Many people aren't very smart, and many people are terrified of the IRS or immigration officials. And it doesn't take very many people to fall for this - out of the millions they call - to make it worth the trouble for the bad guys.
Which is why Internet access should be a public utility, and not left to the private sector.
The last thing I want is local, state, or federal government being my ISP. Customer service from any of those entities, for anything in which they engage, is worse than any ISP, mom-and-pop or national. It's like watching Medicate or the VA, and then saying that going to the doctor for an ear infection should be a trip to a government office.
I'm not too worried about that. Not least because an important part of the "portrait" aesthetic that they're going for, here, is the more flattering portrait perspective. Which is achieved by shooting from a decent working distance. The focal length on phone-cams is far too short to even come close to filling the frame with a well composed portrait that doesn't over-emphasize noses and whatnot. There's no hard and fast rule about distance, but generally you don't shoot decent looking portraits from arm's-length selfie distances.
Further: it's going to be very difficult for software-faked shallow depth of field to handle things like stray hairs, raggedy clothing textiles and other detailed bits against exactly the sort of complex backgrounds that photographers use shallow DoF to throw out of focus in the first place. To the casual observer at relatively low resolution, the faux shallow DoF may appear at least more interesting than no treatment at all, but to an eye that looks at such things even occasionally, it's going to ring false. Further, it's going to be extra-not-good if there's an attempt to apply it to video, looking for a more cinematic result from control of DoF (racking focus, that sort of thing). No, there won't be anybody who bought a $1000 85/1.4 for their Canon or their Nikon suddenly wishing they hadn't because their phone can do the same thing. Just isn't going to happen.
The problem isn't the 'bokeh' of the tiny lens and sensor. That's a discussion about the quality of the out-of-focus area rendering. No, the problem with the tiny sensors and tiny lenses with their very small apertures is that they cannot produce shallow enough depth of field in the first place to even produce an out of focus background in the first place. Basic physics. So there's no point trying to compare the OoF rendering quality (is the bokeh harsh? smooth?) of that tiny platform to a larger format sensor with a quality fast prime lens, because simple physics makes that comparison pointless. That's why they're faking this in software: because there's no physical way to do it with the tiny camera. Light doesn't work that way.
Yes, yes. You're either actually a fool, or just pretending to be one so you can score some sort of lazy rhetorical points with an imaginary audience of lower-information-than-you audience.
If you do the things that make you a first-world country, you'll have fewer babies and need fewer resources (like water) so you don't have to chase your tail trying to squeeze water out of the air. As usual, everyone is so paralyzed by political correctness that their afraid to point out that places like India are suffering a culture problem, not a water problem.
That a piece of jargon with a very specific contextual meaning is at risk of being dumbed down when it's used in the wrong context. As it was in this case.
Yeah, yeah. That's what the word means. But since it was fashionably inserted into discussions among actual photographers, it's been used in the context of discussing the quality of the blue, not the existence of the blur. It's useful - it's a succinct word that conveys that specific meaning. Trying, here, to preserve that clarity (if you'll pardon the pun) instead of letting it dumb down like so many other terms do.
'Bokeh' is used when referring to the quality of the out-of-focus background (or foreground) of the image, not the fact that it is out of focus. Shallow depth of field images have blurry elements. By definition. But different lenses render that OoF area differently. Some lenses have a jittery, doubled-up, or ring-like pattern, or render OoF highlights as oblong smears or as hard circles. It just depends on the lens design. So when we talk about this, it's about the quality, not the quantity or existence of blurred areas.
Think of it like this: every lens of a given format, focal length and aperture will produce essentially the same mount of OoF areas. It's just physics. The focal plane is where it is, and the meaningfully in-focus area (say, on the subject's face) is going to be a given depth (for a given display size and resolution). Period.
But that's like saying all pianos can play a middle C note. They can. But some sound twangy or harsh, while others sound more pleasing to the ear. Likewise with the OoF rendering by some lenses. With the piano we can say "it plays middle C, but the tone is harsh" - and with the camera, we can say that the lens when wide open can render shallow DoF and thus blur the background, but the bokeh is harsh (or, creamy, or busy, or smooth - whatever... it's the "tone," the visual quality of the blur rendering, generally considered to be more appealing the more creamy it is - though sometimes harsh, nervous bokeh is desireable for certain cinematic moods, etc).
