U.S. Politics transition time how Orange became the new black

[aceluby]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah I found it really strange that there was next to no Clinton campaign presence anywhere in the Twin Cities. It's usually a very politically active area. I guess not having any other state wide races really hurt the DFL's outreach. 

 

Probably why they lost the house and senate in the state as well.

Really wish the DNC would realize that getting a swell of voters to turn out to the local elections does help out the national ones too.  Seems they only really care about the 'big' elections and throw all the money into those, where you'd think it would be beneficial to throw some of that into close state-level elections that would inevitably also impact the national ones.  The GOP has been able to control things for ~40 years doing just this (and still manage to say nothing is ever their fault!)

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, mormont said:

I mean, you can proclaim that, and yes, it's easy, but that won't stop you looking rather silly if you do.

Obama faced some untrue allegations that were discredited but believed anyway by those looking for a reason to justify their dislike. Trump faced far more numerous examples of shameful and disreputable things that he had in fact said and done that caused genuine public outrage. By definition, the former is bullshit, the latter is not.

Trump was sued fer crissakes and paid out a 20+ million dollar settlement. What election were you watching, DunderMifflin? 

[DunderMifflin]

39 minutes ago, mormont said:

I mean, you can proclaim that, and yes, it's easy, but that won't stop you looking rather silly if you do.

Obama faced some untrue allegations that were discredited but believed anyway by those looking for a reason to justify their dislike. Trump faced far more numerous examples of shameful and disreputable things that he had in fact said and done that caused genuine public outrage. By definition, the former is bullshit, the latter is not.

This looks very high school-ish attempt at discrediting an opinion. 

Are you under some illusion that everyone thinks your opinions are brilliant and no one thinks you look utterly silly? 

Nothing personal to you but there's no one in the world who holds opinions so great that no one would ever think they look silly.

And honestly it's not even a debate worthy enough to claim each other looks silly over. Regardless of how good his campaign was in the scheme of all campaigns. It was as good as it needed to be.

[Gertrude]

1 hour ago, Guy Kilmore said:

Yep.  I get calls all the time from various office holders.  Nothing from the Clinton campaign.

ETA:  Minnesotan too.

Checking in to say me too. I was expecting to be annoyed at people ringing my doorbell as they have the last few elections, but nada. Iowa here, specifically eastern Iowa which leans more democratic.

[snake]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Is it? And how does that make any difference? If Trump was always determined to do this, how hard or easy it is doesn't matter to whether he does it.

Because the legal hurdles have already been cleared and the precedent set.  I fail to see how difficult this is to understand.

Quote

So this is just a way to take a weak swipe at Obama supporters?

No.  Just a observation on how some of the terrible precedents that the Obama administration set will probably lead to even worse outcomes. 

[snake]

On another note, The Washington Post has had to eat some crow with their Russian hackers targeting a Vermont utilities company story. 

It never happened!!

Perhaps this will teach them to be a little more thorough in the future before printing sensationalist headlines.

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, snake said:

On another note, The Washington Post has had to eat some crow with their Russian hackers targeting a Vermont utilities company story. 

It never happened!!

Perhaps this will teach them to be a little more thorough in the future before printing sensationalist headlines.

Cool, thanks for bringing that up. @Ser Scot A Ellison should be interested.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Snake,

Good to hear.

[Martell Spy]

It’s Trump, Priebus, Conway & Spicer LLP. To get Putin off the hook, they’re putting America on trial.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/putin_s_legal_team_trump_priebus_conway_spicer_llp.html

 

Senate to vote on Obamacare repeal budget next week

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-obamacare-repeal-vote-schedule-233136

[DunderMifflin]

Clintons to attend Trump inauguration.

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-finally-finds-inauguration-star-hillary-clinton/

 

Is this normal? I've never noticed.

Classy move by the Clintons? Or an acceptance of a bone to stay relevent?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Clintons to attend Trump inauguration.

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-finally-finds-inauguration-star-hillary-clinton/

 

Is this normal? I've never noticed.

Classy move by the Clintons? Or an acceptance of a bone to stay relevent?

They were at his wedding and I think he may have attended Chelsea's. I'd say it's classy, but also potentially opportunistic.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, aceluby said:

Probably why they lost the house and senate in the state as well.

Really wish the DNC would realize that getting a swell of voters to turn out to the local elections does help out the national ones too.  Seems they only really care about the 'big' elections and throw all the money into those, where you'd think it would be beneficial to throw some of that into close state-level elections that would inevitably also impact the national ones.  The GOP has been able to control things for ~40 years doing just this (and still manage to say nothing is ever their fault!)

!00% agree. It's one of the main reasons I was railing against the Hillary Victory Fund. They were sucking money out of state parties making it harder for them to compete at the local level. And it especially hurt state parties from non-swing states. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, DunderMifflin said:

Are you under some illusion that everyone thinks your opinions are brilliant and no one thinks you look utterly silly?

