The Two Leading Presidential Candidates -- Clinton And Trump -- Are Both Mocking Free Speech On The Internet
from the this-seems-like-a-problem dept
Yesterday, we wrote about Hillary Clinton's absolutely terrible plan for undermining both encryption and free speech on the internet as a way to "deal" with ISIS. I left out the worst quote of all that she stated in the process, mockingly:"You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera..."Free speech et cetera? That's handwaving it away. You can see the whole clip here, of the leading Democratic Presidential candidate who will almost certainly win the nomination:
You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera. But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating. It’s more complicated with some of what they do on encrypted apps, and I’m well aware of that, and that requires even more thinking about how to do it.Shut off their means of communicating? These tools are tools that everyone uses -- and, in fact, which Hillary Clinton herself did a tremendous amount of (good) work helping to spread around the globe as Secretary of State. And now she's trying to cut it all off?
And over on the other side of things, the leading Republican candidate, Donald Trump, basically said the exact same thing on Monday, just in a more Trump fashion.
We're losing a lot of people because of the internet. We have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what's happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing that internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people. We have a lot foolish people.You can see that one here:
#DonaldTrump advocates closing up the Internet 2 stop the process of thought/free speech. So Communist China-like. pic.twitter.com/hRab3xpVcK
— NotBuffytheVMPslayer (@NotBUFFY_VS) December 8, 2015
I usually laugh off people who get deeply scared about one person or another winning the Presidency, as they usually overestimate how much power the President really has. But, either I'm suddenly turning into an old cranky guy, or we're facing one hell of a scary Presidential election next year where the major candidates are not just bad, but downright scary. It's become pretty cliche to argue "that's what the terrorists want" in response to various kneejerk reactions by politicians, but really, does anyone not think that certain people are getting a kick out of US politicians shoving each other aside to belittle one of the most cherished rights that is a key principle of our country -- the First Amendment -- at the first opportunity?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, first amendment, free speech, hillary clinton, internet, isis, wtf
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know, that's what they were saying about her 4 years ago. It was inevitable, 2008 was to be Hillary's coronation, etc. But then actual people started actually voting in the primaries, and she turned out to be such a horrible candidate that she literally lost to a rookie with no qualifications.
The only significant thing that's changed since then is that she's actually up against a worthwhile opponent in the Democratic primary this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anyone who is not holding their nose as they vote for anyone in these two crowds deserves the pain and misery that their government will visit upon them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why do you blame the victim?
None of the candidates:
1) espouse your particular pov on all issues?
2) have a personality to your liking?
3) ???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If the government becomes trash it needs to do something about. It never ceases to amaze how may people say when life gives you lemons make lemonade, but the same crowds throws up their hands and then say screw it on politics.
We reap what we sow, and let me tell you what, we have been sowing some terrible garbage.
I do not need a candidate with a personality to my liking, but they MUST support the constitution, some say they do, but they actually don't.
They are either against the 1st & 2nd, pro police state, pro big business at the expense of the people and society, or a federalist.
The fact that many people think that this 2 party system contains characters that are radically different from each other is the greatest con going on right now. Bernie, Trump, Hillary, Rubio, insert your candidate here... these guys are not all that different from each other.
Both sides make it clear they seek to enslave The People, they merely disagree on how to accomplish that goal! At the end of the day that is what we vote for. Who gets to enslave us.
What was the last time you heard someone actually say, lets remove ridiculous laws, or before we make new ones lets resolve all of the contradictory ones instead?
How about we take rule making AWAY from the alphabet soup agencies and put it right where the Constitution says it is supposed to be huh?
If that is too much to ask, then yes, WE DO DESERVE THE MISERY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Were the citizens of Nazi Germany held responsible for their government? AFAIK, the Nuremberg trials only covered the ranking officials of government/military, not lowly serfs who may or may not have even voted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Remember how people power killed SOPA? Imagine that power being brought to bear on asset forfeiture, etc. I've been told by some people that they hate having to constantly push back against bad actors and the end result is campaign fatigue. Basically, they'd work harder to get their government to do their job properly if they could be bothered but they can't. It's too much effort.
This explains the angry calls for armed rebellion I see sometimes in the comments here on TD. It's easier to point and shoot than to hold a politician to account and keep a tight hold on the proverbial choke chain. This is why an armed rebellion has no chance at all of succeeding: all it would achieve is a monumental bloodbath followed by repression on a massive scale when the resultant power vacuum ushers in the despot you believe will make the trains run on time.
