Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem?
I do not defend or support Hillary Clinton in any way!
I really don't get it, to be honest. Your parent is right - Trump is EXACTLY the kind of person you claim he's supposed to deal with. Let me help you understand; we're going to 'trumpify' Hillary Clinton. She:
* puts NYT's head reporter on her cabinet team because he relentlessly supported her throughtout her campaign (which they didn't really btw, they had plenty of critical articles, and when they did it was largely based on facts and policy details, not publishing blatant lies)
* puts a guy convicted of selling state secrets to a hooker in a national security position
* built a luxury estate and then refused to pay the people who built it
* is completely dependent on Russian banks to not revoke her credit, actively serves them, and caves in on policy decisions to wealthy people
* refuses to release any tax returns or details on her finances
Honestly, I'm just getting started. Can you seriously compare Trump and Clinton, and then tell me that he's the model who's going to clear corruption? I'd argue he's faaaaar more corrupt than she is, because unlike her, he is completely dependent on the establishment for power - the instant he crosses the line, they can simply impeach him and replace him with Pence. And if Pence isn't the image of an establishment Republican, I think you're not really anti-establishment, but anti-democrat. Which makes you partisian, and that isn't really a necessarily a bad thing (even though I disagree with that philosophy), but don't even pretend that you want an outsider if that's the case.
And seriously, the whole Hillary thing has got to go. She's gone, you need to get over it, and deal with our current presidential canidate, the one with with blantant ties to the mafia. Do you honestly expect a man dependent on Putin, the mafia, and the existing establishment, to prevent any new form of corruption, let alone actually clear the existing situation out?
The one shining light in all this hell is Mrs. Ivanka, who actually seems to be pretty resonable and agrees with climate change, but we'll see how long that lasts.
You must have missed the Bush years when the Dems did much the same.
I wonder then where the GOP got the idea from... or filibustering supreme court nominees. No, not a Dem idea at all.
Now thanks to Reid largely getting rid of the filibuster, the GOP is poised to teach a lesson to the dems which will resonate for a generation.
I'm no Trump fan, but the tears from the left over the last few weeks have been delicious... so it must be asked: how do you like them apples?
Resonate for a generation, sure. It's interesting to note how many of the Republican's policies - cutting social security, cutting climate protection, and trying to restrain social progress - offload all of their burdens to younger people. They tend to tell these kids, "we'll give you job oppurtunities, we'll save you taxes, anything's possible" - and then proceed to say, well, we'll be dead before climate change starts to seriously fuck us up, so no problem - pad my profits. Yeah, we know we're leaving younger people with no safety net - but hell and damnation if it's my social security that's being challenged. Yeah, we know younger people overwhelmingly support gay rights, we know they overwhelmingly support abortion rights, but they're just starting to be able to vote, so no, we'll try to plant our view in law and proceed to gerrymander districts so it's effectively unchangeable. Oh, and if the Constitution, which specifies that no religion is supposed to affect our law making process, gets in the way, then we'll ignore that part too. Hardcore Evengalical christianity isn't supposed to be a religion, it's the religion, and this process is the very kind of thing the Consitiution and the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
Furthermore, I don't think we've ever a generation that was so hated by their parents, nor one that had to face roadblocks being placed in at every step of the way decades in advance. Add to that all of our other issues, such as the competition for something as basic as a job (any job, really), and I think we're setting up our kids to grow up in one hell of a stressful environment. It's no suprise, really, that depression and suicide rates are so high - I'm not sure I'd be able to face that, and I sure as hell know that you wouldn't if you feel that insecure that you have to gloat on Slashdot about "delicious tears".
See you in four years - I fully expect you to own that vote, along with all the consequences that come with it - and that these consequences don't affect your age group isn't an excuse.
Lack of nationwide surveillance? Which satellite did he fell off? I wouldn't suppose a troll would get that high, neither such people tend to joke so hard.
You don't think tracking superbugs is important???
Such is the life of those that mix companies and open source.
No, not really. Microsoft open sourced many of their components in the.Net framework, but if I take an old version, apply 1000+ custom patches that break everything, and then try to call it "Microsoft.Net", they would be pissed - and they'd have every right to be. They may give away the code, but that does not mean they're giving away their reputation, and if this company doesn't bother to even attempt to address complaints, then they need to find a new name for it. I personally think companies are draconian over the abstractedness of copyright and imagined profit losses, but even I think Canonical has a legitimate case here.
