GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Remember the article that I recently posted here about "the new methods of propaganda."
You will never be able to stop people from posting, to YouTube and to any other place, "anything they want to." And, they know, if in so doing they can connect to "like-minded people," they're going to get some amount of advertising-revenue in return. (Unless they're running the proper ad-blockers, as they should be.)
To such people, the readily-demonstratable facts of the matter, not only "have no relevance," but are in fact "further proof" (sic) of whatever-it-is they are pre-determined to believe.
The majority of election systems in use in the United States, thankfully(!), still are "paper-auditable." (And I hope that this experience will be a clear indication that elections should never be "paperless.") Furthermore, they are off-line. There are fifty independent election systems, generally not using the same underlying technology. And, in spite of the "popular vote" blip caused by a single state that has many times more people in it than every other, that map was "a sea of Red."
Nevertheless, many people fear the man that the people actually elected, and many more openly despise him. In spite of all the things that have happened to my country to reduce it to a ghost of the country that I "grew up in," there are those who dream of (what they fondly imagine to be ...) "a predictable, white-haired W-H-I-T-E professional politician, President Pence." Or even, a cabal that would depose the political order and install "Madame President."
May I cordially suggest that, "enough is enough?" Even though you don't agree with the outcome that was (in fact ...) delivered by "the election process," can you not at least acknowledge "the process," and the Officeholder that it actually produced? No one who sits in that god-forsaken chair is a sinner, and no one is a saint. (Every single one of them probably "farts in the seat-cushions" of that magnificent chair, in that magnificent office, seated at that magnificent desk in that magnificent-but-very-lonely room, at least once a day.)
The election is over. Hillary Clinton not only "lost," but frankly "lost badly." Last November! Get over it. Today, we have a nation to run.
- - -
No one is ever going to subscribe to "Duck And Cover 2" so as to impose the election-outcome that some people apparently still(!) can't believe didn't(!!) happen.
(P.S.: if you haven't yet seen the video hyperlinked above ... click on it, and ROTFLYAO!)
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 04-28-2017 at 09:11 PM.
You will never be able to stop people from posting, to YouTube and to any other place, "anything they want to." And, they know, if in so doing they can connect to "like-minded people," they're going to get some amount of advertising-revenue in return. (Unless they're running the proper ad-blockers, as they should be.)
They can sure as hell try. If you have kept up with the situation on youtube and the debacle of video monetization - ads being pulled because 'hateful, edgy, controversial' content, now thats not to say that there aren't such reprehensible content - but seems to be using a rather broad brush here, and it is no coincidence since the introduction of "youtube TV" - which you have the MSM outlets jumping on, which is ironic considering people were flocking to youtube to get away from such dreck. So ads are being pulled because corporations are scared of 'controversy', yet legacy 'news' outlets have ads running all the time on their platform and they have controversial topics too, like war, etc - so, yea.
You see this also with the debacle with PewDiePie - he makes a dumb joke - it wasn't funny, but it was the perfect opportunity for the WSJ (another legacy outlet) to smear him, never mind the same editors (which names escapes me) also made Nazi jokes on twitter (just google it, internet never forgets). Youtube is the ultimate platform and it has to be controlled, other wise you will have people thinking for themselves - and you see the scare tactics being used, this is why even H.A. Goodman now has a Patreon. Still there is a slant here that is being suppressed, but luckily pointed out by the youtube community - and that is the 'restricted mode' - or youtube if you are not logged in. If you are not logged in, channels that you are subbed to might have less videos, or none - you can even see this if you go to a channel that is 100% FCC compliant (no swearing, etc) (Louder with Crowder comes to mind). However, if you look at other channels - such as say MSM channels like CNN, ABC - ALL their videos are available - oh AND there are of course ads playing between videos - but wait they get a pass? They show controversial stuff too in a way do they not? Also one other thing that the community rightfully pointed out - the TYT(The Young Turks) channel - not only their stuff isn't really missing if you are not logged in - but they(TYT) do not seem to be making the same fuss about THEIR videos being de-monitized even though they have videos and titles such as 'War In Syria' - War, etc - so, are they being unfairly given a pass? I think so - double standards are at play here, why are they given a pass?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
To such people, the readily-demonstratable facts of the matter, not only "have no relevance," but are in fact "further proof" (sic) of whatever-it-is they are pre-determined to believe.
