|
Yinlock posted:loving savage He's the gift that keeps on giving. Now all she has to do is keep him firmly attached to the main Republicans so they feel the full weight of his failure.
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:You just said the secret word!! I thought the secret word was Radical Islam becOH poo poo *disappears in a puff of smoke*
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
Antti posted:Given that this is the only chink in her armour I hope the campaign spends time honing the response. "Only?" Hahahahahaha. Like, I'm all for Hillary, but you know that there's literally dozens of things that Donald can use against her, even if basically all of them are bullshit. Even if the email issue magically went away, there's still Mr. Ben Ghazi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"Only?" Trump word salad does not equal an actual weakness. The polls showed and show that the email thing did hurt her because it plays right into her insider-ness and untrustworthiness. If the narrative sticks to experience, temperament and commander-in-chief quality she's gonna win. If it becomes establishment v. anti-establishment it might become a problem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Are the basement dwelling Snowden/Assange apologists still here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Antti posted:It's not great that she can't seem to be able to put the emails to bed, or rather, keeps stepping into it in awkward ways. She probably knows and feels personally that the whole thing is bullshit and essentially saw Comey's statement as vindication but she needs to find a better tone to approach the issue. Given that this is the only chink in her armour I hope the campaign spends time honing the response. The chink in her armor is that she lies casually and later when it's time to "clarify her statement" she never gives any indication that she comprehends what truth is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn_PSJsl0LQ
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Antti posted:Trump word salad does not equal an actual weakness. The polls showed and show that the email thing did hurt her because it plays right into her insider-ness and untrustworthiness. If the narrative sticks to experience, temperament and commander-in-chief quality she's gonna win. If it becomes establishment v. anti-establishment it might become a problem. It amuses me that you posted that the email thing is "the only chink in her armor" and then immediately followed it up with a post containing two more things that could reasonably be considered chinks in her armor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Are the basement dwelling Snowden/Assange apologists still here? Fascinating move to lump the two together
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
I didn't think US journalists/presenters called people out like this: Carl Paladino: "I know which side you're on ma'am." Joy: "Not Vladimir Putin's." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apKqRFmrydY
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
PST posted:I didn't think US journalists/presenters called people out like this: seeing carl "rotting fester addams but with more bestiality" paladino yelled at on national television warms my cold heart
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Are the basement dwelling Snowden/Assange apologists still here? Not like panopticon police state apologists. They live in the attic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
iospace posted:Speaking of Snowden and leaking stuff to the world at large: loving lol of course the Greens would support an accused rapist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Bad Moon posted:I completely understand about having zero good options in that case but man, Putin's Russia? Just drat. He would have had more good options if he hadn't decided to reveal it was him who leaked stuff before he got ensconced somewhere decent. Freakazoid_ posted:It was pretty much in the realm of tin foil hat wearers. Nobody could possibly believe the NSA was irradiating people with 1kW of radiofrequency energy at short range to activate a built-in chip along the wire of your monitor to see what you're doing. You know you don't need to do that for a lot of consumer monitors, especially the old CRT type but including modern LCDs? Van Eck phreaking CRTs across the street could already be done for under $1000 in the mid-2000s, and for LCDs the extra equipment only bumped the cost to like $2500. Plus this methodology has been available since 1985, it was widely published. Check Markus Kuhn's paper from 2006 or so for how to do it with modern panels - he was able to read an umodified laptop's screen from ~80 feet away with consumer equipment. I swear it's like freaking out that someone can get into your house if they spend 5 hours picking your front door lock while ignoring that you had window wide open on the side without even a screen in the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:"Only?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
as a political junkie who obsessively tracks dozens of right wing blogs, i hear about benghazi all the time. it must be catching on with the populace!!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Benjamin Ghazi will have his revenge.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Seeric posted:This was posted on Donald Trump's Twitter account and for once it seems to have some actual weight behind it: Comparing partial data to complete data is sketchy, though it might be no big deal. Looking at crime in absolute numbers instead of as rates is not just sketchy, it's dishonest - big cities are growing in population, even more rapidly than the country as a whole. There are many ways to look at given data: I just went to the source and looked at homicide data for the first half of 2016 and first half of 2015, and of the 60 cities surveyed, 36 showed increases and 24 showed decreases. This is not statistically significant, even before considering what we should expect from growing populations. Now, the test I did isn't the best one - it's just the one I can do in my head while phone-posting and rocking my baby to sleep, so don't go quoting me and thinking that my analysis is definitive. And it may be that the overall increases are significant even after taking population into account - I just can't do that analysis here right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
I dunno I just enjoy that "TRUMP WAS RIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING" is apparently a legit news story now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
Wrap it up Ryanailures, the ever-relevant Sarah Palin has endorsed Harley-ridin', tattooed, arm-wrestling patriot Nehlen: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/08/05/politics/sarah-palin-endorsement-paul-nehlen/index.html?client=safari
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
I really don't think the Benghazi thing does anything to her. The only people who care about Benghazi are so far up the Republican rear end in a top hat they think Hillary is killing people who displease her every other day Darth Vader style. Which is funny because if Clinton didn't stop Benghazi with her magic state department ninjas why the hell didn't Republicans use them when 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:Making comparisons to historic lows is sketchy - almost like they are looking to find an increase. Just do what Trump does and say something like, "the numbers are... well, you wouldn't believe me if I told you, they're outrageous" and then just move on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:I really don't think the Benghazi thing does anything to her. The only people who care about Benghazi are so far up the Republican rear end in a top hat they think Hillary is killing people who displease her every other day Darth Vader style. I don't know, why didn't Obama stop 9/11 even though he had information pointing to a possible terror attack?  bush who's that never heard of him shut up
