I have been wrestling with this quandary recently. Illegal activities performed by unknown perpetrators (Yes they are still unknown, no we don't know for sure they are Russians, put down the Kool Aid) have resulted in the first inkling of transparency the American people have seen from their government and their government officials in a long time. I'm a law-and-order kind of guy on most subjects. This concerns me greatly.
What has allowed me to sleep is simple. Whoever is making these leaks is acting not as an adversary, but an advocate. Their actions are those of an advocate of the people, not the government. Sadly, but truthfully, it is increasingly easy to draw the line between the government and the people, as our government treats the people like an enemy. Greater transparency, unveiling deception, getting emails into the public record before they can be deleted (Lois Lerner/IRS, Hillary, etc.) seems to be the only way the people can be assured that the truth is available after the fallout of a scandal. And it may be the only way to hold our government accountable for any illegal actions they perform.
Logging should also be activated when the "innocent" password is provided. Clandestine recording of law enforcement's stomping around in your device as well as possible attempts to sprinkle digital cocaine in your phone could come in handy later.
Using apex predators to take out mortal enemies? Its a win-win.
Fuck sharks, crocodiles, alligators, tigers, lions, bears, hippos, etc. Anything with the ability to kill humans that hasn't learned better by now is insufficiently extinct.
I love how we have gotten to the point where every word a politician speaks has to be vetted, crafted, and teleprompeted before it is acceptable.
We have a nice little box of expectations on how we expect our leaders to act and talk. We expect them to lie to us. We expect them to abuse their power. We expect them to get away with it. We expect them to attack our rights, to push the envelope of their power over us. We expect every year it will get worse. We expect them to start wars with people we don't care one way or another about. We expect them to put the American people last and big business first. We expect them to get richer while our economy dwindles. All of that is acceptable.
But heaven forbid they say something off the cuff and not scripted. Its like you idiots are saying, "Please, please, rape our children. We want you to. But don't talk dirty while you do it. That's just unacceptable." You poor, poor senseless bastards.
People called this The Information Age. A better description would be The Bullshit Age. Everything is tainted with perspective intentionally. Attempting to remove bias is not even considered.
Ever heard the phrase "sell the sizzle, not the steak"? Bias IS the sizzle in journalistic endeavors and newsrooms all over the US. People make choices about which news outlet to frequent based on the particular flavor of bias the news outlet ascribes to. The news makers carefully construct and curate their bias, tailor it to a certain mindset, study it even, and sell the resulting slanted material to advertisers and eyeballs alike.
The same goes for education. Repackaging of history, recasting the character of pivotal people and events to support a certain narrative that has nothing to do with the actual motivations; it is big business.
Politicians do it too. They use "wedge issues" to attack the electorate, separate them into controllable groups. Tested sound bytes designed to change the conversation from one about issues to one about hurts or harms, transgressions or trespasses, real or imagined. All with the intention of removing the power and cohesiveness of American citizens. Keep them at each others throats, offended, scared, and angry. That way they continue to look to government for redress, like fucking children in the back seat vying for the attention and backing of their parents against their brothers and sisters.
No wonder children get "triggered." The adults who raised them have been pruning their own reality, cutting off the truth fact by fact, subject by subject and have been for decades. Everyone knows Bonsai trees don't do well without constant care, and that's their model for what it is to be an adult. We further weaken their minds by forcing them to practice politically correct speech which has resulted in public discourse that is so neutered it is devoid of the ability to lead to any resolution. Where the only objective is to find something to be offended about so you can cry that you were hurt by words, that you were wronged, and that the other person should be punished. Apparently that is the new definition of winning an argument, not facts, or logic, or even information. Just Bullshit. All of it./rant
2a) Gave time for evidence to be altered, people to synchronize their stories, work with counsel to devise a cogent strategy that allowed maximum deniability while avoiding perjury charges. 4) [subtext] Knowing Lynch would not prosecute, Comey is left with the realization that the person he is investigating could be the President of the US very soon. He sees that Obama and Lynch are in the tank for Hillary for their public comments as well as their actions. So not only are his current employers against prosecution, but the person he needs to make a recommendation for or against could very well end up being his boss in short order. Holy fuck what a terrible position to be put in.
I am quite disappointed at the imagination of phone makers. A single headphone jack is one too few. How cool would it be to have two people listening to the same song/movie/video on a single device?
