exactly, i read the email. i responded with the assertionn that the evidence, the email, does not back the conclusions. In all cases the videos author is taking statements out of context, or making background assumptions about the context of the emails that we don't know. you then told me to read the emails, which i already stated i did. you are asking me to find the smoking gun in thousands of emails, when every example of a smoking gun you come up with fails to say what you want it to say!
So does Donald Trump. At least he did in 2013. He said it was critical. And if fact, variations on the statements made by Hilary I think would be good things.
2)The Iran deal was awful and even Democrats know it.
That email was clearly lacking in context, And could actually mean many things, perhaps referencing a private conversation where one of the individuals 'called' that response. We don't actually know what was said here as the "Yup" comment from Podesta does not answer any query from the original email.
3)Bernie Sanders was bribed into supporting Hillary. But he did it for the people! Aaand his lakefront vacation home.
The wording in the email does not suggest an actual exchange of cash (a point the source of this analysis now admits). In fact it discusses a solid standard political tactic. The Republicans sign a pledge to support the nominee, this is no different. The Clinton campaign just suggested they produce goodwill between candidates and not produce ads that undermine the eventual nominee. Politicians working together? What scandal!
4) The DNC created fake, sexist ads under the alias of Trump organizations.
i see no evidence they were posted. And, these posts are clear hyperbole. I don't see how this is more serious then Republicans creating propeganda sites masquerading as local news, or creating fake websites from democratic candidates, or creating fake democratic fundraising sites to steal Democrats money.
5) Hillary believed Obama committed voter fraud
-Both wrong and misleading. Some people of unknown position and authority in Colorado (sound like they might just be private citizens) thought that Obama was bringing ineligible voters to Caucuses in 2008.
6)Clinton staffers wished the San Bernardino shooter was white.
Misleading. John Podesta made that claim. No email was released that agreed with him. I am unsure what this has to do with "their tactics".
7)The Clinton campaign is HUGE on media collusion.
Not sure how this email proves media collusion. It was a mass email from someone in the Sanders team about a Sanders Twitterstorm sent to political consultant Donna Brazile, who forwarded it to the Clinton campaign. I see no signs of a media organization colluding with Clinton.
8) Speaking of media collusion, Ezra Klein is big on helping to make that happen.
Ezra Klein was mentioned as someone how would hold a journalist 'accountable'. From context, that would appear to mean accountable for discussing excerpts from emails devoid of context and claiming a different meaning than what was intended. Kinda like this entire chain of accusations.
9)Hillary knowingly, criminally deleted her emails.
The emails in this case neither reveal anything new, nor prove Clinton knew anything more then she claimed. The staffers claim no conversations with Clinton about the subject, just reservations about the information everyone at that point had.
10)Obama and Hillary communicated via private email, and it was kept hidden.
The only thing in the wikileaks emails that they cite is a short email. It asked if they should withhold emails to from [reasonably assumed] Clinton to Obama. And ponder if Executive Privilege should be declared. Since everyone communicated with Clinton via private email, I don't know why it would be surprising the President did. there is no evidence that Obama was using an unknown private email, nor was there evidence that his copies of the emails aren't archived on a government server. In fact we don't even have a response, so we don't know that Clinton copies of these emails were even withheld.
Honestly, I'm not even gonna get into the second Video. If you need to blatantly misattribute and sensationalize the information to 'prove' misconduct, you are on a witch hunt.
As a note, the democratic party is not my party. I'm Pirate party. i just don't like partisan mudslinging.
your kinda missing the point. we have a poll which seems to significantly disagree with other polls from both sides of the aisle. and we find that the reason of the poll is that, an isolated individual's opinion is being used to establish the opinion of an entire specifc voting block. voting blocks are normally not that specific, because the sample size is normally too small to draw accurate conclusions. This single individual changed polling numbers by 4-5% in favor of trump, and no single opinion should shift a scientifically run poll that much. every other poll suggests that he is not representive of his demographic.
he is not being singled out because he votes for trump. The poll is being singled out for overweighting his opinion such that the poll result drastically changes when he isn't included. The LA poll suggests that there has been a massive shift in opinion towards Clinton, when in fact the biggest change is a single trump supporter not answering his phone.