I wonder what this''ll do for Trump's expectations. We have a bit of a paradox at the moment - he gets away with the a lot of stuff we would never let any other person say, and we accept his lack of policy, on the basis that he's inexperienced, or not a normal politician. However, at the very same time, people seem to have rather unreal standards for him - not only is he supposed to be everything that a normal president is supposed to be, classy and in tune with what's happening, but he's supposed to exceed on every metric - bring outstanding improvements to the economy, make the United States a world power (without diplomacy), and construct vast infrastructure improvements while curb stomping taxes for everyone. I honestly wonder what'll happen with his supporters when these two collide - many of them do seem to genuinely expect him to pull this off, and if he fails, they don't have anybody else to blame. 2020 might be a rather interesting election year...
Just thought I would point that out to any passing FBI operative who thinks that they can go interfering with remote devices without considering international borders.
You may just find yourself falling foul of international treaties initiated by your own government that class this sort of action as cyber-warfare. I just hope the government above the target of your hack is understanding and decides not to retaliate with physical force to your electronic attack.
I for one would find it an interesting exercise in jurisprudence for the FBI to be indicted in a foreign court for cyberwarfare.
If I may point out, however, Russia and China engage in this venue quite frequently, and neither has received much push back from the USA. Assuming they consider it a legitimate manner of investigation, they probably wouldn't care, and given that they're the only two countries capable of doing anything other than lodging a complaint, I don't think the FBI is going to be very reserved in the use of its new found power. Particularly against those domestic terrorists, the Democrats...
Sure, SPD can be a strawberry then. Substituting fruits makes this all sound like an argument between preschoolers - and to be honest, I feel like that's what we've all become at this point. I hope calling the CDU/CSU a banana helps at least one person realize how crazy this political cycle has become, and maybe we can start to show respect for each other, some day in the distant future I suspect, but still.
Project Veritas proved that to such a standard that the DNC may be charged under RICO under the next administration.
They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years.
But as a liberal, you are immune to logic and evidence, so enjoy your false reality while it lasts.
You are bullshit, they never bussed people around, and if you want to try that line then you better have a citation for it. But she did engage in some really shady practices around Bernie's campaign, in particular, working with the DNC to limit Bernie's debate time, and giving her an advantage before them. That was a story I thought was worth knowing about, even when we suspected it, it was important for it to be confirmed - and we know she did these because, well, they're preserved by email.
While I agree strongly with your sentiment in the rigging part, keep in mind that wikileaks obtained the info illegally, which is in general an advantage over running a legal news service (wikileaks hasn't leaked for a good intention in years and this wasn't done because they thought the world should kmow, it's pretty much a political tool at this point).
Wrong. Whoever hacked the democrats, did so illegally. Wikileaks itself didn't do anything illegal by receiving the resulting data. Otherwise. Otherwise all the News Services like CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. would all be criminally liable as well when they released the Snowden Papers, the files from Manning, even back to the Pentagon papers etc.
When it helped the media and served their political narrative, they welcomed wikileaks. Now that they don't like what is leaked they, and you condemn it. Hypocrites.
Wikileaks didn't change, the media did, even when Assange has an obvious agenda: he always did.
The problem with Wikileaks is the line between editor and submitter is extremely blurred. Wikileaks doesn't just report news, they often encourage and even participate in these very same hacks - it's the difference between CNN receiving an anonymous leak and actually hacking someone themselves and then claiming it was anonymous. If CNN actively worked with and helped to coordinate said hack, I'd hold them the same way I hold wikileaks.
As to wikileaks, no, not really. Early on, they did some really good work, especially with Snowdan's leaks in particular. They kicked off a massive debate about an issue of genuine importance, and they took a risk that no one else would. They took careful steps to ensure no one unnecessarily got hurt, including retracting unimportant info and keeping out the actually strategically important docs. Now, however, they clearly held onto this story for a long time, and they didn't release it because they thought he world needed to know - they did it because they wanted Clinton's ratings to drop. They didn't take info from a leaker and vet it, they dumped documents from shady people tied to a foreign government that were either of no importance or blatant propaganda, with only one major exception. I lost my respect for them because of shady journaling and no interest in their core mission goal, not because I disagree (or even agree) with their political views.
It sure is nice for the entire Left to reveal themselves for the intolerant bigots they are.
Can I block all cookies from AppNexus? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.
Sooo, here's your speech:
It sure is nice for the entire Right to reveal themselves for the raging socialists they are.
Can I block all cookies from DoubleClick? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.
Using an extremely vaguely defined political philosophy as an insult, pet alone the hilarious idiocy of thinking an ad network represents the entirety of said vaguely defined political philosophy. You know, from now on Slashdot, we're replacing "Left" and "Right" with "Apples" and "Mangoes". I may disagree with it, but I don't really understand how labelling someone as "Conservative" is an insult - and I believe all sides, every political philosophy, can agree this is stupid.
If it's the one thing people can still agree on, because apparently rational discussion and respect for other's opinions went out the door this year.
Can't admit that HIllary lost because of real news (like her rigging the primary) reported by Wikileaks, and that CNN/etc exposed themselves as fake news outlets by trying to bury that story (and a hundred others).