Sorry, pet peeve. "Shallow depth of field" doesn't mean "has bokeh." That's like saying the car's suspension has ride. All cars do! But what's the quality of the ride? More like a sports car, or a limo? Better bokeh usually comes from much higher quality glass, and more of it in the design of the lens. Big, fat, fast prime portrait lenses are built - among other things - to play that visual note more elegantly than cheaper lenses do, even though they both hit the note when told do if they can achieve the same aperture at a given focal length.
The point is to stop being a third-world country so that - just like throughout the developed world, families don't feel the need to have so many babies to use as slave labor on the farm. There's a reason that countries like the US, or Germany, have their resident populations shrinking. Because people living more prosperously have fewer babies. And thus use far less in the way of resources like water (and especially, use it less wastefully than those who are doing old-school agriculture in a more primitive way). Prosperity makes for smaller families, which relieves stress on resources. So: India needs to stop carrying on like a third world country. Culturally, legally, governmentally, financially, agriculturally. And they will start having fewer babies. And need less water (and food, and energy, and everything else).
It's called education and prosperity. If it weren't for immigration (and immigrants having lots of children), countries like Germany and the US would have shrinking populations. Once a population reaches a better level of creature-comfort prosperity, and aren't living a hand-to-mouth agrarian lifestyle, they stop having so many babies.
The rights protected by the Second Amendment don't grant you protection from prosecution when you destroy someone else's property (with a gun, or a chainsaw, or fire, or your fists). It's a federal felony to shoot at an aircraft, and the FAA now considers any drone (or RC plane, etc) over 9 ounces to be an aircraft.
And for what it's worth, the FPV hobby in the US is essentially now illegal. Operators cannot fly unless they are observing the aircraft with their own un-aided eyes at all times.
So, what is "militarization," to you? Presumably you don't consider the classical police night stick to be an example of militarization. But using one to disable a violent person is a risk to the officer's life, and being able to disable that same person from twenty feet away, using a tazer or a beanbag so that the officer's life isn't at as much risk... that's "militarization" to you? Is the fact that a cop is carrying a sidearm militarization? No? Why not?
The point isn't that they're a developing nation. They're not. It's that they spin things with that sort of description whenever they have to explain away things like selling poisoned baby food or grain shipments full of melamine. Pretending they don't have the technical chops to perform sophisticated industrial espionage, because, you know, they're just a simple farming community... such nonsense.
This reminds me of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's 2015 comment (in the wake of an obvious wave of government- and business-oriented hacking out of a well known government facility in China) that they couldn't possibly be responsible for such things, since as just a developing nation, they didn't have the sophistication.
Obviously the laziness of users around the world who don't change default passwords is a different problem, but shipping stuff configured and documented in a way that makes not securing it the default mode in the hands of users is just... laziness.
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
So, you'd be in favor of cops not being allowed to wear body armor. Because, after all, the job is risky, and it's not fair to give them any sort of advantage that might save their lives while they're acting on your behalf and dealing with someone who wants to kill them.
Your absurd false dichotomy (the police must either allow themselves to be killed, or they are baby killers) shows that you are either pretending to have given this no actual thought, or you really can't muster the critical thinking skills to think this through. Here's an idea: go, right now, today, and ask your local city/county cops about their ride-along program. Do it for a week or two, in a rough urban area. Report back.
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when something starts), then they become warriors if the circumstances require that. Which is why they carry weapons.
Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?
So, when the police show up to serve a warrant and get shot and killed, you're cool with that. When they show up to serve the same warrant and protect themselves with better technology, that's them being an "occupying force," and evil. Gotcha.
Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?
You mean police in neighborhoods with wildly higher crime rates, who are targeting the criminals that commit crime there? Right. Gotcha.
and don't care about the plight of your brothers and sisters
If you cared about your "brothers and sisters," you'd be all for reducing the crime in those areas. But you're not, so your entire pious hand-wringing display is as phony as your pretending you don't understand the real issues in play.