The commercials would write themselves:
Hipster girl on the train, headphones in, bobbing head to the beat, soundtrack playing her tune. Directly across, hipster guy headphones in, tapping his foot, soundtrack plays what he is hearing. Eyes meet, head inclines, eyebrow goes up, pointedly looking at device askance. One shows their screen to the other, the other follows suit. Guy comes and sits next to the girl, shows her the two plugs on his phone. Girl unplugs her headphones and plugs in to the guys phone with him. Shot from outside the train shows heads bobbing in sync, then leaning together, now head on shoulder. Soundtrack crescendos, train pulls off screen, phone company logo center screen. Print money.
Instead what we get is more control, less usability, isolating experiences, etc. It's like the whole idea of the modern mobile device is intentionally set up to separate people, rather than bring them together. For a communications device that is pretty ironic.
"According to sources, the decision upset some senior employees inside the company who strictly followed Twitter's long-standing commitment to unfettered free speech"
Damn, I haven't laughed this hard in a while. When I read that sentence my mind started flashing the "Unbelievable Bullshit" sign. There is nothing "unfettered" or "free" about the type of speech allowed on Twitter. That someone can say that sentence with a straight face...
What a shitty fable. It reminds me of Pascal's Wager. Give up enjoyment of your life to get something intangible, blah blah blah. Total bullshit and designed from the first letter to set the stage for controlling your behavior through "unassailable" logic. The problem is, it is not logical. People aren't ants, nor are they grasshoppers, and we have an infinite realm of choices to select from. Who is to say that you can't have a wonderful fun-filled, carefree life and have a financial present and future that works for you and your family? Just people like you who see asceticism as the one true path and ridicule others for having a good time before they die.
Well you can stick it, right in your ant bed.
Just remember two things about that fable: 1) Worker ants never get to have sex in their entire life. They toil ceaselessly without reward until they die. The queens and her mates reap the rewards of the pheromonically brainwashed under caste slaves so they can eat, fuck, lay around, and have babies without a care in the world. 2) The grasshopper didn't die. He found a half empty bottle of Thunderbird under a bridge and weathered the winter drunk as a skunk and having inter-species relations with a down-on-its-luck millipede and a displaced migrant German cockroach. I met him at an AA meeting and he told me all about it.
You want to be an ant, fine. But don't try to sell that shit to me or anyone else. Damn insectoid communists, get off my lawn!
Woah, woah, woah! Lay of the charter schools homie. You sound like one of those 'Educational choices are a war on education!!!' idiots. The US educational system is not homogeneous, nor is it fair to everyone. I am the farthest thing from a bleeding heart whatever, but I have seen first hand what happens in some our largest cities' public schools, and it's not what creates the kind of people that build, sustain, or even participate in our tech industry. Sadly, leaders in the communities that are educationally impoverished due to under performing schools are often complicit in perpetuating under performance. For example, I have heard them talk about firing teachers that have horrible records as "racist attacks."
Giving frustrated parents a way to get an actual education for their children while at the same time chastising a government funded entity in the only way they understand (their pocketbook full of taken-for-granted tax money) is a great way to make social progress.
You want to fight some for-profit system, start with the prisons.
I don't disagree with you on the subject of Trump. I also don't think the other offering is any better, just a different flavor of ass if you will. I wanted Bernie. Still do.
Regardless, I won't sacrifice my values and I am not a "the ends justify the means" kind of person. That kind of thinking got us our current choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, among other things, and put Trump in a good position to actually win.
Right now, Europeans think that reason must prevail, and that there's no way the American public can possibly vote in someone like that. But history has a tendency to repeat itself.
Are these reason loving Europeans the ones complaining that the people they invited into the EU are bombing, shooting, stabbing, axing, raping, and running over their friends and families? You can't have it both ways I guess. Either you are for unmitigated immigration, or you are racist xenophobe for entertaining the idea that letting in anyone and everyone without oversight or screening might be a bad idea.
You are as obtuse as you are transparent. Can't you smell your own filth?
Seriously though, drinking impairs judgement. And not just the judgement you use on the road once you are driving, but more importantly, the judgement you use to decide if you are too drunk to drive in the first place. Those that are too impaired to make sound decisions will, if given the opportunity by friends or bystanders, choose to drive drunk regardless of how many options you give them. And, it is those individuals that are so blasted they end up killing people that are not going to call a cab or a ride service.
