2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Lack of intent doesn't change the severity of what happened. I really believe a normal person would be fired and possibly lose their clearance (for life) because of the things Clinton did.
I shouldn't have to say this but a normal person wouldn't be Secretary of State or be in a position to run an email server in her basement filtering possibly Top Secret docs.


First: Clinton's private email server was 100% unclassified. There should have not been ANY filter. She should have been using the classified email system when talking about classified stuff.

Second: According to Washington Post:

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.


That's Top-Secret, the highest level of classification. There are a huge number of "normal" people who are Top-Secret cleared and handle the distinction between "Unclassified Emails" and "Classified emails" regularly.

Simple fact: Clinton was not able to do a task that almost a million of (top-secret, but otherwise average) Americans manage every day.

If a "normal" Top-Secret cleared person made the mistakes Clinton made, they would be fired and/or lose their clearance. That simple. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, FBI, TSA... whatever. They'd be fired and ousted. Clinton wasn't, because she's outside of the system. And that's what Tyndmyr is complaining about. And I really don't have any arguments against that fact... (the only argument I have is that the FBI seems to have done the best job they could here)

And State isn't exactly a paragon of preserving classified level documents. They got ripped by enlisted person in a war zone in one of the biggest leaks of recent memory. Or have recent events passed into the haze so quickly.


As Secretary of State, the blame rests 100% in Clinton (and her predecessor Condoleezza Rice). The role of a cabinet-level official is to organize and run a major department of the US Government. Any faults in the Department of State rest squarely on the shoulders of the sitting Secretary of State or their predecessors.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 22, 2016 10:51 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:I'd be less disappointed if it was from Hillary's campaign, because they were at least supposed to be running against him. But to see it expressed so explicitly by top officers of the DNC itself, who have a certain notional obligation to neutrality, makes me fear that this country's supposedly "progressive" party is no place for non-religious people.


Eh, neutrality is kind of a joke in either party. The establishment plays favorites.

It is a bit of a downer that both selections are so horrible this go 'round. Third parties ahoy. Doesn't really matter which one, it's the protest that counts. Maybe if they see a lot of votes, even in non swing states, leaking away, they'll start running candidates that are less hated?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Jul 22, 2016 11:35 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Lazar wrote:I'd be less disappointed if it was from Hillary's campaign, because they were at least supposed to be running against him. But to see it expressed so explicitly by top officers of the DNC itself, who have a certain notional obligation to neutrality, makes me fear that this country's supposedly "progressive" party is no place for non-religious people.


Eh, neutrality is kind of a joke in either party. The establishment plays favorites.

It is a bit of a downer that both selections are so horrible this go 'round. Third parties ahoy. Doesn't really matter which one, it's the protest that counts. Maybe if they see a lot of votes, even in non swing states, leaking away, they'll start running candidates that are less hated?

3rd party is a luxury only nonswing states have. Voters know voting theory, as you can see that 3rd party popularity peaks in safe states. The reason is obvious, they want to protest, not lose.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Jul 23, 2016 12:34 am UTC

And, to no surprise, Hillary officially picks Tim Kaine as her running mate.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:19 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:First: Clinton's private email server was 100% unclassified. There should have not been ANY filter.
I meant that in the sense that everything came through her personal server.
KnightExemplar wrote:There are a huge number of "normal" people who are Top-Secret cleared and handle the distinction between "Unclassified Emails" and "Classified emails" regularly.
I doubt that any of those people are in a position to exert that type of authority. Unless I misunderstand, one of the John Doe's holding a Top Secret clearance, isn't going to do the volume that Clinton did, or be in a position to put in their own server. They are using the secure systems by default. Compare apples to apples. Evidently previous Sec's may have used Gmail. One of those things about Washington is that everybody thinks everything is Top Secret, and it takes 100 bureaucrats to decide, and by that time the info is out of date. Hillary may have been stupid but not, according to the FBI and Justice, criminal.
KnightExemplar wrote:As Secretary of State, the blame rests 100% in Clinton (and her predecessor Condoleezza Rice).
Crap. That is a statement made by people who don't know any better. Secretary Of States come and go. The career bureaucrats are there invisible forever. Neither Clinton or Rice had anything to do with the nuts and bolts of State. And short of nuking the place can do very little to change it.
Lazar wrote:I'm glad I live in a non-competitive state because I would feel deeply conflicted about giving this crew my vote.
Then vote for someone else. But political operatives would sell their mothers into a harem if it would get their person elected.