Trump supporters should be angry about this. This past week has been full of stories about trump's falling poll numbers. And that meta analysis comes to a far more dire conclusion because of this poll.
Except Stein and Johnson are terrible at most technology issues. Johnson's policy is basically, If we just stop all government regulation in the broadband space, including all funding to encourage spending on low value areas, somehow the monopolistic practices of the last decade will just fade away and we will just be awash in a broadband utopia. In fact, that sums up gary Johnson's entire plan.
And Jill stein has almost zero stated policy positions surrounding technology.
I useed to support Jill Stein, but as ive looked into policy platforms, I have found her policies on many issues that matter to me to be problematic. Shes got no directives on copyrights or patents, her website lists no position on the encryption debate, she recommends sweeping military cuts, her stance on common core is populist-it addresses the perception of why the standards are wrong rather then the reality, wants to enact scare labels on our food, and overall, makes broad, simple statements about complex goals. most of her proposals are about as specific as Trump.
Her website has a disturbing tendancy to repeat itself, like it felt the need to pad out her policies.
If I vote purely on surveilance, Clinton is not a good choice. But There are many other issues, and taken as a whole Clinton provides me with a better policy platform the either Jill Stein or Gary Johnson. Go ahead and be a single issue voter if you wish, but I see a lot of issues that need handling.
Except, passively scannig email and assigning ads to it, while similar, would require different software from the type yahoo is described as using. Funny thing, software can only do what its designed to do, and Google's ad matching algorithim likely doesn't include include the kind of frontend needed to produce emails for the government based on keyword selection. While yes, the could modify the software to do it, it would require google to build such a system for that purpose. Google's adwords software doesn't require it, so the build would be for the government.
You ever connect to a friends WiFi using your phone or Laptop? Ever connect to free wifi at your local coffee shop? There are plenty of places where you could connect to Wifi that MIGHT have a brother printer on it, and therefore put you at risk. That's before considering the Botnet problems Thad pointed out.
Is this an active malware vector? Do they have examples of it in the wild? Why haven't news networks jumped at the fear-mongering that would entail? Why didn't HP SUPPORT that fear-mongering by pushing news networks to release warnings about the 'dangers' of third paty ink use?
Perhaps because that would start a series of questions like "Why can your ink cartridge send commands over my LAN?" and "Why does an ink cartridge need a computer chip?".
As Radix said, If the ink cartridge can access your LAN, you have a huge security problem.
I'm not sure why a discussion of media bias is appearing in an article about google autocomplete. They are a search engine. They don't even publish anything....oh i get it. you DO think google is "publishing" autocomplete results don't you. its making little headlines just for you. Well a bunch of people have thought that. They even sued google over auto correct search results. So google changed auto correct in its search. Now they remove negative autocomplete statements for EVERYONE. No more defamatory google autocomplete results. Now everyone will be happy.
What do you mean someone created some highly baised "journalism" "showing" that we were editing search results about Clinton and nobody but clinton?
"used the death of American's to promote a false agenda". really weird grammar there. you could have an agenda with false motives, or a hidden agenda, but an agenda is a list of goals. How do you advance a false list of goals? what does that even MEAN?
Anyway, do you perhaps mean like the politician using 9/11 and a few other, random, scattered, rare, terror attacks, overstating the threat and falsely assigning the largest threat to bar an entire religion from entering the United States? Because that's not Hillary.
Why do I find Trump lies worse? Trump doesn't just lie. he lies about lying. He lies, about lying about his lies. ect. Trump appears to change the truth to fit his mood. Like his net worth. its a mathmatical value based on actual physical holdings. But trump adds a value supported by no accounting system - a highly variable intangible that represents his "brand". Like even without all the stuff that makes up the Trump brand, it would still have this ethereal value. and it changes at his whim. And he then says other people are lying if they don't include this "brand value" in his net worth, even though there is no evidence to support its value. And it grows from there. He'll make a policy position and after he abandons that policy position He never made that previous policy decision. Clinton admits when she changes a position. she might not explain herself, but she admits the previous statement. Trump edits, in real time, the past. We have always been at war with Eastasia.