This is a problem you have to organise your way to resolving. That means being willing to work together with people you disagree with. Then you will see change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is delusional to believe 21st century elections can be fair elections. The politicians have had their fingers in the pudding for so long, it's long since ceased to be in the voters' hands. The head of the FEC agrees, and admits she/they can do nothing about it. It's a rigged game from start to finish, gerrymandered to death, and only serves incumbents except in extraordinary circumstances.
The gov't and politicians the Constitution was supposed to keep in check are running the place. The inmates have taken over the asylum; the fire in the fireplace is out of control and burning down the house. Revolution is the only option, sadly. Nothing else can stop it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That will not make it any better. Why? Because the average voter is stupid too and will just vote whatever fox news or their favorite channel manipulates them to vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And when people do vote, lately there have been races where the winning candidate did NOT have a 50% or higher majority. This includes both elections that Bill Clinton was elected President. Thus you have citizens that think their vote doesn't matter because over 50% voted for losing candidates. How does that happen? Because more than 2 people appear on the ballot.
The US is long overdue to acknowledge that sometimes other countries have a better idea. One such idea is in elections: wide open primaries with the top 2 candidates no matter what political party they belong to going to the general election. Unfortunately (at least for President and Vice President) a constitutional amendment would be required.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
so what do some winning candidates claim?
They claim to have received a mandate.
Of course you have - lol.
Does the term "suck balls" refer to tea bagging?
Rather than vote for candidates who often change their minds after having received campaign contributions, why not vote on issues? Why do politicians lie? Because they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're fucking kidding me, right? The Nazis were NOT Democratic Socialists, they were National Socialist, from which they derive the Nazi name and also I hate you for being this stupid. The Nazis were a far right organization, on the other end of the political spectrum from Sanders and Democratic Socialists. Notable Democratic Socialists, other than Sanders, include:
1. Christopher Hitchens
2. Albert Fucking Einstein
3. Bertrand Russell
4. John Dewey
5. David Ben-Gurion
If you're any indication of the level of intellect of the American voter, however, we're all fucked and let's all welcome our winners from the Trump/Carson ticket and enjoy the disaster to come.
Jesus fucking Christ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Jesus fucking Christ....
6. Jesus H. Christ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus fucking Christ....
Anyone else dumb enough to claim that their politics match up elsewhere is ignorant or peddling a lie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Jesus fucking Christ....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Quit beating around the bush. Tell us what you really think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now now. Why be so emotional?
Just tell Ms. Wheeler to shut its yap, the adults are trying to have a real conversation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Noted Democratic Socialists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
good luck buying your next gaming rig with food stamps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I would be negligent in not at least asking this... and another thing, could I presume to identify a Democratic (Fucking) Socialist would be if they had inherited Fucking as a middle name?
PS I always wondered what their middle fucking name was.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
FTFY. The Nazis were National Socialists, not the same thing. I know we're on the internet and all, but would it kill you to at least try to get your facts straight before running your mouth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No wonder some politicians are anti education, anti free speech and want to shutdown the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What ever happened to curriculum development by teachers, they are educated in the field rather than politicians who are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yet the leading Republican candidate is arguing for making all Muslims register...kinda like the Jews had to when Hitler came into power.
You are the epitome of what is wrong with the average voter - you use terms and have no idea what they mean.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The U.S. was pretty fine with Hitler's persecution of the Jews. They could not really help getting involved when Hitler declared war on everyone, however.
Afterwards, everybody in the world had been in the resistance and fond of Jews and democracy and oppressed by the Nazis. Including in Germany itself.
Now of course it is nice that nobody identifies with that kind of ideology any more under its original name.
But that does not particularly help against it returning under other names.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
There were plenty of racists, yes, but there were plenty of exceptions too. When the Allies stumbled into the death camps, Eisenhower and his staff were horrified, to the point of forcing the German people to go to the camps to see what their leaders had done in their name.
