|
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. |
United States43275 Posts
On November 04 2017 05:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 05:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 04 2017 04:33 Plansix wrote:https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights: Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person. One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that. Thats obvious. They are tracking your conversations I'm sure that's a secondary "feature" of their messenger app. Though it seems crazy that location software could do all of this, I still subscribe that Facebook isn’t using the mic on the phone. The reason behind this is that it is so risky and I feel would be easy to detect. But again, facebook is deeply stupid on so many fronts, maybe they are.
They have stated countless times that they are not using the mic.
|
On November 04 2017 05:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A reminder that our President is old man yelling at a Television.
lol what, were we supposed to kill him or something
|
On November 04 2017 05:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 05:37 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2017 05:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 04 2017 04:33 Plansix wrote:https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights: Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person. One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that. Thats obvious. They are tracking your conversations I'm sure that's a secondary "feature" of their messenger app. Though it seems crazy that location software could do all of this, I still subscribe that Facebook isn’t using the mic on the phone. The reason behind this is that it is so risky and I feel would be easy to detect. But again, facebook is deeply stupid on so many fronts, maybe they are. They have stated countless times that they are not using the mic.
As the podcast and many articles have pointed out, people don’t believe Facebook because they are not transparent about how they collect data or serve ads. The system is so opaque that even their own staff cannot tell you how a specific ad was served to someone. So absent any real information, people have defaulted to the simplest solution, which is Facebook is listening to them. The problem is completely made by Facebook and their business practices.
|
On November 04 2017 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:lol what, were we supposed to kill him or something
We never declared war right? You can only be executed for desertion during a time of war.
|
On November 04 2017 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:lol what, were we supposed to kill him or something
The judge specifically cited the efforts by Trump as a candidate and president demand specific outcomes in the case as a mitigating factor. The president isn’t supposed to influence the application of justice, that is why we have a whole separate branch of government.
|
On November 04 2017 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:lol what, were we supposed to kill him or something
I guess he doesn't recognize military courts as apparently they disgrace our military XD
|
On November 04 2017 06:00 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 05:45 Mohdoo wrote:lol what, were we supposed to kill him or something I guess he doesn't recognize military courts as apparently they disgrace our military XD
yeah, I was kinda head tilted by that. Now even military courts are a disgrace? I wonder what the problem could be. Huh.
|
On November 04 2017 05:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 05:37 Plansix wrote:On November 04 2017 05:32 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 04 2017 04:33 Plansix wrote:https://gimletmedia.com/episode/109-facebook-spying/Folks should listen to the most recent reply all on Facebook’s data collection. Highlights: Facebook has 52 thousand data points to collect on anyone person. One group of people they have is “people who pretend to text during awkward discussions.” It is unclear how they know that. Thats obvious. They are tracking your conversations I'm sure that's a secondary "feature" of their messenger app. Though it seems crazy that location software could do all of this, I still subscribe that Facebook isn’t using the mic on the phone. The reason behind this is that it is so risky and I feel would be easy to detect. But again, facebook is deeply stupid on so many fronts, maybe they are. They have stated countless times that they are not using the mic.
Pretty sure that their TOS says they can change this without any warning, though.
|
I tell myself there are enough netsec people out there who would rip apart the app and find any possible way it uses the microphone if it did. If we haven't heard of it in some huge Reddit blow up, it probably doesn't exist.
|
On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:On November 03 2017 21:31 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great.
I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic.
Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive.
Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration.
He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising.
I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck.
|
On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Show nested quote +Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. Show nested quote +He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck.
This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that.
|
|
|
Well then.
WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements.
|
On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794
I worry for your rationality when I say he's disappointed me more than surprised me and you conclude I have overall positive views.
|
On November 04 2017 07:40 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/926569099622338561Well then. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements.
Don't think anyone should pretend that such an agreement has no influence whatsoever in the primaries.
But yes, this part is at least in very clear text:
Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates.
But I don't know what this implies:
The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature
|
|
|
|
|
On November 04 2017 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 07:40 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/926569099622338561Well then. WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements. Don't think anyone should pretend that such an agreement has no influence whatsoever in the primaries. But yes, this part is at least in very clear text: Show nested quote +Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates. But I don't know what this implies: Show nested quote +The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature
It looks like Donna found the memo but apparently didn't bother really reading it - or, the less charitable interpretation would be she decided to cherrypick. And now it's clear why she left out the dates in her little book excerpt/ promotion as well.
