What The Election Means For Stuff Techdirt Cares About?
from the probably-not-good... dept
So, with basically all the big predictors predicting a fairly easy Hillary Clinton victory last night, I was planning to write a post explaining the many serious problems with her vague, confusing and mostly empty tech policy proposals -- and how there were going to be lots of things to pay attention to and fight for in the next four years. But with the surprise Donald Trump victory, it's basically even worse, in part, because he has no tech policy at all and on the issues that we care about he's bad to horrifically terrible.Here's a quick look at some of the issues that we care about and where Trump comes down:
- Free speech: Clinton was bad on this, but Trump is the one with the long history of bogus defamation threats and lawsuits -- and a promise to open up our libel laws and make it easier to sue for defamation. Say goodbye to any chance of a federal anti-SLAPP law, and watch out for much worse.
- Mass Surveillance: Again, an issue where both candidates were terrible, and both seemed eager to expand mass surveillance and ignore the 4th Amendment. But again, Trump seems to care even less about the possible ramifications of this -- and has even suggested that he'd like to use the power to go after his personal enemies, rather than the enemies of the country. And, outside of the Presidential election, the 4th Amendment took a huge blow in two key Senate races as well. Senate Intelligence Committee head Richard Burr, who doesn't seem to care in the slightest about the 4th Amendment, beat his opponent, who used to run the North Carolina ACLU (an organization that cares deeply about the 4th Amendment). Burr's victory was likely, but the polls (ha!) were at least close. Up in Wisconsin, however, basically everyone was predicting a return to the Senate for Russ Feingold, the only Senator who voted against the PATRIOT Act and a strong supporter of civil liberties. But in an upset, he lost to incumbent Ron Johnson.
- Encryption: I don't believe Trump weighed in specifically on the whole "going dark" debate, but given his comments on mass surveillance and supporting law enforcement over all else, I'm guessing that the chances of a bill banning encryption just got a hell of a lot stronger. Download some strong encryption software now and learn how to use it, folks.
- Internet Governance/Net Neutrality: It's just bad. Trump supported a ridiculously dangerous plan based on near total confusion about how the internet works. And I'm guessing this will present a big opportunity for Congress to gut net neutrality as well. Enjoy more power for AT&T and Comcast, folks.
- Copyright: Uh, who the hell knows? I don't think it's an issue that Trump has ever remotely weighed in on, but it seems unlikely that he'd surround himself with folks who understand the nuances of copyright policy and its free speech implications.
- Patents: Ditto the copyright statement. Again, I fear that given his previous statements, he'll focus on using patents for much greater protectionishm, rather than greater innovation.
- High tech immigration: Hahahahahahah.
- Automation, Drones, Future of work, etc: Well, considering how focused Trump was on bringing back obsolete jobs, rather than ever mentioning innovation or how new technologies can change stuff... not expecting good things here either.
- Police brutality: Yeah, another one where Trump has made himself clear that he's going to side with the police no matter what. That's not good for basic civil liberties and the rule of law. "Law and order" and due process don't always go well together.
In short, no matter who won last night, there would be lots of things to be worried about on the kinds of things that we talk about -- but with Trump it's pretty bad. On the issues he's weighed in on, he's taken really dangerous positions. On issues he hasn't, there's little suggestion that he has the understanding or even the basic intellectual curiousity to understand what's important about them. I recognize that many of these issues aren't the key ones that people are worked up about -- and they certainly have very little to do with why Trump was elected. But they do matter. Trump has talked about protecting the constitution and making America great again. To do that, it has to mean more than just protecting the 2nd Amendment -- and it has to come with supporting actual innovation. That seems a lot less likely right now and that should be a major concern.
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, fourth amendment, hillary clinton, president, surveillance, white house
Reader Comments
The First Word
“One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
10. Bad trade agreements: It's a bit of an open secret that Hillary was only against the TPP because she had to publicly express disapproval of it in the primary, and that she had every intention of fully supporting it once she was sworn in. That's not happening now, and by all appearances, Trump will actually oppose it and other bad trade deals.
Will he do so out of xenophobia and a complete misunderstanding of foreign trade? Absolutely! But remember, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
7. High tech immigration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 7. High tech immigration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Lichtman
I thought for sure he would be wrong this time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good article on his strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/09/the-simpsons-predicted-president-trump-16-years-ago-as-a-warning-t o-america-6245205
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Parties only divide and usurp the peoples will. They serve no other purpose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When it comes to Russia, Trump is what they have wanted. An autocratic leader who won't try to teach Russia about moral values and "democracy".
Balticum is very likely safe since Russia is already getting a lot of the advantages without the responsibility by proxy. Finland is mostly a posturing conflict unless Finland seriously considers joining NATO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Canadian immigration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Best You Can Hope For ...
This has been one hell of a 9/11 for the world...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
Something went right, alright!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
Which is irrelevant to my comment, because she's not the one who won.
If he was lying the whole time then at best that means we have no idea what his actual stances are on things. They could be good, they could be horrible, and his past actions suggest that they would be more the latter than the former.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The lie you know vs the truth you have to find out the hard way
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The lie you know vs the truth you have to find out the hard way
I have always loved a government at war with itself. It tends to put the war against the civilians on the back burner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Best You Can Hope For ...
Yes, incoherent babbling bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No lube it is
These next four years are going to be all sorts of unpleasant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No lube it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No lube it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No lube it is
We had 2 bushes already serve as president with a fucking 3rd gunning for the position, the threat of a 2nd Clinton all in the span of 30 years, and you can bet that fucking cunt daughter of theirs will be on the ballot in the future.
We should never support any form of Dynasty Ruling classes in the USA. But then again, people are not smart, they fuck it up every time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No lube it is
Classy. I wonder who you supported.