Meanwhile, here we are in the 21st Century and the racists still run rampant. One of them's the GOP front runner. "Plus ca change, ..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Carrot and Carrot Cake have more in common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"The Nazis only cared about perfecting the Master "Arian" race and killing anyone who stood in their way."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think harder Silicon Valley - we reached the moon after all! How hard can this "math" stuff be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
... but seriously, is there ANY place that isn't heading into similar dire straits?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm opposed to anything except strong encryption on principle. If those of us who feel this way lose this battle (and I'm pretty sure we are going to lose), then what's going to change?
My predictions:
1) Telecom companies and ISPs will keep doing what they are doing now and maintain databases of everything we do electronically and they will share this data when they have to.
2) Mobile device companies like Apple and Google will hold on to a key that can be used to unlock your device when they are forced to do so.
3) People that want to communicate privately will do so via downloadable apps.
What will change? Nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What will change? Nothing."
Nothing will change? Adding back doors to encryption is nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Up until fairly recently, Apple would unlock phones for law enforcement. Now they can't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Apple won't even bother to do that. An order was issued to unlock a device over here https://ia601402.us.archive.org/34/items/gov.uscourts.wieb.358648/ and Apple has not complied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
or you think the apps you get AUTHORIZED by google and apple are safe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Short of playing Russian roulette with a loaded chamber, no, there's really nowhere else you can go. Je Suis Zack Mayo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This from the person who made the crack: 'Wipe the server? You mean with a cloth or something?' (http://news.sky.com/video/1538286/hillary-brushes-off-email-claims )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to minimize deaths...
With that said, when you combine just 8-10 of the biggest data breaches over the last 5 years, you get over 500 million records compromised, at the cost of 10's of billions of dollars to clean up.
World's Biggest Data Breaches
You are literally millions of times more likely to be a victim of poor data security than good data security. And if security is millions of times more important than freedom (to balance that equation), then you might as well put a government minder on every street corner and government cameras in every house. "Big Brother is Doubleplusgood."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not to minimize deaths...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not to minimize deaths...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not to minimize deaths...
Well, my bank and the NSA use encryption, @Ryunosuke....
By Jupiter! You're Right! Only Terrorists use encryption!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's worse than it seems
I hope the center is smarter than this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's worse than it seems
Perhaps you are wearing bandwidth limiting shades?
For example: Hillary is another centrist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's worse than it seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It's worse than it seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It's worse than it seems
https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's worse than it seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They are the type of people that call their kids to say there is something wrong with the internet when they accidentally deleted the shortcut from their desktop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic...
Bad people used the internet to commit crime..."We MUST regulate free speech/the internet to stop this..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic...
There is no Internet lobby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Logic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Logic...
Makes perfect sense. In this age you do not fight a fucked up government with guns, but free speech, so no shit they are scared of it. But they want to keep guns, so people have a fake sense of "if shit hits the fan, I can still use my peashooter"....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently, no one wants the First Amendment.
The universities don't want to allow free speech, because someone might be offended; "trigger warnings" are required for "microaggressions".
[I wish I could make this stuff up.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparently, no one wants the First Amendment.
Europe does more talking about their Nazi history than is actually warrented, especially Germany btw.
I don't know of any highly regarded european University that gave in to the overly PC environment from the USA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apparently, no one wants the First Amendment.
"The Europeans don't want anyone to talk about Nazi history, or to criticize one another; "
The Nazi history is still often talked about, even too much I would argue. Its history most of it is agreed upon, but is still used as a political argument way too many times.
In countries that were "occupied" by Nazi they still argue about collaborators and "liberation force".
In Germany they are still shamed about it on every step of their education.
UK and US still beat their chests at every occasion for the "glorious win against forces of evil" and compare it to every new upcoming invasion of another country: "this is the hitler of "
And not to even fucking begin with Israel, its like their de-facto tool to use in every fucking negotiation "We have the right to do genocide on Palestine, because we were victim of one"
(ya I know I was not limited to Europe)
I do agree we should never forget WW2 but I think we should slowly start to acknowledge that things are not (especially in war) black and white, good or evil. And stop at "Shit happened, we should never let it happen again".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah hah! Busted. No you aren't. Can we drop all the other bullshit now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Deserts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just Deserts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Just Deserts
By whatever measure you want, if America elects someone who proves undesirable, it's because a) they wanted that person and their values or b) their system has become broken and it allowed the undesirable candidate to win despite their collective will, in which case they are the authors of (i.e. are deserving of) their failure.
