I honestly can't agree with him in saying that it revealed no crime or violation of public policy.
It showed us that the Democratic primaries are meaningless. If the "wrong" person is winning, they'll shut off your access to their systems, blackmail you, etc. Let alone the other things Bernie's supporters actually found out during said primaries more directly.
It showed us that the media is on a tight leash, having to run their stories past the DNC for review, they operate behind their own lawyers' backs in having their donors pay for access to the WaPo party, etc.
It gave us a window into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) showing how influence is bought and sold.
Just because the same media exposed by these leaks did not report on the majority of the things found does nothing to undermine the revelations themselves.
The problem here is authoritarianism, not partisan name calling. If the federal government couldn't run your life for you, you wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place. But let's look at the list in detail, shall we? I'll come back to it at the end, but this is a good summary about why this is 'crying wolf' that sums up a lot of what I'm trying to point out here.
> The cult of tradition
It's not clear how this makes anyone bad. Is it wrong to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family? Or just because we label anything we dislike as a "cult." Usually the problem with cults is that they go out and, say, cause violence or such, which we'll discuss below.
> The rejection of modernism
Luddism is a problem, but declaring "this is new, it must be better" isn't exactly logical and is funny to contrast with "action for action's sake." If you want Luddites, just look at the email between Hillary & Colin Powell and their rejection of operational security.
> The cult of action for action’s sake
This is really weak. For one, Trump's actions were purposeful--he won by spending far less than Hillary did. For another, we're calling people fascist for what? Working too hard? It's true that Trump held a lot of political rallies and Hillary held very few, but she might not have done so badly if she hadn't assumed the "blue firewall" would magically hold and had actually cared what those people wanted.
This is also fluff. You could apply it to lots of politicians (businesses, etc.) that most people wouldn't label as "fascist."
> Disagreement is treason
Finally we get somewhere! Sure, that's bad. Two minute hates? We've seen plenty about Donald (every other Slashdot story on Trump?). So long as we declare someone the bad guy, though, it's okay, right? I mean, just look at all that violence at the rallies! Oh, wait, the Democrats staged that. Maybe the intolerance of gays? Err, wait, it's the Advocate that decided Peter Thiel wasn't really gay any more because he backed Trump. And Trump was up there holding the gay pride flag. But it was upside-down! Because the most important thing about the gay flag is its orientation, right?:)
Oh! He complained about the media too!
You know, the CNN that told us it was illegal to read wikileaks (a lie from a CNN lawyer who should know better) so we wouldn't find out that they rigged the debates as we can establish from DKIM-authenticated emails that cover the body & body hash. And we have Google's signature on it as well as Hillary's email server. Or how they sold donors access to the Washington Post's party while appearing to go behind their own lawyers' backs?
So, uhh, remind me why it's fascist to complain about people rigging debates again? Or why 2 minute hates are bad... unless the press holds them?:)
> Fear of difference
That's odd to hear given how many sites like Reddit are all for censoring the opinions they don't like. It's their site, of course, but I'm allowed to criticize them for it. And I'm far more afraid of these people who would attack someone for voting the wrong way. Feel free to check that on Snopes. They'll say the truth is "mixed" because they feel it very important to know that there was a fender bender just prior to the g
That's fair. I can't really fault you for not knowing about what they said in an interview when I didn't realize they were saying different things in different places until you spoke up.
I appreciate you sharing all that information, thank you.
I didn't make it up, I just saw an interview where they said differently. You see, George Martin, who sits on the Green Party's coordinating committee, said something rather different in an interview.
Excess money raised for the recount will go to Green Party campaign schools next year "to groom local candidates," Martin said.
Or maybe they think that this qualifies as that? I'm not sure why they would send mixed messages.
I was trying to skim it, but yes, there are a lot of subtleties to go into this. Bottom line, they didn't get picked as electors by people who thought they could be persuaded to vote for someone else.
And you need a *lot* of them, barring strange scenarios where a recount keeps a few entire states from certifying electors.
