home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 02:23:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Apple says no to turning over encyrption key on San Bernadino shooters' phone.

To hack the phone, the FBI wants Apple to build a new version of its iOS software that Cook claims bypasses the iPhone's security features and creates "the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone's physical possession."

"The US government has asked us for something we simply do not have, and something we consider too dangerous to create," Cook wrote in an open letter posted on Apple's website. "They have asked us to build a backdoor to the iPhone."

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Grammy's 2016 | The Pope and Donald >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 217 comments (217 topical)
    I have many problems with what the FBI is (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Farmboy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:13:36 PM EST
    ordering Apple to do. Other than the impact on our civil liberties - which is the primary concern - I'm curious how is this something that Apple is even a party to?

    The phone is in the custody of the FBI, not Apple. Don't they have friends at the NSA who could hack this device?

    Apple wasn't a party to the shooting in San Bernardino - unless the FBI is somehow making the argument that they have liability because they built the phone. Where's the basis for the warrant?

    As Apple has said, the software the FBI is asking for doesn't exist. There is nothing to turn over. Yet the FBI is ordering Apple to build them such a tool. Is there legal precedent for this?

    Isn't this what we want the govt to do? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:26:04 PM EST
    Go to a non-secretive, non-FISA court and ask for permission?

    Quick analogy I can think of is a safe deposit box and the bank has the keys.  Is the expectation that a bank would not comply?

    Parent

    It's not realistic (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:17:48 PM EST
    To think Apple could not do what is being asked of  them.   And it's easy to believe the NSA or anyone else could end up corrupting the data by attempting to retrieve it.  The software is explicitly designed to do that.  Apple wrote it.  They could get around it.

    Parent
    The encrypted data is just that - encrypted. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Farmboy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:26:39 PM EST
    Without the password the FBI can't get at it. Apple intentionally doesn't have that password or access to the data.

    Yes, Apple could write software that would bypass the password security but that would be a really bad idea. From Apple's response:

    The government would have us remove security features and add new capabilities to the operating system, allowing a passcode to be input electronically. This would make it easier to unlock an iPhone by "brute force," trying thousands or millions of combinations with the speed of a modern computer.

    The implications of the government's demands are chilling. If the government can use the All Writs Act to make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone's device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone's microphone or camera without your knowledge.

    Opposing this order is not something we take lightly. We feel we must speak up in the face of what we see as an overreach by the U.S. government.

    Full letter here

    I'm coming down on the side of civil liberties on this one.

    Parent

    It ridiculous to think (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:30:24 PM EST
    They "have to write this".  I guarantee you it exists.  And when they are looking a jail time it will be turned over.  

    Parent
    Actually I have an even better idea (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:34:24 PM EST
    Than jail time.  Stop them from selling them in the US.

    Parent
    Howdy, I don't think (none / 0) (#44)
    by fishcamp on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:48:39 PM EST
    It does exist.  If it did they would have had it by now.  Apple is not smarter or better than NSA, in my opinion.

    Parent
    They WROTE the software (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:58:31 PM EST
    They know everything about it.  If it doesn't exist, which I don't believe, it could certainly be created.   Its absurd to think they are incapable of this.  I repeat.  I guarantee you if it was a matter of industrial espionage against Apple they would be IN in a NY minute.

    Look, here's the bottom line.  Read what those congressmen said.  Apple will either cooperate, which personally believe they should - people died, more people could die,  or congress is going to be right up their ass.  They are not going to allow. a device to be sold or supported that could by definition be the device of choice of every terrorist group in the world.

    And you know what.  I don't want them to.  I am not that concerned about my naked selfies.  The world is a dangerous place.  Read that link about France.  IMO if you want to head off sh!t like that from happening you cooperate in what to most people seems completely reasonable requests for cooperation from tech companies.

    Parent

    The FBI isnt5 ordering them to do it (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:22:26 PM EST
    A federal magistrate did.

    Parent
    Looks Like the Mushroom Cloud... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:49:16 PM EST
    ... lie actually put radioactive material in the hands of bad people.

    Radioactive material stolen in Iraq raises security fears

    The material, stored in a protective case the size of a laptop computer, went missing in November from a storage facility near the southern city of Basra belonging to US oilfield services company Weatherford, the document obtained by Reuters showed and officials confirmed.

    I don't know what is worse, that it came up missing or that US companies are taking this S in the Middle East.

    Thanks GWB.

    Enough already (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by AnnL on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:12:34 PM EST
    The Bernie campaign says this is "gotcha politics". I'm missing the point. Misogyny is misogyny

    Typical (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:18:50 PM EST
    Nader mindset. It's "gonadal" politics and women are fine as long as they can make sandwiches for the revolution.

    Parent
    Yep, busted... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:44:21 PM EST
    Ending suffrage for women is in the first 40 days plan.  

    And I'll take a BLT, hold the mayo.

    Parent

    Yesterday Sen. Sanders stated his only (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by oculus on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 10:03:36 PM EST
    litmus test re a Scotus nomination is overturning Citizens United. Which you might think would be anathema to women of child-bearing age, people of color re voting rights etc.; but his statement has not deterred his supporters.

    Parent
    You don't seriously think... (none / 0) (#129)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:19:29 AM EST
    appointing an anti-choice anti-voting rights justice to the Supreme Court is on Bernie's radar, do you?  

    I think that's just Sanders hammering home his core message in a topical way after the death of Scalia.  

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:22:11 AM EST
    if you take him at his word the only thing that matters is CU and if they're social conservatives I guess that would be okay as long as they are against CU.

    Parent
    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#137)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:37:59 AM EST
    feel free to worry about further abortion restrictions and further disenfranchisement of minority voters under President Sanders.  Or the sky falling;)

    Parent
    It's a legitimate concern (none / 0) (#143)
    by CST on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:07:26 AM EST
    That these issues will not be as big of a priority in his Administration.

    Parent
    That's fair... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:19:03 AM EST
    if money in politics and income disparity aren't your most pressing issues of concern, he's clearly not your horse.

    Parent
    Yeah... (none / 0) (#142)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:06:39 AM EST
    ...no problem if it's a felon or an IQ of 10, because Bernie said....

    I mean for someone who has basically spent month pointing out Sanders words are not to be believed, to now come out and claim his words are to be taken as literally as humanly possible.

    It's getting so old, the Clinton click.  It's like Fox News lately, with this blind devotion to a person and not to the party or principles.

    But hey you gotta let people know Bernie could nominate a justice who could over turn women and minority rights because that is what a good Clinton soldier does, fact and common sense be damned.

    That would not be OK and you fricken know it and it is not OK to say something so completely unfounded and untrue.

    Parent

    IMO (none / 0) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:16:11 AM EST
    Bernie's problem is he's a one issue candidate. That's even evidenced in his statement about the supreme court. It's pretty much the typical socialist mindset and not out of the ordinary on that account.

    Parent
    That's your problem with Bernie... (none / 0) (#150)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:22:16 AM EST
    and that's fine.  Others, like myself, think of it as his biggest selling point.  We wanna vote for him because he is a one issue candidate, not in spite of it.  

    Parent
    Don't Backtrack... (none / 0) (#163)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:11:11 AM EST
    ... from installing a SC justice who will turn back rights to a one issue candidate.

    You don't just get to say whatever you want because you are HRC supporter.

    And now you know the typical socialist mindset, good GD gravy.

    Parent

    His one (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:48:29 AM EST
    issue is socialism and he thinks that socialism will solve all the ills of the country. It doesn't even occur to him that he might have to think about a judge being pro-choice as evidenced by his own statement.

    Parent
    By Only You (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    Not mentioning it is not evidence of anything, certainly not evidence of what occurs to him and what does not.  That is entirely a product of your mind.

    For people who complain about supporters seems like mirrors need to be handed out around here by the case.

    You do not know what Bernie Sanders thinks, even though you take every opportunity to spell it out in great detail and like some right wing preacher, his thoughts always seem to match your narrative of him.

    And if you are really desperate some claim about how you hope he actually wins just to show people how right you really are, because that most certainly evidence that he is a bad guy.  You know the ability to predict the future and all.

    TL has stopped arguing the policy since Iowa, now it's just personal attacks and mind reading abilities, while miraculously complaining about other supporters.  Shameful.