The article is a little unclear in regards to WHAT tax these cities are employing. CA only taxes personal tangible property. Most cities do employ a seperate telecommunications tax that applies to cable, and these cities are claiming that Netflix is just another cable service who should be paying this tax.
thats kinda the whole point. business owners (see trump) like to claim that it was their work, and only their work that made it, and they should get all the benefits. None of this tax me and continue to build the community that built my company on nonsense.
Did you know that there are nearly 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the US? And that to remit sales tax you need a sales tax certificate from the state at minimum? Did you know that most states have more than one sales tax authority? And that sales tax waivers are issued by the state? and that every state has its own policies related to when an individual qualifies as a reseller?
Tracking all of this is terrible, and states in general arent willing to make broad simplifications like maintaining an easily accessable central database of tax rates and jurisdictions in their state.
But all this is besides the point. In ca services are not taxed, only tangible personal property. I really cant understand how it applies to my netflix subscription.
yes...75 cop cars chasing one, possibly armed, suspect who was accused of firing a single shot that produced no bodies is an entirely reasonable and justified force response level. as is firing 137 rounds in the span of 30 seconds. /sarc
You know how "threatened these cops felt? one of them got up on the police car, completely exposing himself to return fire, so he could get in on the extrajudicial murder. There was no goddamn threat and they knew it.
Big companies have never been more profitable. The tax cuts proposed by Trump don't target the small businesses that are supposedly overburdened by taxes, and in gives the lion's share of the benefit to the Big companies who we want to tax. High taxes encourage investment in a business, because the investment back into the business reduces the tax burden. Lowering tax burdens has never been shown to increase business investment, and we can clearly see that wage growth has significantly slowed since the tax cutting Reagan era.
Freeing up big business to be even more anti-competitive by giving them more cash and less regulation does not necessarily help the small businesses that the regulation and taxes are supposedly destroying.
As for regulatory burden - trump has listed a few problems he has with regulation. Like Farm Health and safety standards, the lack of which lead to several major health crisis in his restraunts. Or Food Preperation standards like not serving meat 6 months after its prime - again something trump restraunts have a problem with. Or not contaminating streams that feed into larger water sources with toxic chemicals? He has a problem with that, i guess thinking that small streams are independent from bigger sources.
He wants to 'rank' saftey standards. So whats more important - Food Storage Temperatures requirements for Beef that help prevent E-Coli outbreaks or Cooking Temperature standards for Pork to help prevent parasite infection?
He complains about regulations for dog food, implying that we shouldn't care. But pets tend to be well loved companions whose loss is deeply personal and can be as bad as the loss of any other family member. Medical costs for pets are just as bad as the costs for humans, but insurance is a lot harder to come by. Food safety for pet food to prevent readily preventable disease or parasite infections, and prevent feeding your pet toxic chemicals makes sense, and I am unsure why these costs are supposedly not being borne by consumers. I guarantee you if these regulations are repealed you aren't going to see significant reduction in consumer cost.
It probably fell on deaf ears because his examples of burdensome regulation always seem to have a clear reason they exist, and his details always seem to not match muster. He wants to reduce Tax revenue by nearly a Trillion a year (but he assures us the economy will boom and so he'll only reduce federal revenues by a Half a trillion a year), while at the same time funding the largest infrastructure investment since the initial creation of the Highway system. I dont understand how he plans to get our trade partners to agree to terms which expressly and intentionally favor the US over their own interests. His economic policy assumes that he can, and if he fails his budget doesn't work at all.
The point of the language is to prevent the party supplying the language from creating intentionally vague language which the non-supplying party thinks means one thing, but was 'meant' to mean something very different which gave significant leverage to the party supplying the language.