Time magazine cover July 1996
Less political theater (which is all these “investigations” are), more actual work strengthening cyber security.
It’s like it wasn’t even a secret.
They were boasting about it.
I wasn’t aware of any major breaches of cyber security concerning the elections. What are you referring to ? Or you mean just on a general level, which I don’t see as relevant to the discussion concerning the election
I guess maybe you missed all the accusations by the Democrats that the Russians “hacked the election.” Which they didn’t succeed in doing. So yes, I mean more at the level of cyber warfare, which is of course a never-ending effort by all the governments that have the capability to engage in it. But bolstering the security of voting systems is always a good idea. I’m sure hacking into voting machines is the holy grail for all kinds of bad actors.
Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from.
Trump 2020, make American even more great(again)!
Not if those sneaky Russians can help it.
I loved that cartoon
The Rocky and Bullwinkle show if I’m not mistaken
Yes, it was awesome. Great writing for a cartoon of that era.
Has anybody promised to re-instate the pension scheme for the next election?
The tax discussed is income tax, under a certain income amount (near 30k I think)people already didn’t pay it.
All the email stuff was Russian hackers and you’re claiming that didn’t have a big effect on the elections ?
Your exact words:
Your complaint is what, exactly? People voted Left-A, but the hongbao scheme is Left-B, yet Left-A and Left-B are not antithetical, just different enough for one to involve “valid”* acts and the other to involve “robbery”* and “confiscation”**?
*your exact word
**almost your exact word (“confiscated”)
Very picky you are.
We don’t disagree about everything.
Nah, not even close. She just gave the planet a hint of what lies beneath. Don’t ask me how I know.
Facebook is one thing, but in no way has the robot revolution peaked. Mark my words.
Just the other day on FNews, in reference to the Don’s wall speech, some pundit was complaining that when Democrat media people do so-called fact checking, they present subjective definitions as if they were “facts”!
(That’s a paraphrase. Don’t let any angry residents of your farm taze me for not using the pundit’s exact words!)
Try putting 60 bills into one bucket and a single drop of water into another bucket. It may open your eyes, but not literally, unless you have one hell of a Rube Goldberg machine.
Thanks for giving us some context. What I was getting at, though, is whether or not the hongbao scheme is antithetical to significantly different from the kind of platform voters were presented with back in 2016, i.e.
- did the party imply this sort of scheme is something it would never consider, or
- did it imply this sort of scheme is a valid act of government, or
- did it leave this area of policy entirely to the imagination?
Just like I thought.