    Parent

    Since youre the one putting words in people's mout (none / 0) (#156)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:51:38 AM EST
    No one said "Bernie could nominate a justice who could over turn women and minority rights."  That, my dear man, is what we call a STRAWMAN.

    What oculus said was that, by Sanders' own statement, the only litmus test for a justice he would nominate would be to overturn Citizens United. (Leaving aside the impropriety of talking aboit litmus tests and so on.)

    You are the one making stuff up here.

    Parent

    I Wasn't Replying to Oculus... (none / 0) (#164)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    ...and if that is a strawman...

    Comment:
    Well if you take him at his word the only thing that matters is CU.

    To this:
    You don't seriously think appointing an anti-choice anti-voting rights justice to the Supreme Court is on Bernie's radar, do you?

    Parent

    If this is "gotcha politics" (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:19:19 PM EST
    Then what was the firestorm over Albright and Steinem?

    Parent
    It was about humorless sanctimonious prigs (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:08:36 AM EST
    lecturing us about humor.

    Parent
    I am getting concerned about Sanders (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:39:02 AM EST
    and his so called clean campaign when I see all the dirty lies coming out of his people and the attacks on Hillary...I also don't think Sanders could stand all the nasty vetting that she has had and would cost us the presidency...scary to me

    Parent
    I am getting concerned about Sanders (none / 0) (#101)
    by athyrio on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:38:36 AM EST
    and his so called clean campaign when I see all the dirty lies coming out of his people and the attacks on Hillary...I also don't think Sanders could stand all the nasty vetting that she has had and would cost us the presidency...scary to me

    Parent
    Dadler (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by AnnL on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 09:06:25 PM EST
    Peace out buddy you really need to chill

    The Onion nails it again (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:59:53 AM EST
    This - Female Presidential Candidate Who Was United States Senator, Secretary Of State Told To Be More Inspiring

    could easily be from MSNBC.

    Trump & the Central Park Five (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:50:45 AM EST
    The miscarriage of justice is widely remembered as a definitive moment in New York's fractured race relations. But Trump's intervention - he signed full-page newspaper advertisements implicitly calling for the boys to die - has been gradually overlooked as the businessman's chances of winning the Republican nomination have rapidly increased. Now those involved in the case of the so-called Central Park Five and its aftermath say Trump's rhetoric served as an unlikely precursor to a unique brand of divisive populism that has powered his rise to political prominence in 2016.

    LINK

    In 2002, after Salaam had served seven years in prison, Matias Reyes, a violent serial rapist and murderer already serving life inside, came forward and confessed to the Central Park rape. He stated that he had acted by himself. A re-examination of DNA evidence proved it was his semen alone found on Meili's body, and just before Christmas that year, the convictions against each member of the Central Park Five were vacated by New York's supreme court.

    By this point, Trump had gotten his wish: the death penalty had been reinstated in New York since 1995, at great cost to the state. It was subsequently abolished in 2007, without a single execution carried out.
    Following a 14-year court battle, the Central Park Five settled a civil case with the city for $41m in 2014. But far from offering an apology for his conduct in 1989, Trump was furious.

    In an opinion piece for the New York Daily News, he described the case as the "heist of the century".

    "Settling doesn't mean innocence, but it indicates incompetence on several levels," Trump wrote, alluding to how police and prosecutors initially involved in the case have long maintained the five boys were involved in the rape, even after the convictions were thrown out.

    For reference, the same year:

    The biography, Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump, by Harry Hurt III, details a 1989 incident in which Trump reportedly confronted his then-wife Ivana, pulling out clumps of her hair and sexually assaulting her. She characterized the incident as rape during the couple's divorce proceedings in the early 1990s and said she felt "violated," according to legal documents cited by The Daily Beast.
    His wife later retracted the claim. (none / 0) (#188)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:56:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Yeah, About 2 Months Ago... (none / 0) (#197)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:31:17 PM EST
    ... and it wasn't a retraction, more like an explanation as to why a rape between spouses shouldn't be considered rape.

    Parent
    And she now (none / 0) (#198)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    supports Trump.

    Parent
    The one constant: (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by NYShooter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:01:10 PM EST
    Early on in the campaign Trump shot up to 30% more or less, and has stayed there ever since. So, one way to look at this is to say that 70% of voters are against him.

    The big unanswered question is, if all non-Trump candidates, except one, dropped out what would the percentages be? And, that's the only way we'll get to know what the, "I'd never vote for Trump," number really is.

    Unfortunately, between then, and, now, Trump could rack up such a lead in delegates that when it's proven (if it is) his ceiling was always just 30-35% it'll be too late.

    As if you will care (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:01:59 PM EST
    Against Robert Bork; His Bill of Rights Is Different

    Published: October 5, 1987

    It's the first Monday in October and the Supreme Court convenes for its 197th term, but with only eight justices; the admired Lewis Powell retired in June. There could have been nine justices in place had President Reagan proposed someone like him, or another conservative in the tradition of Justices Felix Frankfurter or John Marshall Harlan. By now, even a Democratic Senate probably would have given consent.

    But instead, the President chose Robert Bork and thus chose angry confrontation.

    snip

    The President's supporters insist vehemently that, having won the 1984 election, he has every right to try to change the Court's direction. Yes, but the Democrats won the 1986 election, regaining control of the Senate, and they have every right to resist.

    NY Times

    Robert Bork had a confirmation hearing (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:23:22 PM EST
    To compare that to Mitch McConnell's complete abrogation of his his sworn duty is ludicrous.

    Parent
    and his sworn duty says there is (none / 0) (#199)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    a time limit on when he will introduce a nominee of the opposition's party for confirmation hearings??

    My my. The things I learn.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#203)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:53:40 PM EST
    Obama could wait until January and if the Senate flips, he has about 17 days where the filibuster rules could be changed and a more liberal nominee could be rammed through with a simple majority.

    Parent
    Yet the difference between then and now, Jim, ... (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:41:00 PM EST
    is rather quite stark, because Senate Democrats gave Robert Bork an opportunity to make his case before the country in a full public hearing, and even though the Judiciary Committee recommended that he not be confirmed, they nevertheless forwarded his nomination to the Senate floor per President Reagan's request for a final vote. Further, Bork's legal temperament proved to be so far outside mainstream opinion that six Republican senators felt compelled to break party ranks and vote in opposition.

    Whereas in contrast, Sens. McConnell, Grassley, Cruz et al., all vowed within less than 24 hours of Justice Scalia's death to oppose President Obama's nominee to replace him, and would further deny the administration even the courtesy of a public hearing on the matter, regardless of whoever that nominee might eventually be.

    It's therefore nonsensical to even equate the two respective situations, because they couldn't possibly be any more different.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Excuse me (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 06:06:13 PM EST
    but I detect a heresy here
    filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Portland
    I thought these clowns do not believe in the federal government.

    By their reckoning this should be ruled on by the justice of peace in Bugtussle county, or something.

    James Clyburn (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 06:10:50 PM EST
    Endorses Hillary

    Repost from other thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 02:26:21 PM EST
    New PPP poll for super tuesday states

    Hillary has big leads in most states.  Bernie is up +76 in Vermont, and +7 in MA - although neither one is at 50% in MA yet.

    Looks like a pretty good day for Clinton is coming.

    Basically - this is coming down to race for the most part.  Although by that metric Bernie should probably be doing better in MA, but I think you still have a lot of "establishment" Dems.  That being said, you also have a lot of white liberals and college kids, so it's not too surprising either way.

    If you're a Sanders supporter ... (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:52:18 PM EST
    don't read the cross-tabs.

    Or at least have a stiff drink first.

    His message is not working in most of those states.  At all.

    Parent

    You got some 'splainin to do Robot... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:10:25 AM EST
    ... what are cross tabs?

    Parent
    Yeah I think ST is likely hers (none / 0) (#2)
    by smott on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 02:34:35 PM EST
    But she looks to have a big bump in the road in Nevada where they are now tied.
    If Bernie wins there it's a buzzkill going into SC.

    I'll be interested to track the Union vote where the Sanders campaign was gaming, impersonating members and misrepresenting support.


    Parent

    I was (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 02:39:58 PM EST
    frankly shocked that she won MA in 2008 to be honest. So the MA numbers for Bernie do not surprise me.

    Parent
    we once again (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 02:49:28 PM EST
    Have a moderate Republican governor.

