Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @01:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can-never-have-too-many-offsite-backups-eh dept.

The Internet Archive plans to create a backup of its data in Canada in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States:

The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that saves copies of old web pages, is creating a backup of its database in Canada, in response to the election of Donald Trump. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," the organization wrote in a blogpost explaining the move. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change."

[...] The move will cost millions, according to the Internet Archive, which is soliciting donations. In their post, the Internet Archive justified its decision to backup its data in Canada, claiming that Trump could threaten an open internet. "For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @02:19PM

    by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @02:19PM (#434908)

    I'm no fan of Trump. But it's silly to think he's going to come after the Internet Archive...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @02:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @02:34PM (#434912)

    Yeah, this is effectively saying the Archive has lost my financial support since it is now apparently run by idiots.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday November 30 2016, @02:55PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @02:55PM (#434915) Journal

      Backing up a huge archive is a good move even if there was no political motivation attached, and I'll be continuing to donate to Internet Archive.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:19AM

        by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:19AM (#435278) Homepage Journal

        Yet the best they could do was find Canada. One would think they would at least Europe if they actually had disaster mitigation in mind.

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:32AM

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:32AM (#435285) Journal

          What's gonna happen to the U.S. and Canada simultaneously? A Yellowstone megaeruption?

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:09AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:09AM (#435298)

            Anschluß.

          • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:10AM

            by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:10AM (#435317) Homepage Journal

            You do know there are at least 6 continents and internet is not a north American thing? Choosing Canada looks like navel gazing from the world outside of North America.

            • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:21AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:21AM (#435365)

              You do know there are at least 6 continents

              I think the number of continents on earth is a settled question.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:09AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:09AM (#435384)

              Agreed, Mexico is connected to the Internet too.

            • (Score: 1) by mrpg on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:23AM

              by mrpg (5708) Subscriber Badge <reversethis-{gro ... yos} {ta} {gprm}> on Saturday December 03 2016, @12:23AM (#436335) Homepage

              Maybe it's because it's easier to travel from San Francisco to Canada than to Ireland :-(

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:42PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:42PM (#435081) Journal
      If they had done it right after the election, they could have picked up even more donations. It's easy pickings, if you can spin the right tale of woe or vindication.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:23PM

        by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:23PM (#435124)

        AGAIN, you feel the need to speak out of your fucking ass.

        The child emperor just made his ridiculous assertion (as a soon to be President, not average Joe Fuckwad) that he should be able to strip citizenship (which is absolutely impossible) over a Constitutionally protected act of protest burning a U.S flag.

        His entire campaign was long string of Twitter'd butthurt about how he can't make the bad people in the media stop reporting truth about him. Basically, anything the child emperor does not like is illegal, and anything illegal cannot be illegal when the child emperor does it. He should be able to fire the lawyerpult at any time and just "make" those people stop talking through force, by whatever legal means, that he says he will *create* for himself since they don't exist to his satisfaction. Which by the way, is the only thing that truly means anything to him; His satisfaction above all others.

        We don't make this fucking shit up. Considering how irrational and unhinged this man is, and how many other irrational, unhinged, and hateful people he is putting into government (Destroying Social Security, Medicare, and bringing back CHILD LABOR), we HAVE HUGE REASONS TO BE CONCERNED.

        Not to long ago an idiot FBI agent shut down an entire fucking data center along with hundreds of other unrelated businesses, because the "Genus" concluded they must be "in on it" simply due to proximity. Just what the fuck do you think Trump could do with his cronies and an executive order? We may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean Trump isn't the enemy of all that is good and free WITH HIS STATEMENTS.

        The Internet Archive isn't overreacting at all. There has been a tremendous investment in it, and it makes no sense to to let it be subjected to the Trump administration without a backup plan. Trump HATES any articles and information that doesn't directly influence his profits upwards, or that he doesn't like for whatever reason. It's not unreasonable to say that the Internet Archive might be a target if it contains anything about Trump that he doesn't like. If they want to refuse on principles any requests to delete and/or modify information, it makes sense to distance themselves from an extremely toxic and anti-freedom Trump administration soon to darken our country. They're not even leaving the U.S, but just putting up a backup in Canada. So hardly overreacting, under any circumstances.

        I too am looking for data center space in Canada or Mexico. Anybody operating a business that stores customer data might be looking to do the same thing, especially when the business model is considered de facto terrorism like zero knowledge services. Anything controversial should just leave the country NOW before they are truly subjected to his corrupt will. I want to be able to tell my clients that their encrypted backups cannot be lost due to Trump, and the worst case scenario is a trip to Canada to retrieve their business data safely.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by khallow on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:30PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:30PM (#435168) Journal
          Get a grip, chicken little. I'll note in as support for my argument that Jill Stein has managed to raise about twice as much over a two week period for a recount effort than she raised for her entire presidential campaign.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:40PM

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:40PM (#435173)

            Get a grip? You're mentioning Jill Stein's fundraising efforts for a recount in a response about the Internet Archive and censorship. Segue-way much?

            What the fuck are you smoking, or did you respond to the right post? Jill Stein has nothing to fucking do with the stark reality of a freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc. being under attack by the child emperor you helped grant power towards.

            Again, this about your outlandish statements of an overreaction and that things need to "sold" or "spun". It's none of those things, but a reasonable reaction to the toxic environment created for freedom and our principles. Although, I may have misspoke with "ours", since I don't think you find much value in the tenets of our freedom.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by khallow on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:47PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:47PM (#435178) Journal
              I explained myself. So unless you have something to contribute, then fuck off.
              • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:13PM

                by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:13PM (#435186)

                You didn't explain shit, you stupid fuck.

                I made the assertion that it isn't an overreaction simply based upon the statements of Trump, and the views of the people he is giving power towards.

                YOU came back with Jill Stein and the recount effort. So how about you contribute, beyond killing yourself for posterity's sake, and explain how that has fuck all to do with the Internet Archive and the ongoing attacks upon Free Speech by the child emperor?

                Like I said, Segue-way. So what the fuck are you smoking?