|
On November 04 2017 07:54 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 07:01 Doodsmack wrote:On November 04 2017 06:58 Danglars wrote:On November 04 2017 03:28 oBlade wrote:On November 03 2017 22:25 Twinkle Toes wrote:Trump supporters, why oh why are you supporting him??? He is the only recent force strong enough to cause an ideological shift in the Republican party, specifically one where they return to having an intellectual foundation and not just saying whatever to get flyover states to turn out. That means we get a Republican party that actually believes in things again, instead of just trying to be a worse version of the Democrats, which is not good for the voter and not a viable way to politics anyway except that at the level of individuals in power it's the option with the least risk to ensure their careers. The establishment system that started around the 80s and fused the parties together at the hip through war in the 2000s, that's broken. Before Trump (and maybe even Sanders taking a shot for the nomination) you only had some noisy token outliers on most issues, on either side. Like Rand Paul, who is my favorite, but he goes on MSNBC for a long interview and presents a dissenting case and votes no for whatever it is on the floor but meanwhile nobody else cares and business continues as usual. The better Trump does, the more it forces the Democratic party also to get a hold of itself and present ideas and politics besides identity and being not-Trump and appeal to people again. So in the end I get two parties both revamping themselves to win the votes of people who are now actually engaged as opposed to apathetically going through the charade of rubber-stamping the ruling class. Biggest thing is probably the economy is doing well, stock market is strong, people are investing, people are going to work, unemployment is down, people seeking benefits is down. And all big league. Cutting regulation, and in government also, and gutting bureaucracy and shrinking government spending. Returning education to the states, and it's hard for government to fix universities but changing Title IX guidance is great. I mostly agree with the diagnosis on the Republican party and Trump. I'm a little more bearish for the economy long term. I don't like the fundamentals. If Trump pushes through a decent tax cut, which I think is unlikely, I'll get more optimistic. Immigration is becoming more sane. I don't like jurisdictions subverting federal law, or the executive branch doing the same. So going after sanctuary cities and requiring action on DACA and rearranging priorities with legal immigration. Actually, the judiciary in general, keeping the Supreme Court level and keeping the judiciary from swinging too progressive. Hell, just the conversation on immigration is getting more sane. It's no longer a dialogue about picking which color of amnesty you want. He's highlighted the downsides of mass, unvetted immigration. He will maybe be the first president since Eisenhower to have a serious focus on North Korea, and hopefully the first since the last 3 administrations, whose neglect is most directly responsible for our predicament now. To a mostly unrelated evil, Islamism has had setbacks.
And of course because we all want to see success with tax and healthcare reform and infrastructure (since the Bush/Obama investments into the economy 8 years ago after the crisis yielded so little whether tangible or not). Setting some of that in motion with the healthcare associations executive order is promising. I'm hoping for more good things on North Korea. He's disappointed me more than surprised me, but those surprises were so unexpected. He calls the NFL kneelers out, trashes Iran as the terrorist evil it is while decertifying the deal, follows court orders on illegal ACA funding, and gets out of UNESCO in a week. One week. He's definitely a double-edged sword but holy fuck. This is where we see how people who give nominal criticism to Trump actually hold overall positive views on him and his legacy, including that he has returned the Republican party to "having an intellectual foundation." It's hard to conceive of partisan blinders more extreme than that. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/232572505238433794 I worry for your rationality when I say he's disappointed me more than surprised me and you conclude I have overall positive views.
Other parts of that post and other posts of yours contradict the ambiguous statement "disappointed me more than surprised me," which isn't surprising.
|
On November 04 2017 08:32 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2017 08:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:On November 04 2017 07:40 ticklishmusic wrote:https://twitter.com/GovHowardDean/status/926569099622338561Well then. WASHINGTON — The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements. Don't think anyone should pretend that such an agreement has no influence whatsoever in the primaries. But yes, this part is at least in very clear text: Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary. Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates. But I don't know what this implies: The DNC will provide HFA advance opportunity to review on-line or mass email, communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate. This does not include any communications related to primary debates – which will be exclusively controlled by the DNC. The DNC will alert HFA in advance of mailing any direct mail communications that features a particular Democratic primary candidate or his or her signature It looks like Donna found the memo but apparently didn't bother really reading it - or, the less charitable interpretation would be she decided to cherrypick. And now it's clear why she left out the dates in her little book excerpt/ promotion as well.
I have a less charitable explanation. Let's say you wanted to sell a book. Would a viral article claiming stuff that you maybe couldn't quite back up, but hints at just what a certain audience wants to hear help generate buzz for your book? The Politico piece was itself a book excerpt. Politico has run pieces that are pretty much advertisements for books before.
Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee. Excerpted from the book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House to be published on November 7, 2017 by Hachette Books, a division of Hachette Book Group. Copyright 2017 Donna Brazile.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