    MA is small, and the population is centered around Boston - but it's not actually in Boston, it's in the wealthy suburbs for the most part.  Those wealthy suburbs have fantastic schools and are socially liberal to the point where it's not even up for discussion.  But they aren't exactly trying to pay higher federal taxes, or take down the financial industry, or big pharma where a lot of them work.

    You do have a lot of unions and college students and aging hippies (Bernie's MA coalition as provided by my anecdotal FB poll), but they certainly aren't the whole state.

    Parent

    That was one of my ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:49:54 PM EST
    many correct predictions in '08.  As I recall, I even got the margin right.

    Parent
    What is (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:04:35 PM EST
    your prediction for Nevada on Saturday? Just curious?

    I remember BTD doing all the demographics on polls and hitting the numbers head on back in 2008.

    Parent

    I question (none / 0) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    those OK numbers but the rest of them are probably right.

    Parent
    Telling (none / 0) (#18)
    by CST on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:20:58 PM EST
    Is that Oklahoma, VT, and MA didn't have that separate breakdown for black voters.

    Presumably because they don't have as many.

    Parent

    I think there are going to be ... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    a lot of millennials with "wha'happened" faces come the evening of March 1st.

    Be kind to them.

    Parent

    We were all young once. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:26:18 PM EST
    It's not that our own idealism has necessarily been curbed, but rather that we've come to realize that lasting consequential change doesn't often happen overnight. As our own expectations have since been tempered by our personal experiences, and I've no doubt the millennials' own experiences this primary season will likely and eventually lead them to the very same realization. It doesn't mean that we cease trying to accomplish our objectives and goals, only that we instead alter our course and tactics to account for the prevailing winds.

    Parent
    IMO making the Presidency (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    the starting point of the change we all want limits the change, due to the nature of the office. Also we risk losing the presidency by putting all the eggs in that basket when the country is not there yet. It's not that I don't agree with the ideals, I just think they need to come from the ground up, as I've said before. Win a raftload of House seats and Senate seats o these ideals- that would force a Dem presidents hand, no matter who it is.

    Parent
    Not sure it's idealism as much ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:30:47 PM EST
    as the faddish, swarming nature of the young.

    A trait that is apparently even stronger among millennials.

    Parent

    I said a young man.... (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:37:24 PM EST
    ain't got nuthin' in the world these days.

    Parent
    Except youth (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:52:24 PM EST
    The only thing that matters

    Parent
    Touche... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:01:19 PM EST
    They should have a reverse mortgage scheme for life. Gimme a hundred grand today and you can have whatever I got when I croak;)

    Parent
    They do kdog...but you keep throwing away all (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:47:48 AM EST
    those credit card offers!

    Parent
    LOL... (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:22:55 AM EST
    The day they come up with a Net 30 Years billing terms credit card, I might have to sell out! ;)

    Parent
    I don't think Bernie Sanders ... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:28:41 AM EST
    ... can or should be dismissed as some sort of trendy fad. His message really does resonate with younger voters. Some older people have a knack for connecting with and empowering the next generation, and he's one of them.

    Parent
    He's this year's skinny jean ... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 07:51:40 AM EST
    and when they find Bernie buttons in a drawer some years from now, they'll all cringe a bit, before tossing them in the garbage with all their participation trophies.

    Parent
    Watching election coverage (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    This morning what strikes me is the difference between the two parties when it comes to conduct in primaries.  The republicans are practically having fisfights on the debate stage.  Calling each other liars and questioning their parentage.  The thing is no one seems that worried about the bruised feelings of the frail flowers that follow the candidates they are ripping into.  They know in the fall they will vote against the democrat.

    This is one of the reason we have trouble winning elections

    Parent

    What annoys (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    me is not that the candidates go at each other but the press treats one and his followers as delicate flowers. If they were just as tough on all candidates there would not be much of a problem. the fragile flower treatment does nothing but create resentment against Bernie.

    And as you know they're not really doing him any favors because the GOP sure isn't going to treat him as a fragile flower. They're going to throw everything they have at him and more.

    Parent

    A lot of that is ... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    driven by the coverage.

    Sanders gets away with all this hyperbole about Wall Street and revolutions.

    Republicans can never get away with using hyperbole like that.

    Parent

    If you have to have a "fad" (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by CST on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:04:47 AM EST
    Socialism doesn't seem like such a terrible thing to get excited about.

    Sorry if the kids are ruining your primary by getting involved and giving a f*ck.  I might not agree with their conclusion, or think it will come to pass, but if the American people actually elect Bernie Sanders as president I will be seriously impressed.

    If you want to raise the voting age to 40 because the youth can't be trusted - you might not like how that works out in the end either.

    And there are a lot of older people - in New England at least - who are on board as well.  Union workers for example, in one of the few places with real unions left.

    I understand it can be frustrating, but these people and their ideas are not the enemy.


    Parent

    I actually (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    think it is a good thing that young people are getting involved. However the problem is the press is focusing exclusively on them and like they are the most important thing that is causing a lot of the problems. Nobody in the press seems to discuss that only 28% of the caucusers in Iowa though Bernie knew a fig about foreign policy and the fact that he lost in almost every category except millennials and income inequality.

    Parent
    If it will cost down ticket races (none / 0) (#155)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:44:10 AM EST
    Then yeah, those ideas are not good and the people blindly following them are not helpful.  I won't say they are the "enemy", because this is not a war, but I'm remembering 2008 and how all we heard about were "the young people" who were going to "transform" the country with that election and their enthusiasm. Guess what happened?   Republicans made gains all over the map, a trend which has continued to today.

    I also don't think it's an either/or proposition - vote for Bernie and bring change (YUGE assumption) or vote for Hillary and everything will remain the same or get worse.

    I do think it's rich tbat people who've been able to vote in 0-2 elections feel that they understand politics, history,  and economics better than people with more life experience.  But if you say that, they just scream "Glass Steagall!" (As if they really know what they're talking about)

    This is a job interview.  Why should we elect someone who has close to ZERO chance of getting his promises through?  You wouldn't hire a middle manager who couldn't do the job - why should we expect so much less from a president?

    Parent

    Let's Hope... (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    ... the Clinton click is wrong and democrats don't shelve great ideas because they are too hard.  I don't want to be in a party that thinks WS is not a problem or that universal health care is a pipe dream of socialists.

    Parent
    Good thing (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:47:27 PM EST
    HRC has advocated for universal coverage for over 30 years.

    Parent
    No more than they'll throw (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:42:47 AM EST
    the Autobiography of Emma Goldman, Silent Spring, and the Human Use of Human beings in the garbage..

    This world can't be left in the hands of the Mrs Clinton Kissinger Blankfeins and Associates much longer . They need to drag their spent carcasses and worldviews to some elephant graveyard somewhere and give the people the space to dream new dreams.

    Parent

    With a holier than thou attitude like that, ... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    jondee: "This world can't be left in the hands of the Mrs Clinton Kissinger Blankfeins and Associates much longer . They need to drag their spent carcasses and worldviews to some elephant graveyard somewhere and give the people the space to dream new dreams."

    ... you're clearly doing your part to assure that the people you purport to despise will remain in control, and you'll only further self-marginalize politically with such divisive and hyperbolic rhetoric. Sorry, but you don't possess the necessary credentials which allow you to define for everyone else who's a good progressive / liberal Democrat and who's not.

    Perfection is always the enemy of the good. If you can't engage in rational debate during these primaries, and simply extol the virtues of Bernie Sanders without having to simultaneously demonize his opponent Hillary Clinton as some sort of fascist stooge, then it's quite obvious that you've yet to discern the difference between your delusions and your dreams.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#121)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:57:20 AM EST
    and the lambs will lie down with the lions and the jungle will become a nirvana of good will under Saint Bernie.

    Parent
    Don't worry, they 've saved (none / 0) (#196)
    by jondee on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:29:03 PM EST
    a few bloody scraps just for you and the rest of the placid bourgeoise who prefer to curl up in a warm corner and not to have their long afternoon nap troubled by any rambunctious youngins.

    Parent
    Bloody (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:51:37 PM EST
    Works for me

    Parent
    Top Economists have spoken jondee (none / 0) (#138)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:46:22 AM EST
    Our dreams are not viable...as I'm sure the 14 year old factory worker and their family was told their dreams were not viable down on the Lower East Side 100 hundred years ago.

