|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 25 2016 02:12 oneofthem wrote:
not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large.
bernie is just a pit stop on the road to trotskyism dont worry
|
On February 25 2016 05:11 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:When the University of Texas released a report last week detailing where it plans to allow guns on its Austin campus, Nora Dolliver’s choice of graduate schools narrowed by one.
The languages student at the University of Chicago sent an email to staff with the subject “Declining Offer of Admission Due to Campus Carry Guidelines”, and will now pursue a dual masters in Russian and Eastern European studies and library sciences elsewhere. Someplace where she can feel confident that the person she is sitting next to is not packing a concealed pistol.
Students and academics have warned of a chilling effect on freedom of expression ever since Texas became the latest state to pass a “campus carry” law last year. It compels public universities to allow license holders aged 21 and over to bring concealed handguns on to most areas of campus.
The faculty senate at the University of Houston prepared a slideshow for recent faculty forums warning that academics may want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics; drop certain topics from your curriculum; not ‘go there’ if you sense anger; limit student access off hours; go to appointment-only office hours; only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”
A slide provides potential arguments against the policy, such as “most parents don’t want their underage children to attend a gun-enabled campus” and “The MILITARY doesn’t allow guns in barracks and classrooms (outside of weapons training), why should there be guns in dorms and classrooms?”
The presentation is not official university policy, which is expected to be announced in the next couple of months. Jonathan Snow, the senate president, has told the governing body that faculty members are overwhelmingly opposed to the new rule. “It’s a radical law because guns have never really been a part of American university campuses,” Snow said. “I can no longer say there will be no guns in my classroom, that makes me a criminal.”
Proponents say that it will only arm a small number of responsible license holders who have undergone training and background checks and that guns were already allowed in some outside areas of Texas campuses. But Snow and many at the University of Texas (UT), the state’s top-ranked major public university, are worried there will be a “brain drain” of students and staff who will leave or, like Dolliver, never enroll. Source Does anyone else get the feeling that this country is reaching a boiling point where things might turn violent on any number of issues? I just feel like there are so many fractured, angry factions now. I hope I'm wrong. Articles like this feel like satire pieces you'd read on the Onion or something. Except no one is laughing anymore.
thats what tupac said but ferguson was just looting right?
|
On February 25 2016 05:13 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 02:12 oneofthem wrote:
not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large. bernie is just a pit stop on the road to trotskyism dont worry
still scared of the reds are we? no one checked the closet for monsters yet?
|
On February 25 2016 05:11 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:When the University of Texas released a report last week detailing where it plans to allow guns on its Austin campus, Nora Dolliver’s choice of graduate schools narrowed by one.
The languages student at the University of Chicago sent an email to staff with the subject “Declining Offer of Admission Due to Campus Carry Guidelines”, and will now pursue a dual masters in Russian and Eastern European studies and library sciences elsewhere. Someplace where she can feel confident that the person she is sitting next to is not packing a concealed pistol.
Students and academics have warned of a chilling effect on freedom of expression ever since Texas became the latest state to pass a “campus carry” law last year. It compels public universities to allow license holders aged 21 and over to bring concealed handguns on to most areas of campus.
The faculty senate at the University of Houston prepared a slideshow for recent faculty forums warning that academics may want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics; drop certain topics from your curriculum; not ‘go there’ if you sense anger; limit student access off hours; go to appointment-only office hours; only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”
A slide provides potential arguments against the policy, such as “most parents don’t want their underage children to attend a gun-enabled campus” and “The MILITARY doesn’t allow guns in barracks and classrooms (outside of weapons training), why should there be guns in dorms and classrooms?”
The presentation is not official university policy, which is expected to be announced in the next couple of months. Jonathan Snow, the senate president, has told the governing body that faculty members are overwhelmingly opposed to the new rule. “It’s a radical law because guns have never really been a part of American university campuses,” Snow said. “I can no longer say there will be no guns in my classroom, that makes me a criminal.”
