I'll spare you all a click because there's nothing to see here unless you're interested in their "food groups" and which they thought they needed. Here's the full list of VP ideas put forth listed by the category they all appear to fit into (which is not, in fact, listed in the email, just to be clear about that):
Hispanic Men Rep. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.
Women Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Claire McKaskill, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
White Men Sen. Michael Bennet, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Sen. Tim Kaine, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Chris Murphy and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
Black Men Columbia, S.C., Mayor Stephen Benjamin, Sen. Cory Booker, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Gov. Deval Patrick, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx.
Military Leaders Gen. John Allen, Adm. William McCraven and Adm. Michael Mullen
Rich Businesspeople GM CEO Mary Barra, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, philanthropist Melinda Gates, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
I realize that you're immune to evidence of any kind, but that's not at all what they confessed to on camera. Not only did they frame the Bernie supporters at the protests, several people were severely injured (including cops) thanks to the violence they brag about creating.
Let's just ignore that policeman whose head was all bloody from the attacks. Or the firebomb dropped into Republican offices. Or any of the other harm they created.
I'd ask if you see nothing wrong with that, but I know your posting history well enough to know better than to ask. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, by caring whether or not people get hurt by criminal activity!
> It's kind of implied to the point of very blatant obviousness
Normally when you claim the things are false, you actually present some kind of evidence or argument for that. You know, something other than plugging your ears and walking away.
She starts to appear around 17:35. Feel free to dispute any of the facts here, if you can. You can see it's the same person right down to the mole on her chest.
> Wait, you're trying to tell me that Hillary pays people that work for her campaign?
Should I have realized that violence was your idea of normal campaign work? It kind of proves whose payroll she's on and then you can see the video of her talking about creating violence. I mean, you're already blaming people for a "Reichstag fire" when we have Democrats on Hillary's payroll on video creating violence.
Might want to re-examine that one a bit. I note that you did not, because you could not, argue with any of the other points made. Incidentally, I'd have argued with your points more if you had, I dunno, bothered to include any form of evidence whatsoever for your accusation that they firebombed themselves.
One might think that the violence at the Trump rallies was what you would have liked to point to, but it's kind of undercut by the people on the Democratic payroll causing that violence, no?
You base that on your own biases, not on evidence. This is because evidence says that Hillary's team has been inciting violence here. I mean, we have videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And if you look up the woman in the video, well, you can see that she's on Hillary's payroll. I mean, unless you're going to say the FEC is lying now? Just look at how they paid her to be at the protests and what she did there:
It's on video. We saw her in the Arizona protests, blocking the road. It was in the media. How, pray tell, are you going to make this one out to be a false flag?
I do post that one link a lot, but mostly because it's gotten no real attention, everyone is looking at Russian boogeymen and getting distracted from the up-front corruption.
I'd be happy to. Here's them conspiring with the Washington Post to violate campaign financing laws: link. I suggest you read the leaked email for yourself, though, this is but a sample.
> do you have any reason to think the RNC isn't about the same?
I think the last person to have their email hacked on the Republican side was Palin. Nobody found anything remotely interesting. Perhaps they've done bad things, and I'll be happy to condemn that if and when it's proven, but I am not someone who buys the tactic small children use to get out of trouble of pointing fingers at another.
> Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech.
Actually, your own state laws define such a right, at least for being fired. Surprised to see you champion abuse in there, though. I mean, you do realize that some woman is being abused just for being this guy's GF, right? I find it interesting that's not in conflict with your values, given that you've yet to condemn that in any way. Anyhow, I hope you remember all that some day when the shoe is on the other foot. FWIW, campaigns to abuse anyone who doesn't share your beliefs rarely end well.
I don't like any lies, though, Trump's or Hillary's (or anyone else's). I'm not deluded enough to believe either of them.