@KnightExemplar

I apologize if I seem rude. CEO's falling on theirs swords is an exercise in public relations not practical management. I doubt that the CEO of GE has any idea of what is happening under his nose. At best senior people get data that is heavily filtered by people who have to reduce the load. They see what people think they need to see. and I can't imagine that political appointees like Kerry and others are even that plugged in. Kerry was a career legislator and Clinton a one term Senator.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:08 am UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:An indictment but not a conviction is the closest thing we have to a "not innocent" verdict.
There's a reason there's no such thing as "not innocent", and that is that in this country at least, people are presumed innocent until convicted. That's an importanat principle of law. It's being eroded, but that's not enough to give up on it.

If we already know they are not innocent, then we know they are guilty, and we can lock them away without wasting time on a trial.

KnightExemplar wrote:There are a huge number of "normal" people who are Top-Secret cleared and handle the distinction between "Unclassified Emails" and "Classified emails" regularly.
We don't know that at all. What we do know is that they are not valuable political targets. So, there's no real gain for going after them.

morriswalters wrote:Evidently previous Sec's may have used Gmail.
Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:13 am UTC

Lazar wrote:I'd be less disappointed if it was from Hillary's campaign, because they were at least supposed to be running against him. But to see it expressed so explicitly by top officers of the DNC itself, who have a certain notional obligation to neutrality, makes me fear that this country's supposedly "progressive" party is no place for non-religious people.

I'm glad I live in a non-competitive state because I would feel deeply conflicted about giving this crew my vote.

Edit: Democratic Party Charter and Bylaws, Article 5, Section 4:

The Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party Presidential nominating process.

What a joke.



It's never been. The Democrats just engage in a virtue-signaling pantomime. Talking heads like Bill Maher moan about the little man but they own things like part of the Mets stadium, and live rather luxuriously.

In my earlier years when I had approached the Human Rights Campaign, supposedly the national organization for LGBT rights (and obviously a left-leaning progressive group), the recruiter told me that the organization fought for not only LGBT rights but other progressive causes like the $15/hr minimum wage increase.

We then got to talking about how much they would pay the canvassers, and essentially they are a pyramid scheme that starts paying you the minimum wage in Florida and based on how many donations you recruit it may go up to $14/hr.

Like, seriously you asshole? Talking about minimum wage increases yet your shitty company will abuse Florida's minimum wage with its own employees?

If you think Democrats are the party of women, just look at the invective directed at Melania Trump. Called virtually a mail in whore from Eastern Europe. They laugh at the appearance and intelligence of the like of Chris Christie (all the fat jokes from progressives) and Megyn Kelly (another dumb blonde bimbo), but should this happen to a left-wing figure, it's the end-times on twitter and people get their social media accounts suspended.

It's all a farce, really. Both parties give lip service to what's trending as virtuous with their base, but the power structure is the same. Sorta like you have all these TV and movie producers and execs who talk about making more diverse media (the Samoan Disney movie that's about to come out for example), yet in the payroll the ones bringing in the big bucks from the movie returns are white elite Jews and Christian Protestants.

Look at Google and much of San Francisco's upper echelons, and for all their talk about inclusive values, it's basically white elites with some Asians in the mix as well. Look at their socialization patterns and wedding albums, and all these progressives mostly have social groups made up of other upper class white people.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:33 am UTC

Lazar wrote:Sorry, did you guys miss where I pointed out how the most senior officers of the DNC will attack atheists or even suspected atheists who are running for office?
You know the funny thing about these "attacks" is that we had to learn about then from an email hack, they were never used or seriously considered.