While I agree strongly with your sentiment in the rigging part, keep in mind that wikileaks obtained the info illegally, which is in general an advantage over running a legal news service (wikileaks hasn't leaked for a good intention in years and this wasn't done because they thought the world should kmow, it's pretty much a political tool at this point). There's a very good reason we don't allow news services that kind of power, and while I'm glad we finally got confirmation about it, let's not cheer it on to the point where this becomes normal.
Almost all the rest of Wikileak's news on the election was absolute garbage too, and one great scoop doesn't excuse months of lies, outright lies, stories we already knew, and some plainly pure bullshit.
Clinton didn't go to jail for insecure email sending top secret material?
Then I don't know why I should care anyone was using insecure internet at the pentagon.
Either you have laws or you don't When you say that you laws don't apply then why should anyone care when they are broken by anyone else?
If you send Clinton to jail, then I can start caring about what someone does wth an insecure internet connection at the pentagon, which I would say is treason if we are actually starting to enforce laws.
Until Clinton goes to jail, I see no reason for anyone to treat the law with any respect whatsoever.
Whatever happened to the Constitution specifying "innocent until proven guilty"?
I am not pro or anti Trump but this story is full of shit. Here's why: Trump is proposing to MOVE climate research etc. to the EPA, NCAR and other agencies, NOT eliminate it. NASA will focus on hard space research. The dollars spent will not change - just the agencies.
Secondly, the goal is to de-politicize the research so that dissenting viewpoints can be presented along with majority viewpoints.
This is the basis of the scientific method, not of trying for outcomes that are political.
Don't ever forget the story of Dr. Barry Warren who discovered the cure for most ulcers. Because Big Pharma stood to lose millions, his research was quashed. It wasn't until he gave himself an ulcer and cured it that the story got out.
Same goes for climate: let's focus on proper, scientific research and NOT on opinion and emotion. This way we can arrive at empirical evidence to support solutions to climate change. Don't ever forget, it was NIXON who created the EPA. Trump may surprise with his pragmatic approach... on the other hand, he may not! LOL
Yeah, the EPA he wants to disband, the NCAR which makes research he ignores, and the NOAA that he refuses to fund. Without any satellites of any kind. Expecting a space agency to somehow train itself without ever using Earth's climate as a model. Because Trump is the kind of person who enjoys research and hearing other people's opinions.
I say this politely, but I strongly urge you to take a serious look at Trump and his advisors.
but after that we can hamstring him with a Democratic congress (don't forget to vote in your primaries or you'll get Blue Dogs).
And barring a war he's a 1 term president with 8 years of democrats to follow. That'll stop the bleeding. If you want the damage undone then you'll need to give the Dems a super majority in the senate and probably some state legislatures.
Jaaaaaaa we'll just put Democrats in charge of extremely Republican dominated states, in which only the residents of those states are going to vote. Eh, I have my doubts of that working - and in 2020, we do redistricting again. If the Republicans control Congress then, they'll gerrymander it even worse than 2010, and we'll be stuck with them for another 10 years. I don't think people realize how much damage Trump will be able to do, and while I applaud a positive attitude, this isn't something we're going to be able to fix in 8 years, especially not with how many people seem to be okay with where we're going.
Bernie Sanders wasn't running for President. You could do a write-in, but at that point, you may as well write in Mickey Mouse.
Err, I guess I jumped top far ahead. Do you live in a state where you have to register to a party to vote in a primary? What would you say about Sanders vs Trump?
So today the airwaves are flooded with stories about Trump "backtracking" on promisss from reporters quoting "hearsay" from a paper that loathes Donald Trump and actively supported his opposition.
So this story must automatically be true?
Because the sources are reputable?
Well, get off your armchair and go see. Do your own research. Maybe actually THINK FOR YOURSELF, for once. Given that the sources are literally Donald Trump himself, it really shouldn't be too hard to google, "donald trump climate change", read about an interview with the New York times, and watch him say whatever words he does. After that, you can draw your on conclusion of what that means and why, really really preferably with a logical explanation.
Of course, this actually requires you to venture outside a single newspaper, it will require a few minutes of your time, and it will require you to actually think. Are you up for that?
Predicted that Trumps real position on climate change was actually "I don't know because I haven't looked into it," and that once he did, if he decided it was a problem, he'd be the only person who could convince the Republican base that it was a problem and that something needed to be done. That no Democrat ever could, but Trump could carry the Republicans right along because they see him as one of them, and very credible.
Mr. Adams is a very observant wingnut.
