I want to sue the government over the existence of a large number of things and people that they are allowing to threaten my life and happiness. Especially that guy that cut me off in traffic today. And the lack of fiber to my door. It's unfair and I want a bunch of money because my feelings are hurt. Maybe I'll go out and burn down somebody's business and smash some windows, since protesting is fashionable.
Just look at the posted quote! Trump is so evil he's already destroyed Motherboard's ability to use paragraph breaks. That bastard! Will have to add this to the list of reasons to burn things in the street this Saturday night.
he ran on racism, bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia. That is what you voted for. That is what you support. That is what you are.
And your swallowing of that liberal meme, hook line and sinker, and believing it to be true, is exactly why the Democrats lost the White House and failed to get either house of congress. Because telling people who didn't want to see the Clinton family once again having the sort of power and influence selling access they so desperately craved that they're racists for thinking so, when you know that's not true, shows you to be EXACTLY the sort of lying, hypocritical, disingenuous phony that millions of people saw right through this time around, and were sick enough of to repudiate.
If you really cared about misogyny, why weren't you railing about Hillary Clinton's career-long defense of her sexual predator of a husband and her own actual hiring of people to go out and smear his rape victims' reputations? If you really cared about homophobia, why weren't you noting the fact that Trump was happily applauding gay marriage a decade ago while Hillary Clinton was still insisting that the government should prevent it? I know... because you're a flaming hypocrite, that's why. You're probably also one of those people who's pretending to be too dim to understand that "illegal" isn't a race.
Also, I like the implication that Trump won due to FUD but the Democratic FUD is of no concern
Yes. My own FB feed is curated a bit by my un-follows and follows, and no doubt skews a bit towards the conservative/libertarian bent - though I am FB friends with at least as many dyed-in-the-wool liberals who post to FB (or memegurgitate) about as often as they breathe. So while I saw no small number of silly re-posts and likes/shares of breathless fake/shallow news meant to draw in clicks from conservative types, I saw FAR more FUD-ish content from liberals trying to actually shame/change minds through the use of preposterously overblown fear mongering and outright lies.
So, yes: fake news on FB is a problem, or at least a significant annoyance. But the notion that somehow this is limited to stuff from and aimed at right-leaning people in some proportion that, compared to its lefty counterparts, cost Hillary Clinton the election... I call bullshit. The biggest purveyors and apparent consumers of that crap that I saw were outspoken Clinton supporters. So even if I'm wrong by a lot and the amount of it was roughly equal, that DOES NOT explain away the DNC/Clinton-Machine's huge loss. This is just another example of liberals - especially in the media - refusing to look in the mirror and understand that they're not nearly as clever and persuasive as they think they are, and that a whole lot of other people were just sick to death of the condescension, the holier-than-thou presumption of a Clinton coronation, and the deploying of finger-wagging celebrities telling people how to think.
And for those who are mystified that yelling at their non-racist, non-homophic, non-misogynistic friends about how racist, homophobic, and misogynistic they are didn't somehow make them vote for Hillary or feel apologetic following the election: maybe it's time to rethink what you were sure would get people to see things your way.
Not for lack of trying. Not for lack of putting every mainstream news outlet to the task, deploying every celebrity in fawning appearances, and spending untold millions of dollars trying to vilify The Deplorables who would dare to oppose putting the Clinton family back into the power they so desperately wanted to regain.
It might even be against the law soon!
And it's exactly that sort of disingenuous, knowingly BS crap that cost the liberals the election.
Are you even for a moment suggesting that fringe liberals weren't saturating social media with a bunch of hyperbolic BS and memegurgitation of plainly untrue nonsense, non-stop, for the entire campaign? Don't be a disingenuous idiot. You're not fooling anybody.
Trump was openly racist. He prevented blacks from moving into his real estate holdings.
Oh, please. The guy spent his own money on a court battle in FL to tear down local policies that were keeping Jews and blacks out of golf clubs. What a monster!
Why, because he and everybody else use the carried loss provisions of the tax code? If you made enough running your own several hundred businesses to actually have a small army of accountants preparing YOUR taxes following the collapse of revenues in one of those areas (a bad year for everyone in Atlantic City, etc)., you'd be getting professional advice to do exactly the same thing when circumstances warrant.
I don't know where the extra Republican votes came from.
From people sick to death of a corrupt, lying Clinton and the totally transparent corruption of the DNC and all of the media machinery that was trying to shove her down everyone's throats. If you still think this was about "Russian hacking" or any other sort of external influence, you're exactly the sort of out-of-touch person that probably thought Clinton was entitled to more of the sort of power she's been so eager to abuse and enrich herself with over the years.