"We should never support any form of Dynasty Ruling classes in the USA"
Unless they're in charge of a financial institution or corporation, then you lap that right up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No lube it is
I like that you just assume that if I do not like another person then I MUST LOVE the other.
Sorry, I did not vote because I see no real fundamental different between either Hillary or Trump. Both have their own version of America's destruction. So I am just going to sit back and laugh at all of the people whining about how this election turned out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No lube it is
If you haven't figured this out, you're stupider than .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No lube it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No lube it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No lube it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No lube it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No lube it is
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Masnick is unhappy? My body is ready.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Respect maaah authoritaaaaay!" as a famous authoritarian once said with no basis in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you do not understand this, perhaps a dictionary would be of assistance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Good police want there to be accountability for their actions. Without it, it becomes a free for all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah crapbaskets...
This day just keeps getting better and better...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah crapbaskets...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My omniscient gut tells me it's going to be relatively easy to convince Trump to side with the entrenched industries on intellectual property issues. Among the many talking points that have been echoed ad nauseam over the years, some seem to fit nicely with Trump's views:
As has often been said, while Clinton is perhaps just as likely to cosy up to large corporations (not least since Hollywood is in a Democrat state), it may be possible to persuade/pressure her through petitions and protests to accept different viewpoints or compromise. (And before the usual partisans show up, no, I wouldn't have voted for her either. I'm not even American.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
who is going to tell him?
Beyonce?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: who is going to tell him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit
USA! USA! USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: USA! USA! USA!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dammit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Threadbare silver lining
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh, surely you didn't fall for the media's lie?
The media did everything they could to discourage the Republicans from voting. Had you checked into a lot of the polls, they were heavily skewed to the left because they polled more people from the left. If we learned nothing else from this election, we learned that journalism is dead and the media are just the PR wings of the political parties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uh, surely you didn't fall for the media's lie?
Also, where did the media try to discourage the 'right' from voting? I'd really love to see an example of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, surely you didn't fall for the media's lie?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Uh, surely you didn't fall for the media's lie?
If you are to coward to get your fucking ass out and using your voice or your vote, you didn't deserve it in the first place!
I am okay with you bitching about the wrong they still do, but you cannot bitch about the results!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Uh, surely you didn't fall for the media's lie?
They were all predicting relatively landslide victories for Hillary. Republican voters knew they had to vote to beat Hillary. Hillary voters can become complacent in that scenario, assuming the outcome is in the bag. This isn't necessarily what happened but could be a contributor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What it means
No matter who won, America is pre-fucked for the next four years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What it means
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But NooOooOo you had to learn what ship captains have known for years. They turn the ship gently. They turn the ship in such a way as people don't even know the ship is turning. They don't snatch the helm and watch people go flying off, all it does is damage the boat, piss off the people riding on it, and get the captain fired.
So now the republicans have the house and the senate, the presidency, and get to appoint not 1, wait for it.... but possibly numerous seats on the supreme court.
WELL DONE!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This AC just laid out how shit really happens to nations. Rome was not built in a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
But it was destroyed in one.
[ 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 ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's something anyway....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
10. Bad trade agreements: It's a bit of an open secret that Hillary was only against the TPP because she had to publicly express disapproval of it in the primary, and that she had every intention of fully supporting it once she was sworn in. That's not happening now, and by all appearances, Trump will actually oppose it and other bad trade deals.
Will he do so out of xenophobia and a complete misunderstanding of foreign trade? Absolutely! But remember, doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is still doing the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
Here's hoping anyway, be nice to have at least something good result from his election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
Various email leaks make it painfully clear that she stole the primary nomination from Bernie Sanders, with the willing help of a viciously anti-democratic Democratic Party. If she had won, that would have set an awful precedent, that doing so is OK and rewarding.
Therefore, she had to lose, period. I just wish she could have lost to someone who would make a good President.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
That is acceptable only in the short term. In the long term, those wrong reasons will come back to bite you. Every. Single. Time.
Unless, of course, "the right thing" turns out to have been the wrong thing and gets you first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
We both just wasted text on a web page friend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
The simple fact of the matter is that the TPP would have enshrined massive copyright idiocy for decades (amongst a whole HOST of other bad shit), if not forever, and by electing El Trumpo, we dodged one hell of a bullet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
To expect Donald Trump, one of the worst examples of the "Elites" or the "1%" to do anything else but entrench the power & control of the ruling classes (those with the most money & power) over the population via all means possible is absolutely insane. He has a proven track record through running his own businesses in treating those below him with contempt.
More private prisons, more police power, more rules & regulations for the people whilst reducing laws (nasty Red & Green tape) & taxes for the ultra rich is the state of Nirvana for those at the top. And if you poor people don't benefit well it's your own fault for not working hard enough! An oldie but a goldie as it works every time.
For those that got on-board the Trump train, it will be forever stuck in the train station as the Trump jet flies overhead with just enough seats for his select mates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
LOL. You been stuck in a hole somewhere for 8 years or something? The Democrats now carry the "big business" title. Trump is anti globalist, anti TPP, pro American Exceptionalism... Hell, he wants to put a 35% to 45% tariff on goods produced with jobs that American companies have outsourced. The minimum wage, 34 hours a week so we don't have to pay benefits companies like Walmart, are not very happy right now...
I think you got your shit backasswards my man.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
How did President Obama go when his wishes went against the wishes of the Republican controlled corridors of power? The same way President Trump's wishes will go, straight into the dustbin of history & once again Trump can blame someone else as it's never ever his fault things don't happen like he said they would.
If by now you don't understand that Trump is a very successful "Snake-oil salesman/serial liar/bullshit artist" who will say anything his audience wants to hear despite his products being nothing like he is advertising then you will find out soon enough.