This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.
The robot didn't do anything. The police controlling the robot used it to deal with the guy remotely so they didn't have to lose any more lives approaching a guy who was promising to do more killing. How is that a single bit different than shooting him from 500 yards away? It's not. Not a bit.
The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys"
Why should someone apologize for telling the truth? If it was your job to deal with an armed, violent person, and you were handed a tool that allows you to do that with less of a chance of you being killed while doing your job, are you really saying you wouldn't use that tool? Let me guess, you think it's unfair for the police to wear body armor, right? Yeah. Right.
Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.
Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?
What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?
Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.
Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.
Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?
Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.
Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.
They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.
It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?
The emails we've all be pawing through for the last several weeks (not just Podesta's, obviously - Clinton's own, as released by the FBI and State in as absolutely slow a manner as they can muster, when those should have been FOIA-able records the day she left office) demonstrate that she was lying under oath before congress. The bulk of the emails, yes, simply show that she and her team lie regularly to their supporters and the voters, on almost every matter before them. But what matters is her fictions surrounding her provisioning and use of her home server to do official business, and her destruction of records after being subpoenaed for them by congress.
I don't really care about the rest of it. That the (now) head of the DNC was just caught red-handed providing Clinton with a verbatim debate question in advance of the event (and, of course, now lying about that) or a hundred other little behind-the-scenes bits of tawdriness and sleaze is indeed just typical politics. But lying before congress, destroying federal records, and playing fast and loose with classified material (in a way that would prevent anyone else from ever holding a federal job again, and possibly landing them in prison) actually matters.
So your take on all of those thousands of emails, including the ones that further demonstrate the lying and corruption of the Clinton machine, are... what, fake? Are you aware of explicit, credible denials about, say, the accuracy of those Podesta emails (in, say, the form of Podesta or his correspondents releasing alternate versions of them)... that nobody else knows about? No? Didn't think so.
Please list the successes (not counting her own family's enormous cash enrichment) while she was holding those two positions. There's no need to list the huge failures and corruption, since we all already know about those.
Slashdot Mirror
Many people aren't very smart, and many people are terrified of the IRS or immigration officials. And it doesn't take very many people to fall for this - out of the millions they call - to make it worth the trouble for the bad guys.
Which is why Internet access should be a public utility, and not left to the private sector.
The last thing I want is local, state, or federal government being my ISP. Customer service from any of those entities, for anything in which they engage, is worse than any ISP, mom-and-pop or national. It's like watching Medicate or the VA, and then saying that going to the doctor for an ear infection should be a trip to a government office.
I'm not too worried about that. Not least because an important part of the "portrait" aesthetic that they're going for, here, is the more flattering portrait perspective. Which is achieved by shooting from a decent working distance. The focal length on phone-cams is far too short to even come close to filling the frame with a well composed portrait that doesn't over-emphasize noses and whatnot. There's no hard and fast rule about distance, but generally you don't shoot decent looking portraits from arm's-length selfie distances.
Further: it's going to be very difficult for software-faked shallow depth of field to handle things like stray hairs, raggedy clothing textiles and other detailed bits against exactly the sort of complex backgrounds that photographers use shallow DoF to throw out of focus in the first place. To the casual observer at relatively low resolution, the faux shallow DoF may appear at least more interesting than no treatment at all, but to an eye that looks at such things even occasionally, it's going to ring false. Further, it's going to be extra-not-good if there's an attempt to apply it to video, looking for a more cinematic result from control of DoF (racking focus, that sort of thing). No, there won't be anybody who bought a $1000 85/1.4 for their Canon or their Nikon suddenly wishing they hadn't because their phone can do the same thing. Just isn't going to happen.
The problem isn't the 'bokeh' of the tiny lens and sensor. That's a discussion about the quality of the out-of-focus area rendering. No, the problem with the tiny sensors and tiny lenses with their very small apertures is that they cannot produce shallow enough depth of field in the first place to even produce an out of focus background in the first place. Basic physics. So there's no point trying to compare the OoF rendering quality (is the bokeh harsh? smooth?) of that tiny platform to a larger format sensor with a quality fast prime lens, because simple physics makes that comparison pointless. That's why they're faking this in software: because there's no physical way to do it with the tiny camera. Light doesn't work that way.
