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.
SANFORD, Fla. (AP) — A Florida man who fired a gun at George Zimmerman's vehicle during a road-rage confrontation was convicted Friday of attempted second-degree murder.
Jurors also found Matthew Apperson, 37, guilty of shooting into a vehicle and aggravated assault with a firearm, local news organizations reported. He faces sentencing Oct. 17.
Apperson testified that he acted in self-defense last year. He said he fired at Zimmerman during the confrontation because Zimmerman flashed a gun.
Zimmerman testified earlier this week that he was driving to a doctor's appointment on May 11, 2015, when he noticed he was being pursued by a vehicle whose driver later pulled up, exchanged words and fired one gunshot at him that missed.
"I heard a bang and my ears started ringing," Zimmerman, 32, told the jury. The trial opened Tuesday in the Seminole County Courthouse.
Last year's confrontation was not the first encounter between Apperson and Zimmerman, the former neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin in 2012. Apperson alleged in September 2014 that Zimmerman threatened him in a road-rage encounter but did not press charges at the time.
Apperson's attorney, Michael LaFay, said that Zimmerman was the aggressor and brandished a gun in both incidents, but prosecutor Stewart Stone said there was no way Apperson could have seen a gun through the tinted windows of Zimmerman's vehicle.
In the Martin case, Zimmerman claimed self-defense and was acquitted of charges in the shooting, a verdict that sparked protests and a national debate about race relations. Martin was black, and Zimmerman identifies as Hispanic.
Meanwhile, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.
“During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage.
“During that meeting, Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya. We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.
“At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.”
It's kind of like people don't understand the point of a President, or what statesmanship means.
There's only showmanship.
And today, what Trump said in regard to the "birther" conspiracy. It really is kind of like people are just attracted to this child-like behavior. He could run his whole campaign with "I know you are but what am I," and people are just fucking AMAZED.
I get what he is going for...But the French Revolution notably did not end well for those who started it. Hell, even for the people in the Musical that are signing... shit goes really poorly for them.
I get that it ended well as a whole.. but a bloody revolution is not something to really link your campaign too is it?
On September 17 2016 14:53 Leporello wrote: And today, what Trump said in regard to the "birther" conspiracy. It really is kind of like people are just attracted to this child-like behavior. He could run his whole campaign with "I know you are but what am I," and people are just fucking AMAZED.
Mostly I've just accepted him for who he is and I'm just rolling with it. When both viable candidates are piss poor terrible you have to start looking past many of their very numerous character flaws and looking for some silver lining. And Trump does bring a few constructive and interesting aspects to the national discourse.
I'd be cool with it if his proposals were actually anything "outside" standard Republican fare.
Cut taxes "fairly" (meaning for the rich) and that will somehow bring in more revenue. Cut social services and expand the military. Because feeding, educating and healing poor people is what creates debt.
He's just a George W. Bush on LSD.
edit: and there's the whole vindicating Russia's crypto-fascism "Putin 85% approval rating" thing. That's certainly different for the GOP. Not the difference I was looking for.
The parts where he's just towing the line on the generic Republican scam of lower taxes higher growth using imagineering, that's not really a great part of Trump's campaign.
That he's brought attention (albeit in a very brash and hyperbolic way) to NATO expansionism, Muslim immigration, EU/Brexit/sovereignty issues, PC doctrine and liberal overreach on social engineering, media and its tendency to push an agenda, campaign corruption and his role as a businessman in it, and so on... that's a good thing. I think that overall he touched upon a lot of issues that people care about and I hope that lessons are learned about exactly why it is that Trump so strongly resonated with a very substantial minority of the electorate.
I doubt that Trump or Bush would appreciate being compared to one another. They're very different policy-wise. Trump is a major deviation from traditional conservative politics for all of the reasons that LegalLord cites plus trade.
On September 17 2016 14:53 Leporello wrote: It's kind of like people don't understand the point of a President, or what statesmanship means.
There's only showmanship.
And today, what Trump said in regard to the "birther" conspiracy. It really is kind of like people are just attracted to this child-like behavior. He could run his whole campaign with "I know you are but what am I," and people are just fucking AMAZED.
People are angry and decided thinking is over.
The USA chant in the beginning of this video gives me the creep for some reason.
Guys, remmeber the discussion about San Bernardino iPhone and data protection in iPhones in general? I was sugesting that hardware attack is most feasible but some of You ridiculed the idea. Surprise, surprise who was right? https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04327 Yeah i know the iPhone was accessed before but i dont think the precise method was described.
As to broader point i think as long as data is stored on physical device it will ALWAYS be possible to access it given sufficient time, knowledge and resources. And governament (especially US gov.) will always have those available.
On September 17 2016 19:18 Silvanel wrote: Guys, remmeber the discussion about San Bernardino iPhone and data protection in iPhones in general? I was sugesting that hardware attack is most feasible but some of You ridiculed the idea. Surprise, surprise who was right? https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04327 Yeah i know the iPhone was accessed before but i dont think the precise method was described.
As to broader point i think as long as data is stored on physical device it will ALWAYS be possible to access it given sufficient time, knowledge and resources. And governament (especially US gov.) will always have those available.
Sure, it's possible to attack a computers security physically, but its rarely the most feasible since most of them are hooked up to the internet with much more easily exploited vulnerabilities. Why would you risk stealing someone's iPhone for the data stored on it if you can just go in via the broken wireless driver or bluetooth or whatever faulty protocol you can find.
On September 17 2016 19:18 Silvanel wrote: Guys, remmeber the discussion about San Bernardino iPhone and data protection in iPhones in general? I was sugesting that hardware attack is most feasible but some of You ridiculed the idea. Surprise, surprise who was right? https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04327 Yeah i know the iPhone was accessed before but i dont think the precise method was described.