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:17AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:17AM (#435253)

                  Today we learn that people born after 1980, less than one third think it is essential to live in a democracy. [pri.org] Shit is going sideways. Trump isn't the cause, he's a symptom that hastens the infection to stage 3.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:48AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @07:48AM (#435329)

                    When they see a 'democracy' is no better than all the other corrupt regimes, who is surprised by this?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:42PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:42PM (#435198)

          the worst case scenario is a trip to Canada

          The worst case scenario is there won't be a Canada.

          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday December 01 2016, @01:08AM

            by edIII (791) on Thursday December 01 2016, @01:08AM (#435229)

            No, then the worst case scenario then is the Global Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve is no more leading to the suicides of pancake and waffle lovers the world over.

            Let's not joke about losing Canada, eh?

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
      • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:37PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:37PM (#435131) Journal

        This is still basically right after the election. If they had announced it on Nov. 9th, it would have drowned out by other news.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:48PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:48PM (#435179) Journal
          I didn't think about that. Good point.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:00PM

    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:00PM (#434918) Journal

    The general fact that he's made multiple public comments suggesting using the powers of his office(including ones that don't exist like federal libel laws) to target free speech and free press?

    I get not wanting to overreact, but taking someone at their word and being ready for them to do exactly what they say they're going to isn't overreacting.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:04PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:04PM (#434921)

      Luckily we didn't elect a dictator.

      Especially given Obama's record on a free press; maybe the left will finally realize the virtue of limited government.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:10PM

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:10PM (#434923) Journal

        The "left" tried to elect Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton was picked instead, for various reasons.

        The "left" control nothing. There will be no limited government, not during the Don's reign, and not after a Democrat takes office.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:29PM (#434932)

          Oh boy here we go...

          I appreciate in trying to draw strict definitions, especially when distinguishing from specifics at an individual level, but when speaking to generalities, I have to imagine you, much like me, didn't have a candidate that perfectly reflected your views, and had to make the best choice out of what was available (and even Original Owner would chastise you that Bernie was far from left you right-wing nutjob, so spare me the finer granulations of how far left is left enough. You sound like whiny AnCaps bitching that only they are true libertarians).

          And an overwhelming majority of you voted Hilary. Not Stein, not Johnson, but Hilary.

          And even stating that you supported Saunders means limited government wasn't at the forefront of your decision making process, and maybe, just maybe, since El Presidente is elected, you might consider the broad reach of government can be a bitch when your guy losses.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:51PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:51PM (#434946)

            I think you mean El Supremo.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:54PM

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:54PM (#434950) Journal

            Limited government was never on the menu.

            I voted for the lizard person because I didn't want to put up with being on double secret probation for 4 years while women whine and cry about Roe v. Wade, rape, sexual harassment, glass ceilings, asshole 13 year olds playing Cock of Duty being representative of all assigned males who play video games, you name it.

            I already voted for Johnson in 2012. I contributed to Johnson's campaign again this year for the hell of it. And we got so close to the magical 15% polling number set by the corprotocracy. It was over, however, when Johnson wasn't invited to the debates.

            Plus, really, let's be completely honest with ourselves. He would have been roflstomped by Trump and bamboozled by Clinton even if he had gotten into the debates. He's not good at thinking on his feet, and he's certainly not good at demagoguery. He wouldn't have gone negative on Clinton (also Sanders' mistake), and he would have looked weak next to Trump with military non-intervention and free trade positions.

            Turns out we got the guy who unlocked the “strong man top score” achievement. And women wanted him too! Turns out women love strongmen, especially when it gives them license to be complete assholes for the next 4 years!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:15PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:15PM (#434968)

              True, Johnson wasn't the strongest candidate.

              However, to state that ideologically some parties aren't in support of limited government is completely facile on its face.

              And the expansion of government from both of the major parties has come home to roost in the most improbable way possible.

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:57PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:57PM (#435056) Journal

              1: Which one is the lizard person?

              2: You are more worried about women complaining than actual anti-LGBT policies that will directly affect you?

              • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:55PM

                by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:55PM (#435089) Homepage Journal
                --
                mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
              • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:35PM

                by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:35PM (#435194) Journal

                1. Clinton is the lizard person. I'm hoping that's just metaphor, but you never know!

                2. Yes. Both Clinton and Trump were that horrendously bad (along with Stein and Johnson being exercises in futility) that the choice really did come down to that. Well, more I should say that the choice came down to my usual exercise in futility by throwing the lever for the L candidate vs. maybe insignificantly nudging the result towards unlocking the “female head of state” achievement. Clinton also carried a distinct risk of all-out nuclear war, but on the other hand I might have been able to buy cannabis legally in my own state for a month or two before the bombs fell.

                I don't think we're going to see too much in the way of anti-LGBT policies. I guess we'll see once the dust settles. If anything, gay marriage will devolve to states rights (which I guess is better than the federal government being in the marriage business).

                One specific example is that has the interesting effect of kicking the conflict between my state constitution's DOMA provisions vs. an eyebrow-raising decision by the Supreme Court down the road. I'm still waiting to see if conservatives are appeased this year or whether “merry Christmas” is something you yell at people in anger again this year. A conflict like that could turn the holiday greeting from an expression of hatred and rage to actual blows.

                Trump's already said he's not in favor of bathroom laws also. I don't think LGBT stuff was much of a concern with Trump vs. Clinton.

                Cannabis was probably about the only actual policy factor I could find that mattered to me. Nobody knows what Trump thinks, but Clinton would have at least continued Obama's policies to let the states “experiment” (experiment must be a modern way of saying federalism).

                Now, what really has me worried is a Republican congress. I'm also sort of worried with Trump that in addition to being “on punishment,” women might decide to fuck with my medical care once more. But if Trump and the Rs repeal Obamneycare and open up mail order from overseas pharmacies again, women can do whatever the fuck they want because I won't be at the mercy of some bullshit system any more. If we keep Obamneycare, I will probably will get fucked with again in retaliation when Roe v. Wade is overturned.