There are plenty of examples from all around the world where this form of lying to all & sundry from "Right Wing" politicians just to get into power has been very successful using the "scapegoat/bogeyman" attack plan. If you are on a good thing why change?
FYI, kissing cousins Laura Norder & Jobson Growthe have been very busy doing the rounds at many elections recently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
Now that the votes have been counted there is no need to give anything in return as 70yo Trump is too old to worry about a second term as he will age so fast that it won't be worth his effort to go for another 4 years. Plus he can't upgrade to a newer model wife for the next four years, bummer, but so much free pussy to grab as he shows them some nice furniture. His resume will say he was President of the USA & it doesn't matter in the history books whether he did one term or two terms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
I think you got a little spittle on your screen there screwball. The rich "elitist" are pissed as hell at trump right now.
So pissed they're all lining up to be in his administration.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/us/politics/lobbyists-trump.html http://www.pol itico.com/tipsheets/politico-influence/2016/11/lobbyists-abound-on-trump-transition-217349
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
I said they were pissed Mike, I didn't say they were stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: One small silver lining that no one mentoined...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None of this will matter to the victims
This is the end of our "noble experiment". We have failed as a nation to preserve democracy, and now millions of people are going to pay a terrible price for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of this will matter to the victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: None of this will matter to the victims
If you want to think this is tinfoil hat territory: okay. Fine. I hope you're right and I'm wrong. But if I'm right: remember this day and remember what I said when the bodies start to stack up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: None of this will matter to the victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of this will matter to the victims
But this election, if nothing else, should open the eyes of all that the media is pushing an agenda and will not tell you the truth. Please seek out alternative outlets and you will find that the other side are not the blood thirsty killers you believe they are. Not even close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: None of this will matter to the victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: None of this will matter to the victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of this will matter to the victims
Oh please. And Obama is gonna take away your guns/ammo/etc.
Please, take your meds, sit down and shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: None of this will matter to the victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have hope those who are appointed aren't necessarily siding with a specific agenda.
I believe this is going to be true more than ever now that Trump is president.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, after thinking about it, Reagan almost got us nuked too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sorry Mike...
Sorry your candidate lost Mike.
My candidate wasn't even running. This isn't about "my candidate." This is about reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sorry Mike...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike...
Here
https://www.techdirt.com/art icles/20160906/07312135444/fbi-publishes-clinton-email-investigation-documents-more-bad-news-documen ts-mishandling-foia-compliance.shtml
and here.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160920/17320635580/hillary-clinton-to-silicon-valley-nerd-h arder-nerds.shtml
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20161014/23031835799/hillary-clintons-staff-recog nize-she-doesnt-understand-encryption-is-supporting-impossible.shtml
And here are to from Mike Masonic himself.
You have to deny reality to believe that Mike saw Hillary as anything better then possibly the very slightly lesser of two VERY big evils.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike...
The Hillary bias was clear to all lately.
I'm legitimately curious: can you point to a single example of "the Hillary bias" because it didn't exist. I've been pretty consistent all along that she was a horrible candidate on basically every issue we care about.
I don't know why some people can't get it through their heads that just because Trump looks like a disaster, that doesn't mean I didn't also think Clinton was a disaster.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry Mike...
Look mate, when the music starts up, just bend down and pretend to tie your shoelaces. Nobody will notice the difference. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hopefully Trump will bring in some good advisors and things will start to develop.
In that case, and I can't believe I'm saying this, I think the best case scenario is that he doesn't have a 'tech policy' because he's completely ignorant on the subject, with no prior knowledge or positions.
Because if he doesn't know anything then a good adviser on the subject might be able to steer him in a good direction, but if he does already have thoughts and positions, and they happen to be bad ones, then I doubt any number of advisers will help, given he doesn't strike me as the sort of person that would take being told he's wrong on anything well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm still watching people argue about what needs to be done, let alone when to do it. Yeah, there's been a date proposed but that and everything else is still in question. The country's economy still managed to lose a huge amount in the meantime, though, not to mention other negative effects both nationally and personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Weird, I only hear that from self-proclaimed conservatives attacking them, never from people on "the left". I usually right before someone has to point out the amount of cognitive dissonance involved in people claiming to be for "small government", just before demanding that the government control reproductive rights, marriage rights, greater military and immigration controls, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Quick google search reveled that it's more of an idea than an accusation. The physical size of the government is one issue, and the amount of power the government holds is another. According to my google search, the majority of Democrats want the government to have more power vrs the Republicans want it to have less.
The below link was my favorite example. It seems to be the least biased in it's explanation.
http://classroom.synonym.com/republicans-vs-democrats-views-government-size-7737.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Depends on the question in my experience, which was kind of my point. Focus the question the military, for example, and you'll usually find those answers flip. It all depends on what you think "government" is.
The fact that the linked article seems to focus on controls on businesses and welfare does lead into my point. Many Republicans who claim to be for "small" government when it's about those subjects will suddenly demand it be increased when it's about a target they dislike or a hot button issue like terrorism or abortion. That's even before they start complaining about the federal government over a local/state issue or vice versa.
The problem isn't merely that there's no set definition of "big government", but people are confused about what "government" means to begin with. But, I can tell you that "small government" does not mean adding extra restrictions to what clinics can do or adding extra toys to the police and military, although people claim to be for such a thing often support those.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't mean there isn't exceptions or situations where it's not true, and I'm not going to argue it with you because I don't care enough too. But most people see "big government" as how much power the government has, not it's physical size.. as in the size of the military.