> Buried under your heap of sources was in fact nothing about how Soros funded this, which one of the things that the GP was complaining about "making shit up".
They at no time referenced what was being made up. I pointed out this appears to be an opinion founded on the fact that Jill Stein doesn't benefit from recounts in those states.
However I now see they're keeping excess donations. So feel free to give them lots of money for nothing:)
Yes, it's more work, but the work only has to be done once to rebut a particular theory and the more of your theories that get properly busted, the less anyone should be willing to listen.
You may be forgetting that people like that also fake the people agreeing with their nonsense posts too and mistaking that for real support.
Don't get me wrong--I'm sure you'll still find idiots out there, but it's hard to convince anyone of something that's against their self-interest.
Last I heard, the EM drive will get tested in space. If there really is anything giving it mystery thrust, we'll see it move. If not, it's a lump of space junk.
Not sure why you're worried about that when we're going to have empirical results to look at.
> Intent is irrelevant to a charge of gross negligence.
Not just irrelevant, it's literally contradictory. If you have intent, it wasn't negligence and vice versa.
So saying that you'd only prosecute someone for intentional negligence is essentially saying if (intent and (not intent)) { prosecute } which of course cannot possibly reach the 'prosecute' under any circumstances.
> there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
No, there's good reason to think stuff got shared with Huma and Hillary's lawyers, among others. It's in the docs the FBI released.
Regarding the alleged lack of intent, you can find a good summary here going over this.
I won't claim to be a Republican but you can scroll up the page and find my post saying that everyone should be held to the same standard, including Colin Powell, who appears to have largely escaped notice for doing pretty much the same thing this guy did.
This isn't really true for breeder reactors. Materials can undergo nuclear activation by capturing neutrons. The infamous nuclear boy scout managed a fair bit of this, once he learned to use water as a moderator for his neutron source. Nuclear activation is likely to be an issue for fusion reactors someday, as someone proved some time ago that you couldn't get enough energy out of aneutronic fusion.
Those paying attention knew that Colin Powell had done something similar long ago. I explained that in comments way back here with many sources I don't want to retype. So in that vein, if Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn really did this, then by all means, drop the hammer on him, Hillary, and Powell in accordance with the rules.
For as many people who worry about Russian hackers, we should really hammer the self-important luddites who insist on compromising our government's opsec.
And no, I won't excuse this kind of nonsense from anyone. I don't care what team he's on, he should play be the rules, and you can see above that I said the same damned thing about Powell weeks ago. I do wonder, though--does anyone know if they bothered to report on the doc showing Colin Powell doing this?
I should clarify that it's the DNC's lawyers who were against this arrangement of selling access to the WaPo party on their donor price list, not the Washington Post's.
I still haven't seen the Washington Post explain this. Please link me to it if you ever find a response.
MightyMartian rarely posts anything of substance. Here's the last few posts, good luck identifying any kind of a fact-based claim beyond snark:
It's your conclusion that's the problem.
So what you're so saying is Soros is a moron
You really do just make shit up, don't you?
That the US government committed potentially criminal or unconstitutional acts doesn't somehow mean Snowden wouldn't be convicted. And since he hasn't appeared to have held much back, what is it exactly that he could reveal now that isn't already known?
You can't expect the Alt-right to get hung up on little things like fact. REmember, we're in the post-truth era now.
I guess on Mars you don't need to make actual, verifiable factual claims to rebut things any more. Who knew?
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly can't agree with him in saying that it revealed no crime or violation of public policy.
It showed us that the Democratic primaries are meaningless. If the "wrong" person is winning, they'll shut off your access to their systems, blackmail you, etc. Let alone the other things Bernie's supporters actually found out during said primaries more directly.
It showed us that the media is on a tight leash, having to run their stories past the DNC for review, they operate behind their own lawyers' backs in having their donors pay for access to the WaPo party, etc.
It gave us a window into the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) showing how influence is bought and sold.