    Turns out they were viable, and are viable, there's just more dreaming to do, and more work to do.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:14:15 AM EST
    let us ignore the experts, let us ignore reality, our dreams will carry the day! That is a very, very dangerous mind set.

    Parent
    I have a hard time (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by CST on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:18:18 AM EST
    Thinking its worse than believing that the current system is working.

    None of this is happening in a vacuum.  Maybe Bernie's plans aren't "the best".  But Jesus, something has got to give.

    Parent

    I don't (none / 0) (#157)
    by FlJoe on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:51:47 AM EST
    believe the current system is working, that's what IMO makes following the dream so dangerous, if Bernie's political revolution fails, then we are truly Fkd.

    Parent
    A lot of people (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by CST on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    Are already truly f*cked.

    Nothing to lose is a scary place to be, but it's freeing in a way.  Why not start a revolution.

    It's not lost on me that I have something to lose and am supporting Clinton.  Thanks mom and dad...

    Sorry, I'm angry today.  Living in a bubble would be easier but I don't have that luxury.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    but the problem with revolution is there are people struggling who feel like they are going to be on the losing end. It's not like "revolution" always works out well for everybody. There are losers in a revolution too and if there more people who think they are going to be losers in said revolution then the people supporting the revolution are going to get a big smack down at the polls.  

    I understand there are people who feel they have nothing left to lose. There are also people who feel they have a lot to lose.

    Parent

    I think this (none / 0) (#185)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:42:47 PM EST
    "Living in a bubble would be easier but I don't have that luxury."

    Is why many Democrats are wary of Bernie Sanders' plans and dismayed at the behavior of the Bernie Bros crowd.

    Parent

    They'll still keep them (none / 0) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:32:03 AM EST
    tucked in the back of the drawer just as I do.

    There is still have a Carter button and bumper sticker tucked away that was picked up in Plains, GA around October 1976 on the same road trip where I saw my first Billy Joel concert at Montevallo College in Montevallo, Alabama. I took the road less traveled.


    Parent

    Ouch, somebody is going (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:49:31 AM EST
    to feel the bern come Super Tuesday.

    Parent
    Apple (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 02:52:16 PM EST
    Has now been ordered by a judge, not to break the phone's encryption, as they claim, but rather to disable the feature that wipes the data on the phone after 10 incorrect password attempts on this particular phone.

    Can you cite your source where Apple (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Farmboy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:15:55 PM EST
    claims they've been ordered to break the phone's encryption, because after reading the open letter from Tim Cook I don't see that anywhere.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    You win the semantics battle (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:22:04 PM EST
    As the several hysterical tech articles floating around say Apple is not being asked to "break the encryption". They are being asked for a software work around.  Or the more hysterical term "a new back door"

    Again, it's dumb to think Apple could not easily do this.  Or even that it doess not exist.

    Parent

    What jb described would be trivial (none / 0) (#106)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:18:17 AM EST
    It's event driven software.  All you need to do is turn off the counting or turn off the consequence.

    A bona fide expert, Bruce Schneier weighs in.

    Parent

    What the FBI Wants to Do... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:42:56 PM EST
    ... is run through all the combination of codes to open the phone without it self destructing.

    Apple is claiming they want the encryption codes, they do not.  They just want a computer to have the ability to try 9999 combinations.  The encryption is in the billions if not trillions.

    To say Apple is being over-dramatic is putting it mildly and like Captain said, total marketing as I guarantee they can break into a phone when they need to.  I would also imagine it's a ploy so that they are getting the same requests a zillion times a day by users who forget their code.

    Apple has provided default encryption on its iPhones since 2014, allowing any device's contents to be accessed only by the user who knows the phone's passcode. The phone Farook was using, running the newest version of Apple's iPhone operating system, was configured to erase data after 10 consecutive, unsuccessful unlocking attempts.

    The magistrate ordered Apple to create special software the FBI could load onto the phone to bypass the self-destruct feature. The FBI wants to be able to try different combinations in rapid sequence until it finds the right one.

    LINK

    I am just surprise that information isn't on a cloud somewhere.  I don't have an iPhone so I don't know, but I thought that was automatic.

    Parent

    I said above (none / 0) (#28)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:46:15 PM EST
    They might want to think about WHAT ELSE could effect their bottom line-

    Rep. Pete Aguilar, D-Redlands, whose district includes the site of the Dec. 2 San Bernardino terror attack, is urging Apple to cooperate with law enforcement amid the ongoing legal dispute over whether the company should be compelled to unlock the iPhone of shooter Syed Rizwan Farook.
    "As the investigation into the attack at the Inland Regional Center continues, it's imperative that the technology community works with law enforcement and intelligence agencies to uncover critical information related to the terror attack," Aguilar said in a written statement.
    "We must do everything in our power to learn more about how ISIS operates so we can destroy their system of recruitment and radicalization, and to prevent the violence we saw in San Bernardino from spreading to other communities throughout our nation."
    In a statement, Rep. Paul Cook, R-Yucca Valley, said: "This is largely a matter for the courts at the moment, and I'm hopeful that Apple will find a way to continue cooperating with law enforcement."



    Parent
    In Apple's Defense... (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:05:58 PM EST
    ... this is the guys work phone, and the odds of them finding some magical equation to stop radicalization or terrorism on his work phone when they haven't found much on his phone/computer/apartment/vehicle and 1001 other places.  Seems like some pretty high hopes from the people who failed to find anything thus far.

    Seems like if they want to search the phone they should have more than 'we think there is something of value on it but we don't actually know.'

    Once they do this, every law enforcement agency that wants to see what is on a DUI or gun violation person's phone is going to get the request and there is little doubt that they will not be able to keep that software code under wraps.

    Parent

    If this was his work phone (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:31:51 PM EST
    Then what's the issue?  He worked for the county, which means he was a government employee, so wouldn't the county own that phone? Why can't they, as the owner, go to Apple, and then Apple woukd be required, to help them get in their own phone?

    Apple is arguing the princple, not the technology here.  They can get in and i doubt they'd have to writenew code.

    Parent

    They do own the phone (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:43:35 PM EST
    They have requested this.  Or at least said its fine with them.

    The PROBLEM

    Is that Apple has sold millions of phones by telling people the data could not be retrieved.  Now, any logical person who has a basic understanding of how software works knows this is bull and that Apple could bypass the number code security if they wanted to.

    To be clear for those not following, the software is designed to destroy the data if ten wrong attempts are entered.   The court is asking Apple to ON THIS PHONE use a patch or whatever you call it to bypass that and allow the law enforcement computer to enter random numbers until it gets in.

    Parent

    For the sake of argument (none / 0) (#35)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:11:16 PM EST
    Otoh if it's his only iPhone it makes perfect sense that's where it would be.

    It's encrypted.


    Parent

    I Doubt Even the Court... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:00:27 PM EST
    ... thinks the FBI is just going to one pump the software to unlock millions of phones.  I would imagine they might even try to develop something to do it remotely without user knowing.

    It's actually pretty surprising they can't do this already, to be honest.

    Parent

    This is not about anything (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:02:09 PM EST
    But marketing for Apple IMO.    They have told people their information "can't be compromised" which is clearly not true.    It can be.   I suspect if Apple had a reason to do this, like suspected industrial espionage, there would be no hesitation.  

    Gotta say I'm on the side of law enforcment this time.   For one thing the actual owner of the phone, the company the person worked for, has said they are fine with it.   No one has a problem but Apple.  And it's all about the bottom line.

    Parent

    IMO, if law enforcement (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:09:05 PM EST
    wants to hack a phone, they can invest in the developed to build the hacking mechanism themselves, not ask Apple to do it. And good luck to them.

    Parent
    Invest? (none / 0) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:18:26 PM EST
    Who's money do you think they are investing?

    Parent
    That is All We Need... (none / 0) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    ... another reason to increase law enforcement's budgets.

    Parent
    Like you... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:40:00 PM EST
    I can't believe they can't do it...budget so big it's partially confidential and the sons of b:tches can't do it!

    I find that somewhat reassuring, as far as the fate of humanity goes.

    Parent

    I think they already can (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by caseyOR on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:27:13 PM EST
    break into that phone without any help from Apple. This whole show the Feds are putting on about needing a special patch to gain access is just law enforcement theater.