As a whole, according to my quick research, the Democrats generally want the government to have more power, than the Republicans do. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out what i read.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is usually where I'd ask for a reliable citation, but since you're only searching around yourself I'd just ask you to consider your sources. I've hung around for years reading the claims made by both sides, and this is the sort of stuff that's usually lodged between claims that gay marriage means the end of heterosexual marriage and that Obama's going to take all your guns tomorrow.
"But most people see "big government" as how much power the government has, not it's physical size.. as in the size of the military."
They don't understand that a lot of that power comes from the strength of its military? Especially now that its toys are tending to filter down to civilian police forces? Weird. I'd have thought that people concerned with big government would care about the military, whether in terms of size, power or financial cost.
"I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just pointing out what i read."
That's fine. Just take steps to make sure you're not accidentally reading from the fiction section of the library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
They just focus on different things.
Broadly speaking:
Democrats go for social and environmental programs
Republicans go for military, defense, and moral policing.
Neither really cut government, especially if there district benefits from a department or program
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's a general observation and it could be discussed at length, and this isn't really the forum for it. But, I do find that the people who scream about "small government" are actually for no such thing and are happy with growing it as long it doesn't directly affect them personally.
But, therein lies the problem with the partisan nature of US politics, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I prefer human rights for the person forced to go through a strenuous, sometimes fatal, medical condition against their will, especially when their doctor also advises against it, but I don't see how allowing it to happen increases the size of the government. Introducing new laws to restrict assistance for such people and intervene before a procedure is carried out certainly does, however.
"The military is one of the duties of government"
It is indeed. But, why do right-wingers feel it always need to grow exponentially even after it's outshadowed all other militaries?
"Immigration control is again, part of the normal governmental duties and is not a control on citizens"
...unless you're on the wrong side of those policies, in which case it's very much that.
"So your points really have little merit when considering big government vs. little government."
So, you think that growing those things doesn't grow the size of the government? How does this miracle happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can anyone be on the wrong side of immigration policies? Do you really think you should be allowed to cross the border of another nation and demand citizenship? In what world is that allowed? Immigration is a privilege and not a right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am partial to Mike here, Educate the person/persons on the procedure, the risks, etc. IF she still wants to go through with it, then it is up to the govt to provide a safe (as can be) and clean environment to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, at what point is taking a human life not acceptable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1) at what point does a fetus become a human. I would say at birth. However, what is currently on the books (at least in the US) generally is 2nd or 3rd trimester (unless either the mother or the fetus is in imminent danger).
2) At what point is taking a human life unacceptable, this is a lot more complicated as it is dictated by circumstances present at the time, there are laws and court rulings and military reviews detailing as to the legality of taking a human life. But to humor you, I will go with my previous statement as to the 20-24 week. That seems to be the best balance between the two viewpoints.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So what is the magic point that the tumor becomes a human life? I'll give you a hint, it was never a tumor. It is scary to think that people actually believe this.
At what point do those who support banning abortion cease to care about it being a human life? And I'll give you a hint - it's right after it pops out of the mother.
Because typically those same people who are concerned about the fetus also do not support contraception (you know, those things that can prevent the whole situation in the first place?) or health care for the "human life" that they were so concerned about from conception to 9 months.
If you really cared about it being a human life, you'd care beyond the point where the mother isn't carrying it. Until/unless you're willing to support that, your "concern" doesn't appear to be very genuine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not magic, it's biology. But, it sure isn't at conception. Lucky too, as that would complicate things a hell of a lot for everybody if it did.
"Also, at what point is taking a human life not acceptable?"
At birth, generally. There's rare cases where a life is viable outside the womb but it ended before it can be born, which are also unacceptable. But, despite propaganda to the contrary, those are quite rare.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The viability of a fetus on its own is constantly changing as new technology gets better at keeping early births alive, but lets say 20-24 weeks and anything before that is not independently viable. Add in some extra safety margin to assure that specific situation doesn't result in an independently viable fetus being aborted et voila. We have the current legislation.
I quite like the safety applied in using 3 months as the overall cutoff. Then you can quibble about specific circumstances that should provide exemptions in either direction, but overall the legislation is providing a good objective measure for balancing the right of the fetus versus the mother. Having it at conception is completely unenforceable and a purely theoretic construct (usually a woman won't even find out before about month after...). Also, what justification is there for murdering a mother when the fetus isn't viable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So what is the magic point that the tumor becomes a human life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's the fucking problem, anti-abortioners aren't speaking about biology, they're speaking about a SOUL. There is no common ground, and both sides are CORRECT in their logic. They just start with different assumptions.
The only good solution is Roman style gladiatorial combat. If you want an abortion, you must first slice the guts out of this rabid anti-abortioner trying to kill you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: they're speaking about a SOUL.
Hint: identical twins come from a single embryo.
Also look up chimeras, who are individuals created from multiple fused embryos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
To a point, yes. Until the fetus is viable, it cannot live on its own outside the womb, so the owner of that womb is of more importance. People who don't see women as brood mares understand this clearly.
"Also, it is a complete bogeyman to say it is sometimes fatal or due to rape or incest"
Yes, the truth often hurts bullshit arguments. Better to ignore reality so you can pretend these things don't matter. You cause a lot of mothers - and children - to suffer needlessly because of this, but who cares about them, right? Better a newborn die in pain due to a known birth defect or a mother bear the child of her rapist than a needed abortion be carried out.
"There is no more imposition of will on another than to take the other's life"
So, that includes forcing women to give birth even though it will kill them, correct?
"How can anyone be on the wrong side of immigration policies?"
That you have to ask that illustrates how you don't know what the issue being discussed is actually about. There's at least 3 or 4 other parts of the equation (migration caused by the war on drugs, employers who are not punished for knowingly employing illegals instead of Americans, people staying illegally by overstaying visas not fleeing from mexico, wage stagnation making it so that only illegals are willing to work for the available wages, etc). But you're only worried about brown people jumping fences...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The size of military is big government in its most basic economic meaning.