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:I really don't think the Benghazi thing does anything to her. The only people who care about Benghazi are so far up the Republican rear end in a top hat they think Hillary is killing people who displease her every other day Darth Vader style. A not insignificant portion of people literally believe that, why do you think so many people are still voting for Trump and/or Stein/Johnson despite the fact that every one of them is insane politically
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
stinkles1112 posted:It amuses me that you posted that the email thing is "the only chink in her armor" and then immediately followed it up with a post containing two more things that could reasonably be considered chinks in her armor. Again, those fall more in this eternal cloud of less or more ginned-up scandal that hangs around her and has gotten stuck to her over the years. If elected the emails will just be rolled into it. But before that, the emails are an actual concrete thing. We can wax this or that way what her weaknesses are but the emails are the most concrete, most prominent, most attention-getting, most recent weakness, and she needs to do better with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Are the basement dwelling Snowden/Assange apologists still here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Are the basement dwelling Snowden/Assange apologists still here? Yup! No but really. Why are you so comfortable with president Trump having all of your dick pics? sleeptalker posted:Dead people are more useful to causes, being alive to speak for yourself is a liability. Actually quite often the opposite is true. Remember, dead people have no way to counter a narrative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Yup! Why are you so comfortable with the 3 different corporations you uploaded your dick pics to having your dick pics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
Casimir Radon posted:Are the basement dwelling Snowden/Assange apologists still here? Says the guy named after a Neal Stephenson character
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Why are you so comfortable with the 3 different corporations you uploaded your dick pics to having your dick pics?
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Look at it like this: at this point, having embarrassing poo poo in your internet history is so ubiquitous, the only correct response is to just not care.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
FuzzySlippers posted:I really don't think the Benghazi thing does anything to her. The only people who care about Benghazi are so far up the Republican rear end in a top hat they think Hillary is killing people who displease her every other day Darth Vader style. Do you understand? All events in history exist solely and exclusively to serve the current political needs of the Republican Party of the United States. It will never ch  oh god who is this orange man and why is he in the Command Center
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
rscott posted:I think the potential for abuse and the consequences of that abuse are the obvious differences, or that people are used to being personally exploited for the profit of others but not used to the government monitoring their activities in a passive fashion So you trust corporations to not just immediately hand over the information if the cops/feds/etc come asking? Which immediately leads to the same abuse as if it was just taken in the first place? I mean hell half of what Snowden "revealed" is precisely how much corporations are willing to just hand anything the government wants over so the government doesn't even need to monitor on their own, just let it sit right there and be rifled through as they need it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Look at it like this: at this point, having embarrassing poo poo in your internet history is so ubiquitous, the only correct response is to just not care. No one must know about my deviantart searches No one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
I have a question about the whole NSA spying thing. I've basically always assumed the government had access to your Internet and mobile phone usage. Does that make me weird for not being really shocked or sympathetic to Snowden's plight? I mean I don't think he should be charged with treason or whatever, but I was never shocked about it, Probably because the government was involved in telecommunications and the Internet from the start, I just assumed that's how it worked. I was never super outraged about the confirmation leak. I just kind of already expected it. This far out from the whole situation I'm having trouble giving a poo poo. Am I weird and /or dumb? Dirt fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Aug 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:15
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Look at it like this: at this point, having embarrassing poo poo in your internet history is so ubiquitous, the only correct response is to just not care. I tried that but the FBI took a dim view.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
I mean considering the NSA had been intercepting consumer electronics in transit to install spyware, yeah. The level of surveillance went beyond any reasonable interpretation of the information available before the Snowden leak imo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:I mean considering the NSA had been intercepting consumer electronics in transit to install spyware, yeah. The level of surveillance went beyond any reasonable interpretation of the information available before the Snowden leak imo. OK that makes sense to me . Definitely unnecessarily shady.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:I mean considering the NSA had been intercepting consumer electronics in transit to install spyware, yeah. The level of surveillance went beyond any reasonable interpretation of the information available before the Snowden leak imo. Shock as a spy agency specifically tasked with technological spying spies on technology. They were pulling the same stuff back in the cold war, and it was known that they'd do that to their targets. And tons of those targets were of course regular US citizens, they didn't just do it to spooky foreigners in foreign lands.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Shock as a spy agency specifically tasked with technological spying spies on technology. They were pulling the same stuff back in the cold war, and it was known that they'd do that to their targets. And tons of those targets were of course regular US citizens. Shockingly not everyone shares your blasé attitude towards a indiscriminate and omnipresent intelligence dragnet
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 04:29 |
|
|
fishmech posted:So you trust corporations to not just immediately hand over the information if the cops/feds/etc come asking? Which immediately leads to the same abuse as if it was just taken in the first place? Nah, you're not reading what I'm saying correctly. My personal belief is that the conventional notion of privacy is outdated and hadn't caught up to reality yet. It's inevitable and something that can't be changed without basically uninventing networked computers. The only safeguards to abuse of that data are cultural, not technological or legal. Most people haven't reconciled themselves with that idea yet and that's why they're up in arms about it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 6, 2016 23:27
|
|