    The Feds are determined to force tech companies to give the NSA and law enforcement a back doors to all encryption software. All encryption software. This kabuki theater is a big PR move, a way to drum up Congressional and public support for the Feds side of things.

    And, based on the comments I have read here on TL, this ploy by the Feds is working.

    Do not fall for it.

    Parent

    This is relatively new software (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:34:16 PM EST
    There is not a reason in the world to believe what you said.   Apple has very good software people.  While it might be true that given lots of time and money they could break in its equally true that they could fail and destroy the data before retrieving it exactly as the apple software is designed to do.

    I've been reading a lot about this on social media from very techy people. I have not seen anyone suggest what you say.

    Parent

    However (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    I agree t will be used to drum up support for more intrusive laws.  And it will work.  

    Parent
    Daily Beast (none / 0) (#90)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:40:20 PM EST
    Apple CEO Tim Cook declared on Wednesday that his company wouldn't comply with a government search warrant to unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers, a significant escalation in a long-running debate between technology companies and the government over access to people's electronically-stored private information.

    But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn't dispute this figure.)

    In other words, Apple's stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is. In fact, it may have as much to do with public relations as it does with warding off what Cook called "an unprecedented step which threatens the security of our customers."



    Parent
    The article states that Apple was able to unlock (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Farmboy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 07:58:09 AM EST
    older iPhones running versions of iOS prior to version 8. In iOS 8 Apple went to complete encryption of data on the device, and the iPhone in question is running iOS 9. The public statement from Apple made both of those points clear.

    Regardless, this is all deflection and distraction from the real issue. The problem with the government's order isn't if Apple has unlocked older iPhones or if Apple can create software to unlock the phone in question, the problem is with how this affects our own privacy and liberties.

    Based on your posts over the last day your problem is with Apple, not the gov't or our potential loss of privacy.

    Parent

    More (none / 0) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:44:57 PM EST

    "The question is does the law give the government the ability to force Apple to create new code?" he said. "Engineers have to sit down and create something that doesn't exist" in order to meet the government's demands. Soghoian noted that this would only be possible in the San Bernardino case because the shooter was using an iPhone model 5C, and that newer hardware versions would be much harder for Apple to bypass.

    But even that's in dispute, according to another expert's analysis. Dan Guido, a self-described hacker and CEO of the cybersecurity company Trail of Bits, said that Apple can, in fact, eliminate the protections that keep law enforcement authorities from trying to break into the iPhone with a so-called "brute force attack," using a computer to make millions of password guesses in a short period of time. New iPhones have a feature that stops users from making repeated incorrect guesses and can trigger a kind of self-destruct mechanism, erasing all the phone's contents, after too many failed attempts.

    In a detailed blog post, Guido described how Apple could workaround its own protections and effectively disarm the security protections. It wouldn't be trivial. But it's feasible, he said, even for the newest versions of the iPhone, which, unlike the ones in the New York and San Bernardino cases, Apple swears it cannot crack.

    "The burden placed on Apple will be greater...but it will not be impossible," Guido told The Daily Beast



    Parent
    Seems pretty straightforward (none / 0) (#92)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 08:04:21 PM EST
    Copy code comment out relevant lines, flash the memory with the modified code, unlock phone.

    Parent
    The more I read about this (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    The more something smells.  I think it's the load of bullsh!t Apple is shoveling.  Clearly they can do this.  Clearly they have done it before.  So what's this about.  Really.
    Maybe it's some kind of cover for them from admitting they have been lying to millions of eager buyers about the "safety" of their data.  Maybe it's an excuse to admit they could do this all along.

    Whatever it is it doesn't seem to me they are handling it very well.

    One thing is predictable.   The Gubment will get their data.

    Parent

    Apple is Shooting... (none / 0) (#140)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    ... themselves in the foot.  They aren't going to win in court, not if the FBI says National Security is at stake.

    Apple is drawing all this publicity in hopes of drumming up public support, which is only going to make their loss that much more humiliating.  On the news today they did a poll and 75% said Apple should have to do it.  No idea about accuracy, but it was national.

    Both sides are full of it, of course Apple can hack a phone they created, and since the FBI has no clue what is on his work phone, National Security is not actually part of the debate, more like so/so chance that NS might be part of the conversation, but they won't know until after they get in the phone.

    And not for nothing, Iphones, Droid phones, blackberries, and Windows phones have all been hacked.  I hacked into my phone to run a custom operating system, there are literally thousands of people dedicated to hacking iPhones, it's called jailbreaking and it's legal.  

    I think it would be very cool if a hacker stepped forward and told the FBI, "I got this" and does what Apple won't.

    BTW, 225,000 iPhone accounts hacked 5 months ago.  Maybe just give the government what it wants, then blame them every time your security fails.

    Parent

    Ya know Casey... (none / 0) (#134)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:24:34 AM EST
    I thought the same thing...some kind of ruse might be going on here.

    Parent
    If this technology is so critical for (none / 0) (#118)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    national defense, use part of the defense budget for it. God knows they are spending money on less useful things.

    Parent
    It make absolutely no sense to me (none / 0) (#120)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:50:05 AM EST
    That seem to think it's a better idea for the DoD or whoever to hack into Apple  software than for the company to simply cooperate and turn off the protection on this ONE phone THEMSELVES so its contents can be examined.

    Which they have already many times for much less important reasons

    Parent

    But it won't be this one phone (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:59:00 AM EST
    Unless this is the only criminal using a phone.

    I say criminal, because terrorism is not the only thing they will try to use this technology for. And it won't be against people already demonstrated to be terrorists, or at least act like terrorists, like the San Bernardino killers. It will be people suspected of its, and their contacts.

    I have a really hard time with government ordering corporations to do anything like this.

    Parent

    One more thing (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:19:39 AM EST
    Vic made a very important point somewhere that deserves to be remade.

    What they, law enforcement, did in this case is as far as I can tell exactly what we have been saying we wanted them to do.    They went to a regular judge in a regular federal court and presented their argument for getting the information.  And the judge agreed.

    Parent

    True on that count, at least they have a court (none / 0) (#162)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:08:00 AM EST
    order...this time. Also true that if the NSA or DoD had the technology they may not bother with the legalities.

    Parent
    You make it sound like (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:09:42 AM EST
    This is breaking new ground -


    But in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn't dispute this figure.)

    It is not.
    I guess I understand the knee jerk reaction.   I do not share it.  What YOU are suggesting, that the government actually hack their software would be terrible.   What the judge has directed is against one phone. Yes, one phone.   And yes, if there is another iPhone involved in a mass killing it may be asked of that phone as well.
    What seems so clear to me of you actually read what congressmen of both parties are saying is "you think THIS is bad?  Keep fu@king with us and we will show you bad"

    They can and they will.  This is not an unreasonable request.   Given their past actions I honestly can't imagine why they are doing what they are doing.

    IMO it is not helping.   In any way.


    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:04:32 PM EST
    Saying "we don't have this" is not credible, IMO.

    Parent
    Wonder how being (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:14:41 PM EST
    The preferred phone for terrorists fits into apples marketing plan

    Parent
    Do they stand in line for days (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:18:28 PM EST
    And go to the Genius Bar for tech support?

    Parent
    Howdy, Apple is the most (none / 0) (#111)
    by fishcamp on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 07:13:02 AM EST
    recognized brand in the world, passing Google who previously were number one.  They do not need this problem to enhance their status.

    Even if they do find some connection to people in the ME, what do you think we should do about it?  Maybe send some airplanes over there to carpet bomb some area?  The shooters are dead.  They found nothing on the iPhone.  Because they disabled their iCloud info, if there is info, doesn't mean much.  I have disabled iCloud and gone back to it several times.  It seems you do not like Apple equipment.  Sorry to disagree with you on all your points, but I do.

    Parent

    Maybe it would help if (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:30:36 AM EST
    You understood the point I was trying to make.  I never suggested this was being done to "enhance their status".  What I said was it could very well end up doing quite the opposite.
    As far as the phone, you have no idea what's on the phone.  The fact is people were killed by he phones user and the information on it could lead to others before they do the same.  As far as my view of Apple products I think the are great.  I have said before I will never use another Microsoft OS. But Im capable of holding a separate view of their conduct in this situation.  Even if you and farmboy are not.

