Every time there has been a "transfer of power", the presidency changing from one party to the other, there has been a concession speech where the party voted out of office has confirmed the legitimacy of the party who won.
The modern concession speech starts in 1952 when Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower. He stressed that his loss was legitimate, that the people had spoken, to put aside partisanship in accepting the results.
The next transition from Democrats to Republicans was Nixon's win in 1968. Hubert Humphrey stresses that Nixon clearly one and that Nixon had Humphrey's support. www2.mnhs.org/library/findai…
Next Carter loses to Reagan in 1980. He not only stresses the legitimacy of Reagan's win, but declares support for a system where peaceful transfers of power happen.
Al Gore's loss was more difficult, but in the end he conceded. Like Carter's speech, it's full of principle. The principle that partisanship must yield to patriotism, that we must believe in our institutions.
Now let's do Hillary. She goes directly to the most important principle at stake here, the peaceful transfer of power, as power shifts from the Obama administration to Trump. vox.com/2016/11/9/1357…
The speeches of Stevenson, Carter, Gore, and Hillary drip with utter patriotism, with love for the people (all the people, even those of the opposing party) and trust in our democratic institutions.
Trump has destroyed this. He has put party over country, loyalty to him personally over patriotism, and attacked all our institutions.
I don't list the Republicans in this thread, but their concession speeches are at least as good -- go read McCain's for example. There's nothing wrong with Republicans as a party -- except for this one thing of continuing to support Trump over America.
"Yes but her ..."
Hillary didn't fight the peaceful transfer of power in 2016. Her actions were about fighting for victory in 2020. I mean, she still deserves criticism for saying Trump was "illegitimate", but this goes into a different box.
Maybe those like @orinkerr can opine, but it seems like these days they always have a probable cause for a search warrant to search your phone. Am I right in thinking that if you are involved in such a case they'll always grab your phone?
I can't find the search warrant. The NYTimes quotes it thusly. It seems this justification could apply to virtually ever case they investigate. archive.is/Crd5y
Presumably, Alec Baldwin has good reason for not handing over the phone, knowing that any texts or emails may be used out-of-context and prejudicially against him.
I also remember, shortly before the dot-com crash, predictions that all these nonsense dot-com businesses, like "pets.com" with their sock-puppet, would fail. And they did.
Missouri state government computers were making the SSN#s of teachers public. The governor is responding prosecuting the expert and reporter who notified them of the problem. The cybersecurity community is outraged by this.
What gets lost in this discussion is what the law says.
Obviously, everyone should be outraged when a well-meaning whistleblower pointing out government incompetence is then prosecuted by the embarrassed government. You don't need to be a computer scientist to understand the problem here.
Such "disclosure" of vulnerabilities is a standard practice in cybersecurity. Outsiders pointing out problems is pretty much the only way cybersecurity improves -- something that has been known since the late 1800s. So we are especially offended by this.
1/ I've been trying to stalk my parents since Christmas Eve using an AirTag. My dad finally got an alert on the phone. There are many things that'll prevent the generation of such alerts.
2/ For one thing, the tag has to keep moving. When you leave it sit for too long, it turns off. There's no reason to keep updating it's location if its location isn't changing, so it conserve power.
3/ Thus, if stalkers attach it to a car, and the car spends most of its time parked, then the stalkee may not get alerts on their phone.
Napster is not still a thing.
Napster was a peer-to-peer music theft program 20 years ago.
Then somebody bought the brand name and used it to describe a completely different music streaming service.
People respond to this thread claiming Napster is still a thing. It really isn't. As Wikipedia documents, somebody simply bought the name and stuck it on a different music streaming product.