[Al_U_Card]

Recent analysis reveals that sexual assault his diminished in the rest of Canada but has increased in Quebec.

As far as limits to discourse, if Islamics want to present the advantages of Sharia law, good for all those non-islamics that want to be ruled by it. THAT would be a reason for leaving your country, the election of DT not so much.

Imminent danger (yelling Fire! in a crowded theater etc.) is a reason for discouraging free speech. Other than that, bring it on. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Hillary wants to go green with the economy....so cash for her cronies and intermittent electricity for the peeps. Nothing to see here, move along...

[barmar]

mike777, on 2016-October-27, 12:52, said:

I agree, strongly agree the community does not need to provide a soapbox, but it does need to provide a space, a safe space, for that soapbox. Case in point the KKK marching in Skokie, They were provided a limited, one time space, to voice their viewpoint in the heavily Jewish suburb. Point in fact the community paid for extra police to assist in making it a safe space to some degree.

I hear of cases where colleges are not providing that safe space. I hear of examples where they invite then disinvite, pull away that space for speakers. I hear of cases where the provide that space but it becomes an unsafe place. I do agree on limits, public safety limits, limits on community money spent.

Yeah, tough decisions frequently need to be made. Providing space for a controversial speaker is likely to be more expensive than a typical event, so the benefit has to be weighed.

During the 60's Civil Rights era I'm sure they considered many of those protests to be potentially dangerous -- there was probably extra police presence during MLK's "I Have a Dream" speech. And there were probably many who considered his viewpoints as radical as we might consider a Jihadist or the KKK (didn't J. Edgar Hoover consider him an enemy?).

[blackshoe]

J. Edgar considered everyone an enemy.

[PassedOut]

I can recall when the subject of emails never arose during an election campaign. My, how things have changed: Was a Trump Server Communicating With Russia?

Quote

In late July, one of these scientists—who asked to be referred to as Tea Leaves, a pseudonym that would protect his relationship with the networks and banks that employ him to sift their data—found what looked like malware emanating from Russia. The destination domain had Trump in its name, which of course attracted Tea Leaves’ attention. But his discovery of the data was pure happenstance—a surprising needle in a large haystack of DNS lookups on his screen. “I have an outlier here that connects to Russia in a strange way,” he wrote in his notes. He couldn’t quite figure it out at first. But what he saw was a bank in Moscow that kept irregularly pinging a server registered to the Trump Organization on Fifth Avenue.

More data was needed, so he began carefully keeping logs of the Trump server’s DNS activity. As he collected the logs, he would circulate them in periodic batches to colleagues in the cybersecurity world. Six of them began scrutinizing them for clues.

(I communicated extensively with Tea Leaves and two of his closest collaborators, who also spoke with me on the condition of anonymity, since they work for firms trusted by corporations and law enforcement to analyze sensitive data. They persuasively demonstrated some of their analytical methods to me—and showed me two white papers, which they had circulated so that colleagues could check their analysis. I also spoke with academics who vouched for Tea Leaves’ integrity and his unusual access to information. “This is someone I know well and is very well-known in the networking community,” said Camp. “When they say something about DNS, you believe them. This person has technical authority and access to data.”)

The researchers quickly dismissed their initial fear that the logs represented a malware attack. The communication wasn’t the work of bots. The irregular pattern of server lookups actually resembled the pattern of human conversation—conversations that began during office hours in New York and continued during office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasn’t an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.

Tea leaves?

[mike777]

My prediction early in the season of 350 E. votes for Clinton looks in danger but I will stick with it.


I think 538 has her down to 290 with 4 days left.

---------------------
----------------------

side note has Russia been proved beyond a reasonable doubt behind the email leaks?
side note2 will racial makeup become something we self identify as sex is today? I just wonder when it comes to govt programs what level of proof will be needed.

[barmar]

I've never seen Bill Maher as cynical as he was on last night's "Real Time". He seemed to be seriously worried that Trump might pull this off. All the times Trump proved the pundits wrong since he entered the race appear to have left him totally hopeless about American's coming to their senses. And I can understand how he feels, I thought the same things.