I know the Sanders people are really desperate for a last minute hail Mary though so it's not surprising they're clinging to this.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:55 am UTC

ucim wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:An indictment but not a conviction is the closest thing we have to a "not innocent" verdict.
There's a reason there's no such thing as "not innocent", and that is that in this country at least, people are presumed innocent until convicted. That's an importanat principle of law. It's being eroded, but that's not enough to give up on it.
If we already know they are not innocent, then we know they are guilty, and we can lock them away without wasting time on a trial.
KnightExemplar wrote:There are a huge number of "normal" people who are Top-Secret cleared and handle the distinction between "Unclassified Emails" and "Classified emails" regularly.
We don't know that at all. What we do know is that they are not valuable political targets. So, there's no real gain for going after them.
morriswalters wrote:Evidently previous Sec's may have used Gmail.
Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.
Jose

You can't be too puritanical about this, or else everyone in Congress would be in jail. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... n-records/
Just let it be as "Clinton gets away with it because corruption/special treatment".

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jul 23, 2016 4:00 am UTC

Lucrece wrote:Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.
I fact checked myself. Change that to personal email. :oops: None the less, not secure.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Sat Jul 23, 2016 6:40 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.
I fact checked myself. Change that to personal email. :oops: None the less, not secure.

You're misattributing something ucim said to me.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sat Jul 23, 2016 7:58 am UTC

ucim wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Evidently previous Sec's may have used Gmail.
Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.


There's... kinda nothing wrong about writing unclassified emails on Gmail or other public servers. In fact, Clinton's email was unclassified, so frankly, there's no functional difference. No secret shit is supposed to be talked publicly, and a public email (or gmail) both are unclassified.

Clinton's wrong was in:

1. Records Management -- Very few people give a shit about this, but this is actually one of the major concerns. If you're a government official, all of your correspondences are tracked and tagged for sake of historians. (Which is part of the reason why it isn't... really a big deal whether the information is stored on Gmail or where ever) Clinton's private email server looks like it was designed to get around the Records Management duty of public officials. Clinton didn't follow proper Records Management procedure: she only handed her emails over after she left the position, leaving a question to future historians whether or not some emails were lost or deleted.

2. Clinton then was stupid enough to talk about classified information on the public server.

Look: a public email address isn't really that sketchy at all (ignore the specific sketchy stuff that Clinton did in this case), especially for a high-ranking public official. But when using a public email address, don't say secret shit in it. But yeah, if you're going to issue a press release to WashingtonPost or the New York Times, who gives a shit if it has a .gov email address or gmail.com tacked on the end?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sat Jul 23, 2016 1:37 pm UTC

Yeah, the stuff about that gmail use should be prosecutable was more a riff on gmail's "privacy" (koff) than on anything else (and to be fair, I'm sure other free email providers have similar terms).

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:05 pm UTC

ucim wrote:Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.
Lucrece wrote:Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.
Well that's interesting, it seems as if you hit the quote button in the in one message while having text selected in another you get this. I'll be more careful. Twice in two days./shrug
KnightExemplar wrote:2. Clinton then was stupid enough to talk about classified information on the public server.
I'm unsure what you mean by public server. Her server was private but it may not have been secure. But this is beginning to be pointless. Justice declined to prosecute. She was an idiot. Don't vote for her. But the people we pay to make these calls have spoken. She didn't commit a crime. I'm quite sure that if the Donald wins this he will act like any other autocrat, and Hillary should head to a country where extradition for political crimes is invalid. At that point in time you will be correct. He will probably change the penalty to firing squad or some such, and the Clinton saga will end with a bullet.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sat Jul 23, 2016 2:09 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:You know the funny thing about these "attacks" is that we had to learn about then from an email hack, they were never used or seriously considered.

Being proposed by the CFO and supported by the CEO isn't being "seriously considered"?

I know the Sanders people are really desperate for a last minute hail Mary though so it's not surprising they're clinging to this.

Where are you getting this? No one is imagining that this stuff is going to displace Hillary from the ticket – it's just a disappointing confirmation of things we've long suspected about the DNC. But sure, keep on browbeating those desperate loser Bernie Bros and I'm sure they'll come around eventually.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sat Jul 23, 2016 8:05 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:Being proposed by the CFO and supported by the CEO isn't being "seriously considered"?
If it was supported like that from the leaders of the party, why didn't it happen? I mean we have claims of voter fraud and other insane shenanigans, if they really wanted to attack something as simple as Sanders religion, why would anything stop them? I just think it's more confirmation bias from people thinking the DNC is out to get them. I can't take it seriously anymore after so many months of crying wolf.