What they did to Bernie wasn't fraud, at least not in the legal sense, just a slap in the face to those in the dem voter base who thought their party's candidate would be determined by a fair and democratic process. Of course the DNC, as a private entity, is free to hand-pick their candidate and skip the entire primary process - as they used to long ago - but decades of at least the illusion of democracy has led people to expect something vastly different.
The Washington Post has a bit of bias in this, so take it with a grain of salt. When will the Washington Post start investigating themselves for holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC? Or is it Russia's fault they did this? Those damned Russians, how dare they expose our corruption!
From:kaplanj@dnc.org
To: RangappaA@dnc.org
Date: 2015-09-22 13:29
Subject: Re: WaPo Party
Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.
We are waiting
Jordan Kaplan
National Finance Director
Democratic National Committee
(202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c)
kaplanj@dnc.org
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote:
>
> They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.
Suppose for a moment that I own the copyright to Mickey Mouse and I issue a takedown for Itchy & Scratchy, claiming it infringes upon Mickey Mouse. That's bogus... but all I had to swear under penalty of perjury is that I either own or represent the people who actually own Mickey Mouse. The fact that the other work is simply not infringing doesn't even enter into it. Conversely, if I falsely claim to own a copyright and use that as the basis of a takedown request, for example by claiming to own or represent the owners of Mickey Mouse, then I have committed perjury.
So yeah, the law doesn't have much in the way of penalties for people who file utterly bogus takedown requests. In theory, if you drag them to court, they might get in trouble with a judge for lacking a good faith belief in the merits of their request, but you're most likely not going to get very much out of this so it really isn't worth it and it doesn't get punished like it should.
This isn't the first or the last bogus request to be filed. They're sending piles of nonsense out every day and we only notice the hilariously bad ones.
When will they explore the unsettling relationship between the media and the DNC? Or is it normal to hold clandestine fundraisers that their own lawyers forbid?
From:kaplanj@dnc.org To: RangappaA@dnc.org Date: 2015-09-22 13:29 Subject: Re: WaPo Party
Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.
We are waiting
Jordan Kaplan National Finance Director Democratic National Committee (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c) kaplanj@dnc.org
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote: > > They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.
From:kaplanj@dnc.org To: RangappaA@dnc.org Date: 2015-09-22 13:29 Subject: Re: WaPo Party
Great - we were never going to list since the lawyers told us we cannot do it.
We are waiting
Jordan Kaplan National Finance Director Democratic National Committee (202) 488-5002 (o) | (312) 339-0224 (c) kaplanj@dnc.org
> On Sep 22, 2015, at 11:25 AM, Rangappa, Anu wrote: > > They aren't going to give us a price per ticket and do not want their party to be listed in any package we are selling to donors. If we let them know we have donors in town who will be at the debate, we can add them to the list for the party.
If a judge gives a bad order that will hurt you, you file for a stay of that order pending appeal. Ignoring the order leads to punishment, as happened here! The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, they are simply going to ignore almost all of the petitions for a writ of certiorari sent to them. And it you will still get punished for just ignoring the order even if you were right! You can't just wait for orders from a higher court to comply. If the judge refuses to stay their order while you appeal it, you have to comply. Period. If they were wrong, well, you'll have to convince the courts of that on appeal. You don't get to just ignore everyone but the Supreme Court because you don't like an adverse ruling, it simply does not and hasn't ever worked that way.
I can't believe people modded this up, because it displays utter ignorance of legal process. Seriously, at least a few of you should have read Groklaw. You can go back and find that even SCO knew better than to flat-out ignore a court order like that. You can find many times where they asked for stays, plenty of times where they sent surreplies and dug in their heels at every opportunity to avoid complying, but not so much where they simply ignored the order.
So let that sink in for a moment: Gawker sunk below SCO's level here.
I tend to blame the client here, because I have to believe anyone could have made it through law school if they were giving advice that bad. If not, they're free to explore a legal malpractice claim against their own lawyers. Because what they did is so mind-bendingly stupid that you have to be willfully ignorant of legal process to think it makes any kind of sense that you can ignore anyone lower than the Supreme Court.