                • (Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:48PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:48PM (#435204) Journal

                  The vice-president-elect thinks you can be "fixed" with drugs. No problem there, I'm sure.

                  • (Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:39AM

                    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:39AM (#435270) Journal

                    Yeah granted that's disconcerting, but the worst he did in Indiana is make it so that wedding cake bakers can refuse certain people's money.

                    (Why they would do so is beyond me, like literally in the sense I don't get their connection to this Reichsführer Jesus in the sky. While I haven't found Mr. Right yet, so maybe I speak from naïveté, I can't imagine finding somebody to bake a wedding cake could possibly be anywhere near as difficult as finding a doctor. And there are plenty of rituals that don't involve cake that would be acceptable. Maybe the cake is a lie!)

                    I can think he's a vile person (ignorance can be easily cured, but people like him are not ignorant) without being too worried what he'd even be able to get away with. I'm expecting a lot of meh for the next four years. Discrimination laws just create angst to nod at AC.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:33AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:33AM (#435257)

                  Trump’s Justice Department could undermine hate crime protections for LGBT people and withdraw Obama’s directive to schools not to discriminate against transgender students. Trump could also rescind Obama’s executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT employees, or support legislation that allows employment discrimination.

                  https://theintercept.com/2016/11/28/trump-may-not-be-anti-gay-but-much-of-his-senior-staff-is/ [theintercept.com]

        • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:35AM

          by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:35AM (#435287) Homepage Journal

          The "left" lives in a perpetual no-true-scotsman fallacy while curtailing rights of majority in the name of minorities when in power.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:25AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:25AM (#435299)

            With President Trump, the White race may finally get a fair shake.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:14PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:14PM (#434926) Journal

        "See? Your desire to maintain basic human rights for all citizens should totally bring you in line with our policy of unregulated corporate economics!"

        Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians, your bullshit oversimplifications remains bullshit oversimplifications in spite of a good half of you contributing to electing an actual fascist.

        Now, I've never been a fan of using "State secrets" as a reason to punish or jail people not sworn to secrecy, and Obama's continuation of that practice is horrible, and I'll continue to support ACLU efforts to fight those decisions. And it's not like we had a candidate who was running on stopping that.

        But that's got nothing on

        During his campaign, Trump sparked fear among free speech advocates with threats to close up “certain areas” of the internet in an effort to prevent terrorists from communicating or recruiting online.

        “Somebody will [say] 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people," Trump said last December.

        in terms of being "Yep, we'll just shut down whatever we want and fuck our foundational principles along the way".

        Fuck you and false your false equivalences. Fuck every single idiot who ignored the incredibly fascist things this guy said and just rolled their eyes and went "He's not a Nazi, what about emails?"

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:47PM (#434941)

          Actually, a good portion of libertarians support the idea of dissolving the very notion corporatehood since it it is essentially the state conferring a right to a group that the individual doesn't have.

          Have to admit that's a bit more principled than bearing the evils of Apple so long as you can tax the to fund your utopia.

          And I find it odd that that a group as marginal as libertarians (as the left was found of pointing out... until they lost complete control of the government) could be that major of a force for Trump, especially since totals for the libertarian party have never been higher.

          Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-1SkYN5ZG0 [youtube.com]

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:00PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:00PM (#434955) Journal

            I've got my own objections to the ideals of libertarianism, that are a lot more nuanced than this debate will probably allow for. Suffice it to say, the eye rolling thing is definetly directed at the pseudolibertarians who can't imagine a difference between fundamental human rights that allow us all to live the lives we want to live and free market economics that assume the best possible results for everyone will always be fostered by less government interference in everything.

            That is to say, an asshole who opposes people saying mean things about him getting elected is probably going to have zero effect on my conclusion that claims of treating an illness ought to have some kind of objective third party review that keeps people from being defrauded or injured. The debate I'd have with a sincere, radical libertarian would probably require a lot more lengthy discussions about the nature of knowledge and the failings of the efficient market hypothesis, the definition of ethics, the role of government, and countless other basic premises of my beliefs than dismissing a trite shithead who thinks "You think X, YOU MUST ALSO THINK Y, HA!" is valid reasoning(I mean it can be if Y absolutely logically follows from X, but you know).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM (#434962)

              Your backtracking has been noted, but the issue remains: given the possibility that a person like Trump can and has been elected, is it better that he have the full force of government as the left imagines it, or limited government?

              Or moving to Canada. Whatever. It's not like consistency has been the left's strong suit.

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:19PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:19PM (#434971) Journal

                Considering that some of the most dangerous other policies he's going to be taking on are the dismantling of the useful parts of the government and the reducing the tax burden in exactly the way you'd call "shrinking" I find it a starkly irrelevant question.

                Do I wish our military were less gigantic and police forces less militarized? Yes. Do I think the people advocating "shrinking government" have ever even briefly considered doing that? No. So fuck off.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:32PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:32PM (#434979)

                  <sarcasm>Yes, the Libertarian Party has long been associated with wars abroad and full arming the police with personal nuclear devices to combat crime.</sarcasm>

                  • (Score: 2, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:02PM

                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:02PM (#434999) Journal

                    Alright, fine. We'll have this stupid debate. Even though the point wasn't libertarianism, but the people who think that there's a magic oversimplified answer to the problem of tyranny.

                    A nice solid majority of people using your magic words of "small government" do. Period. The end. The thing I said? The words I used? Absolutely true.

                    The slight change you made? Arguable either way. Reason magazine, what I think of of as the face of libertarian ideology, wasn't [reason.com] exactly [reason.com] anti-war [reason.com] in 2002.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:02PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:02PM (#435029)

                      Even though the point wasn't libertarianism

                      Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians

                      Man, you can't even stay coherent in a single thread.

                      Three articles in the aftermath of 9/11 is all you got?