Someone was stupid enough to propose this, and it was shot down before it ever saw the light of day, pretty much end of story.
Lazar wrote:Where are you getting this? No one is imagining that this stuff is going to displace Hillary from the ticket – it's just a disappointing confirmation of things we've long suspected about the DNC. But sure, keep on browbeating those desperate loser Bernie Bros and I'm sure they'll come around eventually.
I read the Sanders subreddit, they're really that delusional there.

Most of the reasonable supporters are already (begrudgingly) supporting Clinton, if only to stop Trump.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

Supporting Clinton to stop Trump: what Cruz didn't do.

Of the two, Clinton and Trump, which is further from typical Republican positions, really?
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:54 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:Supporting Clinton to stop Trump: what Cruz didn't do.

Of the two, Clinton and Trump, which is further from typical Republican positions, really?



Clinton, obviously. I mean, she's running in a different party to begin with, competing in different primaries with different talking points.

Clinton might be triangulating, self-serving, and corrupt, but her talking points are straight out of the Democrat handbook.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2153
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:59 pm UTC

Meh. Blair was leader of the Labour party, so he wore a red tie. Didn't make him any less big-business-friendly than the Tories. It was rather hard to tell them apart, except for the ties.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:24 pm UTC

Minimum Wage increase? Clinton supports.
Woman's right to choose? Clinton supports.
Gay Marriage? Clinton supports.
Increased taxes on the wealthy? Clinton supports.
The Affordable Care Act? Clinton supports.
Public Education? Clinton supports.
Environmental Regulations? Clinton supports.
Green Energy? Clinton supports.
Immigration? Clinton supports.
Decriminalization of assault against welfare recipients? Clinton opposes.
Indentured servitude to as punishment for breaking contracts with corporations? Clinton opposes.

I mean, Clinton takes the opposite position of Republicans on most issues. The only area they most agree on is war.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Sun Jul 24, 2016 5:18 am UTC

So the Dems just voted to significantly reduce the number of Superdelegates (by binding most of them to state results), very interesting.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:09 pm UTC

Xeio wrote:So the Dems just voted to significantly reduce the number of Superdelegates (by binding most of them to state results), very interesting.

Pure coincidence, I'm certain.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Jul 24, 2016 3:29 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ge%2Fstory

Accusation that the Russian DNC hack was a Russian plot to help Trump, especially now that its on Wikileaks.

I recognize that the Russians hacked the DNC earlier this year, so it doesn't surprise me that the Russians would be behind the Wikileaks release either. But I'm not sure if the Russians give a fuck about Hillary vs Trump, so the accusation is a bit of a tin-foil hat as far as I'm concerned.

I'm convinced the Russians released the emails to Wikileaks for some purpose. I just don't necessarily believe it is "to help Trump".
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:22 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/24/clinton-campaign-manager-russians-leaked-democrats-emails-to-help-donald-trump/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_pp-emails-1031am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Accusation that the Russian DNC hack was a Russian plot to help Trump, especially now that its on Wikileaks.

I recognize that the Russians hacked the DNC earlier this year, so it doesn't surprise me that the Russians would be behind the Wikileaks release either. But I'm not sure if the Russians give a fuck about Hillary vs Trump, so the accusation is a bit of a tin-foil hat as far as I'm concerned.

I'm convinced the Russians released the emails to Wikileaks for some purpose. I just don't necessarily believe it is "to help Trump".



Liberals are trying really, really hard to tie Russians to conservatives even though the Russian propaganda channel RT and other such propaganda channels like Al Jazeera (Qatar royal family) are primarily consumed by left wing individuals.

Russians have no reason to be fond of conservatives, as conservatives have been the more confrontational warmongering party toward Russian, China, and Iran for years.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Mutex
Posts: 1492
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:32 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Decriminalization of assault against welfare recipients? Clinton opposes.
(...)
I mean, Clinton takes the opposite position of Republicans on most issues.


:?: :!:

Is that a thing?