So are you ACTUALLY so dim-witted that you can't understand that there's a use for demographically-tunable advertising, or are you just pretending to be? Pointing out a perfectly legitimate use for a tool (which I did) is intended to show you (ready?) that there are perfectly legitimate uses for the tool. If YOU decide to then use that tool for what's considered an illegal activity, why is it the tool maker's responsibility? Ads for housing are only a small part of advertising. Which you know. But you're pretending you don't understand, because you're a cheerleader for the oppressive nanny state and want more government power involved in every possible interaction between private parties. I'll be I know who you voted for.
What are you even SAYING? I'm not laughing, I'm complaining. And it would be really entertaining if you would point out how my comment is bigoted.
Let's see... I'll give this a try.
Let's say you're running a business that's selling hijabs to a primarily local ethnic minority in your town. You'd want to use FB's (or any ad syndicator's) tools to focus your advertising on an audience that's most likely to actually be interested your products. So, that would make you a racist fuckstick, according to you, right? No? I see.
This sort of crap is exactly how we end up with (for example) the likely next president saying she wants to make gun manufacturers liable for the criminal use of their products. Issues like that sound like single-topic voter hot buttons, but they're not. The instinct to look for the nearest deep(er) pockets and blame the existence of a tool for how someone else uses it... that's the sort of thing that this election is all about. Because this election is really about the Supreme Court.
clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information
Check. She did that multiple times, knew she did, and lied about it. So, check.
efforts to obstruct justice
Check. Deleted thousands of government records while under subpoena for that very information, lied repeatedly about the way in which she handled that process. So, check again.
But then we have the director of the FBI under intense political pressure from the Clinton machine through the Obama administration's control of his Attorney General. So of course they're not going to apply the same standards they would to any other person.
No, it's a double standard for even investigating her for things that her predecessors did
OK, so you're pretending to be completely uninformed so you can then pretend that you're unaware of how completely bullshit your analogy is. That's OK, that's what all of the Shillaries have been doing since she got busted in the first place. Carry on.
And if Chuck Schumer has his act together, he can have the Senate rules changed on day 1 of the new session to eliminate filibuster for any confirmations.
Because that would NEVER come back to haunt the liberals later, of course. Be careful what you wish for.
because the entire investigation was to check whether Clinton's use of a private server had in some way broken the law
No, the FBI was looking into whether SHE broke the law(s). And as Comey pointed out in July (and hasn't changed since), she demonstrably did things that would result in any other government employee facing punishment. This isn't about "the server," it's about the double standards. That she mishandled classified information is established. That she lied about it, repeatedly, is established. That she's being held to a different standard is established. Anyone else applying for a high-level, sensitive job in the government with her track record would never, ever be hired (presuming they were out of jail and able to apply in the first place).
Right, that was the FBI director doing that. We were pointing out what HE said. You know, about the recklessness, incompetence, the double standards, and the endless lying.
Just for the record, she cannot be impeached for any of this.
But she can be served another subpoena to testify before congress, under oath, to provide input on the ocean of incriminating crap that has surfaced since the last time she sat there deflecting questions. If she lies before congress, she's very impeachable. If she contradicts her earlier lies, she's guilty of perjury from her earlier testimony. Presidents aren't immune from prosecution for earlier acts (like lying under oath) just because they've been sworn into their new job.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails.
What? She put copies of them on thumb drives and gave them to her non-cleared lawyers and non-cleared staff to paw through. Her closest aide's idiot husband, Carlos Danger, had thousands of them on his laptop. She replied in threads that were classified at the time, over the internet from a server in her house, to other non-secured people. What do you mean we don't have any evidence of that? The FBI director sat there and explained it to you!
Years of lying about her stonewalling, hiding and destroying of government records, blatant mishandling of classified material, and raking in millions in family cash while in office and selling access - those are "minor scandals" to you? Please don't do anything dangerous this year, like voting.
I don't care about "emails," just about her decades long parade of corruption, lying, enriching herself through the sales of access (by leveraging her 9%-charitable foundation and the huge speaking fees and gifts she and her husband soaked up), and her deliberate stonewalling, destruction of government records, and yet more lying about her own lying.
Before congress, he said that her "extremely careless" use of a private email server that maintained classified information would warrant more action for government employees. At his press conference, he didn't exactly absolve her. He said government employees in cases like hers are often fired or stripped of security clearances. And, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences." And that such individuals are subject to "security or administrative sanctions."
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you really, really are sarcasm-proof, aren't you. Is that painful, in today's world?
I want to sue the government over the existence of a large number of things and people that they are allowing to threaten my life and happiness. Especially that guy that cut me off in traffic today. And the lack of fiber to my door. It's unfair and I want a bunch of money because my feelings are hurt. Maybe I'll go out and burn down somebody's business and smash some windows, since protesting is fashionable.