If America elects someone who turns out to be good for them, it will be because they succeeded despite extreme obstacles and they will deserve their success. If this new leader manages to lead a corrective path (for any of a number of definitions of corrective), all the more deserving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just Deserts
Don't you know how much politicians get their votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just Deserts
Even if the number of kept campaign promises were at 75%, the fact that voters used the promises as a guide in their decisions means they expected something other than what was delivered . - But according to you they got what they deserved. I'm not sure if this is because they were not clairvoyant and therefore unable to see the promises were lies or whether it is because they simply deserve to be kicked around - you know cause it makes you feel better about yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Deserts
My point was meant to be that the American political and power distribution system seems to have strayed off course. American society can collectively do something to correct the trajectory or they can allow it to career further on its current path, and the outcome and their fortunes will depend on the electorate's own efforts and ability (or not) to turn it around.
In Canada, we have recently seen a shift in the political winds, brought on largely by the population deciding against one style of politics and opting for another. We too in the scheme of things will get the government we deserve, and I hope it's worthy of the faith that has been put in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Just Deserts
We have the government we have because we have the government we have. It is a tautology, and there is no meaning to be drawn from any of it.
Come back when you actually have some ideas on how to make the government better, even slightly. Until then, all you're spouting is defeatism and victim blaming, and I would respectfully ask that you shut the fuck up, as you're part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Just Deserts
Again, I grant that "deserves" is loaded so as a consequence of creating a brief and glib quote I failed in expressing blunt tautology rather than pointed blame. Sorry bout that.
I am not spouting defeatism - my point is that the outcome can and hopefully will be more positive than current prevailing opinion projects
If the outcome is negative, attributing the cause to those who steered the outcome in that direction is not victim blaming. Perhaps the system as become broken enough that no steering will be enough. I hope not.
The reason I haven't made direct suggestions on making the government better is that as I'm not American it is not my place to lecture. I'm not telling you what to do, I'm indirectly suggesting that analyzing cause and effect is part of the solution, since I have observed that "more of the same" does not usually turn things around when current practices have been proven not to work.
I'm still optimistic that America can find a positive path through the political minefield.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The objective js to shut down the means of dissent, prior to the shitstorm that is about to hit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real, concrete evidence only, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
These are two separate issues.
Issue 1 is backdooring encryption (which is not a free speech issue, but a security/privacy issue). Issue 2 is demanding internet censorship, which is a free speech issue.
Sorry if it wasn't clear in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6aCpqH8vGxgJ:www.pissedconsumer.com/tag/ mike-masnick-techdirt.html+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
read it while it is hot on the Google cache because he pulled some favoursa and go it removed-so much for free speech
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Considering it starts with "a sleaze" and ends up going on in a more tame way already shows it anyway.
Seriously, grow up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I tie this around a cinder block and toss it through your window, would that qualify?
"Back doors to encryption cause me to not use some of my free speech rights."
Do give the address where I can deliver this concrete example concern-troll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you believe the key vault at Apple is secure... which they claimed their cloud storage was at one point.
Just a bad idea all the way around. We invent the worlds best technology but won't allow it to be used because an extremist minority may gain an advantage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And with a key/unlock mechanism distributed as widely as that, it's not feasible to prevent it getting out of hand.
And of course, that's when assuming that the authorized persons use it for legal purposes, and the track record of them is really, really, really bad. And they derive a lot of unconstitutional powers and activities from it already.
So even when working as fantasized, it is a really, really bad idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Amendments
1: We can't let terrorists have the right to free speech.
3: (Quartering soldiers doesn't apply.)
4: We have to search everyone in case they might be a terrorist.
5: Terrorists don't deserve due process and they should give up information on themselves (preferably under torture) for everyone's good.
6: Terrorists don't deserve lawyers or a fair trial. We know they're terrorists and that's good enough.
7: (Right to a trial by jury in civil cases doesn't apply.)
8: Languishing in a prison cell without a trial isn't considered cruel and unusual punishment at all.
9 and 10: (Don't apply.)
That leaves us with the 2nd Amendment:
Why, yes, anyone can have a gun. We'd never dream of stepping on anyone's rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Amendments
sometimes the argument comes up without any reason too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if this will be what pushes people over the edge to take back control of this almost completely corrupt government. To have a president that openly mocks the public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have this vision of the winner at the swearing in ceremony, where thousands stand up chanting, "Liar, liar, pants on fire!" Should make for great reality tv, watching the SS drag them all away to waiting paddy-wagons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe Americans have wised up?