    They need to cooperate with this investigation.   People died.  If someone you loved was on the list you might want to see what's on that phone.   Personally I would.  

    And as shown by the links o posted its all BS.   not only CAN they do this but they HAVE done it at least 70 times since 2008.   And to clarify one more farmboy point, the Daily Beast hacker said they absolutely could get into ALL iPhones.

    So that what I think.  Fell free to disagree.

    Parent

    One more thing (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:38:35 AM EST
    About personal privacy

    What Apple is doing for whatever reason they are doing it will not extend and protect personal provacy IMO.  What it is going to do if they continue as they have is to give the republican controlled congress the prefect excuse to come down on the entire industry with more restrictive laws.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#186)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:49:51 PM EST
    Most cellphones and computers have passwords to prevent casual use by unauthorized persons.

    Most, if not all, Internet accessible credit card accounts have pass word protection. And most, if not all, will lock the user out if the incorrect pass word is applied "X" number of times. Many cell phones have the same feature.

    It has long been determined that an employee does not own a device supplied for their use. Any and all information on the device is the property of the owner, which is the "company."

    Millions of people have embraced Social Media, Internet banking, credit card accounts, etc. While I cannot understand why anyone would put anything on Facebook or send over twitter or email and believe it is 100% private I don't know. But they do and they seem to love it and continue to believe despite widely publicized cases of failure by companies to protect the data.

    With its new software Apple has merely taken the standard password protection one step further. Instead of locking the user, unauthorized or not, out until further review, it destroys everything saved.

    Apple offers the ultimate protection, or at least claims to. No one's gonna find out who you've been watching or talking to without your permission.

    A great sense of security if you care.

    Especially for terrorists and other criminals.

    Parent

    Nikki Haley (none / 0) (#6)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    is endorsing Marco Rubio in S.C.

    She endorsed Mitt (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:02:57 PM EST
    And Newt won.  This is sort of a yawn.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:10:39 PM EST
    it's not going to mean anything in the primary. What it does mean is that the establishment has not given up on Rubio yet.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:48:56 PM EST
    her endorsement is less one for Rubio than one for, "anyone but Trump."

    Parent
    I would (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    agree with that though she could have picked someone else say Kasich instead of Rubio. I guess anyone of them would have enraged the voters in her state outside of endorsing Trump.

    Parent
    LOL! Just when Gov.Haley looks to be ... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    ... a woman of some substance, she then endorses a guy who's repeatedly proved himself to be an empty suit. I swear to the heavens above, one would be forgiven for thinking that these Republicans were auditioning for a TV sitcom.

    Parent
    Haley went for Rubio (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:41:28 PM EST
    after being courted so assiduously by the Bushes. Poor Jeb. But, what was she to do, endorse Trump or Cruz? Of course, there was always Kasich or Carson to overlook as well. Rubio is what passes these days for establishment, and that establishment continues to look for someone, anyone, even Rubio will do.  Don't know which is more pathetic, the candidacy of Rubio or the hopes of the establishment.    

    Parent
    Marco Rubio really is ... (none / 0) (#114)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 08:20:02 AM EST
    this year's "special Olympics" candidate.

    Even the tiniest accomplishment, or little blip in the polls, is praised to the heavens!

    Parent

    Even though (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:16:32 PM EST
    Our regulars who are Bernie (or "not Hillary") supporters seem to have taken a break, there are now 4 more top economists who are saying Sanders' health/economic plan is not viable and the oft-quoted Prof. Gerald Friedman's analysis, which the Sanders' camp has touted, is deeply flawed. For starters, he assumes growth rate of 5.3% a year -which is kind of nuts.  (Jeb! has been mocked by lefties by claiming he could get 4% per year growth).

    The four are: Alan Krueger of Princeton University, Austan Goolsbee of University of Chicago, and Christina Romer and Laura D'Andrea Tyson, both of University of California at Berkeley.

    All four of these people once held the position of chair of the Council of Economic Advisors to former President Bill Clinton or President Barack Obama.

    The four sent a letter today in which they echo similar arguments made in The New York Times earlier this week.

    Do you think Rachel Maddow ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:32:19 PM EST
    unfriended Austan Goolsbee?

    They used to be besties.

    ;)

    Parent

    Barney Frank (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by mm on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:46:35 PM EST
    used to be her most favorite congress critter and a very frequent guest.  Not so much anymore.

    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:35:09 PM EST
    I don't know any of those economists but I trust Paul Krugman and he's not a fan of it. Not a fan of Goolsbee since he's a University of Chicago economist.

    Parent
    I don't know them either... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:55:34 PM EST
    except Krugman.

    Objections noted, but if they think this sh:t right here and now is viable they're bugging.

    Speaking for this Berner only, the attempt is enough...there is no certainty, only an opportunity, no matter how slight. Sh:t the fact 4 top economists studied the damn plan is another win...best primary season ever!  

    Parent

    One of the (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:53:13 PM EST
    biggest criticisms of the plan is that it uses the Ryan/Bush numbers for economic growth to obtain their numbers. Now if we're going to laugh at Bush for his fantasy job growth numbers I think we also should hold Sanders accountable.

    I'm glad you are happy that it's being discussed though.

    Remember these things take a long, long time to happen.

    Parent

    These economists are (none / 0) (#61)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:37:01 PM EST
    all highly respected in their field and offer a perspective on the Sander's idea that matches common sense analysis.  However, I believe this argument is not the one to make. Certainly, not the one that Sander's supporters want to hear, no matter how accurate.

     It is the idea, it seems, that counts. And, of course, it is not a new one, but some are hearing "health care is a right not a privilege" for the very first time.  

    Details and specifics are so this morning, as are the ways and means to convert about 17 percent of our economy without disruption.  I think it can be done, but not easily and, probably not within the next decade. Surely, arguing how it can't be done is not a winner. Better, to think about how a better universal health program can be achieved within constraints that impinge on change.

     Plans to shape and develop further the ACA need to be cast in terms of philosophy and goals.  After all, we have Medicare for some, why not Medicare for all. We are on a track with ACA, and many Republicans have shot themselves in the foot by denying extension of Medicaid--a good place to formulate ideas for the conversion to a Medicare-type national, universal program.    

    Parent

    Even Kevin Drum at Mother Jones (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:44:58 PM EST
    The headline of one of his latest blog pieces says "The Sanders Campaign has Crossed Into Neverland".

    From Mother Jones!!

    Ouch.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:54:08 PM EST
    that was a big ouch for sure.

    Parent
    can we talk about France? (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 03:29:29 PM EST
    Is it just me, or does anyone else find everything about this deeply disturbing?

    IMO, this is exactly how you breed home-grown terrorism.

    Not just you (none / 0) (#36)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    France is crazy:

    The emergency powers now in effect allow the police to conduct raids of homes, businesses, associations and places of worship without judicial review and at any time. The police can place people under house arrest even if they do not have sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to detain or charge them


    Parent
    The two headed monster... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:40:44 PM EST
    that is terrorism. The acts of terrorism, and the government's emergency responses.

    So much for that liberte, egalite, fraternite crap. Sad yet predictable.

    Parent

    Hollande has (none / 0) (#52)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:02:04 PM EST
    not only the right wingers, such as Marine Le Pen, nipping at his heels, but many of the frightened citizens.  A sad, but predictable consequence of the November 13 attacks.

     Despite some protests, the emergency powers were extended yesterday for another three months.  While these powers can be extended, again, they will continue to require action for extension.  The best hope is that over time, the fears will subside, and efforts to extend will bump up against wide-spread resistance.  The worst scenario, would be for the French constitution to be changed, at this time, to reflect these special powers.

    The Council of Europe (which oversees one of Europe's main human rights treaties is on it, as is Human Rights Watch.  But, it will, in my view, take awhile for a demand for a return to normalcy to materialize.

    Parent

    TRUMP COLLAPSES!!! (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    Um, again.

    Chuck Todd is breathlessly reporting the end of Donald based on a national poll showing a DRAMATIC DROP IN NATIONAL NUMBERS!!  

    It's true Cruz is finally in first in a poll.  True it's a rather meaningless national poll.  And, Chuck quickly and quietly adds, he leading by 20 in SC and 26 in NV.

    But hey, he's collapsing.  I hope he is, I really really do.