Proponents say that it will only arm a small number of responsible license holders who have undergone training and background checks and that guns were already allowed in some outside areas of Texas campuses. But Snow and many at the University of Texas (UT), the state’s top-ranked major public university, are worried there will be a “brain drain” of students and staff who will leave or, like Dolliver, never enroll. Source Does anyone else get the feeling that this country is reaching a boiling point where things might turn violent on any number of issues? I just feel like there are so many fractured, angry factions now. I hope I'm wrong. Articles like this feel like satire pieces you'd read on the Onion or something. Except no one is laughing anymore.
The only Freedom that matters in the US is the freedom to have guns. Everything else is fucked.
|
On February 25 2016 05:11 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:When the University of Texas released a report last week detailing where it plans to allow guns on its Austin campus, Nora Dolliver’s choice of graduate schools narrowed by one.
The languages student at the University of Chicago sent an email to staff with the subject “Declining Offer of Admission Due to Campus Carry Guidelines”, and will now pursue a dual masters in Russian and Eastern European studies and library sciences elsewhere. Someplace where she can feel confident that the person she is sitting next to is not packing a concealed pistol.
Students and academics have warned of a chilling effect on freedom of expression ever since Texas became the latest state to pass a “campus carry” law last year. It compels public universities to allow license holders aged 21 and over to bring concealed handguns on to most areas of campus.
The faculty senate at the University of Houston prepared a slideshow for recent faculty forums warning that academics may want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics; drop certain topics from your curriculum; not ‘go there’ if you sense anger; limit student access off hours; go to appointment-only office hours; only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”
A slide provides potential arguments against the policy, such as “most parents don’t want their underage children to attend a gun-enabled campus” and “The MILITARY doesn’t allow guns in barracks and classrooms (outside of weapons training), why should there be guns in dorms and classrooms?”
The presentation is not official university policy, which is expected to be announced in the next couple of months. Jonathan Snow, the senate president, has told the governing body that faculty members are overwhelmingly opposed to the new rule. “It’s a radical law because guns have never really been a part of American university campuses,” Snow said. “I can no longer say there will be no guns in my classroom, that makes me a criminal.”
Proponents say that it will only arm a small number of responsible license holders who have undergone training and background checks and that guns were already allowed in some outside areas of Texas campuses. But Snow and many at the University of Texas (UT), the state’s top-ranked major public university, are worried there will be a “brain drain” of students and staff who will leave or, like Dolliver, never enroll. Source Does anyone else get the feeling that this country is reaching a boiling point where things might turn violent on any number of issues? I just feel like there are so many fractured, angry factions now. I hope I'm wrong. Articles like this feel like satire pieces you'd read on the Onion or something. Except no one is laughing anymore.
Yes. The long term effects of a paralyzed federal government and the tapping of a demographic that has zero respect for government are being seeing. We have an empowered group of people who hate government for the sake of hating it and people’s rights to exist without fear. That on top of massive money flowing into elections, despite overwhelming support to curb that money. They fight over shit the majority of the population doesn’t want to fight about, while failing to address anything the general population cares about.
And yes, if it goes on long enough, violence will be the result. And knowing the politicians we have in government right now, they will be very confused what happened or why.
On February 25 2016 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 05:11 strongwind wrote:On February 25 2016 04:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:When the University of Texas released a report last week detailing where it plans to allow guns on its Austin campus, Nora Dolliver’s choice of graduate schools narrowed by one.
The languages student at the University of Chicago sent an email to staff with the subject “Declining Offer of Admission Due to Campus Carry Guidelines”, and will now pursue a dual masters in Russian and Eastern European studies and library sciences elsewhere. Someplace where she can feel confident that the person she is sitting next to is not packing a concealed pistol.
Students and academics have warned of a chilling effect on freedom of expression ever since Texas became the latest state to pass a “campus carry” law last year. It compels public universities to allow license holders aged 21 and over to bring concealed handguns on to most areas of campus.
The faculty senate at the University of Houston prepared a slideshow for recent faculty forums warning that academics may want to “be careful discussing sensitive topics; drop certain topics from your curriculum; not ‘go there’ if you sense anger; limit student access off hours; go to appointment-only office hours; only meet ‘that student’ in controlled circumstances.”