The only thing that gives me some hope is that IIRC, Obama and Romney were pretty close in the pre-election polls last time, but Obama still pulled off a landslide victory. So I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

[jonottawa]

Yes, let's hope that the most corrupt candidate in history, who has turned the MSM into her sockpuppets, who is owned by big banks & sleazy billionaires, who took bribes to influence policy & who will put the final nail in America's coffin wins against the people's choice who thinks that America was pretty great ca 1950.

I've heard that if Trump wins he will Make BBO Great Again & roll back the decision to discontinue the Windows version. C/D?

[awm]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-06, 15:28, said:

Yes, let's hope that the most corrupt investigated candidate in history (against whom nothing has ever been proven), who has turned the been savaged by the MSM into her sockpuppets over an inconsequential email "scandal", who is owned by has occasionally taken free money from big banks & sleazy billionaires, who has never been shown to take took bribes or let donations to influence policy & who will put the final nail in America's coffin history of gender discrimination wins against the uneducated white male's people's choice who thinks that America was pretty great ca 1950 when blacks had no civil rights and women were treated as objects.

I've heard that if Trump wins he will Make BBO Great Again & roll back the decision to discontinue the Windows version. C/D the public education debate in the other thread irrelevant by deporting all the latino kids in Elianna's school?

Fixed your post. Took quite a bit of work as you can see.

[Kaitlyn S]

awm, on 2016-November-06, 18:12, said:

Fixed your post. Took quite a bit of work as you can see.

Indeed, you took something that was quite fine and made quite a mess of it. I think Hillary has a position for you in her cabinet, and if that doesn't work, you'll certainly make it as a decision maker in one of Hillary's agencies.

What I'm wondering is why someone in Canada sees things so much more clearly about the USA than someone in the United States?

[Kaitlyn S]

Does it bother anybody else that the sleaziest billionaire of all, George Soros, who has countless times taken down various countries' economies for his own profit, and currently has a huge bet on America to fail, is trying to make sure that Hillary Clinton gets elected?

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-06, 19:06, said:

Does it bother anybody else that the sleaziest billionaire of all, George Soros, who has countless times taken down various countries' economies for his own profit, and currently has a huge bet on America to fail, is trying to make sure that Hillary Clinton gets elected?

In all seriousness, why do you bother to post this sort of drivel?

You must know that no one is going to take you seriously.
Do you really have so little going on in your life that you actively try to make yourself look like an idiot in front of strangers?

[awm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-06, 18:57, said:

Indeed, you took something that was quite fine and made quite a mess of it. I think Hillary has a position for you in her cabinet, and if that doesn't work, you'll certainly make it as a decision maker in one of Hillary's agencies.

Hardly. I'm sure she doesn't have the slightest idea who I am.

The point I'd make on these two candidates, is that Republicans have been investigating Hillary Clinton for years and years. From Whitewater to Bengazi to the current email scandal (and probably many other things I've been forgetting). Despite calling her in to testify to congress lots of times, they have never managed any proof of wrongdoing or even an indictment. Of course, it is possible that she is guilty of something or other, but the full might of the Republican Congressional majority against her (plus many millions of dollars in opposition research, research by conservative members of the press, and so on) they have proven nothing. So if she's guilty she's incredibly good at hiding it!

In contrast, Trump condemns himself with his own words. He admits that he paid no federal taxes and says that makes him smart. He said he likes to kiss women and grab their private parts without their consent. He said that Mexicans are rapists and murderers, that muslims ought not to be allowed into the country, and so forth.

We basically have the choice between a candidate whose opponents claim she is crooked, but without enough evidence to make anything stick despite literally decades of investigation... and a candidate who proudly admits to being a racist and misogynist. Not to mention that there are plenty of lawsuits against Trump (from housing discrimination, to failure to pay contractors, to the scam that is Trump University, to sexual harassment charges) and each of these lawsuits has actually managed to get into a courtroom unlike any of the accusations against Hillary.