Imigration control has been a pain for every president since the slavery. The logic of big government there, would require some specification of what is wanted. The resources needed to build a wall or enforce a no bullshit control would be excruciatingly expensive and require millions of public workers thus hitting the third definition of big government...
I don't see the consistency between social conservatives and libertarians, mainly because they are almost complete opposite ideals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This makes sense because it's then much easier for Trump to grab your pussy with his small hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But there is one agreement...
This morning, the leadership of the Republican Party woke up, reviewed the results of the Presidential, Senate, and House elections and said "How did that happen? What do we do now?".
For the first time ever, the leadership of both parties are in 100% agreement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
11: Global Warming Solved
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now Republicans (those who notionally opposed Trump) and Democrats have a chance to put their money where their mouth is and come together on issues like rising presidential power and actually putting forth enough votes to block vetos and get legislation passed. It may not happen and Trump may turn out to be the Republican golden child, or it may not happen just because even in a situation like this they feel it still isn't worth working together, but at least with Trump it's a possibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
There are a few details that most wanna-be and would-be supporters of "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y" should be made aware of! And!... the question to be asked, is:... DID MOST AMERICANS ACTUALLY DESIRE A HILLARY... OR A DONALD... ON E-I-T-H-E-R S-I-D-E OF THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM?
.
If I may!... I would like us to reflect on what's really happened here!... and, on what really counts! Was this "democratic vote" more "P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C", than not?... and!... did the "T-R-U-E M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y" of the people of America find their "wills" reflected in this "democratic election"?... or!... were their "wills", in fact-- and in many cases!-- N-O-W-H-E-R-E T-O B-E F-O-U-N-D?
.
How is it "DEMOCRATIC"-- e.g.!-- when the Brexit Referendum "win" of Thursday, June 23rd, 2016, was "won" W-I-T-H-O-U-T the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS' VOTES?... AND!... NOT JUST, by way of a majority of those who've decided to cast a vote! In other words, how can L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M of 50+% of the T-O-T-A-L N-U-M-B-E-R of eligible British voters' votes, constitute a "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y"? It is-- de facto!-- I-M-P-O-S-S-I-B-L-E (i.e., without God!)! And thus, the Brexit vote is a further example of a "P-S-E-U-D-O-D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-S-E-U-D-O-P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y" "winning the day"!
.
To compare the Brexit Referendum to an election of a candidate within a Electoral District... if fifty thousand eligible voters decide not to vote in a District that is composed/ comprised of one hundred thousand eligible voters... and five candidates are running!... the math would suggest, that no candidate could possibly obtain a "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y" from the remaining fifty thousand eligible voters who have cast a vote! Unless!... and of course!... A H-I-J-A-C-K-E-D, AND E-L-I-T-I-S-T P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L P-R-O-C-E-S-S SIMPLY MARGINALIZES THOSE WHO HAVE NOT SHOWN UP TO VOTE; AND THEN, DICTATES THAT THEIR "NO SHOW"/ ABSENCE, CANNOT-- AND SHOULD NOT!-- BE HELD "B-I-N-D-I-N-G" IN SOME FASHION, OR FORM (AND SOME "NO SHOWS" ARE AS SUCH, DUE TO DISABILITY, AND/ OR INFIRMITY!... NOT TO MENTION, THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SYSTEMICALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST, DUE TO THEIR Y-O-U-T-H!)! FOR!... OUT OF SIGHT, IS OUT OF MIND!
.
Simply put!... and to return to the Brexit Referendum!... the said total of 17,410,742. "winning" "pro Brexit" British voters, plus the said total of 16,141,242. "losing" "pro Bremain" eligible British voters, who-- together!-- showed up at the "Referendum ballot boxes (i.e., 33,551,984 eligible British voters!)", are in contrast to the ACTUAL TOTAL of 46,499,537 eligible British voters (see Google result, Electoral Commission | Provisional electorate figures published!... AND, LET ALONE, THE EVEN HIGHER ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS' VOTES TO BE HAD, IF MANY OF THE DISABLED/ INFIRMED BRITISH CITIZENS WERE "ACCOMMODATED"!... AND!... IF MANY BRITISH YOUTH WEREN'T THE TARGETS OF "P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L P-A-T-E-R-N-A-L-I-S-T-I-C A-G-E-I-S-M"!)!... and reveals a deficit of 12,947,553. of the ACTUAL TOTAL NUMBER of eligible British voters, and a deficit of 5,839,027. eligible British voters, for even a "B-A-R-E M-I-N-I-M-U-M M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N (i.e., 46,499,537. ÷ 2 = 23,249,768.5... + .5 = [23,249,769.] - 17,410,742. = 5,839,027.!)"! AND THEREFORE, THE COMBINED "WINNERS" AND "LOSERS" TALLY OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS, S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E A-C-T-U-A-L T-O-T-A-L- N-U-M-B-E-R O-F E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E B-R-I-T-I-S-H V-O-T-E-R-S/ V-O-T-E-S!... AND!... THE "WINNING TALLY", S-H-O-U-L-D N-O-T B-E M-A-D-E S-Y-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S W-I-T-H T-H-E "M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-L-L" O-F T-H-E E-L-I-G-I-B-L-E V-O-T-E-R-S O-F B-R-I-T-A-I-N! AND!... THEREFORE!... THE "WINNING TALLY" OF ELIGIBLE BRITISH VOTERS-- AT LEAST!-- SHOULD BE MET WITH A C-O-N-S-T-I-T-U-T-I-O-N-A-L C-H-A-L-L-E-N-G-E (TO START!) FOR THE FLAGRANT BREACH OF THE "L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E-S" O-F D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y (I.E., AND E.G., IN THE F-A-I-L-U-R-E OF THE BREXIT REFERENDUM RESULT TOTAL, TO ACHIEVE EVEN A BARE MINIMUM MAJORITY TALLY, FOR A 'M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y W-I-N'!)"!