Also, this quote " ride-sharing had no effect on drinking-related or holiday- and weekend-related fatalities" could also be written as "Ride sharing successful in reducing drinking related fatalities 5 days out of 7 (with the exception of holidays.)" Much different. Also, I have heard that the line between a regular accident and a "drinking related" accident can be something less than you might expect.
No need to debate. I am against any and all types and forms of election fraud. This is fundamentally because I believe in freedom, fairness, self determination, and the rule of law. I will not support disenfranchising my American brothers and sisters, regardless of whether or not they agree with my political leanings.
Thank you for your candor in admitting you are fundamentally dishonest and are willing to sacrifice our electoral system in support of whichever candidate you support. You really had me going with the first part of your post and I almost fell for it. I thought you actually were concerned about a fair election and vote counting process.
I can only imagine what you could have accomplished by playing along, amassing proof, and revealing it not to those people in the government that perpetrate and participate in these heinous actions, but to the PEOPLE who, ostensibly, still run this country as stated in the Constitution.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against you in any way and I might have reacted the same as you in the same position. It just reinforces the fact that we need more people like Snowden who understand what a gift this country is and who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend us and the concept of freedom from the psychopaths that are in our own government. We should treasure them, not allow the institutions who transgressed against all of us dictate how they will deal with him and the people like him.
Hopefully future DNC leaders will think twice before acting this way, and if they continue to do these things, hopefully there will be more leaks.
They will think twice, but not about changing their actions. They will just become more clandestine and untraceable in their actions. They learned from Nixon (why didn't he just burn the tapes?) to cover their tracks well (disappearing hard drives, wiped severs, documents stolen from the national archives, etc. ad nauseum.)
However, as the American people increasingly choose and support partisan-ism as a surrogate for law, order, and justice the need for our leaders to conceal their misdeeds becomes less relevant. What I mean by this is that each time we allow our elected officials to get away with actions that even appear improper (much less that are violations of law) not only do we embolden them to engage in further abuses, but we anesthetize ourselves to the abuse. They become part and parcel of the landscape, eventually we internalize those abuses, and we learn to live with it, accept it. Furthermore, and most horribly, when someone in government does something even more outrageous than the last debacle, it is not compared against an absolute reference point like the law, or decency, or even what is acceptable. Increasingly, bad actors and their misdeeds are compared against the worst actions of past leaders and politicians.
How can a nation continue to improve when the reference points for the future actions of our leaders are the failures of our previous leaders?
Agreed. Bruce gets this completely wrong. The answer to security in this is not greater and more complex levels of security and secrecy. It is the exact opposite that will create the security we need, namely openness, transparency, and simplicity.
I was also thinking that an "opt-in" secret ballot would be and interesting way to reduce the error bars on the problem. Since many are already rabidly dedicated to a certain party, why not give those brainwashed minions the option of grandstanding for their overlords by allowing them to cast a non-secret ballot?
You are bringing up different issues, implying I said things I specifically did not, and straying far afield from what the original poster stated and what I stated in return. He said "attack us" as in a foreign government attacking our country. That is light years away from invading a single person's privacy, and you damn well know it.
The last part of your emails is what I can only assume to be a rebuttal of the part of my post that says the Russians should, with all haste and justification, immediately start hacking all of Hillary's emails. The only problem with that is I never said that. I don't advocate for it in any way. YOU added that to what I wrote, from your own mind. I don't know what you have going on in your head that led you to this conclusion, but it's obviously affecting your ability to think logically and critically.
The GOP presidential candidate is encouraging a hostile foreign power to intrude into US government data systems in the hopes of revealing evidence Clinton may have acted contrary to the interests of the United States.
Have I got this right?
Nope, completely wrong. First, the whole reason there was ever an issue with Hillary's emails is that they were...wait for it...on her PERSONAL system. And, you also are aware that the emails in question were never turned over to the US government. They were deleted from the copies that were handed over to the US government. You know all of this, right? You are, I sincerely hope, at least dimly aware of the facts of the case and the reason for the whole email scandal from the very beginning? In light of those simple details, what you wrote above is, lets be charitable about it, hopelessly confused and wildly inaccurate. You have my pity.