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4585
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Sun Jul 24, 2016 9:09 pm UTC

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has announced her resignation as chair. The Sanders camp had been calling for this as some time, and it was widely believed that this was one of the concessions that the Democrats had planned to make to get the Sanders camp to endorse Hillary. The timing is significant, though, admit the release of the emails suggesting collusion within the party to undermine Sanders.

DWS is now working for the Clinton campaign.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:20 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Is that a thing?

I think he means mandatory drug tests.

LaserGuy wrote:DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has announced her resignation as chair. The Sanders camp had been calling for this as some time, and it was widely believed that this was one of the concessions that the Democrats had planned to make to get the Sanders camp to endorse Hillary. The timing is significant, though, admit the release of the emails suggesting collusion within the party to undermine Sanders.

DWS is now working for the Clinton campaign.

Clinton stooges Terry McAuliffe and Robby Mook also tell us that the DNC emails are "disturbing" and warrant reflection. They'll throw anybody under the bus that they have to – and then toss them a sinecure at the next opportunity.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:42 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Xeio wrote:You know the funny thing about these "attacks" is that we had to learn about then from an email hack, they were never used or seriously considered.

Being proposed by the CFO and supported by the CEO isn't being "seriously considered"?


Oh, sure. But at the end of the day, it's not really that surprising. Did anyone here NOT think the DNC preferred Hillary overall? And of course politics sometimes involves smear pieces. Don't get me wrong, in an ideal world, this wouldn't happen, but as news goes, it's pretty much expected by all concerned.

LaserGuy wrote:DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has announced her resignation as chair. The Sanders camp had been calling for this as some time, and it was widely believed that this was one of the concessions that the Democrats had planned to make to get the Sanders camp to endorse Hillary. The timing is significant, though, admit the release of the emails suggesting collusion within the party to undermine Sanders.

DWS is now working for the Clinton campaign.


This is hilariously tone deaf on the part of the campaign. Don't get me wrong, I know favors have to be repaid and what not, but the timing...god. Clinton may be the first nominee to have her own party chanting for her to be locked up at the convention.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:36 pm UTC

Tone deaf is an apt description.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1827
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Jul 25, 2016 3:43 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Quizatzhaderac wrote:An indictment but not a conviction is the closest thing we have to a "not innocent" verdict.
There's a reason there's no such thing as "not innocent", and that is that in this country at least, people are presumed innocent until convicted. That's an importanat principle of law. It's being eroded, but that's not enough to give up on it.

If we already know they are not innocent, then we know they are guilty, and we can lock them away without wasting time on a trial.
???

Did you edit out "...that's not really the criminal justice system's purpose." just because you felt like saying it in your own words?

I doubt you had any such intention, but you just functionally quote sniped me. Both the preceding and following sentences have significant qualifiers that clearly show I'm not advocating a "not innocent" verdict in criminal law.
sardia wrote:You can't be too puritanical about this, or else everyone in Congress would be in jail. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... n-records/
Just let it be as "Clinton gets away with it because corruption/special treatment".
Absolutely. There is not such thing as a perfect politician. This is just another in a long list of aspects they can succeed or fail at to varying degrees.
ucim wrote:Now that should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.
It's certainly relevant that they do keep and aggregate that information, the actual terms of the ToS don't apply as federal law supersedes it.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:12 pm UTC

Quizatzhaderac wrote:Did you edit out "...that's not really the criminal justice system's purpose." just because you felt like saying it in your own words?
I suppose so. I was not trying to contradict you, I just used the comment as a launch point. I too often hear "we know they're guilty but {whatever} kept them from being convicted. Burn her anyway!"

So, I suppose I'm amplifying your point.

Quizatzhaderac wrote:
ucim wrote:Now that [(using gmail)] should be prosecutable. Does anybody not know that everything that goes through gmail is pretty much owned by google? In both directions. Check the TOS.
It's certainly relevant that they do keep and aggregate that information, the actual terms of the ToS don't apply as federal law supersedes it.
Again that was more of a snipe on gmail's "privacy" protections. But where does federal law supersede gmail's TOS?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:50 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Long story short, the right views them as somehow obligated to vote for them, despite the right doing fairly little in return, and the left rarely misses an opportunity to insult or berate them. Being white isn't actually the main thing, whatever you think. It's a rage at being insulted and ignored. Trump talks to them, despite not really being one of them. That's enough.