.
And so!... the Brexit "win"... like the "wins" seen so often in our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS!... I-S A S-H-A-M!! And!... it escapes me, why citizens from respective "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-I-E-S" from around the world, haven't challenged these scurrilous, and shameful "F-A-U-X P-U-B-L-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-A"!... AND PSEUDOELECTIONS!... AND!... haven't brought civil proceedings against any and all institutions, which have allowed these G-L-O-B-A-L F-A-R-C-E-S to continue! And thus... re the Brexit Referendum result!... it's my contention, that the Brexit Referendum is D-E-F-E-A-T-A-B-L-E, due to it's inherent S-Y-S-T-E-M-I-C V-I-O-L-A-T-I-O-N of the "L-E-G-I-T-I-M-A-T-E P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E-S" OF DEMOCRACY!
.
This horrendous situation involving our PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PSEUDOELECTIONS, has resulted in "winning candidates" winning with as little as 1/5th of the total number of eligible voters' votes!... AND!... THEN DARING, TO CALL SUCH RESPECTIVE "WINS", D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C! A-N-D W-O-R-S-E!... and in the case of the Brexit Referendum result (AND "PSEUDOWIN"!)!... such a "W-I-N" could-- POTENTIALLY!-- compromise the security of an E-N-T-I-R-E N-A-T-I-O-N! And so!... it's no wonder why so many citizens within our respective "democracies (so-called!)" hate the elections process!... and hate, Public Referenda!
.
And!... to add Elections insult to Elections injury, there are "Parties" within countries... and again, composed of "winning candidates" who have "won" with L-E-S-S than the E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L M-I-N-I-M-U-M needed for a D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y!... whose leadership (e.g., in Canada!), cannot be chosen, D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y, by the PEOPLE!... and O-N-L-Y, by the Party! And further, rather than have the brightest!... the best!... "winning candidates" from all across a country-- and, from across a legislature's floor!-- forming Executive Cabinets (and in Canada!... for example!... composed of Ministers of Federal Departments, or Provincial Ministries!)!... A-N-D T-H-R-O-U-G-H A N-O-N P-A-R-T-Y_B-A-S-E-D L-E-G-I-S-L-A-T-U-R-E O-R P-A-R-L-I-A-M-E-N-T (and something, incidentally, that municipalities have been doing for generations!... A-N-D W-O-R-L-D-W-I-D-E)!... our current "PARTY-BASED DEMOCRACIES" have chosen, instead-- A-N-D V-I-R-T-U-A-L-L-Y!-- GANGS, CLIQUES, AND "P-S-E-U-D-O-S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-T-E-R-E-S-T-S", TO ACT AS "GO-BETWEENS" FOR PARTY-BASED "OLIGARCHIC BACKROOM BOYZ"!
.
But!... if all of this wasn't bad enough, there's no "NONE OF THE ABOVE" option on millions of voters' ballots (AND "B-I-N-D-I-N-G"!... AS A PREREQUISITE!)!... nor, an "AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION" of the "NO SHOWS (i.e., eligible voters who have NOT cast a vote!)" to "B-I-N-D-I-N-G" "NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS (inasmuch, as such 'NO SHOWS', can't be translated as being 'F-O-R', any candidate!)"! (BUT!... PLEASE NOTE!... IF OUR "NO SHOWS" AS SUCH, ARE DUE TO OUR P-O-L-I-T-I-C-A-L A-N-D S-O-C-I-A-L I-N-A-B-I-L-I-T-Y-- O-R, U-N-W-I-L-L-I-N-G-N-E-S-S!-- TO ADDRESS THE VOTER NEEDS OF OUR DISABLED/ INFIRMED!... AND, OUR YOUTH!... THEN SUCH "INABLED", OR "UNWILLING", SHOULD BE "H-E-L-P-E-D" RE THEIR "INABILTY"!... OR H-E-L-D T-O A-C-C-O-U-N-T FOR THEIR "UNWILLINGNESS"!) And, had the "NONE OF THE ABOVE" and the "TRANSLATED NO SHOW" provisions been addressed, many "NO SHOWS" would have shown up to vote (for fear of receiving a MANADATED "BINDING" "AUTOMATIC TRANSLATION"!)! And!... if combined "NO SHOW TRANSLATIONS", together with directly cast "NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS", were implemented (wherein-- TOGETHER!-- these OUTNUMBER the votes cast for any respective "running candidate"!), this combined tally could have meant the introduction of "lottery lists" of candidates within respective Districts (preselected!... and the members in which, would not be eligible to run as "running candidates"!)!... from which, our "winners" could have then been chosen! And thereby!... EFFECTING F-U-L-L R-E-P-R-E-S-E-N-T-A-T-I-O-N FOR EVERY SINGLE ELIGIBLE VOTER, AND VOTE!
.
And!... to juxtapose the just aforesaid template onto Referenda!... and onto the Brexit Referendum, in particular!... if the directly cast "NONE OF THE ABOVE BALLOTS", combined with the "TRANSLATED NO SHOWS", OUTWEIGHED the votes cast for either the Brexit or Bremain scenarios, then NEITHER Brexit, nor Bremain, would be left on the table! And the MPs of the British Parliament, would then be forced to renew their respective individual approaches, and collective approach, re their "arrangement" with the EU!... and, their respective dialogues, and collective dialogue, with the citizens of Britain!
.