The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate. Those are held to different standards than the media. And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers to instigate an attack on a government server to get material
Neither did Trump. And what the hell are you talking about? The whole issue, from the very fucking beginning, with Hillary's email server was because it was a PERSONAL EMAIL SERVER. If those emails were on a government server to begin with Hillary would either be leading by 30 points right now, or on her way to prison (depending on what was on them.)
Also, the US government doesn't have any of those deleted emails, because, you know...they were, well...this is hard to say without sounding outrageously condescending....they were....deleted. You do know what "deleted" means right? Well lets let that just sit there for a minute and consider that regardless of your ability to parse simple English, those emails never were, never have been, and still are not on any government server. How you can be so incredibly obtuse is downright amazing to me. Flabbergasting. By comparison, your fundamentally flawed mental processes make Trump look like some kind of genius. Do you know how hard that is?
Try on for just a minute that you have made at least two colossal mental failures in just one short post. I now know what the phrase "not even wrong" means in context. You are so far off base in what you believe that you can't even participate in a rational discussion of the facts. It seems that you are looking so hard to find a way to discredit Trump that you have let your mind twist basic simple definitions and facts to that purpose, rather than to represent reality. And you got modded +5 for the irrational drivel you posted. That is some pretty scary shit right there. Not just that you have such a sloppy, emotionally compromised thought process, but that there are many others that are willing to believe in your delusion without first passing it through the cognitive filters of reason and logic.
Anyone running for president has NO BUSINESS making jokes about other countries engaging in acts of War against this country. That's the equivalent of making a joke about having a bomb while in line at the TSA. When they take you seriously, you deserve NO sympathy.
Wait a second...
If someone hacks my personal email server its an act of "WAR"? Sorry, but you are hopeless and confused. A personal email server means nothing at all to the government. Its a personal server. Its definitely not a government email server, and I don't own it in the legal sense of citizens owning the government. I don't have anything to do with it at all it seems, as, by the actions of our government, its officials, and Hillary herself, the contents in question are not my business (the 30,000 "personal" emails Trump was referring to). They aren't even a concern of our government. Our government hasn't asked for them forcefully. They haven't reviewed them, and they aren't planning to. Even the government emails sent and received from Hillary's personal server have been declared so innocuous that sending and receiving them did not trigger any of the provisions discussed in the briefings about classified documents. So even having access to those can't be construed as an "attack" on our government. Remember nothing marked as classified was ever sent through that email system. Might as well be quilting tips and brownie recipes, right?
None of the facts support your position. You should retract your statement as it is blatantly false.
What's even more contemptible is the situation that has arisen from a civil servant's willfulness to skirt her responsibilities to the people who employ her. She created this issue. Now everyone who isn't a zombified Hillary supporter has questions about what was in those emails.
Openness and transparency was promised. Obama assured us we would have it. Instead we have secrecy, zero accountability, and willful stonewalling...by our employees!!!. But hey, it was a personal server, and the 30,000 emails in question were only personal emails. If she wants to play it that way you can't go back and now say Trump is advocating anything having to do with government email systems, inciting harm to the government, etc. No silly "treason" accusations, no false cries of tampering with a government email system. It was a personal server, not a government server.
And, furthermore, the contents of the entire server (with the exception of the deleted "personal" emails" that no one saw but Hillary, her inner circle, and her lawyer) were all approved by the justice department, the FBI, Loretta Lynch, and Barak Obama. No classified emails were sent. Nothing that would violate her clearance protocols at all. That server was as harmless as a kitten during her term as Secretary of State. How much less relevant are the things in there now that time has passed? Well I guess we won't ever know will we?
Even if he wasn't joking, are you really saying that this quote about hacking into someone's personal email system, to acquire personal emails, that America has been assured to have ZERO classified details in them and ZERO government affiliation, is considered "inviting them (Russia) to attack us"? Hacking into a non-government server to retrieve details about a wedding and what to wear is not "an attack." Calling it one is blatant stupidity or baldfaced partisanship.
Your political thinking cap is on waaaaay too tight, homey. Its cutting off the circulation to what's left of the rational part of your brain. You know, the part that isn't pwned by a false ideology sold to you be shysters in government garb and media shills.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been wrestling with this quandary recently. Illegal activities performed by unknown perpetrators (Yes they are still unknown, no we don't know for sure they are Russians, put down the Kool Aid) have resulted in the first inkling of transparency the American people have seen from their government and their government officials in a long time. I'm a law-and-order kind of guy on most subjects. This concerns me greatly.