Mmm, I disagree, to be honest, for several reasons. Trump's made it pretty clear that he doesn't consider himself a Republican - even though the two crowds are rather similar in many of their beliefs, religious conservatives and Trump's crowd don't really see each other as one group. If Trump starts to walk back on too many of his promises, then he'll be branded a complete outsider - upon which they might pay him lip service, but they're not going to jump on board with any of his ideas for the long term.
Secondly, many traditional republicans are extreeeeeeemley religious, and base almost all of their stances on whatever their church says. These people aren't against climate change because they disagree with the model, they're against it because of "faith", and faith by definition is not based on logic or rationality. Attempting to reason with someone like this won't get you anywhere because they're not in that arena to begin with, so unless Trump dons the robes, they're simply going to ignore whatever he says unless they think their chance of reelection is in danger. Given the 96% reelection rate this year among congressional officials, people clearly don't feel all that disenfranchised for the establishment that they keep voting for, year after year after year.
I'll be curious to what Scott Adams says as time passes. I think the man got lucky on chance, but we'll see whether his observations hold true or not.
Pretty telling reaction you have there. Instead of, "Hurray, this man who I thought was evil incarnate is changing his mind in view of new information, exactly what we want to see in a politician," it's nothing but hatred towards the downtrodden Americans to whom he was the last resort for change. You're not by chance a big-city liberal, are you? That would explain a lot.
Never forget that Trump was never, ever a positive candidate that people were for. He was the last dying gasp of a people who were being crushed by heartless sociopathic globalists. He was a big "NO" to Hillary, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the entire "fuck you, middle America" mentality that they represent. And from your comment, you sound like one of them. Here's one of your tribe with a typical stone-hearted reaction, do you agree with him? How does that make you feel?
In this election, if you support Donald Trump, you are "the others." I have zero interest in knowing, interacting with, tolerating or otherwise sharing my time or bits of my life with anyone who supports Trump. I don't say that defiantly or righteously, just as fact. Don't follow me on social media. Don't talk to me at parties, at school functions, as a neighbor or even as a friend. Your decision says all I need to know about you. You can't unspin it or rationalize it to me.
-- Tim Goodman
What makes you support Donald Trump over Bernie Sanders, if I may ask? As a supporter of the latter, I'm curious as to what would motivate someone to support the former, especially with Trump's reluctance to reveal any of his business dealings or his foreign ties. What exactly does he do that inspires your support?
Disingenuous politically correct virtue signalling, as it so often man(oops sexism)ifests as kicking THE GREAT SATAN and its innocent sons, is bigoted in and of itself - not to mention narcissistic.
Is there a native English speaker who can translate this for me?
Depends on the dialect. You can interpret it as either, "somebody swapped out my decaf" or "these new recreational marijuana laws are fantastic!", depending on what the stress is when you say it out loud - but given THE GREAT SATAN, it's proooobably the latter.
Why is it bad to be able to pay more for higher speeds to some selected destinations? Overall your cable bill could be lower if you just need browsing speed for most sites but want to have a very fast connection for a handful of streaming video sites you use regularly...
That would actually make 4k streaming practical, for example.
You say that's bad, I say that's progress which is something we've not seen in a while. Under existing laws our network speeds are stagnating, Google is pulling out of fiber now...
Because that's not how companies work. Do you seriously think Comcast is going to spend your money on infrastructure improvements to handle that? The fear is that instead, they'll lower all websites to 56.8 kbps, and then they charge both you and the website owners if you want anything higher - for example, the speeds we already have today. It stagnates development, it stagnates small websites, and it causes every customer to pay more - the only possible benefactor in this equation would be Comcast.
You misunderstand the situation. America just got away from a president who thought he was an emperor, passing laws by fiat. We now have a president who is going to undo those laws, and act like a president of old. Passing laws with the help of congress. It's going to be wonderful. And btw, sales of guns have dropped since he won the election. They were abnormally high under Obama, because, rightfully, no one trusted him to keep our freedoms intact.
Don't cry for us. We are about to have explosive growth in our economy, and an increase in a few freedoms for all Americans. It's a good thing.
Which freedoms are going to be increased? Where is this economic growth going to come from? When did Obama try to take your guns away, exactly?
Pretty much for the first time in a long time we might actually be able to get some pretty crappy progressive rulings knocked down and get some of our individual rights back.
What individual rights or crappy progressive rulings do you mean, exactly?
Zorin OS features some really great features, such as Google Drive integration with the file browser.
Zorin OS features some really dangerous and insecure features, such as Google Drive imposed loss of control over data, data security, user privacy and accessibility via the file browser.
FTFTFS:
Run right out there and get that! What could go wrong? After all... it's Google.
How is supporting Google Drive integration a bad thing? You have to choose to use Google Drive in the first place, so unless there's a vulnerability in the layer itself, I don't really see what your point is.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the problem with that situation: If you're so fed up with political corruption, why the fuck are you defending the very people who are perpetuating the problem?
