. Again, no third party option has any chance of winning. Any vote for them is a vote for Trump. We as a country are on the precipice of a very wide chasm and Trump is at the bottom of that chasm. So yes, I have bias. It's a bias of not seeing Trump as president.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. I've clearly stated what I think from the beginning of my posts. Clinton's crimes Trump's crimes. You just don't like the fact that someone isn't seeing Clinton as the traitorous uber criminal that you think she is.
I think you seem to be unable to grasp why anyone would not consider this consequential. That's the rub, you see this as some damning evidence and I see it as circumstantial. And again, in light of what Trump represents, Clinton's alleged crimes are minor....in my opinion. Say I have bias, say I'm lying to myself. Makes no difference to me. I see Trump as a threat to the well being of this country. Clinton may be corrupt, but at least she is capable.
You don't even consider your own imagination to be part of the problem, instead you're sure that you're part of the solution and you have all the answers.
Sorry pal, but I'm not going to vote for someone who is blatantly corrupt to lead our country and then act like I'm doing The Right Thing (tm). I'm also not going to vote for Trump.
My imagination has nothing to do with what I've heard directly from Trumps mouth.
Heh, you must not have read my response. What she did whether it's true or not is irrelevant to me. The gravity of her actions are nothing compared to the threat that Trump poses......yes in my opinion. I can support her purely on the fact that I feel that Trump is too much of a danger. So, no I'm not lying to myself. Frankly I think you and others who are fixated on Clinton blind yourselves to Trump.
Oh I read your post. I'm not denying anything you said. My point is that when considering the facts we do know about Clinton and about Trump, the facts about Trump are worse.
Man, if only we had direct knowledge of what was in those emails. Oh well, it was probably nothing, right? They were probably just low on disk space or something. We can take her on her word, right?
Who said you have to take her word for it? The only thing you can do is worry about the facts that you know. You know that someone in her staff deleted emails, that's it. Any thing more is mere speculation and it will forever be mere speculation. In the absence of certainty you are projecting your own suspicions into the void. Our brains don't like voids. Our imaginations take over and we invent scenarios which are often extreme. In this case, you are expecting the worst of Clinton and your imaginary scenario is worse than the reality of Trump. A rational human being would recognize this and check their imagination. But not many people are very rational these days.
But, how can you say that without direct knowledge of what was in the emails?
I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.
What kind of crap? Deleting emails? Without direct knowledge what was in those emails, you only have speculation as to why they were doing this. Where as with Trump, you have his own mouth to tell you that he doesn't respect your rights or the constitution and that he's a flaming racist and a hyper nationalist. Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll totally remember 2016 as the year I lost Medicaid. Not the year I lost my headphone jack on the iPhone.
This is funny. I just read someone commenting exactly the opposite. Seems like Twitter is everyone's boogeyman.
"The Obama administration should not have attempted to misuse its instruments of state to stop criticism of its ruling party candidate."
When foreign entities hack the email of a U.S. political party and then tries to influence U.S. elections with that information, you better believe the PotUS should step in and stop it.
Nope, it's not "way more susceptible". As Paul Gronke said, election fraud is rare. It's generally isolated to smaller community elections where a few hundred votes can sway the outcome. But even then it's hard to hide, just like the case in West Virginia that was cited. Trying this same technique on the state or national level and get away with it would be a herculean effort. Also, simple practices would make vote-by-mail far more safe than it is now. Oregon seems to be doing just fine with it. They haven't collapsed into a pit of corruption.
I'm wagering that you only read the headline of the first link in your Google search. The article actually makes an argument for the pros and cons of vote-by-mail. You concerns are kind of silly because they aren't any different than someone picking up the local paper and voting exactly how they "recommend" you vote. Vote-by-mail has been going on for decades and there is no evidence that the system is fatally flawed. Voting will never be 100% secured.
Trump, is that you?
People are the only drivers imaginable.
The law? Yes. Equal under the eyes of the justice system? No.
I bet you it's huge in middle America who have had their emails since the late 90's and still post on Yahoo Answers.
We don't live under a parliamentary government where 3rd, 4th, or 5th elected parties get a proportion of the power which they can then use to broker deals and influence the course of government. This is a winner take all democracy....at least separately within the two elected branches. That is the reason we have a two party system. It's not because some malign agency made it that way. It evolved to be this way. You may not like being told that your vote for 3rd party candidates is a throw away vote. But it is. The vast majority of American electoral history is against you on this. At best they serve to focus attention on certain issues that may never get the proper spot light within a major party's platform (something the current 3rd parties are bereft of). At worse, they muddy up the waters and only serve as spoilers for one of the candidates.
I don't have time to keep reading and responding to your voluminous diatribes. So how about you do what you want and I'm going to do what I want.
