We learned the lesson very well during the Clinton era that personal behavior is no longer important. Only policy matters.
The only thing more galling than the pretty close to objectively worse candidate winning in two presidential elections is the supporters of the worse candidate blaming the other side for forcing them to do it.
A majority of the people don't care about identity politics, don't want drag queens in classrooms, don't want boys on the girls' swim team
Interesting that you say people don't care about identity politics, then immediately follow with two examples showing that people care about identity politics.
The main driving force of the Trump supporters I've listened to is identity politics, they just pretend that it's rejecting identity politics.
"it's plain to see that the part of this that makes it a story is not actually in evidence but implied. This journalist crafted this story to imply things are happening but we don't actually have any evidence for it."
The fact that Trump is using an unsecured communications device is in and of itself newsworthy; it's extremely irresponsible of him to do so.
"The reality here is all we can truly assert is that there is the OPPERTUNITY for the Chinese monitoring to skim sensitive information, not that it's actually happening."
Other than the intelligence agencies reporting that the Chines have been monitoring his communications.
But seriously, how in good faith can you make the argument that reporting that Trump is using an insecure communications device isn't news? It's absolutely baffling.
"Look, the problem here with this story is we DON'T KNOW what he's talking about on that unclassified line. The sources being quoted don't know, the reporter doesn't know and nobody being quoted can point to specific classified information that was leaked."
Correct, since none of them are tapping his phone.
" This is a manufactured controversy, assembled by the journalist, i.e. it's FAKE NEWS."
The fucking hell? No, this is ACTUAL NEWS, are you honestly too stupid to tell the difference?
"A meeting. In a room. As in, not over a phone"
Right, so surely he wouldn't divulge intelligence accidentally over the phone, that would be careless.~
"The end political results are indistinguishable from Trump being a genius 11-dimensional chess player, since Trump keeps winning and all critics mysteriously keep self-immolating. "
Trump is an idiot, his popularity doesn't make him not an idiot.
She had the entire US media on her side. And the DNC rigged in her favor via superdelegates and more shady means (no one wins 5 out of 5 coin tosses).
None of that is true in the slightest.
Do you think it is the CEO's job to secure his own telephone? Should that same CEO have to abandon his contact list from a perfectly standard iPhone with something like a 19% market share. You're calling the entire US government idiots.
No, he's calling Trump an idiot for continuing to use a personal phone.
It's not Trump's job to secure it, but it IS very much his responsibility to communicate only over secure channels.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand.
But that's just sophistry.
First, you're awfully loose with the definitions of "can't". It's either possible to prove (and thereby disprove) the existence of God, or it isn't. The 'ability' or 'inability' is the same thing, since you're asserting that it's what determines 'can' or 'can't.
Second, there are claims that certainly CAN be proven or disproven; any interaction with the physical world, for example, man claims of which do in fact exist. There isn't any credible evidence of this interaction.
Third, if your claim is that it's impossible to determine whether or not God exists because there's no way of demonstrating whether he does, then whether or not God exists becomes utterly irrelevant.
Hell, Obama flew over personally to threaten Britain into voting remain and no one raised a shitfit about America "influencing" a British election.
So you don't see any difference between a massive online pseudo-anonymous disinformation campaign and a world leader expressing his opinion on something?
I believe the main reason Trump won is because of this "Hillary Clinton was one of the most qualified candidates I've every seen with experience in all sectors of the federal government." Were sick of career politicians.
I seriously don't understand this.
Why is it that "politician" is the ONLY profession on the planet where a large number of people think it's a good thing to be completely inexperienced at it? It sounds like a rationalization to me.
I'll give you your answer. Because it struck too close to home. The NPC meme is a satirical mocking of a loud-mouth leftist pundit/politicians point and those who suppor it.
How convenient, that you think that the reason people object to something is because it's true. I assume you thought precisely the same thing about Clinton's "deplorables" assessment?
Conservatives find this funny because they can and regularly engage in self-deprecating humor. Progressives do not.
Okay, first, that's complete bullshit. If anything, progressives are more self-deprecating, at least as far as actual comedians go, though the sample size for conservative comedians is incredibly small.
Second, this isn't self-deprecating humor. That would require liberals doing it to themselves, not political opponents doing it to them.
Again, if conservatives were all right with that then we wouldn't have seen the absolute batshit insane overreaction to Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment that we saw.
The Vox isn't a credible source. Come back when you have a reliable source.
This crap gets modded +5 Insightful?
Has Slashdot always been right-wing biased and I didn't notice?
the photon objects.
We looked into that, but couldn't determine where exactly this objection came from.
...and then once we figured that out, we forgot how fast it went.
No word on what "O" in Android O stands for.
My money's on "Ovaltine", which is both in keeping with their naming scheme and a fun reminder of A Christmas Story.
We are drowning in information but starved for knowledge. -- John Naisbitt, Megatrends
