Expectation of privacy was nice while it lastedFollow

Sure. But that does tend to happen when a party undergoes a shakeup of the leadership, which is more or less exactly what is happening with the GOP right now. No one's denying that Trump represents a different view of the GOP than Bush (any of them). So pointing it out it like saying that water is wet. Um... Ok. Trump is upsetting the apple cart. That's not in question. The question is whether this is harmful to him or to other Republicans running for office, or is helpful.

In a political climate where the establishment status-quo is increasingly seen as the problem to be solved, all of the things you're talking about may very well turn out to be positives for Trump and the GOP, not negatives. If people saw the politics of Bush, and Romney, and McConnel, and all the rest of the last generation of GOP leaders as a problem, and voted for Trump in protest over those politics, then what is the problem here? Like him or hate him, he is ushering in a new wave of GOP leadership and direction.

I'm not sure I'm happy about that at all from a political direction point of view, but to suggest that after having successfully staged a revolt in the Republican party, the absence of the guys he overthrew at his nomination is anything other than what you'd expect is somewhat bizarre.



The issue is that it was a brazen statement that DWS considered Clinton to be "her candidate", and Clinton knew this and felt the need to reciprocate by hiring her to her campaign. If you're trying to downplay the perception of collusion between the DWS while heading up the DNC and the Clinton campaign, this was the last thing you'd do. It's basically identical to a politician having to resign office over suspicion that he improperly used his position to benefit some business interest, and then immediately being hired by that very same business. At the very least, this makes one think that the suspicions were true, right?

I call it "brazen" because it appears as though Clinton just assumes that none of this matters. Which likely just infuriates the Sanders supporters even more because it's a repeat of what they believe happened in the first place. The system is rigged to prevent anyone but Clinton from winning, and rigged even more to prevent any harm occurring to her when it's revealed that it was rigged. She's so confident that no one "important" will take any action against her, that she's not even trying to conceal what was done anymore.

There are a lot of people who Clinton likely considers to be unimportant who are going to be voting this election. So that action may hurt her. It certainly didn't help. She basically just said "yeah, the system is rigged, we're all corrupt, but what are you going to do about it". I'm not sure challenging voters to accept her brand of corrupt politics is a great idea. Yeah, Trump is kinda scary, but she's more or less doing everything she can to push voters over to him. The sad part is that I'm not sure she's even aware of this fact. Hence my comment about being tone deaf. She's so far into the political bubble that I don't think she sees the degree of anger and resentment running through the country over this sort of thing right now. She's buying her own propaganda that Trump is just a hothead who appeals to a small percentage of angry white men, and is failing to get that this is the same thing that many of us Republicans assumed at first. We were wrong. And she is wrong. And she's doing exactly what I warned against a couple months back.

Edited, Jul 27th 2016 7:55pm by gbaji

You call it "brazen" because that was the word Fox News used Tuesday every time the "story" came up, which was like every fourteen minutes.

And yet, it is the appropriate word to use. That multiple sources and people are using it to describe what happened might just be a clue here.

Well, a clue that a bunch of people are being led by the nose from a singular source, sure.

Due to a mutually beneficial agreement between me and my significant other, today I had seen new Jason Bourne movie. It was a little ridiculous at times ( current favorite being CIA shared folder called Black Ops conveniently containing a list of black ops linked to JB ), but it had a moment for me. I was always wondering about a way to phrase my stance on privacy in a way that would resonate with true blue Americans and this movie had it. It was simple. It was: "Privacy is freedom."

I am so glad this **** is finally reaching US mainstream. We even have a cute catchy sound bite in place of false dichotomy of "privacy vs security". Yay.

Naturally, people people are going to see the movie for the explosions,bombastic fights,crazy plot twists,... wait.. . Why do people watch this thing?

Edited, Jul 30th 2016 8:34pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 30th 2016 8:35pm by angrymnk

"Definitely Not Black Ops".

Works for my porn stash.

Edited, Jul 30th 2016 9:13pm by TirithRR

Rule 34 and whatnot, but black ops would not occur to me as **** material.

.

Edited, Jul 30th 2016 9:28pm by angrymnk

Well, it did pretty gangbusters at the box office, though I doubt anyone really cares.

PSP Roms is where I keep mine.

It depends on what you're into, I guess

I often wonder, after seeing threads like this. I've seen A LOT of **** on the internet, and I've never seen any that looked underage-- save for a few questionable thumbnails, which, ultimately were misleading. How do they do it, though? What people are actually in charge of sorting through every image and video on the vastness that is the internet and making sure there is nothing illegal on there? (Chicks getting ****** by horses everywhere though, but no one cares about that I guess?)

I also wonder-- in the event the world fell into the hands of ultra-conservative types-- how easy or hard it would be for them to simply remove ALL **** from the internet using the same methods?



Edited, Aug 17th 2016 3:30am by Kuwoobie

Randomly running into straight-up CP is pretty unlikely, particularly if you are using Google as those people are expending resources to filter that crap out.

Having an CP or "questionable" image on your computer (like in your temporary Internet files) was declared by the New York Supreme Court to be "accidental" or "incidental" (forget which; I'm too lazy to research it at the moment) as a poor choice in ones' clicking habits was not proof of intent to have CP.

In most cases I'm aware of, it's either visiting Tor sites (or other P2P networks, as gbaji mentioned) or uploading images - mostly the "uploading" bit - that gets the 4chan party van at your curb.

Edited, Aug 16th 2016 9:24pm by Bijou

If you make porn illegal, only illegals will have porn