I do not defend or support Hillary Clinton in any way!
I really don't get it, to be honest. Your parent is right - Trump is EXACTLY the kind of person you claim he's supposed to deal with. Let me help you understand; we're going to 'trumpify' Hillary Clinton. She:
* puts NYT's head reporter on her cabinet team because he relentlessly supported her throughtout her campaign (which they didn't really btw, they had plenty of critical articles, and when they did it was largely based on facts and policy details, not publishing blatant lies)
* puts a guy convicted of selling state secrets to a hooker in a national security position
* built a luxury estate and then refused to pay the people who built it
* is completely dependent on Russian banks to not revoke her credit, actively serves them, and caves in on policy decisions to wealthy people
* refuses to release any tax returns or details on her finances
Honestly, I'm just getting started. Can you seriously compare Trump and Clinton, and then tell me that he's the model who's going to clear corruption? I'd argue he's faaaaar more corrupt than she is, because unlike her, he is completely dependent on the establishment for power - the instant he crosses the line, they can simply impeach him and replace him with Pence. And if Pence isn't the image of an establishment Republican, I think you're not really anti-establishment, but anti-democrat. Which makes you partisian, and that isn't really a necessarily a bad thing (even though I disagree with that philosophy), but don't even pretend that you want an outsider if that's the case.
And seriously, the whole Hillary thing has got to go. She's gone, you need to get over it, and deal with our current presidential canidate, the one with with blantant ties to the mafia. Do you honestly expect a man dependent on Putin, the mafia, and the existing establishment, to prevent any new form of corruption, let alone actually clear the existing situation out?
The one shining light in all this hell is Mrs. Ivanka, who actually seems to be pretty resonable and agrees with climate change, but we'll see how long that lasts.
You must have missed the Bush years when the Dems did much the same.
I wonder then where the GOP got the idea from... or filibustering supreme court nominees. No, not a Dem idea at all.
Now thanks to Reid largely getting rid of the filibuster, the GOP is poised to teach a lesson to the dems which will resonate for a generation.
I'm no Trump fan, but the tears from the left over the last few weeks have been delicious... so it must be asked: how do you like them apples?
Resonate for a generation, sure. It's interesting to note how many of the Republican's policies - cutting social security, cutting climate protection, and trying to restrain social progress - offload all of their burdens to younger people. They tend to tell these kids, "we'll give you job oppurtunities, we'll save you taxes, anything's possible" - and then proceed to say, well, we'll be dead before climate change starts to seriously fuck us up, so no problem - pad my profits. Yeah, we know we're leaving younger people with no safety net - but hell and damnation if it's my social security that's being challenged. Yeah, we know younger people overwhelmingly support gay rights, we know they overwhelmingly support abortion rights, but they're just starting to be able to vote, so no, we'll try to plant our view in law and proceed to gerrymander districts so it's effectively unchangeable. Oh, and if the Constitution, which specifies that no religion is supposed to affect our law making process, gets in the way, then we'll ignore that part too. Hardcore Evengalical christianity isn't supposed to be a religion, it's the religion, and this process is the very kind of thing the Consitiution and the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
Furthermore, I don't think we've ever a generation that was so hated by their parents, nor one that had to face roadblocks being placed in at every step of the way decades in advance. Add to that all of our other issues, such as the competition for something as basic as a job (any job, really), and I think we're setting up our kids to grow up in one hell of a stressful environment. It's no suprise, really, that depression and suicide rates are so high - I'm not sure I'd be able to face that, and I sure as hell know that you wouldn't if you feel that insecure that you have to gloat on Slashdot about "delicious tears".
See you in four years - I fully expect you to own that vote, along with all the consequences that come with it - and that these consequences don't affect your age group isn't an excuse.
Lack of nationwide surveillance? Which satellite did he fell off? I wouldn't suppose a troll would get that high, neither such people tend to joke so hard.
You don't think tracking superbugs is important???
Such is the life of those that mix companies and open source.
No, not really. Microsoft open sourced many of their components in the .Net framework, but if I take an old version, apply 1000+ custom patches that break everything, and then try to call it "Microsoft .Net", they would be pissed - and they'd have every right to be. They may give away the code, but that does not mean they're giving away their reputation, and if this company doesn't bother to even attempt to address complaints, then they need to find a new name for it. I personally think companies are draconian over the abstractedness of copyright and imagined profit losses, but even I think Canonical has a legitimate case here.