Just look at the posted quote! Trump is so evil he's already destroyed Motherboard's ability to use paragraph breaks. That bastard! Will have to add this to the list of reasons to burn things in the street this Saturday night.
he ran on racism, bigotry, misogyny, and homophobia. That is what you voted for. That is what you support. That is what you are.
And your swallowing of that liberal meme, hook line and sinker, and believing it to be true, is exactly why the Democrats lost the White House and failed to get either house of congress. Because telling people who didn't want to see the Clinton family once again having the sort of power and influence selling access they so desperately craved that they're racists for thinking so, when you know that's not true, shows you to be EXACTLY the sort of lying, hypocritical, disingenuous phony that millions of people saw right through this time around, and were sick enough of to repudiate.
... because you're a flaming hypocrite, that's why. You're probably also one of those people who's pretending to be too dim to understand that "illegal" isn't a race.
If you really cared about misogyny, why weren't you railing about Hillary Clinton's career-long defense of her sexual predator of a husband and her own actual hiring of people to go out and smear his rape victims' reputations? If you really cared about homophobia, why weren't you noting the fact that Trump was happily applauding gay marriage a decade ago while Hillary Clinton was still insisting that the government should prevent it? I know
Also, I like the implication that Trump won due to FUD but the Democratic FUD is of no concern
Yes. My own FB feed is curated a bit by my un-follows and follows, and no doubt skews a bit towards the conservative/libertarian bent - though I am FB friends with at least as many dyed-in-the-wool liberals who post to FB (or memegurgitate) about as often as they breathe. So while I saw no small number of silly re-posts and likes/shares of breathless fake/shallow news meant to draw in clicks from conservative types, I saw FAR more FUD-ish content from liberals trying to actually shame/change minds through the use of preposterously overblown fear mongering and outright lies.
So, yes: fake news on FB is a problem, or at least a significant annoyance. But the notion that somehow this is limited to stuff from and aimed at right-leaning people in some proportion that, compared to its lefty counterparts, cost Hillary Clinton the election... I call bullshit. The biggest purveyors and apparent consumers of that crap that I saw were outspoken Clinton supporters. So even if I'm wrong by a lot and the amount of it was roughly equal, that DOES NOT explain away the DNC/Clinton-Machine's huge loss. This is just another example of liberals - especially in the media - refusing to look in the mirror and understand that they're not nearly as clever and persuasive as they think they are, and that a whole lot of other people were just sick to death of the condescension, the holier-than-thou presumption of a Clinton coronation, and the deploying of finger-wagging celebrities telling people how to think.
And for those who are mystified that yelling at their non-racist, non-homophic, non-misogynistic friends about how racist, homophobic, and misogynistic they are didn't somehow make them vote for Hillary or feel apologetic following the election: maybe it's time to rethink what you were sure would get people to see things your way.
Yeah but we didn't elect that one
Not for lack of trying. Not for lack of putting every mainstream news outlet to the task, deploying every celebrity in fawning appearances, and spending untold millions of dollars trying to vilify The Deplorables who would dare to oppose putting the Clinton family back into the power they so desperately wanted to regain.
It might even be against the law soon!
And it's exactly that sort of disingenuous, knowingly BS crap that cost the liberals the election.
Are you even for a moment suggesting that fringe liberals weren't saturating social media with a bunch of hyperbolic BS and memegurgitation of plainly untrue nonsense, non-stop, for the entire campaign? Don't be a disingenuous idiot. You're not fooling anybody.
Trump was openly racist. He prevented blacks from moving into his real estate holdings.
Oh, please. The guy spent his own money on a court battle in FL to tear down local policies that were keeping Jews and blacks out of golf clubs. What a monster!
That's rich.
Why, because he and everybody else use the carried loss provisions of the tax code? If you made enough running your own several hundred businesses to actually have a small army of accountants preparing YOUR taxes following the collapse of revenues in one of those areas (a bad year for everyone in Atlantic City, etc)., you'd be getting professional advice to do exactly the same thing when circumstances warrant.
I don't know where the extra Republican votes came from.
From people sick to death of a corrupt, lying Clinton and the totally transparent corruption of the DNC and all of the media machinery that was trying to shove her down everyone's throats. If you still think this was about "Russian hacking" or any other sort of external influence, you're exactly the sort of out-of-touch person that probably thought Clinton was entitled to more of the sort of power she's been so eager to abuse and enrich herself with over the years.