The Snopes story confirms that he was shot for essentially no reason. We might know more if we had info from his girlfriend or the ambulance team, but nobody has made any public statements. I understand that it's way too early to go around pinning it on somebody, but it's hard to say it's "debunked" when basically no investigation has actually been done yet.
Tortuous? Nazi stands for National Socialist. It's not some strange accident that it's right there in the name. I mean, I'm sure we'll hear that it wasn't "true" socialism, but I'm not sure how we're supposed to recognize true Socialism as opposed to what people calling themselves that have actually done. Don't get me wrong, some of the Nordic states have managed a more peaceful version of it, funded by the oil wealth of their country, prudently invested for the good of the nation, but it's kind of hard to ignore that some of the worst mass-murderers in history flew the flags of Socialism or Communism, or that the Communists considered Socialism a means to move society towards their ideals.
See, the Nazis loved to talk about taking down the rich, like the rich Jewish bankers they demonized and blamed for all of the German workers' problems. And they pretty much did so to everyone they hated, robbing them of everything and then disposing of them.
Of course you might say that what they believed is all nonsense--and it is--but this is what they were doing and why they believed they were doing it. They believed that they were taking society back from a rich, corrupt elite. Sure, anyone can find anything they want to compare any group they dislike to Nazis, but it's hard to ignore that the flag they flew under.
And don't get me wrong, there are, as I've noted, more peaceful varieties thereof. But we can't just ignore facts when they become inconvenient, now, can we?
Or perhaps you haven't gotten that far in history class yet?
Half of the recent protests/panics/etc. were staged by DNC staffers, which one might note is how they get away with being racists without media rebuke. They held a clandestine fundraiser with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disagreed with. They funneled all the DNC money straight to Hillary and it never mattered what the voters wanted. They'll call your CEO and demand apologies from any media type that dares call them on any of their BS.
But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll spare you all a click because there's nothing to see here unless you're interested in their "food groups" and which they thought they needed. Here's the full list of VP ideas put forth listed by the category they all appear to fit into (which is not, in fact, listed in the email, just to be clear about that):
Hispanic Men
Rep. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.
Women
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Claire McKaskill, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
White Men
Sen. Michael Bennet, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Sen. Tim Kaine, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Chris Murphy and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
Black Men
Columbia, S.C., Mayor Stephen Benjamin, Sen. Cory Booker, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Gov. Deval Patrick, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx.
Military Leaders
Gen. John Allen, Adm. William McCraven and Adm. Michael Mullen
Rich Businesspeople
GM CEO Mary Barra, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, philanthropist Melinda Gates, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz
Other
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio...
I realize that you're immune to evidence of any kind, but that's not at all what they confessed to on camera. Not only did they frame the Bernie supporters at the protests, several people were severely injured (including cops) thanks to the violence they brag about creating.
Let's just ignore that policeman whose head was all bloody from the attacks. Or the firebomb dropped into Republican offices. Or any of the other harm they created.
I'd ask if you see nothing wrong with that, but I know your posting history well enough to know better than to ask. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, by caring whether or not people get hurt by criminal activity!
> It's kind of implied to the point of very blatant obviousness
Normally when you claim the things are false, you actually present some kind of evidence or argument for that. You know, something other than plugging your ears and walking away.
Almost forgot to give you the pictures connecting them: https://i.sli.mg/dNBRek.png
And here's the YouTube video of the event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
She starts to appear around 17:35. Feel free to dispute any of the facts here, if you can. You can see it's the same person right down to the mole on her chest.
> Wait, you're trying to tell me that Hillary pays people that work for her campaign?
Should I have realized that violence was your idea of normal campaign work? It kind of proves whose payroll she's on and then you can see the video of her talking about creating violence. I mean, you're already blaming people for a "Reichstag fire" when we have Democrats on Hillary's payroll on video creating violence.
