EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5746
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
Law enforcement officers shot down a drone operated by activists on Sunday near the site of ongoing protests at the Dakota Access pipeline construction project in North Dakota. The drone flew in a threatening manner towards a police helicopter that was assisting in surveillance of the protest, according to a statement from the Morton County Sheriff’s Department. “A sheriff on board the helicopter reported to law enforcement on the ground that the helicopter pilot and passengers were ‘in fear of their lives’, and that the ‘drone came after us,’” the statement reads. The department says law enforcement personnel damaged the drone after hitting it with“less-than-lethal” ammunition. Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier further explained the situation in a statement obtained by LawNewz.com: The FAA has strict guidelines and regulations governing the use of drones around unprotected people and manned aircraft. The drones being operated near the local protests and the camps south of Mandan generally are not being operated within the regulations. Reports of drones not being operated within the FAA guidelines or in a reckless and unsafe manner are being investigated and forwarded to the Morton County States Attorney’s office. Activists posted a video of what appears to be the damaged drone on Facebook on Sunday afternoon. http://lawnewz.com/video/law-enforcement-officers-shoot-down-drone-at-north-dakota-pipeline-protest-camp/ | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:15 Plansix wrote: I am convinced that Nettles doesn't really understand what it is and mostly posts things he sees other people getting worked up about, assuming it is bad. I googled it and it's on Zero Hedge and Drudge Report. And then they wonder why people laugh at these sources, it would have taken those sites less than a minute to look at the attachment on that email and see that it's internal research not public polling. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
I'm a clinton supporter and even I have no idea how Mook says this shit with a straight face. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45410 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:14 Dan HH wrote: That's research polling for ads, I'm not sure what Nettles is implying, that Clinton's campaign was lying to itself? My guess is that Nettles's implication was that the Hillary campaign is purposely conducting misrepresentative polls to lie to people, although I'm not sure why they would do such a thing when all the polls are already favoring Hillary. Anyway, I look forward to hearing Nettles's responses to our questions. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
also, if that site is trying to be respectable they shouldn't replace an s with a z; replacing s with z basically screams bad site and/or not serious. | ||
KwarK
United States43775 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:33 zlefin wrote: nevuk -> what seems weird about it? it looks fairly normal to me. people being reckless with new technology. also, if that site is trying to be respectable they shouldn't replace an s with a z; replacing s with z basically screams bad site and/or not serious. so why'd you do it slefin? why should anyone vote for you with that ridiculous z? | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:33 zlefin wrote: nevuk -> what seems weird about it? it looks fairly normal to me. people being reckless with new technology. also, if that site is trying to be respectable they shouldn't replace an s with a z; replacing s with z basically screams bad site and/or not serious. I know, I hate that sites name but they've done some decent work in the past. The weird part to me is why are they flying a drone in the first place? It seems bizarre. I guess it's just a sign of the changing times that I haven't kept up with, was shocking to hear that a group of protesters are flying drones and that police are having to shoot them out of the sky. I was interested in the long-term implications of that sort of issue - specifically, is it proper to fly a drone for that sort of purpose, were the police justified in shooting it down either way, are drones going to be frequently used by protesters? | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:33 KwarK wrote: I'm pretty sure there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. A poll that matched the public would be Democrat weighted slightly. It has nothing to do with that, it's research from early in the 2008 primary for several states. Colorado example for those that can't/don't want to download it. It takes a truly special mind to see this and conclude that Hillary's campaign ordered public polls to be rigged. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/zla3rqv.png) | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:43 IgnE wrote: so why'd you do it slefin? why should anyone vote for you with that ridiculous z? that doesn't make sense; the issue is not the use of a z per se, but replacing an s with a z. in zlefin, the z is not a replacement for an s. That is in contrast to the site in question. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:45 Nevuk wrote: I know, I hate that sites name but they've done some decent work in the past. The weird part to me is why are they flying a drone in the first place? It seems bizarre. I guess it's just a sign of the changing times that I haven't kept up with, was shocking to hear that a group of protesters are flying drones and that police are having to shoot them out of the sky. I was interested in the long-term implications of that sort of issue - specifically, is it proper to fly a drone for that sort of purpose, were the police justified in shooting it down either way, are drones going to be frequently used by protesters? you can fly drones if you want, as long as you comply with the relevant laws and safety procedures, which was not done so in this case. The police are free to shoot down or otherwise deal with drones violating safety laws, as that puts people's lives at risk. I'm not entirely sure who's drone it was, though I hope the person is identified. I'd assume someone was flying a drone to get footage, or cuz they're curious, or an asshole. A lot of random people fly drones for all sorts of reasons. I suppose I should recheck the article. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:45 Nevuk wrote: I know, I hate that sites name but they've done some decent work in the past. The weird part to me is why are they flying a drone in the first place? It seems bizarre. I guess it's just a sign of the changing times that I haven't kept up with, was shocking to hear that a group of protesters are flying drones and that police are having to shoot them out of the sky. I was interested in the long-term implications of that sort of issue - specifically, is it proper to fly a drone for that sort of purpose, were the police justified in shooting it down either way, are drones going to be frequently used by protesters? Most countries have a law concerning where you are allowed to fly model airplanes and drones (no idea about the US). Usually it isn't legal in the city because of the obvious dangers. On top of those, the drone was supposedly flying towards a helicopter. Of course they were justified in shooting it down. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23785 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: 1. Whether or not this guy- Tom- wants oversampling for a specific poll, every other poll has already corroborated Hillary's lead, as have aggregate sites like 538. 2. As an aside, how are we establishing the validity of any of these WikiLeak reveals in general? It's insanely easy to doctor an e-mail, so why are all of these assumed to be real and not fake? Wikileaks has released over 10,000,000 documents. Not a single one has ever been doctored or faked. Despite Clinton's camps claims, there is no reason whatsoever to believe they aren't genuine. Unless one wants to just take Joel Benenson and Donna Brazile at their word (despite not being able to show the fake emails they claim wikileaks released). The "fake" narrative is absolutely ridiculous. People can dismiss the confirmations of what many suspected all along as no big deal, but the folks from HRC's camp pushing this "well they could be fake" stuff is disinformation propaganda all the way. EDIT: What I don't get, is why even bother claiming they could be fake if there's nothing significant in them anyway? | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3890 Posts
There are probably additional reasons as well that i'm not thinking of rn. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9188 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:56 GreenHorizons wrote: Wikileaks has released over 10,000,000 documents. Not a single one has ever been doctored or faked. Despite Clinton's camps claims, there is no reason whatsoever to believe they aren't genuine. Unless one wants to just take Joel Benenson and Donna Brazile at their word (despite not being able to show the fake emails they claim wikileaks released). The "fake" narrative is absolutely ridiculous. People can dismiss the confirmations of what many suspected all along as no big deal, but the folks from HRC's camp pushing this "well they could be fake" stuff is disinformation propaganda all the way. The emails are real. It's the interpretations of emails that you should be skeptical of given how many bullshit stories there have been based on them. From the 'assassination of Scalia' one to this discussion. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23785 Posts
On October 24 2016 12:02 Dan HH wrote: The emails are real. It's the interpretations of emails that you should be skeptical of given how many bullshit stories there have been based on them. From the 'assassination of Scalia' one to this discussion. Yeah the interpretations have certainly ran the gamut, but there's no reason (other than intentionally misleading people) for HRC's camp to be out trying to undermine the validity of the emails themselves. | ||
|
GoTuNk!
Chile4591 Posts
On October 24 2016 11:29 Nevuk wrote: https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/790178221065207808 I'm a clinton supporter and even I have no idea how Mook says this shit with a straight face. I'm sure some posters here believe this at face value. Did the interviewer press the issue or he just let him get away with it? | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Don't assume he actually reads any of the leaks he posts in this thread. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
I thought I knew about shitty elections until this year. I've been taught just how much worse it can be. At this point I'm looking towards 2020 and hoping the choices will be better. People say they want outsiders. They don't want the same old shit. But by outsider, I don't think we meant racist or unstable. Trumps taking a beating from independent and Republican voters who didn't support him in the primaries because of this. He had an opportunity. All he had to do was seem Presidential and it'd be in the bag. Instead, he managed to scare me. | ||
| ||