                      One questions whether the left would be as anti-war if there was a democrat elected (which we all know the answer to that after Obama was elected), one questions how bad human rights violations have to get before the idea of military intervention is justified (Was it justified to go to war against Germany even though they never attacked the US directly), and the other postulating justifications for attack, the author even taking part in a debate concerning (yeah, Reason is waving that pro-war flag)

                      http://reason.com/archives/2003/01/01/should-we-invade-iraq/#comment [reason.com]

                      Pretty disingenuous to represent that as pro-war given the circumstances.

                      Here's a few other bits from the era you conveniently ignored

                      http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/baghdad-bait-and-switch [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/07/us-out-of-saudi-arabia [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/30/the-other-of-all-battles [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/archives/2002/09/11/were-not-winning-the-war-on-te/1 [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/archives/2002/10/30/avoid-tenuous-reasoning [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/blog/2002/12/30/saddams-war-and-ours [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/16/its-alright-ma-were-only-bleed [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/31/if-war-doesnt-work-we-may-have [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/blog/2003/02/13/time-for-war-right [reason.com]
                      http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/17/liberators-or-invaders [reason.com]

                      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:09PM

                        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:09PM (#435032) Journal

                        You know how I said "arguable either way?" That wasn't a "I refuse to acknowledge anti-war libertarians exist." That was a "You're being highly selective to create a worldview where you're always right." You seem intent on misunderstanding me.

                        So... I'll let you go. You defeated what imaginary me said. Good job, kid. That man, and his straw is all nicely scattered ripped to shreds.

                        The argument I never made, laid to rest with surgical precision. The careful word choice to exclude exactly what you want excluded, safely ignored. Your victory is well earned.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:37PM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:37PM (#435045)

                          Uh-huh. More backpedaling.

                          Debating an issue isn't exactly condoning, and is pretty far removed from "arguable either way" considering only ONE of the articles you cite actually made the case for war with Iraq specifically (and was in fact part of a debate that also argued against going to war).

                          Here's selections from the Libertarian platform in 2002 in case you were unclear:

                          American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.

                          The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.

                          We recognize that foreign governments might violate the rights of Americans traveling, living, or owning property abroad, just as those governments violate the rights of their own citizens. We condemn all such violations, whether the victims are U.S. citizens or not.

                          Any effort, however, to extend the protection of the United States government to U.S. citizens when they or their property fall within the jurisdiction of a foreign government involves potential military intervention. We therefore call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk. In particular, we oppose -- as unjust tax-supported subsidy -- any protection of the foreign investments of U.S. citizens or businesses.

                          We support withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, we oppose any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or placing U.S. troops under U.N. command. We oppose U.S. government participation in any world or international government. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.

                          We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch.

                          We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime. The Commander-in-Chief role, correctly understood, confers no additional authority on the President.

                          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:52PM

                            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:52PM (#435054) Journal

                            No, you won. You utterly got me on all those things I specifically set out not to say, and intentionally chose words to indicate I was not saying.

                            Yep. You're not a fuckwad trying to "win" a dispute that didn't really exist except in your mind. I'm totally "backpeddling" by pointing out what I actually said and meant.

                            Congratulations hero. You won! Because that's clearly what matters here! Beating someone in an argument, not having a meaningful point to make.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28AM

                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28AM (#435368)

                              He's almost right about the spelling of "back-pedaling"!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:52PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:52PM (#434947)

          Which is the political affiliation talking about banning, "Fake news" again?

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM (#434958) Journal

            None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is. If people can't tell that an abc.com.co story about a protestor being paid is literally fake, and there's no indication on the primary news feed that many people use that that's happening, it's a real problem.

            That being a real problem doesn't mean anyone in power for the party you've chosen to hate is saying it should be banned from existing. (Heaven help us if we point out that sites like breitbart also make up news stories, because then we're extra evil.)

            Meanwhile this other party nominated then elected someone who seems to have an actual stated antipathy towards free press. Fuck your false equivalences a second time.

            • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:59PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:59PM (#435116) Journal

              None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is. If people can't tell that an abc.com.co story about a protestor being paid is literally fake, and there's no indication on the primary news feed that many people use that that's happening, it's a real problem.

              That's why credibility and reputation and comportment are so important, because that divides "fake" news from "real" news in terms of how much sway you have with the public. And, honestly, the "real" news outlets completely shredded any of those three qualities they still clung to in the course of this election. They stopped substantiating their real claim to those three qualities a long time ago when they stopped doing real journalism because it's hard and expensive and nowhere near as sexy as spouting any kind of drivel and having the proles accept it as fact, based on the real journalism they used to do.

              The way I see it, what is really destroying our democracy is the moral and intellectual torpor, the sheer laziness, of a society that has enshrined worthless, non-productive, non-value producing bankers, politicians, actors, and sports icons as its highest avatars of achievement. Nobody can be bothered to learn to spell, write, calculate, or reason any more because it has been established that you can just phone it in and win a trophy telling you how special you are.

              Meanwhile this other party nominated then elected someone who seems to have an actual stated antipathy towards free press.

              "Free" is not what I read, but "biased." "Biased" press is the sticking point. And biased they surely are. The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it. With that and similar admissions, how can anyone dispute the bald facts that the American media are of a piece, and biased to the core?

              If the media ever were to want to be relevant again (frankly, I think that ship has sailed), they'd have to do something really, really, really hard that would involve a lot, a shit ton, a mega ton, of really, really, really hard work and do real investigative journalism again instead of plucking plums off the AP Wire, changing a couple words, and passing it off as their own.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:14PM

                by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:14PM (#435153)

                How do you get real investigate journalism, by your own admission being expensive, to be profitable, or at least breaking even from the investments?

                That's the hard part. As worthwhile as investigate journalism *is* in our post-truth world, it currently has no value with the public, and they aren't willing to pay for it. Of which I suspect in many cases is because they can't afford it. When many are sick, tired, burned out, underpaid, overworked, etc. it's hard to get them to do anything, even when it clearly benefits them. I've been doing community outreach for a few years now and that is exactly what I get a lot from people I'm attempting to organize. "I'd love to help, but I have 3 jobs and two kids", and then I'm still arranging for them to be helped, because they very much need it. Extra food donated from local businesses, and stuff like that. I meet very few people in a strong enough position to help others and are also willing to work to make things better for everyone, or at least a few others in their community.