Might want to re-examine that one a bit. I note that you did not, because you could not, argue with any of the other points made. Incidentally, I'd have argued with your points more if you had, I dunno, bothered to include any form of evidence whatsoever for your accusation that they firebombed themselves.
One might think that the violence at the Trump rallies was what you would have liked to point to, but it's kind of undercut by the people on the Democratic payroll causing that violence, no?
You base that on your own biases, not on evidence. This is because evidence says that Hillary's team has been inciting violence here. I mean, we have videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And if you look up the woman in the video, well, you can see that she's on Hillary's payroll. I mean, unless you're going to say the FEC is lying now? Just look at how they paid her to be at the protests and what she did there:
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb...
And here's the leak to tie it together: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-...
It's on video. We saw her in the Arizona protests, blocking the road. It was in the media. How, pray tell, are you going to make this one out to be a false flag?
They're all from the Washington Post too. Didn't we read about the WaPo in the email leaks? Why yes, yes we did -
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emai...
I do post that one link a lot, but mostly because it's gotten no real attention, everyone is looking at Russian boogeymen and getting distracted from the up-front corruption.
> Appalling corruption? Can you point me to some?
I'd be happy to. Here's them conspiring with the Washington Post to violate campaign financing laws: link. I suggest you read the leaked email for yourself, though, this is but a sample.
> do you have any reason to think the RNC isn't about the same?
I think the last person to have their email hacked on the Republican side was Palin. Nobody found anything remotely interesting. Perhaps they've done bad things, and I'll be happy to condemn that if and when it's proven, but I am not someone who buys the tactic small children use to get out of trouble of pointing fingers at another.
> Yes, but democracy doesn't mean that you have a right not to be criticized, shunned, fired, boycotted, and abused in any other lawful manner for your speech.
Actually, your own state laws define such a right, at least for being fired. Surprised to see you champion abuse in there, though. I mean, you do realize that some woman is being abused just for being this guy's GF, right? I find it interesting that's not in conflict with your values, given that you've yet to condemn that in any way. Anyhow, I hope you remember all that some day when the shoe is on the other foot. FWIW, campaigns to abuse anyone who doesn't share your beliefs rarely end well.
I don't like any lies, though, Trump's or Hillary's (or anyone else's). I'm not deluded enough to believe either of them.
> You are starting with the concept that everyone has a right to their own political opinion
Some people call that "democracy."
So what about those search engines? They were nice while they lasted.
Both, ideally. And don't vote for either of them...
I love how people hide stuff like this at -1 because they don't want to hear it...
The Washington Post has a bit of bias in this, so take it with a grain of salt. When will the Washington Post start investigating themselves for holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC? Or is it Russia's fault they did this? Those damned Russians, how dare they expose our corruption!
Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699
Yes, but it doesn't help much. Here's why.
Suppose for a moment that I own the copyright to Mickey Mouse and I issue a takedown for Itchy & Scratchy, claiming it infringes upon Mickey Mouse. That's bogus... but all I had to swear under penalty of perjury is that I either own or represent the people who actually own Mickey Mouse. The fact that the other work is simply not infringing doesn't even enter into it. Conversely, if I falsely claim to own a copyright and use that as the basis of a takedown request, for example by claiming to own or represent the owners of Mickey Mouse, then I have committed perjury.
So yeah, the law doesn't have much in the way of penalties for people who file utterly bogus takedown requests. In theory, if you drag them to court, they might get in trouble with a judge for lacking a good faith belief in the merits of their request, but you're most likely not going to get very much out of this so it really isn't worth it and it doesn't get punished like it should.
This isn't the first or the last bogus request to be filed. They're sending piles of nonsense out every day and we only notice the hilariously bad ones.
No, the Washington Post is too busy holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC that their own lawyers forbade them to.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699
Who in their right mind is voting for either one of them?