Yes, yes. You're either actually a fool, or just pretending to be one so you can score some sort of lazy rhetorical points with an imaginary audience of lower-information-than-you audience.
If you do the things that make you a first-world country, you'll have fewer babies and need fewer resources (like water) so you don't have to chase your tail trying to squeeze water out of the air. As usual, everyone is so paralyzed by political correctness that their afraid to point out that places like India are suffering a culture problem, not a water problem.
What are you trying to say?
That a piece of jargon with a very specific contextual meaning is at risk of being dumbed down when it's used in the wrong context. As it was in this case.
Yeah, yeah. That's what the word means. But since it was fashionably inserted into discussions among actual photographers, it's been used in the context of discussing the quality of the blue, not the existence of the blur. It's useful - it's a succinct word that conveys that specific meaning. Trying, here, to preserve that clarity (if you'll pardon the pun) instead of letting it dumb down like so many other terms do.
'Bokeh' is used when referring to the quality of the out-of-focus background (or foreground) of the image, not the fact that it is out of focus. Shallow depth of field images have blurry elements. By definition. But different lenses render that OoF area differently. Some lenses have a jittery, doubled-up, or ring-like pattern, or render OoF highlights as oblong smears or as hard circles. It just depends on the lens design. So when we talk about this, it's about the quality, not the quantity or existence of blurred areas.
Think of it like this: every lens of a given format, focal length and aperture will produce essentially the same mount of OoF areas. It's just physics. The focal plane is where it is, and the meaningfully in-focus area (say, on the subject's face) is going to be a given depth (for a given display size and resolution). Period.
But that's like saying all pianos can play a middle C note. They can. But some sound twangy or harsh, while others sound more pleasing to the ear. Likewise with the OoF rendering by some lenses. With the piano we can say "it plays middle C, but the tone is harsh" - and with the camera, we can say that the lens when wide open can render shallow DoF and thus blur the background, but the bokeh is harsh (or, creamy, or busy, or smooth - whatever... it's the "tone," the visual quality of the blur rendering, generally considered to be more appealing the more creamy it is - though sometimes harsh, nervous bokeh is desireable for certain cinematic moods, etc).
Sorry, pet peeve. "Shallow depth of field" doesn't mean "has bokeh." That's like saying the car's suspension has ride. All cars do! But what's the quality of the ride? More like a sports car, or a limo? Better bokeh usually comes from much higher quality glass, and more of it in the design of the lens. Big, fat, fast prime portrait lenses are built - among other things - to play that visual note more elegantly than cheaper lenses do, even though they both hit the note when told do if they can achieve the same aperture at a given focal length.
The point is to stop being a third-world country so that - just like throughout the developed world, families don't feel the need to have so many babies to use as slave labor on the farm. There's a reason that countries like the US, or Germany, have their resident populations shrinking. Because people living more prosperously have fewer babies. And thus use far less in the way of resources like water (and especially, use it less wastefully than those who are doing old-school agriculture in a more primitive way). Prosperity makes for smaller families, which relieves stress on resources. So: India needs to stop carrying on like a third world country. Culturally, legally, governmentally, financially, agriculturally. And they will start having fewer babies. And need less water (and food, and energy, and everything else).
It's called education and prosperity. If it weren't for immigration (and immigrants having lots of children), countries like Germany and the US would have shrinking populations. Once a population reaches a better level of creature-comfort prosperity, and aren't living a hand-to-mouth agrarian lifestyle, they stop having so many babies.
Better solution: Have fewer babies.
PM me for an address to which to send that $1M.
The rights protected by the Second Amendment don't grant you protection from prosecution when you destroy someone else's property (with a gun, or a chainsaw, or fire, or your fists). It's a federal felony to shoot at an aircraft, and the FAA now considers any drone (or RC plane, etc) over 9 ounces to be an aircraft.