As to broader point i think as long as data is stored on physical device it will ALWAYS be possible to access it given sufficient time, knowledge and resources. And governament (especially US gov.) will always have those available.
People ridiculed you for suggesting a hardware hack on the San Bernardino phone? Figured that was the most obvious route.
If you mean that hardware hacks are a vulnerability the general public should be particularly concerned about, I disagree. By the time that is viable, your phone has already been stolen, which is of course a fast larger concern to most people. The few people that keep top secret data on their cellphones might still worry, but they should ALSO be more worried about remote hacks than physical hacks: at least in the latter they are aware of the problem.
No i mean that in regards to Apple claims that they themselves cant access that data etc. And some people worrying about government being able to access such data and supporting Apples defence (too much power to gov and things like that). Protection against ordinary citizens and/or criminals is obviously something tottaly different and i dont think there is some glaring lack of public awarness (at least no more glaring than in regards to software).
Well really as far as birtherism goes black voters are the most affected and they know where Trump stands compared to Clinton. So in terms of voters that's probably the main effect.
On September 17 2016 21:05 Doodsmack wrote: Well really as far as birtherism goes black voters are the most affected and they know where Trump stands compared to Clinton. So in terms of voters that's probably the main effect.
Some black people never heard that Hillary played into the "otherness" narrative (particularly younger ones). Coincidentally Trump is actually doing almost as good or better than Romney with Black voters, same goes for Hispanics (when compared to the share lost by Hillary).
Another reason Mrs. Clinton’s relative weakness among nonwhite voters has been overlooked is that analysts and journalists have tended to focus on how Mr. Trump is doing worse than Mr. Romney (Mr. Trump has only 15 percent support among Hispanics compared with Mr. Romney's 27 percent in the exit polls). But they leave out that Mrs. Clinton, by the same measure, is doing worse than Mr. Obama to the same extent.
The bottom line is that Mrs. Clinton is unlikely to benefit from the same jump in black turnout and support that Mr. Obama had. Similarly, she is unlikely to repeat the same jump in support from Hispanic voters. It is possible she won’t see any gains among these groups at all.
On September 17 2016 21:05 Doodsmack wrote: Well really as far as birtherism goes black voters are the most affected and they know where Trump stands compared to Clinton. So in terms of voters that's probably the main effect.
Some black people never heard that Hillary played into the "otherness" narrative (particularly younger ones). Coincidentally Trump is actually doing almost as good or better than Romney with Black voters, same goes for Hispanics (when compared to the share lost by Hillary).
I think comparing Trump to Romney in regards to black voter support and saying that Trump is doing about as well because his numbers are about the same doesn't fully work out. Romney was up against Obama-obviously a tougher mountain to climb. (only 3 presidential elections have ever given the democrats than 90% of the black vote - Obama, Obama and LBJ - now Hillary looks like a fourth, which I personally think speaks volumes to how poorly Trump does with black voters. )
As a sidenote, I think it's fair to assume that part of the reason why Trump does even worse with women than most republicans can be attributed to the same effect, not just his personal misogyny or whatever.
On September 17 2016 21:05 Doodsmack wrote: Well really as far as birtherism goes black voters are the most affected and they know where Trump stands compared to Clinton. So in terms of voters that's probably the main effect.
Some black people never heard that Hillary played into the "otherness" narrative (particularly younger ones). Coincidentally Trump is actually doing almost as good or better than Romney with Black voters, same goes for Hispanics (when compared to the share lost by Hillary).
I think comparing Trump to Romney in regards to black voter support and saying that Trump is doing about as well because his numbers are about the same doesn't fully work out. Romney was up against Obama-obviously a tougher mountain to climb. (only 3 presidential elections have ever given the democrats than 90% of the black vote - Obama, Obama and LBJ - now Hillary looks like a fourth, which I personally think speaks volumes to how poorly Trump does with black voters. )
As a sidenote, I think it's fair to assume that part of the reason why Trump does even worse with women than most republicans can be attributed to the same effect, not just his personal misogyny or whatever.
Doesn't do much to explain the Hispanic part. I think whatever's at play is bigger than what you're explaining away among Black people and women.
THE FIGHT AGAINST legalized pot is being heavily bankrolled by alcohol and pharmaceutical companies, terrified that they might lose market share.
On the heels of a filing last week that revealed that a synthetic cannabis company is financing the opposition to legal marijuana in Arizona comes a new disclosure this week that a beer industry group made one of the largest donations to an organization set up to defeat legalization in Massachusetts.
The Beer Distributors PAC, an affiliate that represents 16 beer-distribution companies in Massachusetts, gave $25,000 to the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts, tying it for third place among the largest contributors to the anti-pot organization.
William A. Kelley, the president of the Beer Distributors of Massachusetts, did not respond to a request for comment, but his organization’s decision to oppose legalization is hardly unique in the alcohol industry.
In Arizona, one of the five states with marijuana legalization ballot measures this November, the Arizona Wine and Spirits Wholesale Association donated $10,000 to a group opposing legalization. In 2010, the last time California considered marijuana legalization, another alcoholic beverage distribution group provided financing to a law enforcement-backed campaign to defeat legalization.
The alcohol industry is nowhere near unified over pot policy, however, with several craft brewing firm welcoming laws that relax restrictions over pot.
Securities and Exchange Commission filings reveal that heavyweight alcohol companies have disclosed to investors that pot could pose a challenge to their bottom line.
Alcohol distributors are already a breath away (if that) from intentionally killing people for profit, alcohol losing market share to cannabis would quite literally be saving lives, and they are opposing it...
EPT