A slide provides potential arguments against the policy, such as “most parents don’t want their underage children to attend a gun-enabled campus” and “The MILITARY doesn’t allow guns in barracks and classrooms (outside of weapons training), why should there be guns in dorms and classrooms?”
The presentation is not official university policy, which is expected to be announced in the next couple of months. Jonathan Snow, the senate president, has told the governing body that faculty members are overwhelmingly opposed to the new rule. “It’s a radical law because guns have never really been a part of American university campuses,” Snow said. “I can no longer say there will be no guns in my classroom, that makes me a criminal.”
Proponents say that it will only arm a small number of responsible license holders who have undergone training and background checks and that guns were already allowed in some outside areas of Texas campuses. But Snow and many at the University of Texas (UT), the state’s top-ranked major public university, are worried there will be a “brain drain” of students and staff who will leave or, like Dolliver, never enroll. Source Does anyone else get the feeling that this country is reaching a boiling point where things might turn violent on any number of issues? I just feel like there are so many fractured, angry factions now. I hope I'm wrong. Articles like this feel like satire pieces you'd read on the Onion or something. Except no one is laughing anymore. The only Freedom that matters in the US is the freedom to have guns. Everything else is fucked.
Unless you are black, then if you own a gun the police shoot you because you might have used it against them in the future. Seriously, I expect that to be an excuse used by a cop "I knew he owned a gun and could have it on him."
|
Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
|
While the dispute over cracking into an iPhone used by the San Bernardino shooter is at the center of a legal case between Apple and the FBI, the company recently told a federal court that it has received — and resisted — similar orders to help unlock iPhones and an iPad in recent months.
That's according to unsealed court documents in which Apple says that since early October, it has received orders to access data on 12 devices, from an iPhone 3 to two iPhone 6 Plus models. In the documents, the Department of Justice says the list is correct — and adds that it found "at least one additional All Writs Act order" for obtaining information from an iPhone.
News of the court filings comes ahead of Friday's deadline for Apple to formally respond to a federal court order in the San Bernardino investigation. Wednesday, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., a prominent First Amendment lawyer who is a lead attorney for Apple in the case, told The Associated Press that the company will tell the judge that the issue should be decided by Congress, not by the courts.
"The FBI is relying on a law called the All Writs Act from 1789 that's been used to compel companies to assist law enforcement in investigations," NPR's Alina Selyukh reports for our Newscast unit. "And Boutrous told the AP that Apple also plans to argue that that law has never been used to require a company to write software."
In the court document, Apple says the requests for it to help get inside the devices came from U.S. attorneys' offices in a range of districts, including New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and California. The company has said that complying with such orders would require it to create a software tool that could make millions of iPhones vulnerable to invasions of users' privacy.
An attorney for the tech company, Marc Zwillinger, submitted the list of such government orders on Feb. 17. It was in response to a request from a federal court in New York that was weighing a similar dispute over an iPhone in a drug case. The government responded on Monday, and Apple's list was unsealed Tuesday.
Source
|
On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%.
While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security.
That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
|
On February 25 2016 05:17 strongwind wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 05:13 IgnE wrote:On February 25 2016 02:12 oneofthem wrote:
not much attention is paid to the most radical area of difference between trump/sanders and the 'mainstream, and that is their protectionist stance on trade.
first, people have to understand that even if you slap high tariffs on imports, american businesses will just make high capital intensive factories with automation that do not really create much jobs. there will also be friction in the near term as people do not magically move factories around, nor are workers magically trained instantly. the purported gains in jobs and wage are long term and nebulous but the increase in price of goods across the board but particularly for the poor will be harsh and acutely felt.
if you take a less drastic anti trade policy then it's simply ineffective and uh, shifting global production chain around. basically playing favorites.
second, there will be severe geopolitical implications primarily in destabilization of asia and europe. in order to effect some sort of protectionist scheme while also not disadvantaging your own businesses who are no longer allowed to take advantage of lower pdouction cost options, you need to rekt the lower cost producers from other states. this is going to lead to merchantilism rather than free trade, and create a race to erect barriers and ingest vast trade interests into states, which are ultimately military organizations.