And for what it's worth, the FPV hobby in the US is essentially now illegal. Operators cannot fly unless they are observing the aircraft with their own un-aided eyes at all times.
So, what is "militarization," to you? Presumably you don't consider the classical police night stick to be an example of militarization. But using one to disable a violent person is a risk to the officer's life, and being able to disable that same person from twenty feet away, using a tazer or a beanbag so that the officer's life isn't at as much risk ... that's "militarization" to you? Is the fact that a cop is carrying a sidearm militarization? No? Why not?
The point isn't that they're a developing nation. They're not. It's that they spin things with that sort of description whenever they have to explain away things like selling poisoned baby food or grain shipments full of melamine. Pretending they don't have the technical chops to perform sophisticated industrial espionage, because, you know, they're just a simple farming community ... such nonsense.
This reminds me of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's 2015 comment (in the wake of an obvious wave of government- and business-oriented hacking out of a well known government facility in China) that they couldn't possibly be responsible for such things, since as just a developing nation, they didn't have the sophistication.
... laziness.
Obviously the laziness of users around the world who don't change default passwords is a different problem, but shipping stuff configured and documented in a way that makes not securing it the default mode in the hands of users is just
dangerous jobs have risk.
don't like it don't become one.
So, you'd be in favor of cops not being allowed to wear body armor. Because, after all, the job is risky, and it's not fair to give them any sort of advantage that might save their lives while they're acting on your behalf and dealing with someone who wants to kill them.
Your absurd false dichotomy (the police must either allow themselves to be killed, or they are baby killers) shows that you are either pretending to have given this no actual thought, or you really can't muster the critical thinking skills to think this through. Here's an idea: go, right now, today, and ask your local city/county cops about their ride-along program. Do it for a week or two, in a rough urban area. Report back.
police are not warriors.
they absolutely ARE guardians.
No, they are not guardians. They generally are asked to gather evidence and start the process of prosecution after someone has violated the law. They aren't, and can't be "guardians" without being everywhere, all the time, and able to stop everything that might threaten you. That's not even close to their mandate or their capability. If an ongoing violent event happens to occur for long enough to allow them to arrive on the scene while it's still in progress (or, by luck, they happen to be there when something starts), then they become warriors if the circumstances require that. Which is why they carry weapons.
Or how about the police that has militarized to the point where they are an occupying force?
So, when the police show up to serve a warrant and get shot and killed, you're cool with that. When they show up to serve the same warrant and protect themselves with better technology, that's them being an "occupying force," and evil. Gotcha.
Or how about police in neighborhoods that regularly target minorities?
You mean police in neighborhoods with wildly higher crime rates, who are targeting the criminals that commit crime there? Right. Gotcha.
and don't care about the plight of your brothers and sisters
If you cared about your "brothers and sisters," you'd be all for reducing the crime in those areas. But you're not, so your entire pious hand-wringing display is as phony as your pretending you don't understand the real issues in play.
This is the first signs along with the robot blowing up a gunman with a bomb.
The robot didn't do anything. The police controlling the robot used it to deal with the guy remotely so they didn't have to lose any more lives approaching a guy who was promising to do more killing. How is that a single bit different than shooting him from 500 yards away? It's not. Not a bit.
The apologists will, as always, talk only about the benefits and how it will help against the "bad guys"
Why should someone apologize for telling the truth? If it was your job to deal with an armed, violent person, and you were handed a tool that allows you to do that with less of a chance of you being killed while doing your job, are you really saying you wouldn't use that tool? Let me guess, you think it's unfair for the police to wear body armor, right? Yeah. Right.
If you were planing on using them against the United States Military when Crooked Hilary gets elected it'll be too late by then.
Again with the lazy straw man.
The evil libtardos aren't coming for your guns.
Well, Hillary Clinton thinks the Supreme Court is incorrect, and that we don't have the individual right to own guns. That what she says to her money people when she hopes the press isn't listening. She's also said she'd consider confiscation, a la Australia. And the left is cheering her lying, corrupt self into office - not least because they agree with her on this - the constitution is there to be "reinterpreted," as Clinton puts it.
Do you have any idea what you're chances are against a modern, mechanized army?