And given... and in contrast to the abovenoted!... in the light of the process that was implementated for the Brexit Referendum (yet to be revealed!)!... WELL!... you have the makings of a P-O-O-R E-X-C-U-S-E F-O-R A D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C R-E-F-E-R-E-N-D-U-M!... A-N-D A P-O-O-R "R-A-T-I-O-N-A-L B-A-S-I-S" F-O-R T-H-E R-E-D-I-R-E-C-T-I-O-N O-F T-H-E F-U-T-U-R-E C-O-U-R-S-E F-O-R A-N E-N-T-I-R-E C-O-U-N-T-R-Y!!
.
To sum up, what we have, presently, are PSEUDODEMOCRATIC PLURALITIES IN THE GUISE OF "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C-A-L-L-Y E-L-E-C-T-E-D" REPRESENTATIVES! An intolerable situation!... and deserving of both Constitutional challenges, and Tort action! And!... A-N-Y O-T-H-E-R ACCEPTED PLURALITY OTHER THAN A "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C P-L-U-R-A-L-I-T-Y" ACCEPTED BY A PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATE, AND/ OR BY A PROSPECTIVE VOTER (AND BASED UPON THE "LEGITIMATE PRINCIPLES" OF DEMOCRACY, AS AFOREMENTIONED!... AND OTHER, THAN ONE INSTITUTED BY GOD!)!-- IS A CANDIDATE, OR VOTER, WHO IS EITHER BLIND TO THE "LEGITIMATE PRINCIPLES" OF DEMOCRACY, OR WHO IS A TRAITOR TO THE "LEGITIMATE PRINCIPLES" OF DEMOCRACY! AND!... WHO IS EITHER BLIND, OR A TRAITOR, TO THE COMMON GOOD OF THE PEOPLE!
.
THEREFORE, THE "J-U-S-T ESTABLISHMENT" OF "T-R-U-E DEMOCRATIC PLURALITIES" WITHIN OUR RESPECTIVE REFERENDA, AND ELECTIONS PROCESSES, IS F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L TO THE VERY REALIZATION OF "D-E-M-O-C-R-A-C-Y"!... AND!... WITHOUT WHICH, WE ARE SUBJECT TO MERE OLIGARCHIC WHIM!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
T-O-M-U-C-H-Y-E-L-L-I-N-G-!-!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
ATTENTION!:... LARGE LETTERING IN A "PASSIVE TEXTUAL COMMENT" D-O-E-S N-O-T TRANSLATE TO "SCREAMING"! THAT CONCLUSION WOULD BE THE "D-E-L-U-S-I-O-N-A-L SIDE EFFECT/ SEQUELA/ EPIPHENOMENON" OF PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION, EXCESSIVE ALCOHOL USE, PSYCHOTROPIC DRUGS, BRAIN TRAUMA, OR SOME GENETIC-BASED COGNITIVE PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC MALFORMATION (POST-CONCEPTION!)! OR!... IT SIMPLY COULD BE ONE TOO MANY ALLIES ROLLING AROUND IN A TIN CAN, IN WHAT MAY BE P-A-S-S-I-N-G (OR, A-T-T-E-M-P-T-I-N-G T-O P-A-S-S!) FOR A F-U-N-C-T-I-O-N-I-N-G B-R-A-I-N!!
.
LARGE LETTERING, IS USED TO E-M-B-O-L-D-E-N T-H-E E-M-P-H-A-S-I-S OF REGULAR/ NORMAL SIZED TEXT (IN A FASHION, SIMILAR TO QUOTATION MARKS!)!... AND!... HAS N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH "S-O-U-N-D"! HYPHENS!... WHETHER USED BETWEEN REGULAR/ NORMAL SIZED TEXT IN AN EXPRESSION, OR BETWEEN EMBOLDENED/ LARGER SIZED TEXT IN AN EXPRESSION, ARE USED TO EFFECT AN A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N OF A GIVEN "T-E-X-T-U-A-L E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N"!... AND!... TO DELIBERATELY "R-E-L-A-X"/ S-L-O-W D-O-W-N THE READING OF AN EXPRESSION, IN ORDER TO BRING "H-E-I-G-H-T-E-N-E-D A-T-T-E-N-T-I-O-N" TO PARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS THAT ARE DEEMED I-N-T-E-G-R-A-L TO A MESSAGE/ CONCEPT BEING COMMUNICATED! AND AGAIN!... THE USE OF HYPHENS H-A-V-E N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH "S-O-U-N-D"!
.
ELLIPSES!... ARE USED TO EFFECT A DELIBERATE BREAK IN WHAT WOULD-- OTHERWISE-- BE A "QUICKENED" CONTIGUOUS SENTENCE!... USING "CONVENTIONAL" SENTENCE STRUCTURE, AND PUNCTUATION! THEY ARE USED TO ARTICULATE A SENTENCE, IN THE SAME MANNER A HYPHEN MIGHT BE USED TO A-R-T-I-C-U-L-A-T-E A WORD!... AND TO "R-E-L-A-X"/ S-L-O-W D-O-W-N THE MESSAGE BEING COMMUNICATED, IN WHAT WOULD-- OTHERWISE-- BE A MORE "HURRIED" CONVENTIONAL SENTENCE STRUCTURE! AND!... IS COMPARABLE-- I'LL SUGGEST!-- TO S-A-V-O-U-R-I-N-G AN AFFORDABLE FINE WINE!... AS APPOSED, TO "GULPING IT DOWN" LIKE SOME ANIMAL IN A BARNYARD!
.