                Do I wish people were willing and able to pay $15-$30 a month for investigative journalism like they do Netflix? Hell yes, but I don't know how to get there. Other than general strikes for living wages, of course. Then also factor in skyrocketing costs of living. Don't even dream of doing this in San Fransisco since it costs over 100% of average income to afford rent, with most people I see living with roommates or letting out rooms to make up the difference. Over 40% increase in the last 5 years cuts the legs off large portions of the community otherwise willing to engage with you.

                We need a revolution at so many different levels in this country, and investigate journalism is one of them. Of which I admittedly have no idea how to start. I lament it as well.

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
                • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:49AM

                  by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:49AM (#435395) Journal

                  I've been doing community outreach for a few years now

                  Bless you for doing it, ed. I burned my early- to middle 30's doing that.

                  How do you get real investigate journalism, by your own admission being expensive, to be profitable, or at least breaking even from the investments?

                  It used to be that "doing your homework" was part of that job. Hell, "doing your homework" used to be part of many jobs. But an illness began in the top echelons of the society where people believed it was their right to have their cake and eat it, too. Bankers could get paid top dollar to manage vast sums of money, but pay no price when they fucked up or broke the law. CEOs could get paid top dollar for plunging their companies into ruin and throwing all the good people working hard in them out onto the streets. And so on and so on until the average Joe on the street wants to have store shelves full of cheap widgets made with slave labor in China, but still wants high-paying jobs in America making shelves full of widgets. But why shouldn't they have that pittance when they don't see anyone on Wall Street or in DC being held accountable? Sure, it means that the whole society from top-to-bottom stops working entirely, but why should they sacrifice when Wall Street and DC never have, and in fact have previously gorged themselves every time patriotic Americans gave the "full measure of devotion" for the country?

                  That's the hard part. As worthwhile as investigate journalism *is* in our post-truth world, it currently has no value with the public, and they aren't willing to pay for it. Of which I suspect in many cases is because they can't afford it.

                  When your family has a monthly budget of, say, $20 for entertainment, do you spend it for the services of people employed by the people who are lying to you all the time, manipulating you all the time, or do you spend it on a little escapism via Netflix or basic cable?

                  We need a revolution at so many different levels in this country, and investigate journalism is one of them. Of which I admittedly have no idea how to start. I lament it as well.

                  It is hard. It is also ineluctable. We must undertake it.

                  --
                  Washington DC delenda est.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:36PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:36PM (#435195)

                > The New York Times, the standard of American journalism, issued a mea culpa after the election saying they blew it.

                That's something you'll never see from a site like breitbart, or even fox. Fox doesn't even have an ombudsman.

                The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes is why they deserve trust. Perfection is impossible, a level-headed approach to imperfection is necessary both for publishers and readers.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM (#435208)

                  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/in-the-wake-of-corey-lewandowski-arrest-breitbart-editor-admits-he-was-wrong/ [cbsnews.com]

                  Oh, and

                  https://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/three-years-late-nyt-admits-andrew-breitbart-was-right/ [wordpress.com]

                  I suppose after you've exhausted every other remote possibility, it's okay to admit even Breitbart can be correct once in a while. Three years later.

                  Do you enjoy smelling your own farts?

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @01:09AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @01:09AM (#435230)

                    A tweet is not an editorial holding themselves to account on breitbart.com
                    Furthermore, breitbart's throwing of their own reporter under the trump bus wasn't an article either, it was a reality-tv quality HR fuckup.

                    Nor is some random hyperpartisan blogger's skewed characterization of a NYT article an accurate description of reality.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:03AM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:03AM (#435262)

                      Way to move the goalpost, you dolt. The statement was "The fact that they are publicly willing to own their mistakes", which I do believe a tweet qualifies.

                      Throwing the reporter under the bus, or holding them to account when evidence clearly contradicted what they were reporting? Not only that, but stand-by the decision even when loosing one of their most recognizable contributors. And if they would have stood by the reporter, it would have just been proof of bias. Essentially, they can never hit those vaunted hills of "trust" since they aren't shoveling your brand of it. Gotcha.

                      The "hyperpartisan blogger" quotes the NYT article in full with just an opening paragraph to set context. I note the New York Times omitting completely Breitbart accusation.

                      But here's another "hyperpartisan blogger" reaching the same conclusion

                      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/how-did-progressive-journalists-get-pigford-so-wrong/275593/ [theatlantic.com]

                      but with a nice dose of smear so fart sniffers, such as yourself, can maintain their smug.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @02:59AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @02:59AM (#435251)

                Subscribe to your local newspaper, if you still have one. We are fairly fortunate, our long standing paper is now owned by Buffet and he appears to mostly leave them alone. While they don't have the news staff that they used to, they still have reporters that go dig for stories and expose real problems.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:22PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:22PM (#435160)

              None, they're certainly saying that unchecked sharing of fake news is destroying our democracy, and it is.

              We don't even have a democracy to begin with. We have a system that suppresses third parties and makes many people believe they have to vote for the 'lesser evil'. Where is the democracy?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:30PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:30PM (#435190)

                ::rolleyes::

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:15AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:15AM (#435337)

                Chip on your shoulder much? The NDP were the official opposition party from 2011 until last year's elections.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:08PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:08PM (#435062) Journal

          "He's not a Nazi, what about emails?"
           
          And to add insult to injury he's floating David Petraeus for Secretary of State (you know, Clinton's old gig). This is a guy who was actually convicted for purposefully leaking classified information!
           
          The hypocrisy is truly amazing!

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:46PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:46PM (#435108) Journal

            Well, no. That's what he was accused of. His plea deal was the charge they tried to give to Clinton. If I'm remembering how that played out correctly.

            Don't bang your biographer and give her classified documents, people. He's far and away the least evil of Trump's proposed cabinet, though.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:58PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:58PM (#435114) Journal

              He was convicted of mishandling classified information. [washingtonpost.com]
               
              It's still a conviction even if you plead down to a lesser charge.
               
