ROFL. Clearly the fact that Snowden released documents is more important than what he released. Do you really believe this? You're smarter than that.
FBI looked at those emails and decided that there was no case to answer
You mean the, "there was probably a crime but don't prosecute because 'intent' even if the law doesn't mention intent" That Comey of the FBI? That is still damning to the common man that would have been arrested if he had done the same and Comey said as much. But sure, not "illegal" but still damaging because laws for thee not me Clinton. That whole fuck up was on Clinton, NOT the Russians or the leak.
Also, unethical doesn't mean illegal. The DNC colluding against Sanders was unethical but probably legal. That is still damaging. More so than the hack itself. How many democrats that voted Sanders stayed home because of that?
You are saying the unethical crap that was found was not damaging but the fact that it was hacked is damaging? If the information was innocent as you claim NO ONE WOULD CARE ABOUT THE HACK. Sanders' suspicion of DNC collusion wouldn't have been validated pissing off voters. MSM and Clinton campaign collusion wouldn't have been validated which pissed off voters. Trump the Pied Piper for MSM would not have been validated.
The Russians didn't force DWS to collude with Clinton. The Russians didn't force Clinton to appoint DWS after it was found out about said collusion showing voters the contempt Clinton had to corruption.
God damn, Are you really so invested in Clinton that a shit stain is part of the decor? Let me guess, it brings out her eyes?
The damage was done BY Clinton. If anything, the Russians showed us what MSM wouldn't because of collusion between Clinton and the MSM.
, your purported indignation has no merit whatsoever.
There was as boycott of the vote. That casts doubt on the legitimacy of the vote. What am I missing ?
protests of permanence are irrelevant
Unless they wanted independence.
they have some actual influence or control
What does the PR government need to do that they cannot do now? That is still rather moot because the government still put in place policies that bring PR to the brink of bankruptcy.
not being at the whims of an outside group that is not paying attention to them, has no interest in paying attention to them, and treats them as disposable or worse
If it is as bad as you say then the referendums would have reflected that.
requires some means of effecting action
What can the PR government not do that caused them to be fiscally irresponsible?
fault belongs, in the US Capitol.
There is some fault, for sure but it is mostly on PR. They need to have a clear vote without boycotts or confusion. They need to have a responsible government that doesn't piss away money to the point of bankruptcy. If anything, their own government and financial problems are inhibiting their statehood.
PS
Yes, someone else pointed it out and I acknowledged it. I am so terrible I mistaken the Jones-Shafroth Act to the Jones act.
Sure, it was damaging but what was more damage: the fact that her private server was hacked or the contents of that private server?
Take a different example: which was more damaging; the fact that Snowden leaked NSA data or the data itself?
No one would have cared about the timing or the hack if Clinton wasn't doing unethical bullshit. It doesn't matter if it came from Russia or not; Are the contents of the leak legitimate?
the results of the official investigation are going to blow your mind.
I will wait until then and when I can see the evidence. Why don't you?
You must be talking about the 2017 referendum not the 2012 referendum.
A referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico was held in Puerto Rico on June 11, 2017. The referendum had three options: becoming a state of the United States, independence/free association, or maintaining the current territorial status. Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%; turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure. This figure is attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo PPD party.
Again, there wasn't a clear majority because of the boycott. Should the US just ignore that and try to force PR to be a state which is permanent? At what point is the future of PR the fault of PR?
Maybe we need an investigation into the British influence on the election! I wonder how much money has been spent from British ip's that have "influenced" American votes.
I didn't ignore it that is why I said "the act that gave PRs citizenship while trying to create strong economic and cultural ties to the mainland".
As I have explained in a different post, the referendums have been contested for poor wording and boycotts. Basically because none of the results had clear majority and/or legitimacy they were ignored. What is the US supposed to do without a clear mandated decision from the PR people?
Wait, the last minute FBI investigation were Russian efforts to damage Clinton? Did the Russians force the tarmac meeting too? Did the Russians force Clinton to do all the unethical shit in the emails? Did the Russians tell Clinton to ignore rust belt states? Bound by electoral rules, like maximum campaign contributions that were bypassed when the DNC funneled down-ballot election funds to her campaign?
How far are you willing to take the Russian scare?
The tip of the iceberg? I would take that more seriously if they showed us what the ads were. Half of them happened after the election.