The majority of election systems in use in the United States, thankfully(!), still are "paper-auditable." (And I hope that this experience will be a clear indication that elections should never be "paperless.") Furthermore, they are off-line. There are fifty independent election systems, generally not using the same underlying technology. And, in spite of the "popular vote" blip caused by a single state that has many times more people in it than every other, that map was "a sea of Red."
The party that lost is still spouting everything to shift the blame and using 'muh popular vote' as some kind of 'symbolically' still making Hillary as the 'rightful' president. It was unfairly taken away from her, it was the Russians - never mind that it was determined that it was Seth Rich that was the DNC leaker and gave the e-mails to Wikileaks, then killed in a 'robbery' - but nothing of value on his person was taken - take that with a grain of salt. The constant excuses are never ending and the lashing out and hysteria is no longer funny, but cringe worthy and out right dangerous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Nevertheless, many people fear the man that the people actually elected, and many more openly despise him. In spite of all the things that have happened to my country to reduce it to a ghost of the country that I "grew up in," there are those who dream of (what they fondly imagine to be ...) "a predictable, white-haired W-H-I-T-E professional politician, President Pence." Or even, a cabal that would depose the political order and install "Madame President."
It is not just blatant, but anything that Trump does even say that would be in line with their own beliefs are shit on, because he is Trump. You can see this with Keith Olbermann's constant cringe worthy tirades, or worse Rachel Maddow's constant beating off about Russia in the majority of her episodes - and how she at the beginning of the Trump administration encouraged that more troops be sent to the borders of Russia (NATO) - and how Trump is a Russian 'puppet', but what this fscking imbecile does not realise is that good relations with Russia IS A GOOD thing, and we should not be having this return to Cold War era posturing, however if you have the mental fortitude to see just what she keeps spouting - this imbecile is pretty much beating the drum for war - because it is Trump - yes lets keep provoking the Russians, because your stupid ideology dictates Trump is the problem, and Madame Cyberhack was the rightful heir to the throne. So let us call it for what it is, you have people in the MSM outright wanting war with a nuclear power - the people did not listen to them, they dared not elect Hillary, and would gladly burn the entire house down or in this case the country because these filthy peasants are not worthy of living anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
May I cordially suggest that, "enough is enough?" Even though you don't agree with the outcome that was (in fact ...) delivered by "the election process," can you not at least acknowledge "the process," and the Officeholder that it actually produced? No one who sits in that god-forsaken chair is a sinner, and no one is a saint. (Every single one of them probably "farts in the seat-cushions" of that magnificent chair, in that magnificent office, seated at that magnificent desk in that magnificent-but-very-lonely room, at least once a day.)
Nope, it is not enough in their view. The less that people tune them out, the louder they are about 'muh Russia' 'muh popular vote' 'muh reasons.' Yes there are those who take the bait, and the other lower hanging fruit that are less tech savvy. A side note it is still funny now to see the hulabaloo about what is happening with FOX and the firing of O'Reilly and now the Hannity issue. I don't care, I think it is hilarious - it is just a corporate entity no more credible than CNN , MSNBC etc, but those folks (usually older less tech savvy generation) are of course up in arms - but to me I approve - it is just the legacy media attacking itself - I am fine with that and I love it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
The election is over. Hillary Clinton not only "lost," but frankly "lost badly." Last November! Get over it. Today, we have a nation to run.
Won't stop her from running again in 2020 - and you know what? I hope she does - I want to know how much money she will spend this time, and if (no when) she loses again, who will she blame along with what country this time? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=928oKGmF5UU (H.A. Goodman is just fscking awesome! )
Quote:
H.A. Goodman
I hope that Hillary runs every four years Democrats deserve this, God bless her I hope she runs every four years twenty twenty Twenty twenty four twenty twenty eight twenty thirty to twenty thirty six every four years forever because the Democrats deserve this. The country deserves this; the country deserves this and I just think it's fantastic!
-
She's ready to come out of the woods and help Americans find common ground because there's nobody who unites Americans more than Hillary Clinton.