              "As part of the agreement, Pet­raeus admitted that he improperly removed and retained highly sensitive information in eight personal notebooks that he gave to Broadwell."

              I think my statement is accurate...

              He's far and away the least evil of Trump's proposed cabinet, though. Agreed.

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:21PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:21PM (#435122) Journal

                I concede that I was being excessively pedantic and the way you phrased it was fine.

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:01PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:01PM (#435118) Journal

            Well, Obama established the precedent that the Secretary of State can purposefully leak classified information without any repercussion, so why wouldn't Petraeus be eligible for the job?

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:17PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:17PM (#435121) Journal

              I don't even know what you are alluding to. Perhaps a citation?

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:29PM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:29PM (#435167) Journal

                Will Politico work for you? Obama knew about Hillary's illegal email server and did nothing [politico.com]. He clearly knew it was a no-no because he used a pseudonym, not his real name, as he would have if he thought it was OK for her to do that.

                Or here's one from the New York Times saying the same thing [nytimes.com].

                Obama knew Hillary was breaking the law and allowed it. Hillary didn't set up an email server by accident; she did it deliberately. She did not, still has not, and now probably never will go to jail for that deliberate, conscious act. Therefore, the precedent has been set that the Secretary of State of the United States can leak, or allow to be known, top secrets of the United States, without repercussion.

                So, why would having done the same thing disqualify Petraeus for Sect. of State now? It's merely his misfortune that he did it before he had the juice to be considered above the law, too.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:38PM

                  by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @11:38PM (#435196) Journal

                  Setting up an email server isn't illegal.

                  Handing over classified information to a reporter who then publishes a book about it, is.

                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:19AM

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:19AM (#435389) Journal

                    Putting classified information on an unsecured system is. Lesser people, peons, have been prosecuted for doing that. Why is she excused from obeying the laws that others have done jail time for breaking? They were "extremely careless," too, but were not given a pass.

                    Of course, if you do not accept the premise that the law ought to apply equally to everyone, then that inconsistency will not be apparent to you, or it will not matter.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
                • (Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM

                  by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:07AM (#435207) Homepage
                  I still have never seen any verified accusation that any of Hillary Clinton's emails, that were stored on her "private" server, were ever leaked or revealed to anyone not authorized to see them. And, if as head of the CIA Patreaus didn't have the "juice" as you say to keep from being prosecuted, how the hell did Hillary Clinton become so powerful? I'd say SecState and DCI are approximately equal on the power scale.
                  • (Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:14AM

                    by tftp (806) on Thursday December 01 2016, @04:14AM (#435265) Homepage

                    I still have never seen any verified accusation that any of Hillary Clinton's emails, that were stored on her "private" server, were ever leaked or revealed to anyone not authorized to see them.

                    Let's then all together ask the intelligence services of all leading countries to confess that they have been there and they have taken all the messages and left no traces. They should have reported all this to the public years ago! Isn't it in their charter?

                  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:14AM

                    by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:14AM (#435387) Journal

                    And, if as head of the CIA Patreaus didn't have the "juice" as you say to keep from being prosecuted, how the hell did Hillary Clinton become so powerful? I'd say SecState and DCI are approximately equal on the power scale.

                    That's because you're only considering the relative position of those jobs in the org chart. Hillary's power derived from something more than that. Obama beat her in the primaries, but only just. She had the DNC locked up behind her, and most of the media then. All the big donors maxed out their contributions to her then. If you'll recall, when Obama asked her to become Sect. of State it took the Clintons months and months to decide, with lots of negotiation with Obama's camp. Obama probably thought he was uniting a divided party behind him after a rancorous primary process. The Clintons were clearly figuring out how to position her for another run for the Whitehouse, later.

                    That's why Hillary had the juice to be above the law, and Petraeus didn't. Be that as it may, the precedent that the Sect. of State can ignore the law has been set. Now it doesn't matter whose butt is in the chair. The Secretary is immune from prosecution.

                    --
                    Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:31PM (#434934)

        Luckily we didn't elect a dictator.
        Especially given Obama's record on a free press; maybe the left will finally realize the virtue of limited government.

        The jury is still out on that. Trump tweeted that he's in favor of revoking citizenship and jailing people who burn the flag. (Imagine if Obama had proposed curtailing free speech and the first amendment with imprisonment.) The only limited government Trump supports is an authoritarian one that is limited to him, Pence, and his cabinet of misfit toys. Trump's hatred of the press is well known, with him even banning certain outlets from talking with his campaign.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:51PM (#434945)

          so did clinton, in fact she was behind a bill to jail people and then fine them 100k$, what the fuck is your point?

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:55PM (#434951)

          Interesting that Hillary sponsored basically the exact same thing Trump tweeted while in the Senate. One year and/or $100,000 fine for flag burning at protests.

          Despite you and the rest of Correct The Record's best efforts at her out of the Wikipedia entry for this bill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005, 80% of the edits have been made since Trump's tweet), you don't get to revise history on this one.

          For the record, I don't support this position. But I do support exposing hypocrisy.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:13PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:13PM (#435063) Journal

            Despite you and the rest of Correct The Record's best efforts
             
            Holy crap, that $6 mil went a loooooooong way! I wish someone that frugal was in charge of the budget.

          • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:17PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:17PM (#435065) Journal

            Interesting that Hillary sponsored basically the exact same thing Trump tweeted while in the Senate. One year and/or $100,000 fine for flag burning at protests.
             
            Also, I should mention that this is factually incorrect.

            From your link:
            The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service summarized the act as follows:
            Amends the federal criminal code to revise provisions regarding desecration of the flag to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace; (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.[1]

            So no, burning (your own) flag at a protest would not have been illegal.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:53PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:53PM (#435110)

              ... aren't those things already illegal, whether you use a flag or a bed sheet?

              (1) destroying or damaging something with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace;
              (2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning something; or
              (3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of something belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that something.