Trump, well, the man is a clown and a buffoon and not very competent. It's not that hard to get rich when daddy hands you millions and say go play. What's amazing is that he managed to fuck it up several times by bankruptcies...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Relax
The ability to code is to the modern era, is what reading and writing was in the 18th century. What the aristocracy doesn't get, is that they are no longer the literate ones in this society.
Innovation is antithetical to tyranny. Anyone who has written anything that was useful and compiled, has run up against these guys at some point. And most of us have an axe to grind. It isn't so much a vendetta, as a grievous sorrow over the harm caused by their narcissism.
So relax and support civil revolt through superior software engineering. Eventually, we will fulfill the promise the T-shirt fortold: "Go away, or I will replace you with a very small bash script"
Overturn Citizens United. Repeal Glass Steagall. Bust the Trusts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'll take my chances with Bernie losing to a Republican rather than vote for someone who is a Democrat in name only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
New World Order
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Solution
hillary and the other repubs won't give you free speech; bernie will and he's been fighting for it since the goddamn 1960s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is that you will quickly notice that every candidate not only agrees but is citing the book line by line.
Hillary, Trump, Sanders et all
and that could wake up a sheep,
scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Henry Ford
IBM
homeland security heimatschutz
enhanced interrogation Verschärfte Vernehmung
project paperclip
Horten 9
the 150 tons of patents
NASA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bernie Sanders is are only hope vote for him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
they all merged into the industrial military complex we have today
we have been fooled
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free Speech for all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump and Clinton
Electoral College
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trump and Clinton
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Power of POTUS...
I get that. I really do, but as POTUS, that's the tangible remainder of any Presidency. It says a / that specific something about a people, in regards to whom gets elected, and what they will be able to achieve in four years.
I wonder just what kind of meeting the Republicans will have on election night, 2016, when they see the inevitable conclusion of politics in America 'til 2024, AT LEAST, and the panic attacks actually start taking over.
Every reporter on Earth, is now aware of those Republicans, and their secret meeting addressing the fall, or how they could stump, or stomp, POTUS at every turn. It was during that fateful election night of 2008, and then again when G.O.P. Romney crashed and burned in 2012 and the really horrible horror ;)with a side of more panic attacks set in with the re-election of that "Black President".
One thing that we, all of us, can be certain of, is the GOP has not even begun to put the, always useful, always hilarious, and verging on obligatory, foot in the mouth.
Nevertheless, POTUS does have tons of power. Be respectful of the Office. When's the last time you heard Darrell Issa's name in the news??? ;>D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Socialist differentiation
Democratic Socialist = Left wing socialism
Both groups believe in the supremacy of the state over personal freedom, but each approach it from a different direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"National" vs. "Democratic" socialism.
No.
National Socialist = Our country and its people are better than other countries and their (so-called) people who are demonstrably inferior lifeforms who can't be trusted and need to be subjugated else they'll steal all our stuff and probably hurt us. You can trust our gov't to protect you from them because we're your gov't and we care about you and we know what's right. Honest! Trust us, or we'll kill you.
Democratic Socialism = "We The People ..." rule by popular vote electing representatives to form a gov't limited to specific defined functions and limits.
NS is stupid and in most cases leads to corruption enriching the rulers, tyrannical overreach and even genocide by its gov't over those ruled.
DS may eventually be found to be workable, if only we can figure out how to make that "limited to specific defined functions and limits" work, which we're at present nowhere near solving despite the thousands of years we've worked on it.
HTH.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NS vs. DS
National Socialism is domination of the individual by a select group who enforce their will on the entire populace in the name of the state, which is an extreme right wing socialist philosophy.
Democratic Socialism is the domination of the individual by an elected group who enforce their will on the entire population in the name of the state, which is an extreme left wing socialist philosophy.
Your choices in socialism are tyranny by the bosses (NS) vs. tyranny by the masses (DS). You can argue their motivations all you want, but the end result is the same. Either one sucks if you aren't one of the chosen few who make the rules.
Interestingly enough, you can compare the two extremes in their enforcement methods - both focus on demonizing those who don't follow the party line and marginalizing their identity and worth as human beings. One just focuses on homogenized outward characteristics like appearance or religion, while the other enforces thought and behavior compliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]