Just because the same media exposed by these leaks did not report on the majority of the things found does nothing to undermine the revelations themselves.
I have not seen that, there's a lot going on. Can you give me your source for that information? Thank you for the information.
Just on a side note, it's amazing how hard it is to find the original sources linked above on Google these days.
Everybody discusses the Colin Powell email, no one links to the damned thing. Everyone discusses the phishing email, nobody links to it on Wikileaks.
You'd think the press could do better than some random guy on the internet writing comments. Sheesh.
The problem here is authoritarianism, not partisan name calling. If the federal government couldn't run your life for you, you wouldn't have to worry about that in the first place. But let's look at the list in detail, shall we? I'll come back to it at the end, but this is a good summary about why this is 'crying wolf' that sums up a lot of what I'm trying to point out here.
> The cult of tradition
It's not clear how this makes anyone bad. Is it wrong to enjoy Thanksgiving with your family? Or just because we label anything we dislike as a "cult." Usually the problem with cults is that they go out and, say, cause violence or such, which we'll discuss below.
> The rejection of modernism
Luddism is a problem, but declaring "this is new, it must be better" isn't exactly logical and is funny to contrast with "action for action's sake." If you want Luddites, just look at the email between Hillary & Colin Powell and their rejection of operational security.
> The cult of action for action’s sake
This is really weak. For one, Trump's actions were purposeful--he won by spending far less than Hillary did. For another, we're calling people fascist for what? Working too hard? It's true that Trump held a lot of political rallies and Hillary held very few, but she might not have done so badly if she hadn't assumed the "blue firewall" would magically hold and had actually cared what those people wanted.
This is also fluff. You could apply it to lots of politicians (businesses, etc.) that most people wouldn't label as "fascist."
> Disagreement is treason
Finally we get somewhere! Sure, that's bad. Two minute hates? We've seen plenty about Donald (every other Slashdot story on Trump?). So long as we declare someone the bad guy, though, it's okay, right? I mean, just look at all that violence at the rallies! Oh, wait, the Democrats staged that. Maybe the intolerance of gays? Err, wait, it's the Advocate that decided Peter Thiel wasn't really gay any more because he backed Trump. And Trump was up there holding the gay pride flag. But it was upside-down! Because the most important thing about the gay flag is its orientation, right? :)
Oh! He complained about the media too!
You know, the CNN that told us it was illegal to read wikileaks (a lie from a CNN lawyer who should know better) so we wouldn't find out that they rigged the debates as we can establish from DKIM-authenticated emails that cover the body & body hash. And we have Google's signature on it as well as Hillary's email server. Or how they sold donors access to the Washington Post's party while appearing to go behind their own lawyers' backs?
So, uhh, remind me why it's fascist to complain about people rigging debates again? Or why 2 minute hates are bad... unless the press holds them? :)
> Fear of difference
That's odd to hear given how many sites like Reddit are all for censoring the opinions they don't like. It's their site, of course, but I'm allowed to criticize them for it. And I'm far more afraid of these people who would attack someone for voting the wrong way. Feel free to check that on Snopes. They'll say the truth is "mixed" because they feel it very important to know that there was a fender bender just prior to the g
That's why I dumped Ars years ago. The community is just too toxic and full of hate for anyone who disagrees.
That's fair. I can't really fault you for not knowing about what they said in an interview when I didn't realize they were saying different things in different places until you spoke up.
I appreciate you sharing all that information, thank you.
I didn't make it up, I just saw an interview where they said differently. You see, George Martin, who sits on the Green Party's coordinating committee, said something rather different in an interview.
Or maybe they think that this qualifies as that? I'm not sure why they would send mixed messages.
I was trying to skim it, but yes, there are a lot of subtleties to go into this. Bottom line, they didn't get picked as electors by people who thought they could be persuaded to vote for someone else.
And you need a *lot* of them, barring strange scenarios where a recount keeps a few entire states from certifying electors.
> Buried under your heap of sources was in fact nothing about how Soros funded this, which one of the things that the GP was complaining about "making shit up".