What has allowed me to sleep is simple. Whoever is making these leaks is acting not as an adversary, but an advocate. Their actions are those of an advocate of the people, not the government. Sadly, but truthfully, it is increasingly easy to draw the line between the government and the people, as our government treats the people like an enemy. Greater transparency, unveiling deception, getting emails into the public record before they can be deleted (Lois Lerner/IRS, Hillary, etc.) seems to be the only way the people can be assured that the truth is available after the fallout of a scandal. And it may be the only way to hold our government accountable for any illegal actions they perform.
Logging should also be activated when the "innocent" password is provided. Clandestine recording of law enforcement's stomping around in your device as well as possible attempts to sprinkle digital cocaine in your phone could come in handy later.
Using apex predators to take out mortal enemies? Its a win-win.
Fuck sharks, crocodiles, alligators, tigers, lions, bears, hippos, etc. Anything with the ability to kill humans that hasn't learned better by now is insufficiently extinct.
I love how we have gotten to the point where every word a politician speaks has to be vetted, crafted, and teleprompeted before it is acceptable.
We have a nice little box of expectations on how we expect our leaders to act and talk. We expect them to lie to us. We expect them to abuse their power. We expect them to get away with it. We expect them to attack our rights, to push the envelope of their power over us. We expect every year it will get worse. We expect them to start wars with people we don't care one way or another about. We expect them to put the American people last and big business first. We expect them to get richer while our economy dwindles. All of that is acceptable.
But heaven forbid they say something off the cuff and not scripted. Its like you idiots are saying, "Please, please, rape our children. We want you to. But don't talk dirty while you do it. That's just unacceptable." You poor, poor senseless bastards.
People called this The Information Age. A better description would be The Bullshit Age. Everything is tainted with perspective intentionally. Attempting to remove bias is not even considered.
Ever heard the phrase "sell the sizzle, not the steak"? Bias IS the sizzle in journalistic endeavors and newsrooms all over the US. People make choices about which news outlet to frequent based on the particular flavor of bias the news outlet ascribes to. The news makers carefully construct and curate their bias, tailor it to a certain mindset, study it even, and sell the resulting slanted material to advertisers and eyeballs alike.
The same goes for education. Repackaging of history, recasting the character of pivotal people and events to support a certain narrative that has nothing to do with the actual motivations; it is big business.
Politicians do it too. They use "wedge issues" to attack the electorate, separate them into controllable groups. Tested sound bytes designed to change the conversation from one about issues to one about hurts or harms, transgressions or trespasses, real or imagined. All with the intention of removing the power and cohesiveness of American citizens. Keep them at each others throats, offended, scared, and angry. That way they continue to look to government for redress, like fucking children in the back seat vying for the attention and backing of their parents against their brothers and sisters.
No wonder children get "triggered." The adults who raised them have been pruning their own reality, cutting off the truth fact by fact, subject by subject and have been for decades. Everyone knows Bonsai trees don't do well without constant care, and that's their model for what it is to be an adult. We further weaken their minds by forcing them to practice politically correct speech which has resulted in public discourse that is so neutered it is devoid of the ability to lead to any resolution. Where the only objective is to find something to be offended about so you can cry that you were hurt by words, that you were wronged, and that the other person should be punished. Apparently that is the new definition of winning an argument, not facts, or logic, or even information. Just Bullshit. All of it. /rant
2a) Gave time for evidence to be altered, people to synchronize their stories, work with counsel to devise a cogent strategy that allowed maximum deniability while avoiding perjury charges.
4) [subtext] Knowing Lynch would not prosecute, Comey is left with the realization that the person he is investigating could be the President of the US very soon. He sees that Obama and Lynch are in the tank for Hillary for their public comments as well as their actions. So not only are his current employers against prosecution, but the person he needs to make a recommendation for or against could very well end up being his boss in short order. Holy fuck what a terrible position to be put in.
I am quite disappointed at the imagination of phone makers. A single headphone jack is one too few. How cool would it be to have two people listening to the same song/movie/video on a single device?