I wonder what this''ll do for Trump's expectations. We have a bit of a paradox at the moment - he gets away with the a lot of stuff we would never let any other person say, and we accept his lack of policy, on the basis that he's inexperienced, or not a normal politician. However, at the very same time, people seem to have rather unreal standards for him - not only is he supposed to be everything that a normal president is supposed to be, classy and in tune with what's happening, but he's supposed to exceed on every metric - bring outstanding improvements to the economy, make the United States a world power (without diplomacy), and construct vast infrastructure improvements while curb stomping taxes for everyone. I honestly wonder what'll happen with his supporters when these two collide - many of them do seem to genuinely expect him to pull this off, and if he fails, they don't have anybody else to blame. 2020 might be a rather interesting election year...
Just thought I would point that out to any passing FBI operative who thinks that they can go interfering with remote devices without considering international borders.
You may just find yourself falling foul of international treaties initiated by your own government that class this sort of action as cyber-warfare. I just hope the government above the target of your hack is understanding and decides not to retaliate with physical force to your electronic attack.
I for one would find it an interesting exercise in jurisprudence for the FBI to be indicted in a foreign court for cyberwarfare.
If I may point out, however, Russia and China engage in this venue quite frequently, and neither has received much push back from the USA. Assuming they consider it a legitimate manner of investigation, they probably wouldn't care, and given that they're the only two countries capable of doing anything other than lodging a complaint, I don't think the FBI is going to be very reserved in the use of its new found power. Particularly against those domestic terrorists, the Democrats...
Sounds good. So then is CDU/CSU a banana?
Sure, SPD can be a strawberry then. Substituting fruits makes this all sound like an argument between preschoolers - and to be honest, I feel like that's what we've all become at this point. I hope calling the CDU/CSU a banana helps at least one person realize how crazy this political cycle has become, and maybe we can start to show respect for each other, some day in the distant future I suspect, but still.
Project Veritas proved that to such a standard that the DNC may be charged under RICO under the next administration.
They literally admitted to literally bussing people around to vote multiple times and claimed they had been doing it for 50 years.
But as a liberal, you are immune to logic and evidence, so enjoy your false reality while it lasts.
You are bullshit, they never bussed people around, and if you want to try that line then you better have a citation for it. But she did engage in some really shady practices around Bernie's campaign, in particular, working with the DNC to limit Bernie's debate time, and giving her an advantage before them. That was a story I thought was worth knowing about, even when we suspected it, it was important for it to be confirmed - and we know she did these because, well, they're preserved by email.
While I agree strongly with your sentiment in the rigging part, keep in mind that wikileaks obtained the info illegally, which is in general an advantage over running a legal news service (wikileaks hasn't leaked for a good intention in years and this wasn't done because they thought the world should kmow, it's pretty much a political tool at this point).
Wrong. Whoever hacked the democrats, did so illegally. Wikileaks itself didn't do anything illegal by receiving the resulting data. Otherwise. Otherwise all the News Services like CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. would all be criminally liable as well when they released the Snowden Papers, the files from Manning, even back to the Pentagon papers etc. When it helped the media and served their political narrative, they welcomed wikileaks. Now that they don't like what is leaked they, and you condemn it. Hypocrites.
Wikileaks didn't change, the media did, even when Assange has an obvious agenda: he always did.
The problem with Wikileaks is the line between editor and submitter is extremely blurred. Wikileaks doesn't just report news, they often encourage and even participate in these very same hacks - it's the difference between CNN receiving an anonymous leak and actually hacking someone themselves and then claiming it was anonymous. If CNN actively worked with and helped to coordinate said hack, I'd hold them the same way I hold wikileaks.
As to wikileaks, no, not really. Early on, they did some really good work, especially with Snowdan's leaks in particular. They kicked off a massive debate about an issue of genuine importance, and they took a risk that no one else would. They took careful steps to ensure no one unnecessarily got hurt, including retracting unimportant info and keeping out the actually strategically important docs. Now, however, they clearly held onto this story for a long time, and they didn't release it because they thought he world needed to know - they did it because they wanted Clinton's ratings to drop. They didn't take info from a leaker and vet it, they dumped documents from shady people tied to a foreign government that were either of no importance or blatant propaganda, with only one major exception. I lost my respect for them because of shady journaling and no interest in their core mission goal, not because I disagree (or even agree) with their political views.
It sure is nice for the entire Left to reveal themselves for the intolerant bigots they are.
Can I block all cookies from AppNexus? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.
Sooo, here's your speech:
It sure is nice for the entire Right to reveal themselves for the raging socialists they are.
Can I block all cookies from DoubleClick? Maybe uOrigin has that feature.
Using an extremely vaguely defined political philosophy as an insult, pet alone the hilarious idiocy of thinking an ad network represents the entirety of said vaguely defined political philosophy. You know, from now on Slashdot, we're replacing "Left" and "Right" with "Apples" and "Mangoes". I may disagree with it, but I don't really understand how labelling someone as "Conservative" is an insult - and I believe all sides, every political philosophy, can agree this is stupid.
If it's the one thing people can still agree on, because apparently rational discussion and respect for other's opinions went out the door this year.