              Am I wrong, or is this yet another case of stacking charges? Similar to outlawing fraud/bullying/harassment/threats, but this time "on the Internet", so they could threaten people with 500 years in jail or something to that effect.

            • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:28PM

              by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:28PM (#435164)

              (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace;

              That's ridiculous. If people see you burning a flag and react violently, that was their own choice; your intentions do not matter because what you actually did does not change either way and your intentions cannot magically force other people to react in any particular way. I know the US doesn't believe in freedom or personal responsibility, but it's still sad to see this kind of thinking. And why just a U.S. flag? What was the point of this nonsense?

              • (Score: 2) by J053 on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:10AM

                by J053 (3532) <dakineNO@SPAMshangri-la.cx> on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:10AM (#435209) Homepage
                The point was to shortstop a Constitutional Amendment being proposed at about the same time by the right wing. It worked.
                • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:45AM

                  by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday December 01 2016, @08:45AM (#435342)

                  That's a very charitable interpretation of their actions, and you could do that with pretty much any issue to make one party seem spotless.

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by jmorris on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM (#434961)

          The jury is still out on that. Trump tweeted that he's in favor of revoking citizenship and jailing people who burn the flag.

          The SCOTUS was wrong. Not the first time. Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason. One change in your thinking and it makes perfect sense.

          If I were proposing changing the rules though, I'd suggest this:

          If you aren't an American Citizen and you burn the flag on American soil, you are outta here. Apply again in ten years and express some contrition and maybe you can visit.

          If you are a Citizen without a passport (i.e. have never left the U.S. before) you get issued one along with ten $100 bills and placed at random in a third world city. You may not reenter the U.S. for two years and it shall be a crime for a U.S. national to transfer funds to you during your banishment. We would need to make a deal with the target countries to allow this 'educational' enrichment. If you choose to reenter after two years the whole event will be expunged from the record, lesson learned.

          If a Citizen with a valid passport does it, they should be forced to spin again, pick a new country to pledge allegiance to since they have obviously and publicly rejected this one. Same for anyone with dual-citizenship, burn our flag and you automatically forfeit the American one.

          Many reading the above are outraged. Allow me to explain the why.

          Most of the alt-right have accepted the notion of white-identity politics as the only answer to the self evident reality that every other group is practicing identity politics. Lots of disparagement of "magic dirt" theory and the "proposition nation" ideas. I accept that criticism but note that it really isn't fair to say the "proposition nation" doesn't and can't work since for a century now we haven't even been trying. The Proposition Nation as a basis for America requires we make a real effort to assimilate people to the Proposition and cast out those who refuse to accept it. I.e. it is NOT possible to be a patriotic Anti-American. So before you post a fiery reply inside [flame] tags, consider the options, chaos and anarchy followed by something worse, the fast approaching White Nationalism as a response to the identity politics of the Left that will also lead to chaos and fire, or a return to the American Proposition Nation of a hundred years ago.

          • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:55PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:55PM (#434992)

            Um, wrong wrong wrong on so many levels. Just because you want it to be so doesn't mean you are correct, close or even on the right planet.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:35PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:35PM (#435015)

            Twice in two days. I looks like "identity politics" is the phrase of the week dished out by the alt-right talking-point generator.

          • (Score: 1) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:35PM

            by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:35PM (#435044)

            In Canada, burning the flag is the proper disposal method. Though you are supposed to do it discretely.

            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:10PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:10PM (#435092) Homepage Journal

              It is in the US as well. Trump and the people in this thread would know that if they'd been in the military, or even the scouts. Here, there's a ceremony involved.

              Like Trump, I had a high draft number (365, the very highest) and served. Guess what, you don't have to be drafted, you can VOLUNTEER! Who woulda known? I was offered a medical discharge after two years and declined and finished my hitch. Trump is one of the least patriotic people I've ever heard of. He's a proven fraudster (he settled the fraud case) and a proven racist--he was found guilty of housing discrimination twice.

              But we survived GW Bush (barely), we'll survive Trump.

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
              • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:54AM

                by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday December 01 2016, @05:54AM (#435293) Homepage Journal

                What is the most depressing part in Trump's (upcoming) presidency is the refusal of left to do some introspection. It is still all about finding fault with Trump, as if that wasn't done enough pre-election. People still voted and the best answer I get from reading leftist media is that people are *(basket of deplorable)ists. Trump is an outsider. He is also incompetent. He is definitely not smart enough for this job. Left should really think about itself when it lost to Trump, but is it? No.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:28AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @06:28AM (#435300)

                  But the left has absolutely no reason to endure any mansplaining given the previous successes weren't from logical appeals but indoctrination. You'd need some type of framework in order to make re-evaluations instead of gaping hole.

                  Being left-leaning moderate myself (or in the parlance of the left, a crypto Klan supporter) I get either to look over either inept nihilist or pink shirts to make an appeal.

                  And honestly it's looking like the nihilist as the left is just too far gone to even be worth expending the energy. The absolute best outcome is minimizing how much damage they can inflict as they cannibalize each other.

                  • (Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:50AM

                    by cubancigar11 (330) on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:50AM (#435359) Homepage Journal

                    You should have posted non-AC, I would have befriended you. The lack of framework is very much a reality. Instead, left has embraced propaganda and censorship. I said this here a long time ago, but left is the new conservative. In gutting the actual dissenters of establishment, it has allowed right to rise again.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:41PM

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:41PM (#435048) Journal

            (1) Burning a flag is actually appropriate disposal for one. I know you're not really addressing that here, but it's important to note that merely burning a flag shouldn't constitute an "act of rebellion and possibly treason." You'd need to determine intent.

            (2) I'm not going to post some "flaming" response, just to note that the flag is JUST a symbol. I show great respect for it personally. I know the rules for display and if I do display one, I'd always do it properly. BUT, it is a symbol, and the defacement of a SYMBOL is nowhere near "treason."