I wouldn't be surprised if Harambe was more popular than either of them. This election is already a joke, so...
When will they explore the unsettling relationship between the media and the DNC? Or is it normal to hold clandestine fundraisers that their own lawyers forbid?
Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699
And you can't really trust the news to expose things. People like the Washington Post were too busy holding illicit fundraisers with the DNC.
But you don't have to take my word for it.
Source: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2699
It's sad that legal ignorance hits +5, but someone who actually understands the process is languishing unseen.
This is wrong. Dangerously wrong.
If a judge gives a bad order that will hurt you, you file for a stay of that order pending appeal. Ignoring the order leads to punishment, as happened here! The Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction, they are simply going to ignore almost all of the petitions for a writ of certiorari sent to them. And it you will still get punished for just ignoring the order even if you were right! You can't just wait for orders from a higher court to comply. If the judge refuses to stay their order while you appeal it, you have to comply. Period. If they were wrong, well, you'll have to convince the courts of that on appeal. You don't get to just ignore everyone but the Supreme Court because you don't like an adverse ruling, it simply does not and hasn't ever worked that way.
I can't believe people modded this up, because it displays utter ignorance of legal process. Seriously, at least a few of you should have read Groklaw. You can go back and find that even SCO knew better than to flat-out ignore a court order like that. You can find many times where they asked for stays, plenty of times where they sent surreplies and dug in their heels at every opportunity to avoid complying, but not so much where they simply ignored the order.
So let that sink in for a moment: Gawker sunk below SCO's level here.
I tend to blame the client here, because I have to believe anyone could have made it through law school if they were giving advice that bad. If not, they're free to explore a legal malpractice claim against their own lawyers. Because what they did is so mind-bendingly stupid that you have to be willfully ignorant of legal process to think it makes any kind of sense that you can ignore anyone lower than the Supreme Court.
The Snopes story confirms that he was shot for essentially no reason. We might know more if we had info from his girlfriend or the ambulance team, but nobody has made any public statements. I understand that it's way too early to go around pinning it on somebody, but it's hard to say it's "debunked" when basically no investigation has actually been done yet.
Tortuous? Nazi stands for National Socialist. It's not some strange accident that it's right there in the name. I mean, I'm sure we'll hear that it wasn't "true" socialism, but I'm not sure how we're supposed to recognize true Socialism as opposed to what people calling themselves that have actually done. Don't get me wrong, some of the Nordic states have managed a more peaceful version of it, funded by the oil wealth of their country, prudently invested for the good of the nation, but it's kind of hard to ignore that some of the worst mass-murderers in history flew the flags of Socialism or Communism, or that the Communists considered Socialism a means to move society towards their ideals.
See, the Nazis loved to talk about taking down the rich, like the rich Jewish bankers they demonized and blamed for all of the German workers' problems. And they pretty much did so to everyone they hated, robbing them of everything and then disposing of them.
Of course you might say that what they believed is all nonsense--and it is--but this is what they were doing and why they believed they were doing it. They believed that they were taking society back from a rich, corrupt elite. Sure, anyone can find anything they want to compare any group they dislike to Nazis, but it's hard to ignore that the flag they flew under.
And don't get me wrong, there are, as I've noted, more peaceful varieties thereof. But we can't just ignore facts when they become inconvenient, now, can we?
Or perhaps you haven't gotten that far in history class yet?
You didn't read them, did you?
Half of the recent protests/panics/etc. were staged by DNC staffers, which one might note is how they get away with being racists without media rebuke. They held a clandestine fundraiser with the Washington Post that their own lawyers disagreed with. They funneled all the DNC money straight to Hillary and it never mattered what the voters wanted. They'll call your CEO and demand apologies from any media type that dares call them on any of their BS.
But no, go on, rant about irrelevant nonsense and just ignore the fact that they are effectively above the law at this point.