Can't admit that HIllary lost because of real news (like her rigging the primary) reported by Wikileaks, and that CNN/etc exposed themselves as fake news outlets by trying to bury that story (and a hundred others).
While I agree strongly with your sentiment in the rigging part, keep in mind that wikileaks obtained the info illegally, which is in general an advantage over running a legal news service (wikileaks hasn't leaked for a good intention in years and this wasn't done because they thought the world should kmow, it's pretty much a political tool at this point). There's a very good reason we don't allow news services that kind of power, and while I'm glad we finally got confirmation about it, let's not cheer it on to the point where this becomes normal.
Almost all the rest of Wikileak's news on the election was absolute garbage too, and one great scoop doesn't excuse months of lies, outright lies, stories we already knew, and some plainly pure bullshit.
Coney gave a long speech detailing exactly how she broke the law then concluded it by saying that the FBI recommended no charges.
How, exactly, did she break the law? (Not a bait question, seriously, I honestly want to hear what you think she did illegally)
She was proven guilty, the FBI said so. They just said it was too much trouble to prosecute her.
Whatever happened to "punishment for being found guilty".
When did she get a trial, as guaranteed under the Constitution, had the evidence carefully examined, and got a decision made based on that?
For that matter, when did the FBI ever say she was guilty?
Clinton didn't go to jail for insecure email sending top secret material?
Then I don't know why I should care anyone was using insecure internet at the pentagon.
Either you have laws or you don't When you say that you laws don't apply then why should anyone care when they are broken by anyone else?
If you send Clinton to jail, then I can start caring about what someone does wth an insecure internet connection at the pentagon, which I would say is treason if we are actually starting to enforce laws.
Until Clinton goes to jail, I see no reason for anyone to treat the law with any respect whatsoever.
Whatever happened to the Constitution specifying "innocent until proven guilty"?
I am not pro or anti Trump but this story is full of shit. Here's why: Trump is proposing to MOVE climate research etc. to the EPA, NCAR and other agencies, NOT eliminate it. NASA will focus on hard space research. The dollars spent will not change - just the agencies.
Secondly, the goal is to de-politicize the research so that dissenting viewpoints can be presented along with majority viewpoints.
This is the basis of the scientific method, not of trying for outcomes that are political.
Don't ever forget the story of Dr. Barry Warren who discovered the cure for most ulcers. Because Big Pharma stood to lose millions, his research was quashed. It wasn't until he gave himself an ulcer and cured it that the story got out.
Same goes for climate: let's focus on proper, scientific research and NOT on opinion and emotion. This way we can arrive at empirical evidence to support solutions to climate change. Don't ever forget, it was NIXON who created the EPA. Trump may surprise with his pragmatic approach... on the other hand, he may not! LOL
Yeah, the EPA he wants to disband, the NCAR which makes research he ignores, and the NOAA that he refuses to fund. Without any satellites of any kind. Expecting a space agency to somehow train itself without ever using Earth's climate as a model. Because Trump is the kind of person who enjoys research and hearing other people's opinions.
I say this politely, but I strongly urge you to take a serious look at Trump and his advisors.
but after that we can hamstring him with a Democratic congress (don't forget to vote in your primaries or you'll get Blue Dogs). And barring a war he's a 1 term president with 8 years of democrats to follow. That'll stop the bleeding. If you want the damage undone then you'll need to give the Dems a super majority in the senate and probably some state legislatures.
Jaaaaaaa we'll just put Democrats in charge of extremely Republican dominated states, in which only the residents of those states are going to vote. Eh, I have my doubts of that working - and in 2020, we do redistricting again. If the Republicans control Congress then, they'll gerrymander it even worse than 2010, and we'll be stuck with them for another 10 years. I don't think people realize how much damage Trump will be able to do, and while I applaud a positive attitude, this isn't something we're going to be able to fix in 8 years, especially not with how many people seem to be okay with where we're going.
Bernie Sanders wasn't running for President. You could do a write-in, but at that point, you may as well write in Mickey Mouse.
Err, I guess I jumped top far ahead. Do you live in a state where you have to register to a party to vote in a primary? What would you say about Sanders vs Trump?
So today the airwaves are flooded with stories about Trump "backtracking" on promisss from reporters quoting "hearsay" from a paper that loathes Donald Trump and actively supported his opposition.
So this story must automatically be true?
Because the sources are reputable?
Well, get off your armchair and go see. Do your own research. Maybe actually THINK FOR YOURSELF, for once. Given that the sources are literally Donald Trump himself, it really shouldn't be too hard to google, "donald trump climate change", read about an interview with the New York times, and watch him say whatever words he does. After that, you can draw your on conclusion of what that means and why, really really preferably with a logical explanation.