The commercials would write themselves:
Hipster girl on the train, headphones in, bobbing head to the beat, soundtrack playing her tune. Directly across, hipster guy headphones in, tapping his foot, soundtrack plays what he is hearing. Eyes meet, head inclines, eyebrow goes up, pointedly looking at device askance. One shows their screen to the other, the other follows suit. Guy comes and sits next to the girl, shows her the two plugs on his phone. Girl unplugs her headphones and plugs in to the guys phone with him. Shot from outside the train shows heads bobbing in sync, then leaning together, now head on shoulder. Soundtrack crescendos, train pulls off screen, phone company logo center screen. Print money.
Instead what we get is more control, less usability, isolating experiences, etc. It's like the whole idea of the modern mobile device is intentionally set up to separate people, rather than bring them together. For a communications device that is pretty ironic.
"According to sources, the decision upset some senior employees inside the company who strictly followed Twitter's long-standing commitment to unfettered free speech"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Damn, I haven't laughed this hard in a while. When I read that sentence my mind started flashing the "Unbelievable Bullshit" sign. There is nothing "unfettered" or "free" about the type of speech allowed on Twitter. That someone can say that sentence with a straight face...
Gonna call this like I called the Assange attributing the leaks to DNC staffer Seth Rich:
If the narrative becomes politically convenient, "Russian" will come to mean "Snowden."
This, however, is more of a stretch than the Assange thing. That one was as predictable rain.
What a shitty fable. It reminds me of Pascal's Wager. Give up enjoyment of your life to get something intangible, blah blah blah. Total bullshit and designed from the first letter to set the stage for controlling your behavior through "unassailable" logic. The problem is, it is not logical. People aren't ants, nor are they grasshoppers, and we have an infinite realm of choices to select from. Who is to say that you can't have a wonderful fun-filled, carefree life and have a financial present and future that works for you and your family? Just people like you who see asceticism as the one true path and ridicule others for having a good time before they die.
Well you can stick it, right in your ant bed.
Just remember two things about that fable:
1) Worker ants never get to have sex in their entire life. They toil ceaselessly without reward until they die. The queens and her mates reap the rewards of the pheromonically brainwashed under caste slaves so they can eat, fuck, lay around, and have babies without a care in the world.
2) The grasshopper didn't die. He found a half empty bottle of Thunderbird under a bridge and weathered the winter drunk as a skunk and having inter-species relations with a down-on-its-luck millipede and a displaced migrant German cockroach. I met him at an AA meeting and he told me all about it.
You want to be an ant, fine. But don't try to sell that shit to me or anyone else. Damn insectoid communists, get off my lawn!
Woah, woah, woah! Lay of the charter schools homie. You sound like one of those 'Educational choices are a war on education!!!' idiots. The US educational system is not homogeneous, nor is it fair to everyone. I am the farthest thing from a bleeding heart whatever, but I have seen first hand what happens in some our largest cities' public schools, and it's not what creates the kind of people that build, sustain, or even participate in our tech industry. Sadly, leaders in the communities that are educationally impoverished due to under performing schools are often complicit in perpetuating under performance. For example, I have heard them talk about firing teachers that have horrible records as "racist attacks."
Giving frustrated parents a way to get an actual education for their children while at the same time chastising a government funded entity in the only way they understand (their pocketbook full of taken-for-granted tax money) is a great way to make social progress.
You want to fight some for-profit system, start with the prisons.
I don't disagree with you on the subject of Trump. I also don't think the other offering is any better, just a different flavor of ass if you will. I wanted Bernie. Still do.
Regardless, I won't sacrifice my values and I am not a "the ends justify the means" kind of person. That kind of thinking got us our current choice between Tweedledee and Tweedledum, among other things, and put Trump in a good position to actually win.
Right now, Europeans think that reason must prevail, and that there's no way the American public can possibly vote in someone like that. But history has a tendency to repeat itself.
Are these reason loving Europeans the ones complaining that the people they invited into the EU are bombing, shooting, stabbing, axing, raping, and running over their friends and families? You can't have it both ways I guess. Either you are for unmitigated immigration, or you are racist xenophobe for entertaining the idea that letting in anyone and everyone without oversight or screening might be a bad idea.
You are as obtuse as you are transparent. Can't you smell your own filth?
Woah, woah, WOAH!!!! No facts man! This is /.!
Seriously though, drinking impairs judgement. And not just the judgement you use on the road once you are driving, but more importantly, the judgement you use to decide if you are too drunk to drive in the first place. Those that are too impaired to make sound decisions will, if given the opportunity by friends or bystanders, choose to drive drunk regardless of how many options you give them. And, it is those individuals that are so blasted they end up killing people that are not going to call a cab or a ride service.