What does that matter? That's not why millions and millions of Americans own guns. They use them for sport, for hunting, and - as record numbers of recent buyers are showing in research - for self defense, especially in the context of social unrest. That's EXACTLY what the founders had in mind when they said that the government could not be allowed to have the monopoly on keeping and bearing arms: so that individuals could exercise their own rights to do so if and as they see fit. For whatever reason they see as appropriate. A standing army being necessary for the country, it's not to be considered justification for infringing the people's rights to their own tools of self defense. Sound familiar?
Stop caring so damn much about your precious firearms and start doing something about oppression brought on by wealth inequality.
Ah, I get it. Because someone else is prosperous, your right to vote is being oppressed. Or your right to assemble, or freely speak. Or your ability to go to school. Or your ability to ... which ability is it that you're being denied because someone else has money, again? It's not a fixed-sized pie, dude. If it was, we'd all be living in total poverty. But we're not. The standard of living has never been higher in human history. The "poor" live better than the vast majority of humanity ever could have dreamed.
Wage slavery? Get rid of nonsense like Obamacare, which went out of its way to entrench the system that prevents you from shopping across state lines for health insurance, and went out of its way to keep such services expensive by carefully avoiding tort reform at all costs. Or... do you mean that people who haven't trained themselves to do something valuable are finding it hard to move on in life? Yes, getting rid of our ability to defend ourselves will definitely fix that. We can only do one thing at a time, right?
Voter disenfranchisement? Yes, this is a real problem. We have millions of dead an ineligible people registered to vote. Every time a vote is cast in one of their names, that disenfranchises a person who is voting legitimately. When the Clinton campaign spreads around information, as we've just seen, about how to get illegal immigrants into the voting booth, that disenfranchises people who play by the rules. Definitely a serious problem, I agree. But the disenfranchising actions of voters mostly as encouraged by liberal activist groups go largely unprosecuted because that task would fall to the very party in power that encourages the crime. So, we have to live with it. Steps to mitigate it, like having to show who you are when you vote, just like you have to when you cash a government check, are considered "racist" by disingenuous people who know perfectly well it's not, but there you have it.
Hell, there are folks who matter talking about taking away women's right to vote.
They only "matter" in the sense that you're enjoying mentioning them. There is nobody with any prospect of infringing that liberty calling for that. Unlike Hillary Clinton, who certainly leans towards infringing constitutionally protected liberties and says so out loud, to great applause from the usual would-be little tyrants on the left.
It's been 8 years. Don't you think if he was going to do it he would have?
He kno
They demonstrate subterfuge, lying
The emails we've all be pawing through for the last several weeks (not just Podesta's, obviously - Clinton's own, as released by the FBI and State in as absolutely slow a manner as they can muster, when those should have been FOIA-able records the day she left office) demonstrate that she was lying under oath before congress. The bulk of the emails, yes, simply show that she and her team lie regularly to their supporters and the voters, on almost every matter before them. But what matters is her fictions surrounding her provisioning and use of her home server to do official business, and her destruction of records after being subpoenaed for them by congress.
I don't really care about the rest of it. That the (now) head of the DNC was just caught red-handed providing Clinton with a verbatim debate question in advance of the event (and, of course, now lying about that) or a hundred other little behind-the-scenes bits of tawdriness and sleaze is indeed just typical politics. But lying before congress, destroying federal records, and playing fast and loose with classified material (in a way that would prevent anyone else from ever holding a federal job again, and possibly landing them in prison) actually matters.
So your take on all of those thousands of emails, including the ones that further demonstrate the lying and corruption of the Clinton machine, are ... what, fake? Are you aware of explicit, credible denials about, say, the accuracy of those Podesta emails (in, say, the form of Podesta or his correspondents releasing alternate versions of them) ... that nobody else knows about? No? Didn't think so.
The leaked emails have many elements that reinforce our understanding that Clinton lied, repeatedly, under oath. You know, criminally.
successful senator and secretary of state
Please list the successes (not counting her own family's enormous cash enrichment) while she was holding those two positions. There's no need to list the huge failures and corruption, since we all already know about those.