This story isn't about AT&T knowing the content of your communication, but only with whom. The Metadata.
If you're concerned that the simple fact you exchange messages with another specific person or site could set the black helicopters on you (or them), then a wireless broadcast, decryptable only by your pre-arranged partner will protect you better than encrypted, wired communication.
Can you describe "technically legal but shady as fuck" "rigging"?
Armed, private-citizen "poll watchers" are legal in many states. Even unarmed, but organized gangs of "poll watchers" can be intimidating without being illegal. To my knowledge, only one candidate has claimed that voter fraud is rampant or encouraged "poll watchers."
If you're asking about the acts of DNC during the primaries, the most commonly cited examples are the nominally impartial DNC discussing ways to discredit Sanders' religion, and their decision to limit debates to the number proposed by the Clinton camp. The former happened, and its bad behavior, but it's not likely to have swayed the outcome. The latter happened, but who cares?
If these transcripts are "news" I think they're good publicity for Mrs. Clinton. It shows that she'll think twice before laying into Wall Street. Regardless of whether or not you like her, her opinions and policies are well thought through and make sense.
The problem is that few voters will read the transcripts. Few websites will link to the transcripts. People, generally, don't care to learn for themselves what was said, but are happy to accept the sound-bite interpretation from their favorite, echo-chamber "news" source.
So, when he said "they let you do it" there's actually no "they let you" in that sentence?
The quote is "When you're a star, they let you." Like you "let" your boss call you an idiot. "When you're a star," you can use your fame and money to abuse people, because they know they can't fight back. "When you're a star," people will let you do things that they would never consent to.
With Trump, anything he wants to do will be an uphill battle with Congress. He won't get a rubber stamp in Congress. Roadblocks will be placed everywhere. He'll have to work with Congress to get anything done.
Trump has never had to work with committees: his management is all decree and delegate. Throw in a good bit of "what can I get away with, without violating the letter of these loan covenants." The executive branch sets a lot of regulation and policy that have the force of law without actually being law or subject to congressional approval. Likewise, recent administrations seem to have substantially increased the scope of executive order. Don't underestimate what a President can do without congress.
Especially a charismatic President well versed in media manipulation.
Public position: I'm against TPP now guys
Private position: Bring on the TPP
She can be in favor of free trade and against the TPP. In fact, that's exactly Trump's position: he's in favor of free trade, he's just convinced that the existing agreements (and TPP) were bad deals that need to be renegotiated.
Trump is less vulnerable simply because he's not as repugnant of a person as is Hillary, not even close.
Trump is less vulnerable because, as a billionaire, he can ensure that any disagreements are settled in civil court. As a private citizen, he can ensure that non-disclosure agreements are part of any legal settlements. Clinton has been under the political microscope, which is only just now focusing on Trump, for 30 years.
He can parade a group of women (that he, himself has called unattractive gold-diggers) to accuse Bill Clinton of sexual assault, while holding his own set of allegations paid to go away hidden. Her on-camera statements are all authentic, deeply held beliefs. BS he says during interviews is all just a public character played for ratings.
He can hold up any government misjudgement in the last 30 years and put it on a Clinton. Government is big, some of the decisions are life-or-death, the consequences are very public, and hindsight will show those mistakes. Trump's own misjudgements, whether they're failed businesses, unpaid contractors, or just plain fraud, are basically private and mostly hidden behind layers of incorporation and settlement-without-guilt. A billion-dollar casino fails - that's just business; really only affects a few hundred employees, and they all just go get new jobs. Maybe they sue him for $0.10 on the $1. Failure was probably more due to the incompetent managers he hired than to his own decisions, anyway.
You're missing the point: it's not about taxes. I mean, it should be embarrassing for the self-proclaimed king of the deal to lose a billion dollars in a year, and maybe 18 years is a little long to let him carry that loss forward, but not paying tax in a bad year is not the problem.
The problem is that he's claiming Clinton is beholden to Wall Street insiders, at the same time as he's claiming to have bought politicians using his Wall Street money. You're acting like it's better to elect an authentic Wall Street schmuck (Trump) than to elect his proxy (Clinton).
The fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that all they need to do to win the general election is win their primary.
For the most part, they're not wrong. The Presidency is really the only race where November matters, and even there, Donald Trump could literally grab Hillary by the pussy in Sunday's debate and still win at least 15 states. There's only, maybe, 6 senate seats actually competitive. By the time you get to districts as small as US representative, the districts are already gerrymandered enough that the general election doesn't matter. In 2012, the popular vote for Representatives was 48%:49% R:D, but the seat outcome was 54%:46%.
While he's no doubt a pig, "they let you do it" implies consent and you'd need to document lack of consent to prove anything more.
Thousands of women, every day, "let" their bosses, customers, and even random strangers on the street whistle, pinch and grope. That's not consent, it's exhaustion. It's not consent, it's powerlessness. It's not consent, it's expectation that a macho culture will dismiss 'boys being boys.' Sure, you can throw a fit every time some boy touches you, but that's a quick road to social outcast. Strangely, to invite 'inappropriate' touching is an equally quick road to slut-label.
The fact that DJT can't distinguish beating people up with his wealth and power from consent is exactly the problem.
I mentioned Amazon, and a Rental fee. That rental fee could be about the portion of what the studio would get from a theater ticket sale. It seems they would make their money back.
Studios get something around half of the ticket price. They're not paid like book authors or musicians. If you're talking about rental fees big enough to compensate for 4 theater tickets, you're talking about rents of $30-40.
I get that the possessive sense is always its but OED says preceding a gerund or noun-verb that "its" is also correct. In the case of passÃ© which is an adjective I'm not sure
Your OED passage says that the phrase, "its going," is ok, much like, "his going." "Its [gerund]" can be confusing, because it is (audibly) indistinguishable to mean "It is going" or the going of it, but it should be clear from context.
You would never say, "His passe," nor should you use "its passe."
He was engaging in hyperbole, with objects less often than that. But even trying to over-state the amount, it still sounds like not much.
If you walked through Denali and found an empty water bottle or an old pair of shoes every 250 feet - even every 250 yards - I imagine you'd be pretty upset that tourists had trashed the pristine wilderness. It's not a garbage island, but this place is even more remote than the deepest alaska wilderness, and here it is littered up with trash like a DC subway.
Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?