-
Clinton to run again because the Democratic Party deserves Hillary 2020. say it again for me say it again and and write this quote me on this Courtney the Democratic Party deserves Hillary 2020 we must have that this is what this is what has to happen getting a thoughts below thank you so much for listening Democrats deserve Hillary Clintonrunning again in 2020.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
No one is ever going to subscribe to "Duck And Cover 2" so as to impose the election-outcome that some people apparently still(!) can't believe didn't(!!) happen.
Well with the recent events on the Korean peninsula - it is 'kinda' having a comeback - Operation Gotham Shield
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
(P.S.: if you haven't yet seen the video hyperlinked above ... click on it, and ROTFLYAO!)
I am subbed to Mr. Goodman because he's awesome! That video was also good too.
Today, April 28th 2017, WikiLeaks publishes the documentation and source code for CIA's "Scribbles" project, a document-watermarking preprocessing system to embed "Web beacon"-style tags into documents that are likely to be copied by Insiders, Whistleblowers, Journalists or others. The released version (v1.0 RC1) is dated March, 1st 2016 and classified SECRET//ORCON/NOFORN until 2066.
The only thing remarkable about Hillary's defeat is that she ever seriously thought that she could win.
We already knew exactly what a Mrs. Clinton presidency would be like: we'd already experienced eight years of it. The people of the country wanted to throw out "the Establishment," and she was "the Establishment!"
Of course, like Mitt Romney before her, she surrounded herself by people who told her what she wanted to hear – and nothing else. She seemed to conduct her campaign simply assuming that victory was certain. But, "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Because she could not comprehend the appeal of Donald Trump (and she still doesn't ...), she simply told herself that Trump didn't appeal to anyone.
When the people spoke, they spoke very decisively: "a sea of red." Then, when she appealed to the Electoral College to "do the right thing," no Trump electors defected, but two Hillary electors did!
This was no mistake. This was no "hack." This was the election process functioning precisely as it should.
The only thing remarkable about Hillary's defeat is that she ever seriously thought that she could win.
Until she realised that she had to actually hold a rally at states that she thought was in the bag, which by that time was too late anyways
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
We already knew exactly what a Mrs. Clinton presidency would be like: we'd already experienced eight years of it. The people of the country wanted to throw out "the Establishment," and she was "the Establishment!"
Well even now, she is still rather tone deaf to the idea - though on the surface 'taking responsibility' on the surface - but then still spouting the same thing - it was the result of misogyny and muh Russia! Effectively a hollow acceptance and still rather defiant that it was 'her turn'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Of course, like Mitt Romney before her, she surrounded herself by people who told her what she wanted to hear – and nothing else. She seemed to conduct her campaign simply assuming that victory was certain. But, "there are none so blind as those who will not see." Because she could not comprehend the appeal of Donald Trump (and she still doesn't ...), she simply told herself that Trump didn't appeal to anyone.
The funny thing is that is true, but she was even less appealing that Trump - that is the main thing. I also like how Mr. Styxhexenhammer666 put it - she did not resonate with middle America, and did the same strategy like Obama. The recovery worked, look at the coasts (but who cares about middle America).
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
When the people spoke, they spoke very decisively: "a sea of red." Then, when she appealed to the Electoral College to "do the right thing," no Trump electors defected, but two Hillary electors did!
That was funny and cringe worthy at the same time; and even more of an example just how out of touch and tone deaf she was. If you saw the 'appeal' by big celebrities to 'do the right thing.' It completely backfired, and rightfully so. Middle America rightfully so rejected it, because it was just some celebrity that has never did any real hard work in their lives, trying to sell to them a flawed candidate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
This was no mistake. This was no "hack." This was the election process functioning precisely as it should.
Oh it was a huge mistake; starting from the cheating in the DNC and still justifying the cheating to this day; and there was a hack - Clinton - she WAS the political hack. Nobody wanted another Clinton, besides Slick Willy at least had the ability to charm - she didn't, every time she spoke, people disliked her more and more.
I know also you still do not agree but, Wikileaks did this country a solid during the election. They did not hack anything, it was already confirmed it was Seth Rich (DNC insider) who provided the emails, and then he was killed in a 'robbery', but I'll digress on that. Nobody is responsible for her failure but her. On the one hand she does need to go away, because she is only going to hurt the Democratic party even more, on the other hand I am again in agreement with Mr. Goodman. She should run again, because there is just no way she would win. I personally just want to know who else she would blame if she did decide to run in 2020, and which country would be at fault this time.