Honestly, the country did pretty well when Bill Clinton was president. And while not everything has been perfect under the Barack Obama presidency, he righted the ship after a terrible crash in 2008 and we have had continuous growth for a long time and no new wars. It seems extremely likely that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be quite similar to one or both of these periods. Certainly not the "end of America" or any sort of disaster. In contrast we have never had a president like Donald Trump. Electing him is far more of a gamble (and if you're female, or latino, or muslim you're basically gambling that he doesn't hold or won't act on any of his stated beliefs which is a pretty amazing bet to make).

[Kaitlyn S]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-06, 19:28, said:

In all seriousness, why do you bother to post this sort of drivel?

You must know that no one is going to take you seriously.
Do you really have so little going on in your life that you actively try to make yourself look like an idiot in front of strangers?

So it does not bother you that the sleaziest billionaire of all, George Soros, who has countless times taken down various countries' economies for his own profit, and currently has a huge bet on America to fail, is trying to make sure that Hillary Clinton gets elected.

The fact that you think this is drivel that nobody is going to take seriously says something about you. Because there are very many people that are scared s***less of Donald Trump but refuse to vote for Hillary because of things like this. Smart people. I'm scared of Trump too. But Hillary is even scarier. Apparently George Soros thinks so too. He has a lot of money riding on it and in the past it has been a very good idea to respect his investment ideas.

You, however, are following the playbook very well. Call anyone who disagrees stupid, a racist, or just bat sh*t crazy. It's worked for your party for years. Why on earth would you stop? You should be on their campaign team.

[Winstonm]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-06, 19:06, said:

Does it bother anybody else that the sleaziest billionaire of all, George Soros, who has countless times taken down various countries' economies for his own profit, and currently has a huge bet on America to fail, is trying to make sure that Hillary Clinton gets elected?

No, that doesn't bother me. What bothers me are the people who support Trump for no other reason than they accept at face value the conspiracy fantasies spun about Hillary Clinton. I can understand a few Klansmem supporting Trump, because of his racist comments, and I can understand some fundamental evangelicals supporting Trump, because of his total disregard for women as equals, and I can even understand a few policemen supporting Trump, because of his call for more law and order - what I cannot understand is how anyone else can find a reason to believe that Hillary Clinton is a criminal who should be jailed and is so horrible that we should elect a madman instead when she has already been investigated (by the opposing party, no less) more than any candidate in history and nothing has been found.

Please, spare me the continuous conspiratorial drivel rehash passed on from right wing talk radio and try to come up with some genuine facts that make you choose Trump over Clinton.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-06, 20:22, said:

So it does not bother you that the sleaziest billionaire of all, George Soros, who has countless times taken down various countries' economies for his own profit, and currently has a huge bet on America to fail, is trying to make sure that Hillary Clinton gets elected.

The fact that you think this is drivel that nobody is going to take seriously says something about you. Because there are very many people that are scared s***less of Donald Trump but refuse to vote for Hillary because of things like this. Smart people.

Here's what this argument say about me (and also about about you)

1. I know how to use a search engine

"George Soros is betting billions of dollars that America will fail" is a standard trope on the far right (and some parts of the lunatic left)
People have been making this same claim for years.

http://www.wnd.com/2009/11/114759/
http://www.aim.org/a...ncial-collapse/
http://www.washingto...et-collapse-in/
http://www.huffingto..._n_4810434.html

2. I understand investing

You are making a claim based on an isolated slice of Soros's investment portfolio.
This is, for all intents and purposes, a meaningless signal.

A long of modern finance is based on arbitraging inefficiencies.

You take an enormous hedged long position
You take an equally large hedged short
You make your money because you believe that someone has miss priced one or the other
For all we know, Soros's trades could be based on a perception that the market is actually undervalued.

(One thing that you don't do if you're a smart investor is have a bunch of naked shorts)

BTW, Its worth noting that Soros's investments have been doing really well for the past few years as the US markets have increased.
If he's really exposed to a downturn in the US market, we'd expect just the opposite.