Puerto Rican voters were asked two questions: (1) whether they agreed to continue with Puerto Rico's territorial status and (2) to indicate the political status they preferred from three possibilities: statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the United States.[2] 970,910 (54.00%) voted "No" on the first question, expressing themselves against maintaining the current political status, and 828,077 (46.00%) voted "Yes", to maintain the current political status. Of those who answered on the second question 834,191 (61.11%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.34%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.55%) chose independence.[3][4]
The governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) and several other leaders who favor the present status had recommended voting "Yes" to the first question, and leaving the second question blank as a protest to what they said was "an anti-democratic process" and "a trap"
Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, Congress decided to ignore the vote.
History professor Luis Agrait explained the result in this manner to CNN: "If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%." Considered as a percentage of the total number of votes cast in the first ballot, 44% voted in favor of statehood on the second ballot.
IOW, because it wasn't clear the results were ignored. Is a vote valid if the questions are poorly constructed? This has been the case for many of the referendums. Not saying it is right or wrong but if you make a decision with such permanency as statehood then the results should not be doubted to such an extent.
1) they have voted 3 times for statehood with another one to come. 2) the fiscal problems all stem from the PR government. not the act that gave PRs citizenship while trying to create strong economic and cultural ties to the mainland.
US has treated PR shabbily? HOW? How is it different than any other territory vying for statehood? If it was truly that bad then why hasn't PR voted for independence?
$100k in Facebook ads is part of the campaign to destabilize and weaken the west. Yet, the Clinton campaign spent how much money? But the 100k made the election?...... How much contempt do you hold for your fellow citizens and Americans?
Here's the thing, if you have free speech, any idea can influence people to vote. Any group promoting an idea is a campaign. How is that any different than Obama telling Brits to vote no on brexit?
Does it have anything to do with actual policy in your mind?
Do you lose your 1st amendment rights if you make a commercial supporting a political position or politician? Is the money you make/have yours to promote any idea you want and are you protected by the constitution to promote said idea?
If it costs money to make a commercial or ad and the speech in that commercial or ad is protected by the 1st amendment; How can the government justify limiting your access to pay for commercials or ads?
I don't know if you know this but Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Their debt is their doing as is their current statehood. They have to choose to be a state as much as they have to choose sovereignty just as they chose to be fiscally irresponsible.
Why can't the debt be resolved by the Puerto Rican government? Why should other citizens and states pick up the tab for them when that has never happened before?
I am sure. While at the same time parading how civilized they are. It's a family fun event full of decapitations and bodily desecration. Bring the kids out to show them how a civilized people act.
I get it. The guy is a crazy ass hole that will burn in Hell. But keep your virtue signaling vindictive barbarism to yourself. You don't need to act like a savage just because someone else does.
I do hope the Cheeto stains correlates to skill of the programmer. If so I need a card of pure orange Cheeto stains. Preferably, on the Black Lotus card (for the A.C).
He's expected to remark on the situation. It happened at 10:00pm... WTF is he supposed to do? Jump out in his MLP PJ's and make a State of the Union address at 3:00 in the morning?
In particular hate speech can and does cause harm.
How does words harm you if there is no action to follow up? If I can you a racial slur or say your race is a disease (hate speech by many legal definitions) how has that harmed you or your property? I can ask that about other limits, such as libel or threats, and get a clear answer.
I don't understand how you or JonnyCalcutta say I am arguing for anything absolute when I said there are times to limit speech. 1) well defined and 2) causes harm in and of itself. You can disagree with that but that is in no way saying what you are strawmanning.
hate speech can and does cause harm.
This is the argument you should be making if you want me to believe your idea that hate speech should be outlawed by the state. To do that, you have to show me that mean words cause harm to the extent of libel or slander or threats. And that you can define hate speech concisely in a way that cannot abuse other rights (Christians saying homosexuality is a moral sin is a religious belief who wins in court? the religious belief of the christian or your hate speech law?).
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL. Clearly the fact that Snowden released documents is more important than what he released. Do you really believe this? You're smarter than that.
FBI looked at those emails and decided that there was no case to answer
You mean the, "there was probably a crime but don't prosecute because 'intent' even if the law doesn't mention intent" That Comey of the FBI? That is still damning to the common man that would have been arrested if he had done the same and Comey said as much. But sure, not "illegal" but still damaging because laws for thee not me Clinton. That whole fuck up was on Clinton, NOT the Russians or the leak.
Also, unethical doesn't mean illegal. The DNC colluding against Sanders was unethical but probably legal. That is still damaging. More so than the hack itself. How many democrats that voted Sanders stayed home because of that?
