For me, the hardest part to believe is there was literally no one on-site at their datacenters. Really? No one? At this scale, literally, there has to be a security guard there who can kick the door open.
I'm a fairly pro-Apple guy, love my Apple products. Had an Android user try and argue with me "so much for Apple security". Taking a pragmatic approach to this, it's hard to blame Apple for following the gag order / law, albeit corrupt law. They apparently only gave up meta data. It would be interesting to know exactly what they got or didn't (the DOJ).
This is really the crux of the case no one is talking about. There seems to be this notion she set out to do this evil deceptive thing. She had no idea, if anything her underlings were to blame. It was a colossal error, and she's terrible at articulating just about anything, let alone this failure.
Our choices this cycle are extremely poor, but I'll take her finger on the button any day of the week over the real estate oompa loompa.
That's a bit of a myth that's come about when compared to Sanders. In reality, her voting record is around the 70th percentile most liberal out of Democrat senators (referring to her last year).
She might be more Hawkish then Trump although considering the fact that Trump is making all his nonsense up as he goes along its really hard to tell. He tacks isolationist since everyone is tired of war and then he tacks we will destroy our enemies since everyone hates ISIS.
The Saudis might not be good allies but they are our allies. Considering Trump has talked about retreating from our nicer allies like South Korea and Japan in terms of everyone for themselves I wouldn't be surprised if they prefer her. It's not like they are donating money to her campaign.
Wall Street is afraid Trump will do something crazy and destroy the economy.
Haha, but hilariously both democrats and republicans feel very strongly that we should all vote for one of the two. They know deep down that it's one party with two basically identical divisions, but they could never utter that fact aloud.
He claimed to support it because it included the Violence Against Women Act, and criticized harsh on crime policies. That said high crime rate of the 90s made everyone a bit crazy. Now with dropping crime rates even conservatives talk of reform and jailing fewer people.
It is interesting, how we collectively accept news organizations of having bias and falsifying news. And yet a social media site, with no need to be balanced, this bias is seen as unacceptable. Maybe because we can easily see the blatant bias of the news organizations, but the thought of being subtly manipulated irks us.
This is exactly the point. Fox carefully manipulates, coverage, actual delivery by journalists and counter points to advance their agenda, as I'll admit MSNBC does as well. Crying wolf on Facebook is ridiculous in the grand scheme of things imho.
I think you're referring to this part of the linked article:
> In the final stretch of the campaign, nearly half (46%) of Obama’s coverage on Fox was negative, while just 6% was positive in tone. But MSNBC produced an even harsher narrative about the Republican in the race: 71% of Romney’s coverage was negative, versus 3% positive.
I am unsure it supports an argument for being the "most biased news network" outside of a specific election.
Also, it does not appear to account for reporting on a sitting president (who is also running for reelection) and will generate non-election news as well as election news versus a candidate who is not currently generating much news outside of their election.
The problem with this study is that the data wasn't controlled for being about a president vs. a candidate.
There's going to be a number of mundane stories mentioning the president (i.e. bills being signed, travel, meetings, etc.) that are outside the scope of what's also being reported on a candidate.
The result is that any organization that is reporting on the president will inevitably mention the president in articles that are less biased, skewing the results comparison.
