House panel looking into Reddit post about Clinton's email server

Post by Dagwoodie » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:35 AM UTC

discodave wrote: post #77

jimmywanger wrote: post #26

The actual facts aside, this makes her appear far less electable, as her campaign camp looks like it's being run by a bunch of clowns. Just from a PR perspective, this could not have come at a worse time. The collapse at the 9/11 memorial, the "basket of deplorables", and the mention of the Pepe meme on her official website. Right after a couple of muslim terror attacks, some evidence surfaces purporting that she tri…

> The actual facts aside I happen to believe that facts are important in a Presidential race. Essentially your response is repeating talking points of the Trump campaign... which is OK, 1st amendment and all that but to pretend like you're making a constructive addition to the discussion / debate is folly. Right now America has a choice between Trump, a racist, mysoginist demagogue who has never held a public office…

Post by int_19h » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:35 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #90

kevhito wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60% chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com…

The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency. Nate Silver has been wrong at every single juncture, as have the rest of the polls. We're off the beaten path and down the rabbit hole, an…

Post by School-Cotton » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:36 AM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #96

School-Cotton wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Literally what point are you making? Dude, do you think this is a football game? That scoring a point against your opponent negates points scored against you? I suspect a big chunk of the people complaining about this would have complained even harder when Bush did it (if what you say is true), if they had been old enough to be aware what was going on, and had social media like we do now. So, what is your…

> Literally what point are you making? The point I'm making is that I don't think you, or anybody else actually cares about the emails—they care it's something they can criticize Clinton for. Before her, nobody gave a shit. After her, nobody will give a shit. They don't matter, except that they can be used to criticize Clinton. So of course nobody complained about it with Bush, because nobody cares about them. > I su…

Post by douche » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:37 AM UTC

CamperBob2 wrote: post #90

kevhito wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was getting ready to point out that Hillary really has a large lead, even if the day-to-day talking heads insist on making this and every race/issue seem as if it is 50/50 split. Then I checked 538.com [1]: they have her at 60% chance of winning -- pretty strong lead and hardly a normal time to throw someone under the bus -- but those graphs should be terrifying team Hillary. [1] http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com…

The reason I'm worried is that it's becoming increasingly clear why the GOP was so enthusiastic about blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland to SCOTUS. That never made any sense, except in a bizarro world where they were very sure they weren't going to lose the Presidency. Nate Silver has been wrong at every single juncture, as have the rest of the polls. We're off the beaten path and down the rabbit hole, an…

Post by MichaelMoser123 » Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 1:38 AM UTC

AnOscelot wrote: post #23

danso wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing that a person who asks this kind of "help-me-cover-something-up" question while mentioning that his client is "VERY VIP" is also completely oblivious of how findable things are on today's Internet. I'm guessing the Internet detective work might have come from something very serendipitous and casual: Someone interested in the email server scandal doing a search for "Paul Cambetta", which is a fairly rare…

People really should learn to not reuse usernames. Unique password per site, and unique name as well. This won't protect anyone from government agents, but it will make it harder for an Internet mob to determine your identity.