LASTLY!... EXCLAMATION POINTS-- FOR ME!-- ARE PREFERRED OVER PERIODS, AS I DESIRE "L-U-C-I-D A-T-T-E-N-T-A-T-I-V-E-N-E-S-S" TO THE IDEAS/ NOTIONS/ CONCEPTS BEING COMMUNICATED! AND ONCE AGAIN!... THEIR USE HAS N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH "S-O-U-N-D"!... N-O-T-H-I-N-G T-O D-O WITH "M-A-N-I-C S-Y-N-T-A-X"!... OR "M-A-N-I-C S-E-L-F E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N"!
.
I DON'T DELIBERATELY CHOOSE TO EXPRESS MYSELF USING "HYPERVERBOSITY"!... OR EVEN VERBOSITY! MY WORDS... AT TIMES!... MAY BE MANY!... BUT, THESE ARE CHOSEN CAREFULLY!... AND ARE MEANT TO EXPRESS-- EFFICIENTLY, AND EFFECTIVELY!-- WHAT IS E-S-S-E-N-T-I-A-L FOR T-H-O-U-G-H-T-F-U-L R-E-A-D-E-R-S TO ENTERTAIN/ RECEIVE! AND, UNLIKE "T-R-U-M-P-I-A-N T-H-I-N-K-E-R-S", I DON'T JUDGE A BOOK BY THE SIZE OF ITS "C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R-S"!... NOR, A WOMAN BY THE PRESUMED "EASE OF HER GENITAL ACCESS"! AND SO!... IF MY WORDS APPEAR TO BE "I-N-A-C-C-E-S-S-I-B-L-E" TO YOU... TOO BAD! I'M NOT "PUTTING OUT"!... JUST SO Y-O-U CAN "GET OFF"!
.
YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO "P-L-A-Y" WITH YOU OWN DUMB*SS "E-X-P-R-E-S-S-I-O-N-S"!... AND SYNTAX!... IN ORDER TO DO THAT!
.
Please!... no emails!
.
P.S.: You didn't put a space between T-O and M-U-C-H, and Y-E-L-L-I-N-G! And!... it's "T-O-O"!... not "T-O"!
.
In other words, you're not someone who pays attention to life's details!... let alone, to MY comments, specifically! That is to say... Y-O-U-'-R-E W-I-L-L-F-U-L-L-Y S-T-U-P-I-D O-F R-E-A-L-I-T-Y!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Please!... no emails!
Something tells me that no one's going to email you. I suspect you can leave this off your next episode without any consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Nobody's going to, because NOBODY CAN!
C-H-E-C-K Y-O-U-R I-N-B-O-X F-U-C-K-F-A-C-E
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID! BELLY BUTTON LOGIC WORKS. WHEN DO TEENAGERS DIE? BIBLE A LIE & WORD A LIE. NAVEL CONNECTS 4 CORNER 4s.
BELLY BUTTON IS THE SIGNATURE OF YOUR CREATOR! I BELIEVE HER NAME MAMA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Please!... no emails!
Do you mean, "please, no emails" as in "kindly refrain from sending me an email"
-or-
"please. no emails" as in "Please (responding to an unrelated question). I don't currently have any emails." (two separate thoughts)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Hillary still lost with having the popular vote as of this post. Sadly it will not change the minds of the ignorant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
Unless someone acts to expose the INJUSTICE of the current ELECTIONS PROCESS, citizens are P-I-S-S-I-N-G I-N T-H-E W-I-N-D, when comes to redressing the reality of their "DEMOCRACY (so-called!)"!
.
And lastly... and in addition to challenging the results of this recent Federal Election!... there is a need to pay close attention to Trump's SET court for December, re allegations of CHILD ABUSE!
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
Can I get you a tissue Brah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY
.
Please!... no emails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nuclear weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuclear weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nuclear weapons
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The elites are shocked, shocked that 50% of the voters are below average
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The elites are shocked, shocked that 50% of the voters are below average
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The elites are shocked, shocked that 50% of the voters are below average
Duh! No matter how much education you give a population, 50% will still be below average. That's the definition of average (or at least median).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The elites are shocked, shocked that 50% of the voters are below average
When it comes to education, an actual bar is established. Because of this, more or less than 50% can fall under it or rise above it.
For example, the average American citizens that knows how government actually works or even what kind we have... well well fucking below it.
The average American citizen with a terrible diet and hubris? Well above it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: The elites are shocked, shocked that 50% of the voters are below average
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Better to stick with Hope instead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When he has to cooperate with the senate and house, he will need to be more accomodating and cooperative.
What worries me is his lack of ability to accept that he may be wrong and his advisors. Those things could really set USA back to the stoneage...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DICKONALD , You deserve everything you get .
Sanders was the way forward you FUCKTARDS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advisers?
I've already heard the name "Newt Gingrich" as Secretary of State mentioned.
No matter what, this is not an improvement in our society.
You know the saying "Be careful of what you wish for-you might get it" now applies to those who voted for him.
At least half the country won't be feeling too badly about supporting an educated person to the office.
Because by all accounts, we have a ultimately "No-nothing, ask nothing" President now.
Science and technology issues will be on the low end of the scale, except when it comes to dismantling any gains we might make in those fields.
There goes the funding to all the science and tech places we know...and education in general.
We're reaping what we've sowed. Dumbasses now run this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Advisers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinton in my view would have continued the slow boiling the frog in the pot routine. I much prefer the cook who puts a frog into an already boiling pot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: BINGO!
I'm expecting Trump to crash the good ship USA into the rocks within two years, after which he'll drag his lame duck rear end through the next two years due to partisan obstruction and GOP infighting followed by social unrest. It'll get worse before it gets better but by God it needed to happen. Hopefully the system will reset and everything will then get better.
Memo: think for yourselves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RCEP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're going to see a new era in government transparency with Trump making it mandatory to film every action of govmt employees like its a reality TV show !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]