Of course, this actually requires you to venture outside a single newspaper, it will require a few minutes of your time, and it will require you to actually think. Are you up for that?
Scott Adams predicted this in May.
Predicted that Trumps real position on climate change was actually "I don't know because I haven't looked into it," and that once he did, if he decided it was a problem, he'd be the only person who could convince the Republican base that it was a problem and that something needed to be done. That no Democrat ever could, but Trump could carry the Republicans right along because they see him as one of them, and very credible.
Mr. Adams is a very observant wingnut.
Mmm, I disagree, to be honest, for several reasons. Trump's made it pretty clear that he doesn't consider himself a Republican - even though the two crowds are rather similar in many of their beliefs, religious conservatives and Trump's crowd don't really see each other as one group. If Trump starts to walk back on too many of his promises, then he'll be branded a complete outsider - upon which they might pay him lip service, but they're not going to jump on board with any of his ideas for the long term.
Secondly, many traditional republicans are extreeeeeeemley religious, and base almost all of their stances on whatever their church says. These people aren't against climate change because they disagree with the model, they're against it because of "faith", and faith by definition is not based on logic or rationality. Attempting to reason with someone like this won't get you anywhere because they're not in that arena to begin with, so unless Trump dons the robes, they're simply going to ignore whatever he says unless they think their chance of reelection is in danger. Given the 96% reelection rate this year among congressional officials, people clearly don't feel all that disenfranchised for the establishment that they keep voting for, year after year after year.
I'll be curious to what Scott Adams says as time passes. I think the man got lucky on chance, but we'll see whether his observations hold true or not.
Pretty telling reaction you have there. Instead of, "Hurray, this man who I thought was evil incarnate is changing his mind in view of new information, exactly what we want to see in a politician," it's nothing but hatred towards the downtrodden Americans to whom he was the last resort for change. You're not by chance a big-city liberal, are you? That would explain a lot.
Never forget that Trump was never, ever a positive candidate that people were for. He was the last dying gasp of a people who were being crushed by heartless sociopathic globalists. He was a big "NO" to Hillary, the Democrats, the Republicans, and the entire "fuck you, middle America" mentality that they represent. And from your comment, you sound like one of them. Here's one of your tribe with a typical stone-hearted reaction, do you agree with him? How does that make you feel?
-- Tim Goodman
What makes you support Donald Trump over Bernie Sanders, if I may ask? As a supporter of the latter, I'm curious as to what would motivate someone to support the former, especially with Trump's reluctance to reveal any of his business dealings or his foreign ties. What exactly does he do that inspires your support?
Is there a native English speaker who can translate this for me?
Depends on the dialect. You can interpret it as either, "somebody swapped out my decaf" or "these new recreational marijuana laws are fantastic!", depending on what the stress is when you say it out loud - but given THE GREAT SATAN , it's proooobably the latter.
Why is it bad to be able to pay more for higher speeds to some selected destinations? Overall your cable bill could be lower if you just need browsing speed for most sites but want to have a very fast connection for a handful of streaming video sites you use regularly...
That would actually make 4k streaming practical, for example.
You say that's bad, I say that's progress which is something we've not seen in a while. Under existing laws our network speeds are stagnating, Google is pulling out of fiber now...
Because that's not how companies work. Do you seriously think Comcast is going to spend your money on infrastructure improvements to handle that? The fear is that instead, they'll lower all websites to 56.8 kbps, and then they charge both you and the website owners if you want anything higher - for example, the speeds we already have today. It stagnates development, it stagnates small websites, and it causes every customer to pay more - the only possible benefactor in this equation would be Comcast.
You misunderstand the situation. America just got away from a president who thought he was an emperor, passing laws by fiat. We now have a president who is going to undo those laws, and act like a president of old. Passing laws with the help of congress. It's going to be wonderful. And btw, sales of guns have dropped since he won the election. They were abnormally high under Obama, because, rightfully, no one trusted him to keep our freedoms intact. Don't cry for us. We are about to have explosive growth in our economy, and an increase in a few freedoms for all Americans. It's a good thing.
Which freedoms are going to be increased? Where is this economic growth going to come from? When did Obama try to take your guns away, exactly?
It is going to be amazing. O.O
Pretty much for the first time in a long time we might actually be able to get some pretty crappy progressive rulings knocked down and get some of our individual rights back.
What individual rights or crappy progressive rulings do you mean, exactly?
Zorin OS features some really dangerous and insecure features, such as Google Drive imposed loss of control over data, data security, user privacy and accessibility via the file browser.
FTFTFS:
Run right out there and get that! What could go wrong? After all... it's Google.
How is supporting Google Drive integration a bad thing? You have to choose to use Google Drive in the first place, so unless there's a vulnerability in the layer itself, I don't really see what your point is.