This is also another interesting analysis (sorry).
Hillary Clinton in a softball interview on CNN claims that she "takes responsibility" for the election loss and then proceeds to blame everyone but herself.
Sources: https://goo.gl/UoZ5B9https://goo.gl/kqM9lf
Until she realised that she had to actually hold a rally at states that she thought was in the bag, which by that time was too late anyways.
Well even now, she is still rather tone deaf to the idea - though on the surface 'taking responsibility' on the surface - but then still spouting the same thing - it was the result of misogyny and muh Russia! Effectively a hollow acceptance and still rather defiant that it was 'her turn'.
Just like Romney, she thought she had bought it. Unfortunately, "the Establishment" thinks that way, and she was "the Establishment." You may recall that I started a thread about "The Apprentice," many months before the election took place.
In my political opinion, things started to take a very-decided turn for the worst approximately when Ronald Reagan took office. There was a dramatic shift in socio-economic policy at that time.
Financial controls that were put in place following the Great Depression were systematically removed. Now, we have pawn-shops on every corner, charging thousands of percent interest, and you can't get a signature loan at a bank.
"Senator HCA" re-worked the American health care system from Eisenhower's "fine, well-equipped hospitals" to a family business that no one can go into – and Dr. Frist is still in the Senate.
Ryan's so-called "Obamacare Repeal" bill, which he thought was finally a shoe-in thanks to Mr. Trump, actually would have poured money into insurance companies ("premium stabilization ..."), without accompanying regulation and without change to their business practices.
Private companies figured out that they could get Pell Grants, and suddenly private Universities were everywhere and kids can no longer get any education beyond high school without becoming a quarter-million dollars in debt before they have their first job (for having gone to a state school!).
American companies with fine buildings in Manhattan ... oops! ... are actually Honduran and Jamaican companies with "headquarters" in the meeting-room of an island lawyer's office. This avoids them paying corporate taxes.
America eagerly entered into the NAFTA treaty, and was pushing the TPP treaty, specifically to avoid employing Americans in American factories. Meanwhile, Great Britain formally removed itself from a similar treaty. Bill Clinton's signature is on that NAFTA document.
Over five million people are in the USA under conditions of indentured servitude while a corresponding number of American IT professionals have quit looking for work. Mark Zuckerberg is extraordinarily interested in Africa – he says, "out of the goodness of his heart." Anything to avoid hiring Americans, or to have to pay anything into American retirement plans, Medicare or Social Security.
So, is it really that hard to understand why Hillary Clinton lost the election, and why "yer FIRED!" won it? I really don't think so.
The British are the first ones to take decisive action – they actually did it – but they were just the bellwether of dramatic changes that are to come. I will predict that Mr. Trump – having survived several assassination attempts – will complete his eight years in Office and will be viewed in hindsight as having been a transformational Officeholder.
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 05-03-2017 at 08:17 AM.
Just like Romney, she thought she had bought it. Unfortunately, "the Establishment" thinks that way, and she was "the Establishment." You may recall that I started a thread about "The Apprentice," many months before the election took place.
Not only she thought she had it in the bag, but felt entitled - and still you see her now (if you have the stomach to hear her shrill voice) justifying her own actions, and projecting blame to others but herself. Now there is a lawsuit aimed at the DNC because of internal shenanigans, but I haven't heard about this obviously since none of the big news outlets want this story out, but thank you to Mr. Hard Bastard:
In the lawsuit vs the DNC there have been some outrageous revelations that are not being covered by the legacy media.
source: https://goo.gl/D9EHCp
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
In my political opinion, things started to take a very-decided turn for the worst approximately when Ronald Reagan took office. There was a dramatic shift in socio-economic policy at that time.
Financial controls that were put in place following the Great Depression were systematically removed. Now, we have pawn-shops on every corner, charging thousands of percent interest, and you can't get a signature loan at a bank.
"Senator HCA" re-worked the American health care system from Eisenhower's "fine, well-equipped hospitals" to a family business that no one can go into – and Dr. Frist is still in the Senate.
Ryan's so-called "Obamacare Repeal" bill, which he thought was finally a shoe-in thanks to Mr. Trump, actually would have poured money into insurance companies ("premium stabilization ..."), without accompanying regulation and without change to their business practices.