You are saying the unethical crap that was found was not damaging but the fact that it was hacked is damaging? If the information was innocent as you claim NO ONE WOULD CARE ABOUT THE HACK. Sanders' suspicion of DNC collusion wouldn't have been validated pissing off voters. MSM and Clinton campaign collusion wouldn't have been validated which pissed off voters. Trump the Pied Piper for MSM would not have been validated.
The Russians didn't force DWS to collude with Clinton. The Russians didn't force Clinton to appoint DWS after it was found out about said collusion showing voters the contempt Clinton had to corruption.
God damn, Are you really so invested in Clinton that a shit stain is part of the decor? Let me guess, it brings out her eyes?
The damage was done BY Clinton. If anything, the Russians showed us what MSM wouldn't because of collusion between Clinton and the MSM.
, your purported indignation has no merit whatsoever.
There was as boycott of the vote. That casts doubt on the legitimacy of the vote. What am I missing ?
protests of permanence are irrelevant
Unless they wanted independence.
they have some actual influence or control
What does the PR government need to do that they cannot do now? That is still rather moot because the government still put in place policies that bring PR to the brink of bankruptcy.
not being at the whims of an outside group that is not paying attention to them, has no interest in paying attention to them, and treats them as disposable or worse
If it is as bad as you say then the referendums would have reflected that.
requires some means of effecting action
What can the PR government not do that caused them to be fiscally irresponsible?
fault belongs, in the US Capitol.
There is some fault, for sure but it is mostly on PR. They need to have a clear vote without boycotts or confusion. They need to have a responsible government that doesn't piss away money to the point of bankruptcy. If anything, their own government and financial problems are inhibiting their statehood.
PS
Yes, someone else pointed it out and I acknowledged it. I am so terrible I mistaken the Jones-Shafroth Act to the Jones act.
oops. my bad. thanks. some reason I thought it the same law. Dang Jones and his laws!
Sure, it was damaging but what was more damage: the fact that her private server was hacked or the contents of that private server?
Take a different example: which was more damaging; the fact that Snowden leaked NSA data or the data itself?
No one would have cared about the timing or the hack if Clinton wasn't doing unethical bullshit. It doesn't matter if it came from Russia or not; Are the contents of the leak legitimate?
the results of the official investigation are going to blow your mind.
I will wait until then and when I can see the evidence. Why don't you?
You must be talking about the 2017 referendum not the 2012 referendum.
A referendum on the political status of Puerto Rico was held in Puerto Rico on June 11, 2017. The referendum had three options: becoming a state of the United States, independence/free association, or maintaining the current territorial status. Those who voted overwhelmingly chose statehood by 97%; turnout, however, was 23%, a historically low figure. This figure is attributed to a boycott led by the pro-status quo PPD party.
Again, there wasn't a clear majority because of the boycott. Should the US just ignore that and try to force PR to be a state which is permanent? At what point is the future of PR the fault of PR?
Maybe we need an investigation into the British influence on the election! I wonder how much money has been spent from British ip's that have "influenced" American votes.
I didn't ignore it that is why I said "the act that gave PRs citizenship while trying to create strong economic and cultural ties to the mainland".
As I have explained in a different post, the referendums have been contested for poor wording and boycotts. Basically because none of the results had clear majority and/or legitimacy they were ignored. What is the US supposed to do without a clear mandated decision from the PR people?
Wait, the last minute FBI investigation were Russian efforts to damage Clinton? Did the Russians force the tarmac meeting too? Did the Russians force Clinton to do all the unethical shit in the emails? Did the Russians tell Clinton to ignore rust belt states? Bound by electoral rules, like maximum campaign contributions that were bypassed when the DNC funneled down-ballot election funds to her campaign?
How far are you willing to take the Russian scare?
The tip of the iceberg? I would take that more seriously if they showed us what the ads were. Half of them happened after the election.
Puerto Rican voters were asked two questions: (1) whether they agreed to continue with Puerto Rico's territorial status and (2) to indicate the political status they preferred from three possibilities: statehood, independence, or a sovereign nation in free association with the United States.[2] 970,910 (54.00%) voted "No" on the first question, expressing themselves against maintaining the current political status, and 828,077 (46.00%) voted "Yes", to maintain the current political status. Of those who answered on the second question 834,191 (61.11%) chose statehood, 454,768 (33.34%) chose free association, and 74,895 (5.55%) chose independence.[3][4]
The governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla of the Popular Democratic Party (PPD) and several other leaders who favor the present status had recommended voting "Yes" to the first question, and leaving the second question blank as a protest to what they said was "an anti-democratic process" and "a trap"
Because there were almost 500,000 blank ballots, creating confusion as to the voters' true desire, Congress decided to ignore the vote.