the involvement of the state's hand in the competition of their industries is mercantilism and historically a great source of antagonism and conflict. a sufficiently severe destruction of the free trade scheme will also mean the end of the most productive and peaceful world order in history. while american workers are understandably frustrated because they are left in the dust of economic development, the productive thing to do is to raise their productivity and competitiveness in the new and challenging labor market, rather than attacking an ultimately productive system that is good for the u.s. and much better for the world at large. bernie is just a pit stop on the road to trotskyism dont worry still scared of the reds are we? no one checked the closet for monsters yet?
i think you are responding to the wrong post. the one where i quote you is underneath the one where im talking to oneofthem. or are you talking to oneofthem too?
|
Top Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to continue blocking President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court ahead of November’s presidential election, even if Obama chooses the Republican governor of Nevada to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, is among the Supreme Court candidates under White House consideration, according to two people familiar with the selection process. Some key Democrats view Sandoval as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
But after The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election on Tuesday, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.”
The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday he would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval because he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of party.
Source
|
On February 25 2016 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Top Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to continue blocking President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court ahead of November’s presidential election, even if Obama chooses the Republican governor of Nevada to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, is among the Supreme Court candidates under White House consideration, according to two people familiar with the selection process. Some key Democrats view Sandoval as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
But after The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election on Tuesday, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.”
The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday he would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval because he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of party. Source
How disgusting.
|
Obviously Sandoval is secretly a plot to open up Nevada to a democratic governor, and Republicans aren't going to fall for it!
|
On February 25 2016 06:31 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Top Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to continue blocking President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court ahead of November’s presidential election, even if Obama chooses the Republican governor of Nevada to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, is among the Supreme Court candidates under White House consideration, according to two people familiar with the selection process. Some key Democrats view Sandoval as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
But after The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election on Tuesday, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.”
The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday he would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval because he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of party. Source How disgusting.
And they wonder why the US people angry. They just pledged to do nothing for an entire year on something that normally takes 75 days.
|
On February 25 2016 06:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Top Senate Republicans vowed Wednesday to continue blocking President Obama’s nomination to the Supreme Court ahead of November’s presidential election, even if Obama chooses the Republican governor of Nevada to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
Brian Sandoval, a centrist former federal judge who has served as governor since 2011, is among the Supreme Court candidates under White House consideration, according to two people familiar with the selection process. Some key Democrats view Sandoval as perhaps the only nominee President Obama could select who would be able to break a Republican blockade in the Senate.
But after The Washington Post published news of Sandoval’s consideration Wednesday, GOP leaders insisted that Obama nominating a Republican would make no difference.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who pledged “no action” on any Supreme Court nomination before November’s election on Tuesday, said in a statement that the nominee “will be determined by whoever wins the presidency in the fall.”
The No. 2 Senate Republican leader, Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, said likewise: “This is not about the personality.”
White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Wednesday he would not comment specifically on whether the administration was considering Sandoval because he did not want “to get into a rhythm of responding” to every report on a potential nominee. But he said that Obama was committed to finding “the best person to fill the vacancy at the Supreme Court,” regardless of party. Source
Good thing for them they can't get fired because in any job anywhere you would get thrown out on the street in a heartbeat for that attitude.
Can we extend dereliction of duty to apply to congressmen aswell?
|
On February 25 2016 05:54 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%. While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security. That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against.
I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with.
I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily.
An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
|
WASHINGTON -- Since January, members of the U.S. Senate have been negotiating a half-billion-dollar measure to help Flint, Michigan, remove lead pipes that have poisoned potentially thousands of children.
That has changed. Senators involved in the negotiation said on Tuesday that their proposal isn't just about Flint anymore -- they also want to help communities that could face a similar fate.
Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) told reporters the measure would have a national scope "so other folks would be able to get some of these resources if they're similarly situated."
Many cities in the U.S. have lead pipes just like Flint's. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates 10 million American homes and businesses receive water from service lines that are at least partially made from lead -- a deadly neurotoxin that can cause a range of health problems, including permanent brain damage in small children.