Also, this quote " ride-sharing had no effect on drinking-related or holiday- and weekend-related fatalities" could also be written as "Ride sharing successful in reducing drinking related fatalities 5 days out of 7 (with the exception of holidays.)" Much different. Also, I have heard that the line between a regular accident and a "drinking related" accident can be something less than you might expect.
No need to debate. I am against any and all types and forms of election fraud. This is fundamentally because I believe in freedom, fairness, self determination, and the rule of law. I will not support disenfranchising my American brothers and sisters, regardless of whether or not they agree with my political leanings.
Thank you for your candor in admitting you are fundamentally dishonest and are willing to sacrifice our electoral system in support of whichever candidate you support. You really had me going with the first part of your post and I almost fell for it. I thought you actually were concerned about a fair election and vote counting process.
I can only imagine what you could have accomplished by playing along, amassing proof, and revealing it not to those people in the government that perpetrate and participate in these heinous actions, but to the PEOPLE who, ostensibly, still run this country as stated in the Constitution.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hold it against you in any way and I might have reacted the same as you in the same position. It just reinforces the fact that we need more people like Snowden who understand what a gift this country is and who are willing to put their lives on the line to defend us and the concept of freedom from the psychopaths that are in our own government. We should treasure them, not allow the institutions who transgressed against all of us dictate how they will deal with him and the people like him.
Hopefully future DNC leaders will think twice before acting this way, and if they continue to do these things, hopefully there will be more leaks.
They will think twice, but not about changing their actions. They will just become more clandestine and untraceable in their actions. They learned from Nixon (why didn't he just burn the tapes?) to cover their tracks well (disappearing hard drives, wiped severs, documents stolen from the national archives, etc. ad nauseum.)
However, as the American people increasingly choose and support partisan-ism as a surrogate for law, order, and justice the need for our leaders to conceal their misdeeds becomes less relevant. What I mean by this is that each time we allow our elected officials to get away with actions that even appear improper (much less that are violations of law) not only do we embolden them to engage in further abuses, but we anesthetize ourselves to the abuse. They become part and parcel of the landscape, eventually we internalize those abuses, and we learn to live with it, accept it. Furthermore, and most horribly, when someone in government does something even more outrageous than the last debacle, it is not compared against an absolute reference point like the law, or decency, or even what is acceptable. Increasingly, bad actors and their misdeeds are compared against the worst actions of past leaders and politicians.
How can a nation continue to improve when the reference points for the future actions of our leaders are the failures of our previous leaders?
Election fraud could hand Trump the presidency and there will be no way to prove it. That is a fact.
So you are only worried if election fraud helps Trump get elected? What is wrong with you??
Agreed. Bruce gets this completely wrong. The answer to security in this is not greater and more complex levels of security and secrecy. It is the exact opposite that will create the security we need, namely openness, transparency, and simplicity.
I was also thinking that an "opt-in" secret ballot would be and interesting way to reduce the error bars on the problem. Since many are already rabidly dedicated to a certain party, why not give those brainwashed minions the option of grandstanding for their overlords by allowing them to cast a non-secret ballot?
You are bringing up different issues, implying I said things I specifically did not, and straying far afield from what the original poster stated and what I stated in return. He said "attack us" as in a foreign government attacking our country. That is light years away from invading a single person's privacy, and you damn well know it.
The last part of your emails is what I can only assume to be a rebuttal of the part of my post that says the Russians should, with all haste and justification, immediately start hacking all of Hillary's emails. The only problem with that is I never said that. I don't advocate for it in any way. YOU added that to what I wrote, from your own mind. I don't know what you have going on in your head that led you to this conclusion, but it's obviously affecting your ability to think logically and critically.
The GOP presidential candidate is encouraging a hostile foreign power to intrude into US government data systems in the hopes of revealing evidence Clinton may have acted contrary to the interests of the United States.
Have I got this right?
Nope, completely wrong. First, the whole reason there was ever an issue with Hillary's emails is that they were...wait for it...on her PERSONAL system. And, you also are aware that the emails in question were never turned over to the US government. They were deleted from the copies that were handed over to the US government. You know all of this, right? You are, I sincerely hope, at least dimly aware of the facts of the case and the reason for the whole email scandal from the very beginning? In light of those simple details, what you wrote above is, lets be charitable about it, hopelessly confused and wildly inaccurate. You have my pity.