They at no time referenced what was being made up. I pointed out this appears to be an opinion founded on the fact that Jill Stein doesn't benefit from recounts in those states.
However I now see they're keeping excess donations. So feel free to give them lots of money for nothing :)
Jill is in it to gather donor dollars (all leftovers go to the Green party, read the fine print).
She picked some weird states if it was just about the votes, as I discuss here.
I mean, MI has only PAPER ballots, so notions of hacking are purely delusional and you can find 538 arguing similar.
To clarify, I think far better of him than that, but I'm somewhat surprised he would be eager to fight for a group who treats him that way.
All I have to say is "good luck with that." There have never been more than a few, some electors are legally bound to vote with their state, etc.
Still, surprised he'd do that given what they really think about him
Yes, it's more work, but the work only has to be done once to rebut a particular theory and the more of your theories that get properly busted, the less anyone should be willing to listen.
You may be forgetting that people like that also fake the people agreeing with their nonsense posts too and mistaking that for real support.
Don't get me wrong--I'm sure you'll still find idiots out there, but it's hard to convince anyone of something that's against their self-interest.
Last I heard, the EM drive will get tested in space. If there really is anything giving it mystery thrust, we'll see it move. If not, it's a lump of space junk.
Not sure why you're worried about that when we're going to have empirical results to look at.
> Intent is irrelevant to a charge of gross negligence.
Not just irrelevant, it's literally contradictory. If you have intent, it wasn't negligence and vice versa.
So saying that you'd only prosecute someone for intentional negligence is essentially saying if (intent and (not intent)) { prosecute } which of course cannot possibly reach the 'prosecute' under any circumstances.
Naturally, this matches the results observed.
> there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
No, there's good reason to think stuff got shared with Huma and Hillary's lawyers, among others. It's in the docs the FBI released.
Regarding the alleged lack of intent, you can find a good summary here going over this.
I won't claim to be a Republican but you can scroll up the page and find my post saying that everyone should be held to the same standard, including Colin Powell, who appears to have largely escaped notice for doing pretty much the same thing this guy did.
This isn't really true for breeder reactors. Materials can undergo nuclear activation by capturing neutrons. The infamous nuclear boy scout managed a fair bit of this, once he learned to use water as a moderator for his neutron source. Nuclear activation is likely to be an issue for fusion reactors someday, as someone proved some time ago that you couldn't get enough energy out of aneutronic fusion.
I keep hoping that maybe with Reid gone we can get nuclear + renewables going strong here in the USA and dump coal ourselves.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not very optimistic about that--it's more of an unfounded hope.
Idiots posting nonsense in comments does very little when people post fact-based rebuttals.
Take for example China's "50 cent" party. They're well-known and rather openly mocked by the people.
Your feed must look very different than mine, I've literally never heard of CounterPunch before and I read Google news a lot.
If you click on the link, you'll find that "nerd virgins" is a direct quote :)
Those paying attention knew that Colin Powell had done something similar long ago. I explained that in comments way back here with many sources I don't want to retype. So in that vein, if Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn really did this, then by all means, drop the hammer on him, Hillary, and Powell in accordance with the rules.
For as many people who worry about Russian hackers, we should really hammer the self-important luddites who insist on compromising our government's opsec.
And no, I won't excuse this kind of nonsense from anyone. I don't care what team he's on, he should play be the rules, and you can see above that I said the same damned thing about Powell weeks ago. I do wonder, though--does anyone know if they bothered to report on the doc showing Colin Powell doing this?
I should clarify that it's the DNC's lawyers who were against this arrangement of selling access to the WaPo party on their donor price list, not the Washington Post's.
I still haven't seen the Washington Post explain this. Please link me to it if you ever find a response.
MightyMartian rarely posts anything of substance. Here's the last few posts, good luck identifying any kind of a fact-based claim beyond snark:
I guess on Mars you don't need to make actual, verifiable factual claims to rebut things any more. Who knew?