So are you ACTUALLY so dim-witted that you can't understand that there's a use for demographically-tunable advertising, or are you just pretending to be? Pointing out a perfectly legitimate use for a tool (which I did) is intended to show you (ready?) that there are perfectly legitimate uses for the tool. If YOU decide to then use that tool for what's considered an illegal activity, why is it the tool maker's responsibility? Ads for housing are only a small part of advertising. Which you know. But you're pretending you don't understand, because you're a cheerleader for the oppressive nanny state and want more government power involved in every possible interaction between private parties. I'll be I know who you voted for.
What are you even SAYING? I'm not laughing, I'm complaining. And it would be really entertaining if you would point out how my comment is bigoted.
... I'll give this a try.
Let's see
Let's say you're running a business that's selling hijabs to a primarily local ethnic minority in your town. You'd want to use FB's (or any ad syndicator's) tools to focus your advertising on an audience that's most likely to actually be interested your products. So, that would make you a racist fuckstick, according to you, right? No? I see.
This sort of crap is exactly how we end up with (for example) the likely next president saying she wants to make gun manufacturers liable for the criminal use of their products. Issues like that sound like single-topic voter hot buttons, but they're not. The instinct to look for the nearest deep(er) pockets and blame the existence of a tool for how someone else uses it ... that's the sort of thing that this election is all about. Because this election is really about the Supreme Court.
clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information
Check. She did that multiple times, knew she did, and lied about it. So, check.
efforts to obstruct justice
Check. Deleted thousands of government records while under subpoena for that very information, lied repeatedly about the way in which she handled that process. So, check again.
But then we have the director of the FBI under intense political pressure from the Clinton machine through the Obama administration's control of his Attorney General. So of course they're not going to apply the same standards they would to any other person.
No, it's a double standard for even investigating her for things that her predecessors did
OK, so you're pretending to be completely uninformed so you can then pretend that you're unaware of how completely bullshit your analogy is. That's OK, that's what all of the Shillaries have been doing since she got busted in the first place. Carry on.
And if Chuck Schumer has his act together, he can have the Senate rules changed on day 1 of the new session to eliminate filibuster for any confirmations.
Because that would NEVER come back to haunt the liberals later, of course. Be careful what you wish for.
because the entire investigation was to check whether Clinton's use of a private server had in some way broken the law
No, the FBI was looking into whether SHE broke the law(s). And as Comey pointed out in July (and hasn't changed since), she demonstrably did things that would result in any other government employee facing punishment. This isn't about "the server," it's about the double standards. That she mishandled classified information is established. That she lied about it, repeatedly, is established. That she's being held to a different standard is established. Anyone else applying for a high-level, sensitive job in the government with her track record would never, ever be hired (presuming they were out of jail and able to apply in the first place).
you idiots didn't point out anything
Right, that was the FBI director doing that. We were pointing out what HE said. You know, about the recklessness, incompetence, the double standards, and the endless lying.
Just for the record, she cannot be impeached for any of this.
But she can be served another subpoena to testify before congress, under oath, to provide input on the ocean of incriminating crap that has surfaced since the last time she sat there deflecting questions. If she lies before congress, she's very impeachable. If she contradicts her earlier lies, she's guilty of perjury from her earlier testimony. Presidents aren't immune from prosecution for earlier acts (like lying under oath) just because they've been sworn into their new job.
So the photos were available to unauthorized people, and we have evidence of that. We don't have any evidence that it happened to Hillary's emails.
What? She put copies of them on thumb drives and gave them to her non-cleared lawyers and non-cleared staff to paw through. Her closest aide's idiot husband, Carlos Danger, had thousands of them on his laptop. She replied in threads that were classified at the time, over the internet from a server in her house, to other non-secured people. What do you mean we don't have any evidence of that? The FBI director sat there and explained it to you!
Can't. He's busy doing that with his Hillary doll.
Years of lying about her stonewalling, hiding and destroying of government records, blatant mishandling of classified material, and raking in millions in family cash while in office and selling access - those are "minor scandals" to you? Please don't do anything dangerous this year, like voting.
I don't care about "emails," just about her decades long parade of corruption, lying, enriching herself through the sales of access (by leveraging her 9%-charitable foundation and the huge speaking fees and gifts she and her husband soaked up), and her deliberate stonewalling, destruction of government records, and yet more lying about her own lying.
Before congress, he said that her "extremely careless" use of a private email server that maintained classified information would warrant more action for government employees. At his press conference, he didn't exactly absolve her. He said government employees in cases like hers are often fired or stripped of security clearances. And, "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences." And that such individuals are subject to "security or administrative sanctions."
Diamond Foundry Inc., a San Francisco synthetic-diamond producer with a capacity of 24,000 carats
A day? An hour? Per year? Their office safe can't hold more than that? How does this provide any sort of perspective?