Well, she did break the law, and she did lie, and I'm not willing to overlook that and vote for her. Is she better than Trump? Yes. But, sorry man, "better than Trump" is just not a reason to vote for someone to be the goddamn president. Seriously, the best thing that people can say about Clinton is that she is better than Trump. That's a major problem. But that doesn't stop you from trying to argue about her crimes and lies by saying that without knowledge of what she deleted (which she very obviously took pains to make sure that we don't know), we shouldn't judge her. We'll never know. Yeah, whatever, that's exactly the line she wants you to say. To me, that's enough to disqualify her. I don't want her in office doing shady shit behind everyone's back and covering it up and then saying "hey, you'll never know what I was doing so you shouldn't judge me for it." She's a lawyer, and she knows that if there's no body then she's not going to get convicted, so she's doing everything she can to get rid of the body. That's not someone I want leading the country, regardless of any opponent she faces.
Talk about bias.
Stop pushing that bullshit line and trying to convince everyone who believes your crap that they only have two choices. Let them vote for who they think represents their beliefs instead of trying to shame them or guilt them into voting for a lying criminal.
Nope, I'm going to continue pushing everyone I know to vote Clinton. You're delusional if you think that Stein or Johnson have anything close to a chance. You can rage all you want against that cold hard fact, but you won't change a damn thing. And it's not because people like me telling them that a vote for a third party is a vote for Trump. It's because they are both terrible candidates in their own right.
If you want people to take third party candidates seriously then you go find an actual popular individual who can grab votes from both the right and left sides of the country, who isn't corrupt, who garners enough respect in order to form compromises, and who has the ability to generate enough funds to run a successful national presidential campaign. I'd love it if you would, but frankly better people than you have already tried. So good luck with that.
I have a bias against Trump. There's a big difference there. My support of Clinton is mere pragmatism. Whether she broke the law or lied or whatever, she is still, by a wide wide margin, the far better option in this election. Again, no third party option has any chance of winning. Any vote for them is a vote for Trump. We as a country are on the precipice of a very wide chasm and Trump is at the bottom of that chasm. So yes, I have bias. It's a bias of not seeing Trump as president.
I'm not being disingenuous at all. I've clearly stated what I think from the beginning of my posts. Clinton's crimes Trump's crimes. You just don't like the fact that someone isn't seeing Clinton as the traitorous uber criminal that you think she is.
I think you seem to be unable to grasp why anyone would not consider this consequential. That's the rub, you see this as some damning evidence and I see it as circumstantial. And again, in light of what Trump represents, Clinton's alleged crimes are minor....in my opinion. Say I have bias, say I'm lying to myself. Makes no difference to me. I see Trump as a threat to the well being of this country. Clinton may be corrupt, but at least she is capable.
You don't even consider your own imagination to be part of the problem, instead you're sure that you're part of the solution and you have all the answers.
Sorry pal, but I'm not going to vote for someone who is blatantly corrupt to lead our country and then act like I'm doing The Right Thing (tm). I'm also not going to vote for Trump.
My imagination has nothing to do with what I've heard directly from Trumps mouth.
Heh, you must not have read my response. What she did whether it's true or not is irrelevant to me. The gravity of her actions are nothing compared to the threat that Trump poses......yes in my opinion. I can support her purely on the fact that I feel that Trump is too much of a danger. So, no I'm not lying to myself. Frankly I think you and others who are fixated on Clinton blind yourselves to Trump.
Still speculating and still not worse than Trump.
Oh I read your post. I'm not denying anything you said. My point is that when considering the facts we do know about Clinton and about Trump, the facts about Trump are worse.
Still not worse than Trump.
Man, if only we had direct knowledge of what was in those emails. Oh well, it was probably nothing, right? They were probably just low on disk space or something. We can take her on her word, right?
Who said you have to take her word for it? The only thing you can do is worry about the facts that you know. You know that someone in her staff deleted emails, that's it. Any thing more is mere speculation and it will forever be mere speculation. In the absence of certainty you are projecting your own suspicions into the void. Our brains don't like voids. Our imaginations take over and we invent scenarios which are often extreme. In this case, you are expecting the worst of Clinton and your imaginary scenario is worse than the reality of Trump. A rational human being would recognize this and check their imagination. But not many people are very rational these days.
But, how can you say that without direct knowledge of what was in the emails?
Facts > speculation
I dislike Trump but seriously just because he's the Republican candidate should not mean you are willing to overlook this kind of crap.
What kind of crap? Deleting emails? Without direct knowledge what was in those emails, you only have speculation as to why they were doing this. Where as with Trump, you have his own mouth to tell you that he doesn't respect your rights or the constitution and that he's a flaming racist and a hyper nationalist. Deleting emails seems trivial in that light.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l...
He looks like he's insane.
PC gaming isn't as complicated as it used to be and you don't have to dick around in the OS to optimize things on a daily basis.
You don't have to dick around with Win7 either. BTW, my distaste and dislike for Win10 doesn't lessen your apparent love for it. So relax.
Yes, I realize this is for future architecture. So I guess it depends on how long in the future we're talking about.