Moving to elections thread.
What's the difference between white grievances and anger at being ignored? The people who are angry at being ignored are overwhelmingly white. The data doesn't show other races as showing the same level of anger.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:58 pm UTC

It doesn't stem from being white.

The dissatisfaction over being ignored, mistreated, and generally having a rough life that it seems nobody gives two craps about...it ain't hard to see parallels elsewhere. BLM, for instance.

Trump's found a strong appeal, but he's not an ideal figurehead. If he could synthesize the various disparate forms of strangely similar rage from the Bernie crowd, the poor southern whites, and the BLM crowd, he'd be nigh-unstoppable. Of course, to do that, he'd have to not be Trump.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:05 pm UTC

ucim wrote:But where does federal law supersede gmail's TOS?

The law of the land always supersedes contract agreements. There are rights you can't sign away (even in the US...)

Are you suggesting gmail's TOS is uniquely above the law? :shock:

sardia wrote:The people who are angry at being ignored are overwhelmingly white. The data doesn't show other races as showing the same level of anger.

I think the ignored and disenfranchised of other races are just as angry if not more so, they just have even less faith than angry whites that the electoral system is the way to resolve their grievances.
Last edited by elasto on Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Chen
Posts: 5582
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Chen » Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:08 pm UTC

elasto wrote:The law of the land always supersedes contract agreements. There are rights you can't sign away (even in the US...)

Are you suggesting gmail's TOS is uniquely above the law? :shock:


I think the question is what aspect of the TOS is contradicted by federal law.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:12 pm UTC

Chen wrote:I think the question is what aspect of the TOS is contradicted by federal law.

I imagine state secrecy laws in particular.

Google would have to handle any top secret information that was accidentally disclosed to it in accordance with federal laws just as any other person or body would, no matter what its TOS 'permitted' it to do with it.

There might be other laws also - certainly under UK and European laws, there are certain rights it's impossible to sign away - but secrecy laws seem to be the most relevant to this particular case.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6816
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:11 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mon ... rievances/
Article shows there are three sources of Trump's support.
Voters aren't ideologically consistent.
White identity and hostility to minorities.
Economic struggle.

Anger doesn't explain Trump as much as the above. Do you have any evidence of whites, the very definition of an in-group, are mistreated? Most of the evidence shows a rise in the perception of whites being left behind.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... yVgULpLdvQ

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

Not whites in general. Poor southern/Midwestern whites. Specific segments. Folks who have lost manufacturing jobs(seriously, listen to campaign speeches, and how often they mention these compared to other segments of the economy) have been recognized as hurting for a while now. But it ain't *just* them. Energy extraction is generally hurting too. Coal mining's taken hits, gas prices have been in the toilet for a while now, and the US is roughly neutral as far as gas production is concerned. For every area celebrating cheap gas prices, there's another suffering a bust economy.

If this constitutes mistreatment, well, that's subjective. But large areas of the country are hurting, and are ALSO routinely scorned by the political establishment. Trump makes a handy person to turn to, because he's appealing to them directly, and nobody else really is. Are racist sentiments involved? Sure. But that's not the cause. Racism didn't get invented this election cycle.



Also, the listed study there in your article, from 1964, saying that people don't organize around ideology may be slightly dated. Partisanship is pretty high at present. We ain't in the same political climate as fifty years ago.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6896
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:30 pm UTC

Google is a common carrier - which means it is not responsible for what rides on its wires. TOS states that the account owner gives Google the right to read its email (incoming and outgoing) and to do what it wishes with the information. This includes building profiles, selling the info to others, and filtering what you read and see based on it.

If there were secrets running around, it is the account owner who would be held liable for releasing the information to Google.

So, if you email the secret of Coke's formulation to an associate's gmail address, Google capitalizes on it, and Coke finds out, your associate is the guilty party.

It may not play out that way because lawyers and money, but that's the way the contract reads. Which federal law would overrule this?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

Contract law as a whole does not trump criminal law. I'm not sure why you're still carrying on about it as if it's important.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests