The US Election 2016, Part VII

[Guard Dog]

[Pidesco]

What is a right and what is a privilege? And which ones are accompanied by required responsibility?

[Guard Dog]

What is a right and what is a privilege? And which ones are accompanied by required responsibility?

A drivers license is a privilege. The chance to vote is a right. BOTH require responsibility!

[Guard Dog]

That basket of deplorables sure has a lot of people in it! http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-records-with-small-donors-228338

[Pidesco]

That basket of deplorables sure has a lot of people in it! http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-records-with-small-donors-228338

 

The story of Trump really is insane. A supposed billionaire who made his fortune through cleverly orchestrated bankruptcies and shady tax breaks runs for President , He has a Tax plan that is essentially a gigantic tax break to himself. Even so, people think this billionaire who was born into money, is their chance to buck the system and get someone in power who cares about them. This guy. The one who has enough money to pay for ten Presidential campaigns at the same time has loads of people sending him their hard earned money for nothing at all. Deplorables or not, they certainly are fools.

 

What is a right and what is a privilege? And which ones are accompanied by required responsibility?

A drivers license is a privilege. The chance to vote is a right. BOTH require responsibility!

 

 

I don't know about voting requiring responsibility. It is certainly recommended, but people can vote for whoever they want, even if it's not a responsible choice like, say, Muttley or Trump,

 

What about guns, though?

[ShadySands]

The right to bear arms

[Guard Dog]

 Everyone is hung up on what an important job the Presidency is. But the truth is any jackass can get that job. And of the 44 Presidents we've had at least 15-16 of them had no business being there. I doubt Trump would even turn out to be the worst of them.

[quidproquo]

That's not entirely true, Pidesco. Don't think the majority of people who support Trump think he cares about them. A lot of them maybe, but a lot of them are just giving a gigantic "**** off" to the system. It's not about loving Trump. It's not even about Hating Clinton. It's about the way the political wankers have made a mess of their situation and now no one trusts the politicians or the media.

 

In other news, Tapper, in his exuberance to go after Christie regarding Trump, edited out Clinton's use of the word "bombings" in her remarks about the... what's that... Press are attacking Trump for saying bomb about what were actually bombings? Clinton's response was much more subdued, but the media are just looking idiotic about the man now. Complaining bout tone in a matter where technically the woman said the same thing is beyond the pale.

[Guard Dog]

Yes here firearm ownership is a right. And like a lot of other rights it is not absolute and may be forfeited if exercised irresponsibly. 

[Guard Dog]

The truth is the "establishment" DNC has been wanting Clinton since 2008. There is no way in hell it was not going to be her. They didn't want Obama but he ruined that for them by winning. With Bernie they took no chances and sabotaged him. But Hillary was already poison and has only gotten worse over the years. The truth is had they run someone like Brian Schweitzer, Mark Warner, Tulsi Gabbard, or even if they had not torpedoed Jim Webb this election might look very differently. A huge  part of Trump's success is because Hillary Clinton is rabidly hated by 48% of the country. 

[Bokishi]

It doesn't help that a majority of her reddit supports are supposedly part of a SuperPAC

[quidproquo]

"Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump were split in their reactions to the attack in Manhattan on Saturday, which injured dozens. Both shifted into the mode of combat, with Mrs. Clinton stressing her national security credentials and measuring her words, and Mr. Trump sounding a note of furious alarm."

 

That's a news article for you. Least it was "fit to print."

 

More from the New York Times:

 

Headline: "White Voters Keep Trump’s Hopes Alive in Must-Win Florida"

 

In the article:

 

"White voters

Clinton Trump

30% 51%

Mrs. Clinton is competitive among white voters in southeast Florida.

 

Black voters

Clinton Trump

82% 4%

Black voters are nearly unanimous in not supporting Mr. Trump.

 

Hispanic voters

Clinton Trump

61% 21%"

 

Would observe that Clinton should be worried about the level of black support she's getting. Seems low to me. Main thing, however, is that the article talks about Trump's hopes raised by white voters. Muppet could have written that Clinton's hopes are alive because of minority voters. See here, headline could've been something more like "White voters favor Trump and minority voters favor Clinton." Personally, I think Clinton's going to win this in the end, but she should be worried by polls showing this tight of a race. Meanwhile, the Germans have their own worries. Wonder what will happen when they do national elections.

Edited September 19, 2016 by quidproquo

[HoonDing]

MAWA

[Malcador]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

 

Outrageous, just outrageous.

Trump is not in charge right now. Clinton and her gang members are in charge, so she is responsible.

Clinton's portfolio gets larger and larger.

 

Sad that there are weird sadist types that buy this http://time.com/4500485/donald-trump-new-york-bomb-new-jersey/

Edited September 19, 2016 by Malcador

[Bokishi]

Huffington Post identified more voting factors in this election besides whites vs minorities http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57dc4bece4b04a1497b491b6

[HoonDing]

 

 

Trump Justice: Ditch Due Process

lol

[Bokishi]

Stonetear.

[Guard Dog]

I don't remember if this has been posted here or not. But it is funny so at the risk of being repetitive: 

 

[kirottu]

Stonetear.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hillary-clinton-tech-guy-asked-reddit-for-email-advice

 

The sheer ineptitude is mind boggling. Guy goes to public forum to ask how to screw emails with an account that can be linked to his real name. And he's their "IT guy". 

[Meshugger]

 

Stonetear.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hillary-clinton-tech-guy-asked-reddit-for-email-advice

 

The sheer ineptitude is mind boggling. Guy goes to public forum to ask how to screw emails with an account that can be linked to his real name. And he's their "IT guy". 

 

 

A new congressional hearing would be in order.

[Bokishi]

4chan and Reddit are the new FBI. I wonder if he's still alive...

[BruceVC]

 

Stonetear.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/hillary-clinton-tech-guy-asked-reddit-for-email-advice

 

The sheer ineptitude is mind boggling. Guy goes to public forum to ask how to screw emails with an account that can be linked to his real name. And he's their "IT guy". 

 

This link is illogical and doesn't make sense

 

The whole point of having an archive system for Ediscovery is you cannot strip an email address and then expect the data to be seen as consistent or not tampered with. You can edit a previously sent email but then when you resave it will reflect a completely different modified date. And even if somehow are able to do this on the backend server you cannot change the copy that is stored on the archive system. This is the point of " chain of custody " around email archiving/Ediscovery 

 

I dont believe this reddit story for one second, it makes no technical sense and I would encourage people to ignore this as the people propagating this as a " valid concern " dont understand much of how archive systems work or how the Electronic Discovery Reference model – EDRM is designed 

Edited September 20, 2016 by BruceVC

[Bokishi]

Of course it's illogical. The point is that he was asking if he could strip the emails, which is what he originally wanted to do. When reddit told him that's impossible, he just went ahead and deleted them all

[Meshugger]

Since when should stupidity make sense?

[BruceVC]

Of course it's illogical. The point is that he was asking if he could strip the emails, which is what he originally wanted to do. When reddit told him that's impossible, he just went ahead and deleted them all

But even the article clearly says " someone who appears to be Hillary Clinton’s former private computer specialist " and " so while it’s impossible to know if it's definitely him, a number of breadcrumbs point in Combetta's direction " 

 

 

You guys are basing your view on speculation and hearsay that this person who asked this question is in fact Hilary Clinton's previous "computer specialist " 

 

There is no real evidence the person who asked the question on reddit is who he says he is.  Does this not concern you that you making assumptions around his identity ?