History professor Luis Agrait explained the result in this manner to CNN: "If you assume those blank votes are anti-statehood votes, the true result for the statehood option would be less than 50%." Considered as a percentage of the total number of votes cast in the first ballot, 44% voted in favor of statehood on the second ballot.
IOW, because it wasn't clear the results were ignored. Is a vote valid if the questions are poorly constructed? This has been the case for many of the referendums. Not saying it is right or wrong but if you make a decision with such permanency as statehood then the results should not be doubted to such an extent.
1) they have voted 3 times for statehood with another one to come.
2) the fiscal problems all stem from the PR government. not the act that gave PRs citizenship while trying to create strong economic and cultural ties to the mainland.
US has treated PR shabbily? HOW? How is it different than any other territory vying for statehood? If it was truly that bad then why hasn't PR voted for independence?
Facebook does have credibility?
Was that before or after Facebook admitted to promoting pro-Hillary and suppressing pro-Trump stories/outlets?
This. I want to actually see the ads.
$100k in Facebook ads is part of the campaign to destabilize and weaken the west. Yet, the Clinton campaign spent how much money? But the 100k made the election? ... ... How much contempt do you hold for your fellow citizens and Americans?
Here's the thing, if you have free speech, any idea can influence people to vote. Any group promoting an idea is a campaign. How is that any different than Obama telling Brits to vote no on brexit?
Does it have anything to do with actual policy in your mind?
Does antifa Boston stop being fake when they rioted over lies? https://bluelivesmatter.blue/a...
Fuck citizen's united.
Do you lose your 1st amendment rights if you make a commercial supporting a political position or politician? Is the money you make/have yours to promote any idea you want and are you protected by the constitution to promote said idea?
If it costs money to make a commercial or ad and the speech in that commercial or ad is protected by the 1st amendment; How can the government justify limiting your access to pay for commercials or ads?
They could have chosen statehood or independence. There has been 3 different votes since 1998.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Why does PR keep choosing the status quo?
I don't know if you know this but Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Their debt is their doing as is their current statehood. They have to choose to be a state as much as they have to choose sovereignty just as they chose to be fiscally irresponsible.
Why can't the debt be resolved by the Puerto Rican government? Why should other citizens and states pick up the tab for them when that has never happened before?
Mind blown.
these things called helicopters
fake news.
I am sure. While at the same time parading how civilized they are. It's a family fun event full of decapitations and bodily desecration. Bring the kids out to show them how a civilized people act.
I get it. The guy is a crazy ass hole that will burn in Hell. But keep your virtue signaling vindictive barbarism to yourself. You don't need to act like a savage just because someone else does.
I do hope the Cheeto stains correlates to skill of the programmer. If so I need a card of pure orange Cheeto stains. Preferably, on the Black Lotus card (for the A.C).
I wrote a 'hello world' program in javascript. Now where can a professional programmer like me get a drink around here?
He's expected to remark on the situation. It happened at 10:00pm... WTF is he supposed to do? Jump out in his MLP PJ's and make a State of the Union address at 3:00 in the morning?
can you get over Trump plz?
I think we need to execute Mr Stephen Paddock.
You're too late.
And now I know where the phrase "beat a dead horse" comes from. I never imagined it was from people wanting to beat or "execute" a corpse.
because media is here to propagandize and capitalize on such events.
FTFY. It's not just /.. It's everywhere. On NPR a guy was advocating for pre-crime.
In particular hate speech can and does cause harm.
How does words harm you if there is no action to follow up? If I can you a racial slur or say your race is a disease (hate speech by many legal definitions) how has that harmed you or your property? I can ask that about other limits, such as libel or threats, and get a clear answer.
I don't understand how you or JonnyCalcutta say I am arguing for anything absolute when I said there are times to limit speech. 1) well defined and 2) causes harm in and of itself. You can disagree with that but that is in no way saying what you are strawmanning.
hate speech can and does cause harm.
This is the argument you should be making if you want me to believe your idea that hate speech should be outlawed by the state. To do that, you have to show me that mean words cause harm to the extent of libel or slander or threats. And that you can define hate speech concisely in a way that cannot abuse other rights (Christians saying homosexuality is a moral sin is a religious belief who wins in court? the religious belief of the christian or your hate speech law?).