    He is currently interviewing (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:25:36 PM EST
    The pollsters.   They are CYAing very hard.   10% more in this poll are VERY conservative.  Among many other things.

    Parent
    Yes, Trump is collapsing, (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by KeysDan on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:15:44 PM EST
    If you ignore the Bloomberg polling, doing well across all groups of primary voters.  If Trump has made any mistake, it was in expecting that calling Cruz a liar would hurt Cruz.  Not that it does not apply to Cruz, but that lying does not matter to Republicans. It is what they do.

    Parent
    Howdy, please, just say no to Chuck Todd. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:27:42 AM EST
    So many times you've sworn off this man.  You've kicked him out.  You've walked out.   You've slammed the door.  You've changed the channel.  You've even taken the batteries out of the remote.  But you just keep coming back...

    Really, we're gonna have to stage an intervention.  

    Parent

    I will (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    be waiting to see if this changes the narrative about Trump.

    Parent
    I do think Cruz support ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 04:54:23 PM EST
    is being under-sampled generally.

    But ...

    Chuck Todd should wear one of those beanies with the propeller on top.

    Parent

    You could be right (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:07:25 PM EST
    Last I looked he was leading in this state.   In spite of the fact I can't find a single person who supports him.   And it's not because I don't know any conservatives or evangelicals.

    I hope to go it's dead on.  A Cruz/Hillary race would be a wonderful thing.  Right down the ticket.

    All that said, I wonder if this is not a bit of "balance" for the Donald Trump party that is being held on MSNBC tonight.
    Squint and the Meat Puppet are doing a Trump Townhall tonight at 8 eastern.

    Parent

    Right ... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    some of your best friends are evangelicals.

    Sigh.

    Parent

    A few friends (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    But virtually family member and all their friends, yes.

    Sigh indeed.

    Parent

    Every time I see this it gives me a laugh (none / 0) (#60)
    by vicndabx on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:33:26 PM EST
    "squint and the meat puppet"

    particularly - squint

    Parent

    Cornel West's piece on ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:07:55 PM EST
    Politico is sheer partisan hackery.

    I was actually shocked that it had none of West's usual intellectual rigor.

    In fact, the only typically Westian thing about the piece is the title:

    "Why Brother Bernie is Better for Black People Than Sister Hillary"

    The piece itself doesn't even answer this question. It's just the standard attacks on Bill and Hillary that we've seen a thousand times before.

    Way, way, beneath Cornel's usual standard.

    Stephen King's "11.22.63" (none / 0) (#59)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:29:02 PM EST
    Opening episode is riveting stuff.

    Especially if you're a fan of JFK assassination lore, time travel and the early sixties.

    It's available exclusively on Hulu.

    It was an excellent book (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jbindc on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 05:41:14 PM EST
    And I'm not much for Stephen King, usually.

    Parent
    I haven't read ... (none / 0) (#97)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 09:20:46 PM EST
    the book yet.

    I'll read it after watching the series.  That can often be more fun.

    Parent

    Is hulu free? (none / 0) (#174)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:03:06 PM EST
    I did enjoy the book and would love to see the show. I

    Parent
    You can usually get a free trial for a week (none / 0) (#181)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:25:58 PM EST
    But it's around $8 / month if you pay for it.

    Parent
    enough already (none / 0) (#66)
    by mm on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:02:09 PM EST
    Rapper Killer Mike, a prominent supporter and campaign surrogate of Bernie Sanders, took some heat Tuesday for saying at a Sanders rally that "a uterus doesn't qualify you to be president."

    Critics decried the comment as sexist, and Killer Mike quickly responded that he was taken out of context and was quoting someone else. But the full context doesn't make it much better.
    LINK

    Steinem and Albright had to walk back their commen (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by AX10 on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:11:00 PM EST
    This is 2008 all over again and the anti-Hillary forces are out from the hard left and right.
    Disgusting.

    Killer Mike gets to double down and Sarandon doubled down too.  The double standard is more than angering.

    Parent

    It is what it is. (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    For that matter, Susan Sarandon is no Madeleine Albright or Gloria Steinem, and I wouldn't belittle those two feminist icons by equating either one with Ms. Sarandon, a woman with strident but often marginal political opinions who's not at all shy about using harsh and inflammatory rhetoric to express them.

    Parent
    Neither does (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:16:21 PM EST
    A scrotum

    Parent
    I have a dream.... (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:30:29 PM EST
    that one day a person will solely be judged on the content of their character, and not the content of their underwear.

    Parent
    I have NOT seen (none / 0) (#78)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:37:15 PM EST
    The promised land.

    And I will pass.

    Parent

    I wish (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 06:19:28 PM EST
    someone would come out and say that.

    Parent
    Have not seen (none / 0) (#86)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 07:15:10 PM EST
    Jeb's "America tweet" discussed here

    a roundup of the best responses

    IMO the best response was the Daily News (none / 0) (#109)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:35:21 AM EST
    cover, DOLT-45

    Parent
    The powerful, murderous stupidity... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Dadler on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 08:26:41 PM EST
    ...of Hillary Clinton's record on regime change in Libya. Sorry if I can't excuse this sort of, well, inexcusable wretchedness. (LINK) When your insight into human action and reaction regarding military and related state-sponsored violence in foreign cultures is so poor and has resulted in this scale of suffering, you have no business asking to be respected on any foreign policy matter, or any matter regarding psychological insight at all. And when ask for that undue respect and for a vote based on it WHILE, say, lauding and talking up your relationship with Henry Kissninger -- who is as big an accessory to mass murderer as the world has ever seen -- then you're just not a serious or decent person IMO. You're a quite dysfunctional and dishonest one, and inarguably so. But I will pull the lever for her in November if need be. Cuz that's all I ever get to do. Make one sh*tty choice to avoid a sh*ttier one. That's not democracy, it's the feces of oligarchy and delusion. And it don't feel good, peeps. Peace out.

    Ethos, logos, pathos, d., (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:57:56 AM EST
    are the soul of rhetoric.  What's ethos?  It's persuading people that you're like them or, if you're a politician, suckering them into, a sense of shared values or character, so that they'll listen to the rest of the sales pitch.

    You've got to turn down the flames.  People aren't reading past the first line.  

    I sympathize but I'm not either.  It's too hard.  

    You wanna sell your man?  Make it about Bernie.

    Parent

    Sanders "America" ad ... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 09:13:15 PM EST
    still autoplays when you open his YouTube channel.

    And I was surprised to see it hadn't been edited to be more diverse in people and locales.

    It's a very white, very rural ad.

    It looked like self-parody before. But it's looking worse each day.

    I thought (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    it was a great ad if you were running for president in 1972.

    Parent
    Nixon ads in '72 ... (none / 0) (#99)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Feb 17, 2016 at 09:53:33 PM EST
    were more diverse than that.

    Parent
    John Lewis and Clinton vs. Sanders...sigh... (none / 0) (#126)
    by Dadler on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:10:31 AM EST
    Just a very sad comment on what utterly corrupt American politics does to otherwise decent and brave people. It sucks the reason out of their heads. (link)

    John Lewis (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:15:27 AM EST
    Has more reason in his pinky finger that we both have in our entire bodies.

    Parent
    The atttacks (none / 0) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:20:32 AM EST
    on John Lewis have been really awful. But yet again, like with Killer Mike that kind of thing gets ignored while Madeleine Albright says the same thing she has been saying for years and it becomes "a thing".

    Parent
    Awful? (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:08:48 AM EST
    Really?  I just hear legitimate questions about his current memory of what Bill & Hillary were doing during the civil rights movement of the 60's, his current judgement in candidate endorsement, and why he's moonlighting over at Goldman F&ckin' Sachs.

    No big deal, you can question the guy and still have all the admiration in the world for his tremendous accomplishments for civil rights.  The man faced dogs and firehouses and arrests and beatings for god's sake...I think he can handle some questions and criticisms.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#145)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    yes, Lewis has been called all kinds of names by the bros like an "Uncle Tom" and other hideous things.

    I hate to tell you this Kdog but the Bernie Bros are some ugly people out there in twitter and on blogs.

    Parent

    I'm well aware... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:34:17 AM EST
    there are ugly people in the world who get ugly on the internet...what that has to do with Bernie Sanders I don't know.  

    Parent
    They are (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:36:23 AM EST
    on his campaign staff for one and two they are claiming to be his supporters. No doubt some of them are Republicans who have been pushing for Bernie to win the primary however some of them actually are his supporters.