Private companies figured out that they could get Pell Grants, and suddenly private Universities were everywhere and kids can no longer get any education beyond high school without becoming a quarter-million dollars in debt before they have their first job (for having gone to a state school!).
American companies with fine buildings in Manhattan ... oops! ... are actually Honduran and Jamaican companies with "headquarters" in the meeting-room of an island lawyer's office. This avoids them paying corporate taxes.
America eagerly entered into the NAFTA treaty, and was pushing the TPP treaty, specifically to avoid employing Americans in American factories. Meanwhile, Great Britain formally removed itself from a similar treaty. Bill Clinton's signature is on that NAFTA document.
Over five million people are in the USA under conditions of indentured servitude while a corresponding number of American IT professionals have quit looking for work. Mark Zuckerberg is extraordinarily interested in Africa – he says, "out of the goodness of his heart." Anything to avoid hiring Americans, or to have to pay anything into American retirement plans, Medicare or Social Security.
None of that matters if you are on the coasts - living in your bubble. After Hillary's delightful loss, people all over the elito-sphere were whining that America has 'shown it's true color - it is racist/sexist' and other 'ist' they could think of. They did not know what they are talking about, America is doing great and the fly over states do not count, it is just all empty land.... Also Trump supporters are violent - just look at these Trump supporters....Wearing, ..black, with hoods and bandannas to hide their identities with their pro-Trump flags reading....ANTIFA?, attacking random people; or anyone with a differing view, essentially using fascistic tact...sh...sh.. SHUT UP! Well you get the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
So, is it really that hard to understand why Hillary Clinton lost the election, and why "yer FIRED!" won it? I really don't think so.
You and I do, but not the diehards - or choose not to and create their own world - because it was evil Julian Assange of Russian-Wikileaks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
The British are the first ones to take decisive action – they actually did it – but they were just the bellwether of dramatic changes that are to come. I will predict that Mr. Trump – having survived several assassination attempts – will complete his eight years in Office and will be viewed in hindsight as having been a transformational Officeholder.
It matters not however, since it is still trying to be spun that anyone is pro-Brexit is automatically (insert_term)-ist, and everything is great, there was no need to ever vote leave.... Again, out of touch people who would be pro EU and TPP because it does not benefit the average worker, it benefits only the elite and is spun to the public as somehow it is good for them too.
FBI director: I have 'never' been anonymous source on Clinton, Trump investigations
During a Senate hearing on FBI oversight, Director James Comey said he had not served as an anonymous news source on investigations into Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, nor had he authorized anyone else to do so.
On this episode of PoliticKing, Larry examines proposed changes to the Federal Communication Commission's “net neutrality” rule with cyber-security guru John McAfee. Then constitutional scholar and jurist Alan Dershowitz joins the conversation, as the topic turns to Julian Assange and the Trump administration’s enmity for the WikiLeaks founder.
According to Politico, the Democrats went out of their way to keep secret a report about what went wrong in the 2016 election. Democratic Congressman Sean Maloney presented the report to only a couple dozen people, and those people were not allowed to keep the report. They were only allowed to view the report under the eyes of DCCC staffers. The Resident breaks it down
Lilities.et us assume that all the cellphones are compromised. if you use them they will be compromised by their OS or by monitoring a connection by the NSA. I think it is unavailable to use encryptian because of security. I am not sure of measures in the face of a NSA attack. We need something like Snowden's description and capabilities. what is the answer.
In Hillary's desperate grab to be relevant again, she blamed everyone for her loss. Including: Russia, James Comey, misogyny, and the republicans. CNN Is of course fake news for this, like why even bother.
Testifying Friday to the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director James Comey defended his decision to release information about the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton a week before the election, a move she partly blames for her defeat. Former national security advisor Susan Rice has declined to testify before a Judiciary subcommittee investigating alleged Russian meddling in the election. Radio hosts Ben Kissel and Michael Medved join “News with Ed” to discuss.
So things aren't looking too good for Madame Cyberhack .
Richard Nixon may have been the most reviled President of the United States, but at least he could accept defeat. The same cannot be said of Hillary Clinton.
Nixon ran a good campaign in 1960, against John F Kennedy, a candidate who, primarily because of his good looks and young family, became a darling of the media and celebrity class.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.