3. I understand the relationship between Donald Trump's polling numbers and share prices.

Spoiler alert: There is a strong negative correlation between the two...
(If you don't believe me, take a look at market prices in the US after Comey made his announcement last Friday)

If Soros was really trying to tank the market, he'd be trying to get Trump elected

4. I understand that the purpose of the meme that you are mindlessly spouting is to try to scare people into purchasing gold as an inflation hedge at vastly overpriced rates

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-06, 20:22, said:

You, however, are following the playbook very well. Call anyone who disagrees stupid, a racist, or just bat sh*t crazy. It's worked for your party for years. Why on earth would you stop?

Kaitlyn,

You want to know why you getting labeled as "stupid" and "bat shiite crazy"?
It saves time...

None of the people who participate on this discussion list have any obligation to engage with you or to educate you.

If you are able to make a valid contribution to the discussions taking place around you, people will respond appropriately to your comments. The first few times that you go and mindlessly regurgitate easily refuted talking points from crank sources, folks probably will take the time and effort to disagree with you conclusions and try to explain why your claims are incorrect. However, if you continue to engage in precisely the same behavior - for example, citing completely ridiculous claims without investing a moment of time doing basic fact checking - people are going to write you off. The way that they do so is by labeling you as "bat shiite crazy" as a signal to other folks around you that its not worth the time and effort to engage with your claims. Rather, the best thing to do is disregarding whatever new conspiracy theory your spouting at the moment.

As a practical example, a few days back on the education thread you starting telling some fairy tale about a professor assigning grades.
People showed you that this was a falsehood and demonstrated how easy it was to fact check.

Here you are, back again with another inane easily falsified claim...

And here you are, all worked up about the fact that I'm pointing out that your posts are drivel.

[helene_t]

hrothgar, on 2016-November-07, 04:36, said:

You want to know why you getting labeled as "stupid" and "bat shiite crazy" I should just ignore your posts?
I am not going to change anyone's opinion anyway.
It saves time...

FYP

[Zelandakh]

jonottawa, on 2016-November-06, 15:28, said:

Yes, let's hope that the most corrupt candidate in history,

I got this far and assumed you meant DT, then had to go back and re-read when the rest made no sense. How any intelligent and informed person can believe that HC is more corrupt than DT is really beyond me. We could discuss whether he is the most corrupt ever. We could also discuss the ramifications should a standing President be convicted of sexual assault. I assume you would regard that as more serious than using a private email server?

[Cyberyeti]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-November-06, 20:22, said:

So it does not bother you that the sleaziest billionaire of all, George Soros, who has countless times taken down various countries' economies for his own profit, and currently has a huge bet on America to fail, is trying to make sure that Hillary Clinton gets elected.

The fact that you think this is drivel that nobody is going to take seriously says something about you. Because there are very many people that are scared s***less of Donald Trump but refuse to vote for Hillary because of things like this. Smart people. I'm scared of Trump too. But Hillary is even scarier. Apparently George Soros thinks so too. He has a lot of money riding on it and in the past it has been a very good idea to respect his investment ideas.

You, however, are following the playbook very well. Call anyone who disagrees stupid, a racist, or just bat sh*t crazy. It's worked for your party for years. Why on earth would you stop? You should be on their campaign team.

There is a particular problem on the Republican side in the US. Somebody makes a "news" website with Republican leanings. They make stuff up, because it chimes with the preconceptions of the sort of people that would read a site like that, it gets passed around as truth. If you wish to elect Trump, it's your democratic right to do so, but please do it on the basis of actual facts.

[helene_t]

Cyberyeti, on 2016-November-07, 05:23, said:

Somebody makes a "news" website with Republican leanings. They make stuff up, because it chimes with the preconceptions of the sort of people that would read a site like that, it gets passed around as truth.

Or simply because some teenagers in an impoverished corner of Europe found out that right-wing clickbait is an easy way to make money: https://www.buzzfeed...yxby#.vrlrJ1Vb1