    Parent
    Allow me to suggest a thought experiment (none / 0) (#154)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:40:08 AM EST
    Imagine John Lewis has endorsed Bernie.

    Now imagine all the viscous attacks on him, a legitimate living hero and icon of the civil rights movement, coming from Hillary supporters.

    Mmmmmk?

    Now imagine the coast to coast conflagration of burning hair on the heads of HORRIFIED Bernie supporters.

    End of experiment.

    Parent

    John Lewis did ... (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    switch his endorsement from Hillary to Obama in '08.

    Of course, he did it in a very classy way.

    I don't recall Clinton forces attacking him. Although it must have hurt.

    Parent

    If John Lewis... (none / 0) (#165)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:28:04 AM EST
    endorsed Bernie, Lloyd might stop payment on that check! ;)

    I get ya Brother, but at the end of the day who cares about the flaming haired supporters on both sides and their outrages du'jour and their "vicious" tweets.  Now I'm not immune from getting sucked into the junior high school cafeteria soap opera angle of this whole dance from time to time, I'm human...but that's not what this dance is supposed to be about.  

    Parent

    Now, John Lewis gets dadlered, too? (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Towanda on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:30:46 AM EST
    Sigh . . . indeed.

    Parent
    Everyone gets dadlered towanda (none / 0) (#139)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:52:43 AM EST
    he makes a lentinel politician post look like rainbows and bunnies

    Parent
    The Goober brigade just get nuttier. (none / 0) (#128)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 09:18:35 AM EST
    Glenn Beck Thinks God Killed Antonin Scalia To Help Ted Cruz Get Elected President

    Yeah, that is nuts (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 10:56:56 AM EST
    Gog had better reasons than that.

    Parent
    The wingers ought to (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    give their God theories a rest.  There is enough to wonder about with temporal matters.  The WaPo reports that Scalia and a friend (who would not be named by John Poindexter, the owner of the Ranch) were invited to the Valentine Day weekend quail shoot, all expenses paid.  Poindexter did say he did not know who paid for Scalia's charter flight.  

    Parent
    Just what this election cycle needed (none / 0) (#160)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    Joke Line has arrived

    morning Joey explains to Joe Klein that warning people to not under estimate Donald is not endorsing Donald

    I hate Joe Scarborough but I hate Joke Line way more.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#169)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:56:26 AM EST
    If you have not viewed that clip never mind.   It was a bait and switch.  They cut out the part I meant to link to.  

     if nothing else the transcript will be up tomorrow.  It was good.

    Parent

    Pope Vs Trump (none / 0) (#166)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:34:18 AM EST
    Pope - anyone who wants to build a wall is not a Christian

    Setting aside for a moment how "critical" the Popes opinion is in SC, the Cruz campaign offered a chance to comment shamed any living flamenco dancer in tap dancing away from the subject.

    This election cycle may be bat sh!t crazy but you have to admit, it's fun.

    I was born and raised Catholic (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    and don't give a South Carolina hootenanny what the pope thinks on this. Of course I do live between 4 walls which were built far cheaper than the walls surrounding the home of the Pope, so maybe he has better wall knowledge.

    Parent
    Donald (none / 0) (#172)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:00:36 PM EST
    Has already responded on stage.   Full bore.

    Like I said, fun.

    Parent

    Pfffffft (none / 0) (#175)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:11:14 PM EST
    MSNBC is interviewing non English speaking Catholic Hispanics in NV on this subject.

    Guess what?  They are not supporting Donakd.   Boy, no one saw that coming.  Right?

    Parent

    That's the spirit! (none / 0) (#192)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:06:22 PM EST
    Now if we could all agree to stop giving a damn about what the "Bernie Bros" think of X, and what Gloria Steinem thinks of Y, and instead focus on what we think about X & Y...we might be getting somewhere!

    That being said, walls are for climbing over or digging under or knocking down.  Disclaimer...Bernie Sanders may not support this message

    Parent

    Pope opens door on contraception. (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by caseyOR on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:13:14 PM EST
    The Pope answered a question about the use of contraception and abortion in Zika affected areas by saying:

    ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE -- Pope Francis has suggested that women threatened with the Zika virus could use artificial contraception but not abort their fetus, saying there's a clear moral difference between aborting a fetus and preventing a pregnancy.

    This more nuanced position on contraception could,  could,  hint at a softening of the Vatican's stance on birth control. If the Vatican follows up on these words with actions, say a directive to the bishops to change the teachings on birth control, that would be big.

    So, now we wait.

    Parent

    President and Mrs. Obama (none / 0) (#183)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:38:37 PM EST
    will be traveling to Cuba in March. The visit is intended to propel the policy shift between countries.  This is the first visit of a sitting president (Jimmy Carter visited in 2011)since Cal and Grace Cooidge's trip to Cuba 88 years ago.

    Marco Rubio, when informed of this upcoming visit, gulped some Poland Spring, but not in time to prevent his head from exploding--- reliable, unnamed sources report.  No doubt he will be spouting off about how President Obama can not find time to attend the funeral mass of Scalia, but can go to Cuba. The President's attendance at the viewing does not count.

    New Nevada Poll ... (none / 0) (#184)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    gives Clinton larger lead:

    Clinton 53%, Sanders 47%.

    Although people in the know have been telling me for months not to trust any polls in Nevada.  I've examined the cross-tabs in a few and they do look a mess.

    Have (none / 0) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 12:58:14 PM EST
    you looked at the cross tabs of this particular poll?

    Parent
    Polling Nevada is a mess (none / 0) (#195)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 01:26:52 PM EST
    for a chunk of reasons.

    1. It's a caucus
    2. Nevada has a fast fluctuating residency.
    3. Cell phone numbers with a Nevada area code would be the most useless of any state.
    4. With the Dems and GOP hitting Nevada on separate weekends there is no logical reason to spend the money to poll there unless it's (biased) internal polling.
    5. the Dem Nevada caucus is far less meaningful than the GOP SC primary.
    6. Most polling outfits prefer to ignore Nevada rather than look like a poor polling outfit thus taking away the benefit of aggregate polling.


    Parent
    Tonight (none / 0) (#204)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    There is a democratic town hall on MSNBC and a republican town hall on CNN.

    Gotta admit with the Pope and Ted Photoshopping Marco with Obama I may have to watch the republicans.

    Thank god for DVRs

    I figured (none / 0) (#205)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:24:48 PM EST
    somebody was going to photoshop Rubio with Obama. he even pilfered Obama's speeches. I just didn't know it would be Cruz.

    Tonight's Townhall... (none / 0) (#206)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    ...will be moderated by Chuck Todd.

    Ha (none / 0) (#207)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:42:36 PM EST
    I guess that settles it.  I've been warned.

    If anything important happens I'm sure I will hear about it.  I'm going with Popealooza

    This is Funny... (none / 0) (#208)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    ...especially page 1.

    The Real Rubio Record

    It's got damn near every republican bugaboo.

    British Slang... (none / 0) (#209)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 04:17:01 PM EST
    ...care to guess what a Trump is to Brits ?

    LINK

    Hint: He trumped in class this morning.

    Malheur Refuge occupier Shawna Cox, (none / 0) (#210)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 05:33:43 PM EST
    seeks $666 billion in damages 'from works of devil'

    Cox, one of the 25 people indicted on a federal conspiracy charge in the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, has filed her own complaint against federal employees, saying she was a victim of public corruption and government oppression.
    Hey Mr. Nat.... (none / 0) (#211)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 05:43:19 PM EST
    Any chance we can get in on that countersuit and make it a class action? What's 99% of 319 million?

    Actually (none / 0) (#214)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 06:13:14 PM EST
    He will do it tomorrow

    Now let me see (none / 0) (#215)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 06:22:44 PM EST
    and even though the Judiciary Committee recommended that he not be confirmed, they nevertheless forwarded his nomination to the Senate floor per President Reagan's request for a final vote.

    Do you actually think the Demos minded??

    "Its politics, Jake."

    You were (none / 0) (#216)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 06:44:26 PM EST
    right about Clyburn Howdy.

    Not magic (none / 0) (#217)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Feb 18, 2016 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    He pretty much said he was going to do it.

    Wednesday Open Thread | 217 comments (217 topical)