Nothing personal to you but there's no one in the world who holds opinions so great that no one would ever think they look silly.

Absolutely. But we're not disagreeing about an opinion. We're discussing the incorrect use of a common word.

1 hour ago, snake said:

Because the legal hurdles have already been cleared and the precedent set.  I fail to see how difficult this is to understand.

It's not difficult to understand: I understand it completely. I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant. Trump was always going to do this regardless of what Obama had done. If Obama had spent his entire administration erecting obstacles to a successor doing something like this, Trump would still have done it. He might well have had to spend a little more time and effort on it, but he'd have done that gladly.

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, mormont said:

Absolutely. But we're not disagreeing about an opinion. We're discussing the incorrect use of a common word.

No "we" are not. Perhaps you are doing that. But "we" are not.

[snake]

18 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's not difficult to understand: I understand it completely. I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant. Trump was always going to do this regardless of what Obama had done. If Obama had spent his entire administration erecting obstacles to a successor doing something like this, Trump would still have done it. He might well have had to spend a little more time and effort on it, but he'd have done that gladly.

Lol.  Well it guess it never matters what precedents are set by any administration. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, snake said:

Lol.  Well it guess it never matters what precedents are set by any administration. 

It did matter. It doesn't matter nearly as much any more, and it especially doesn't matter at all with Trump. 

[snake]

Last one for a while on the media but I thought this was noteworthy.

Crowdstryke',s Dmitri Alperovich, in an interview with Forbes outlines a Russian hack by Fancy Bear for the GRU and the Russian military that led to the destruction of roughly 80% of Ukraines artillery in eastern Ukraine.

The Washington Post, CNN, Forbes, NBS News, PBS Newshour as well as Motherboard, Forbes, SC Magazine and others ran with this story.  Only Bloomberg and VOA decided to do some digging.

This blog post breaks down what is wrong with their claim.  The conclusion is quite revealing,

Quote

The GRU, according to Crowdstrike, developed a variant of X-Agent to infect an Android mobile app in order to geolocate and destroy Ukraine’s D-30 howitzers. To do this, they chose an artillery app which had no way to send or receive data, and wrote malware for it that didn’t ask for GPS position information?

 

[Mudguard]

31 minutes ago, mormont said:

It's not difficult to understand: I understand it completely. I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant. Trump was always going to do this regardless of what Obama had done. If Obama had spent his entire administration erecting obstacles to a successor doing something like this, Trump would still have done it. He might well have had to spend a little more time and effort on it, but he'd have done that gladly.

Obama has expanded the use of the Espionage Act to go after leaks and whistleblowers.  Your assertion that Trump was always going to expand the use of the Espionage Act in this manner is unsupported.  What's the basis for your assertion?

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, snake said:

Last one for a while on the media but I thought this was noteworthy.

Crowdstryke',s Dmitri Alperovich, in an interview with Forbes outlines a Russian hack by Fancy Bear for the GRU and the Russian military that led to the destruction of roughly 80% of Ukraines artillery in eastern Ukraine.

The Washington Post, CNN, Forbes, NBS News, PBS Newshour as well as Motherboard, Forbes, SC Magazine and others ran with this story.  Only Bloomberg and VOA decided to do some digging.

This blog post breaks down what is wrong with their claim.  The conclusion is quite revealing,

 

Your link goes to here, and I'm fairly certain we didn't break down that claim or that conclusion.

I'm guessing that this is the link. I appreciate the 'bitch, please' part of the article. That speaks to journalistic integrity; the only way it could be more truthful is if he put in a #micdrop at the end.

[Mudguard]

4 minutes ago, snake said:

Last one for a while on the media but I thought this was noteworthy.

Crowdstryke',s Dmitri Alperovich, in an interview with Forbes outlines a Russian hack by Fancy Bear for the GRU and the Russian military that led to the destruction of roughly 80% of Ukraines artillery in eastern Ukraine.

The Washington Post, CNN, Forbes, NBS News, PBS Newshour as well as Motherboard, Forbes, SC Magazine and others ran with this story.  Only Bloomberg and VOA decided to do some digging.

This blog post breaks down what is wrong with their claim.  The conclusion is quite revealing,

 

Can you please fix your link?

Personally, I've been skeptical about the claims of these so-called computer experts, such as Crowdstrike.  We read about their conclusions in the press, but the press reports leave out all the evidence that form the basis of the conclusions.  There's no way to independently verify the conclusions of these "experts."  Until all the evidence of hacking is made public, we can't really know how well supported the conclusions are.  Could be based primarily on guesswork and assumptions for all we know.  Or maybe there is a bunch of evidence.  Who knows.