Lead leached from Flint's pipes after the city switched its water supply and failed to control the corrosiveness of the new water. Experts say properly treated water can form a protective barrier inside lead pipes, but the barrier can corrode away if the water's chemistry changes, leading to high levels of lead in the water. The federal Safe Drinking Water Act requires public water systems to take action when lead levels exceed a certain amount.
The state of Michigan denied the lead problem until local doctors confirmed the substance had been found in the blood of some children in Flint.
Peters and Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) cautioned that nothing is final.
"We've put some proposals forward," Peters said. "We are waiting to hear back but the discussions continue."
Stabenow said she didn't know if the measure would remain attached to an unrelated energy bill that stalled amid squabbling over the Flint provision.
Source
|
a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
|
On February 25 2016 06:37 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 05:54 ZasZ. wrote:On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%. While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security. That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against. I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with. I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily. An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better.
My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
|
On February 25 2016 06:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
a ton of government officials use personal email accounts and such for official business, which isnt to say its excusable. i have to deal with HIPAA and each violation can cost like 10K or more. its more a cruddy culture around IT security, but its hard to tell the SoS "hey you can't do that", and they've been letting people get away with this for like... over a decade now.
Well, I mean, we could say that your typical HIPAA violation might be on a different level than some of the information that could leak from correspondence with the nation's secretary of state, right?
On February 25 2016 06:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 06:37 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 25 2016 05:54 ZasZ. wrote:On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%. While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security. That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against. I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with. I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily. An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better. My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
Dude are you kidding me right now? There has to be proof it caused harm for you to care?
And how in the world would you prove there could have been harm *without* doing an investigation. LOL, wtf???
|
On February 25 2016 06:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2016 06:37 jcarlsoniv wrote:On February 25 2016 05:54 ZasZ. wrote:On February 25 2016 05:36 CannonsNCarriers wrote:
Prediction: when Trump wins the Republican primary**, certain posters will find a way to spin Hillary's email server as a sufficient justification for voting for Trump in the general. Just leaving this one here for later.
**When Cruz drops out from lack of voter/donor/establishment support, his votes will be split at least 50/50 Trump/Rubio. Perhaps even more to Trump. That will guarantee Trump winning over Rubio. And if Cruz doesn't drop out, then Rubio/Cruz squabble for 20%, ensuring Trump wins with 30%. While I don't agree with Republicans crucifying her repeatedly for the email server fiasco, it is a problem. I would need some sort of assurance from the Clinton camp that she had learned from that particular mistake, because I still can't believe that a Secretary of State would be so retarded when it comes to data security. That said, it is only a very small reason in the many reasons I would rather Bernie Sanders be president, even if I think his nomination is unlikely. I'll still vote for her if it comes to that, but it is very much a "lesser evil" scenario given that it is likely Trump she will be going up against. I agree with you almost completely here. I'm less willing to be forgiving to an assurance that "she had learned from that particular mistake", though. I work with PII (Personally Identifiable Information) on a daily basis. I know what would happen if I were to be so cavalier with security like she was. Confidential information is confidential information, regardless of whether or not it was marked as such. The information that I work with is nowhere near as sensitive as the information she worked with. I'm doing my best to remain fairly impartial in this matter, waiting for more details before I really make a judgement. What bothers me is that she is and has been getting a pass on this solely because of who she is and the political pull she has. It would bother me just as much if it were anyone else, and when she says something like "Rice and Powell did the same things", it bothers me in the same way. If it was someone lower on the totem pole, they'd the penalized incredibly heavily. An assurance that something like this wouldn't happen again and that she learned from the mistake would not placate me in this regard. If, in fact, it is as severe as it appears to be, it's really fucked up. She should and did know better. My main issue with the email scandal is I have yet to see any evidence of substantive harm. Or an attempt to investigate the people who sent the “top secret” emails to an address they know isn’t secure. I am not sure that this investigation is worth all the effort unless someone can prove to me that people were harmed by this bad practice. And if not, why are we not reviewing every single person who received top secret emails to see if they are also clear?
Because just like Bengazhi this is not about actually fixing problems and all about yet another witch hunt (legit or not)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