The New York Times isn't a governmental agency or a Presidential candidate. Those are held to different standards than the media. And the New York Times didn't call on foreign hackers to instigate an attack on a government server to get material
Neither did Trump. And what the hell are you talking about? The whole issue, from the very fucking beginning, with Hillary's email server was because it was a PERSONAL EMAIL SERVER. If those emails were on a government server to begin with Hillary would either be leading by 30 points right now, or on her way to prison (depending on what was on them.)
Also, the US government doesn't have any of those deleted emails, because, you know...they were, well...this is hard to say without sounding outrageously condescending....they were....deleted. You do know what "deleted" means right? Well lets let that just sit there for a minute and consider that regardless of your ability to parse simple English, those emails never were, never have been, and still are not on any government server. How you can be so incredibly obtuse is downright amazing to me. Flabbergasting. By comparison, your fundamentally flawed mental processes make Trump look like some kind of genius. Do you know how hard that is?
Try on for just a minute that you have made at least two colossal mental failures in just one short post. I now know what the phrase "not even wrong" means in context. You are so far off base in what you believe that you can't even participate in a rational discussion of the facts. It seems that you are looking so hard to find a way to discredit Trump that you have let your mind twist basic simple definitions and facts to that purpose, rather than to represent reality. And you got modded +5 for the irrational drivel you posted. That is some pretty scary shit right there. Not just that you have such a sloppy, emotionally compromised thought process, but that there are many others that are willing to believe in your delusion without first passing it through the cognitive filters of reason and logic.
Anyone running for president has NO BUSINESS making jokes about other countries engaging in acts of War against this country. That's the equivalent of making a joke about having a bomb while in line at the TSA. When they take you seriously, you deserve NO sympathy.
Wait a second...
If someone hacks my personal email server its an act of "WAR"? Sorry, but you are hopeless and confused. A personal email server means nothing at all to the government. Its a personal server. Its definitely not a government email server, and I don't own it in the legal sense of citizens owning the government. I don't have anything to do with it at all it seems, as, by the actions of our government, its officials, and Hillary herself, the contents in question are not my business (the 30,000 "personal" emails Trump was referring to). They aren't even a concern of our government. Our government hasn't asked for them forcefully. They haven't reviewed them, and they aren't planning to. Even the government emails sent and received from Hillary's personal server have been declared so innocuous that sending and receiving them did not trigger any of the provisions discussed in the briefings about classified documents. So even having access to those can't be construed as an "attack" on our government. Remember nothing marked as classified was ever sent through that email system. Might as well be quilting tips and brownie recipes, right?
None of the facts support your position. You should retract your statement as it is blatantly false.
What's even more contemptible is the situation that has arisen from a civil servant's willfulness to skirt her responsibilities to the people who employ her. She created this issue. Now everyone who isn't a zombified Hillary supporter has questions about what was in those emails.
Openness and transparency was promised. Obama assured us we would have it. Instead we have secrecy, zero accountability, and willful stonewalling...by our employees!!!. But hey, it was a personal server, and the 30,000 emails in question were only personal emails. If she wants to play it that way you can't go back and now say Trump is advocating anything having to do with government email systems, inciting harm to the government, etc. No silly "treason" accusations, no false cries of tampering with a government email system. It was a personal server, not a government server.
And, furthermore, the contents of the entire server (with the exception of the deleted "personal" emails" that no one saw but Hillary, her inner circle, and her lawyer) were all approved by the justice department, the FBI, Loretta Lynch, and Barak Obama. No classified emails were sent. Nothing that would violate her clearance protocols at all. That server was as harmless as a kitten during her term as Secretary of State. How much less relevant are the things in there now that time has passed? Well I guess we won't ever know will we?
Even if he wasn't joking, are you really saying that this quote about hacking into someone's personal email system, to acquire personal emails, that America has been assured to have ZERO classified details in them and ZERO government affiliation, is considered "inviting them (Russia) to attack us"? Hacking into a non-government server to retrieve details about a wedding and what to wear is not "an attack." Calling it one is blatant stupidity or baldfaced partisanship.
Your political thinking cap is on waaaaay too tight, homey. Its cutting off the circulation to what's left of the rational part of your brain. You know, the part that isn't pwned by a false ideology sold to you be shysters in government garb and media shills.