            (3) I think any citizen should be outraged at the suggestion that other citizens should be stripped of citizenship or unilaterally deported, regardless of their actions. At times, we may justify removing rights (e.g., putting people in prison, taking away certain rights from felons, etc.), and I'll grant that we have the right to choose when to deport non-citizens. But the suggestion that we start deporting people who merely disagree enough to destroy a SYMBOL... I just don't even know what to say.

            Whether or not it is possible to be a "patriotic anti-American," as you put it, it IS possible to be an American (period) who does not defer to some symbol of America. I can even understand -- though I don't agree with -- those who might argue for punishing "unpatriotic" Americans who don't respect that symbol, e.g., with fines or even jail time. But deporting them?? Again, I don't even know what to say.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:03PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:03PM (#435091) Homepage Journal

            Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason.

            If that's true, then flying the battle flag of the confederacy is even worse, since that was the flag that says "I am at war with America and her ideals." I consider the Confederate flag akin to the ISIS flag.

            "First they came for the flag burners, and I said nothing because I love the flag. Then they came for the confederate flag flyers...

            Face it, it is NOT a crime to hate the US, nor should it be. Burning the flag is a hell of a lot more "speech" than having a lot of money to bribe politicians legally with.

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:16PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:16PM (#435119) Journal

            The SCOTUS was wrong. Not the first time. Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason. One change in your thinking and it makes perfect sense.
            ...
            Most of the alt-right have accepted the notion of white-identity politics as the only answer to the self evident reality that every other group is practicing identity politics. Lots of disparagement of "magic dirt" theory and the "proposition nation" ideas. I accept that criticism but note that it really isn't fair to say the "proposition nation" doesn't and can't work since for a century now we haven't even been trying. The Proposition Nation as a basis for America requires we make a real effort to assimilate people to the Proposition and cast out those who refuse to accept it. I.e. it is NOT possible to be a patriotic Anti-American. So before you post a fiery reply inside [flame] tags, consider the options, chaos and anarchy followed by something worse, the fast approaching White Nationalism as a response to the identity politics of the Left that will also lead to chaos and fire, or a return to the American Proposition Nation of a hundred years ago.

            Burning or doing anything at all to the flag or any other symbol is the highest form of free speech, and deserves the most intense protection. Saying, "babies are cute" or somesuch is not why we have freedom of speech in the United States of America. Burning the flag or telling the President of the United States (past, current, or future) to go fuck himself to his face, are.

            As far as your "proposition nation" goes, you're deluded. America is a work in progress and always has been. The "proposition" has always been a point of contention as to what exactly that is. I personally don't care for many of the zigs in the path that proposition has taken over time, but that's why I have the freedom of speech, and ultimately the strength of arms, to contest the position of that proposition with vigor.

            If it were otherwise, jmorris, then I'd be perfectly right and empowered to tell the rest of you to fuck off and get out of my country, since my people were here long before there was said country.

            But I'm not.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:37PM

            by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:37PM (#435132)

            You're a fucking moron, and I'll burn a flag this week just to celebrate the fact that I can.

            It's NOT FUCKING TREASON, but a political statement, and we get to protest. Protesting is a sacrosanct right in our country, or just how the fuck did we create it in the first place? Did we change our status from within the English monarchy? Did we operate within the rules and procedures, gain votes, and had the fucking King of England *grant* us our freedom? Or did we fucking take it by force?

            Burning the flag IS FREE SPEECH. It's an expressive act to illuminate the abject and absolute failures of our government and the people that working within it.

            Rebellion? That's a nice easy word to throw around when you don't like what we're saying. It's not rebellion you stupid fuck, but again, a PROTEST. It's absolutely utterly and immutably and act of Free Speech. Forever.

            To say that I have the moral high ground in burning a flag is a massive fucking understatement. It's people like you that need to drop fucking dead in this country, because YOU WILL FOMENT AND ENGENDER CIVIL FUCKING WAR WHEN YOU DECIDE TO TAKE AWAY MY FUCKING RIGHTS.

            You want to deport mother fucker, then come and do it.

            --
            Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
            • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:06PM

              by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:06PM (#435152)

              Protesting is a sacrosanct right in our country, or just how the fuck did we create it in the first place? Did we change our status from within the English monarchy? Did we operate within the rules and procedures, gain votes, and had the fucking King of England *grant* us our freedom? Or did we fucking take it by force?

              America was founded by violent revolutionaries who committed high treason against the crown. That was the whole point of the exercise, it was why we had the Revolutionary War. What do you think the words "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" mean? They understood they were going all on on a cause they thought right and praying God deliver them the victory because they sure as heck weren't counting on purely strength of arms; remember that they were going up against the most powerful nation the world had yet seen. They understood all too well that had they lost they would have been hanged, their names forever blackened by history as traitors and their children left penniless if they were allowed to live at all. And this is all right and proper, Revolution should be difficult and dangerous so as to discourage it. See the Declaration of Independence itself for why; our Founders were after all, pretty wise.

              So by all means, declare your rebellion against America, burn the flag, whatever. Just be prepared to pay the price when you are wrong and lose your rebellion / war of independence. Look at the Confederate States of America for how that losing bit works. Otherwise you are limited to changing the system from within it, by the rules established for that purpose. And declaring your explicit disloyalty to the country should have negative consequences.

              • (Score: 2) by edIII on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:20PM

                by edIII (791) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:20PM (#435159)

                Go fuck yourself again.

                We get to burn the flag as an act of Free Speech, protected by the U.S Constitution. The moment you think you can take that away because you don't like the speech, YOU BECAME THE ENEMY, not us.

                So go fucking die in a fire.

                --
                Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 02 2016, @10:40PM

                by urza9814 (3954) on Friday December 02 2016, @10:40PM (#436281) Journal

                Read the entire Declaration, not just the last paragraph. Because it also directly declares that, should any government become oppressive, it is just and proper for the citizens to rebel against it. That's part of why the Constitution has a very specific and narrow definition of treason -- they were trying to AVOID repeating the oppression of the government they were escaping, not permanently embed it into the new nation.

                "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

                And this is all right and proper, Revolution should be difficult and dangerous so as to discourage it. See the Declaration of Independence itself for why; our Founders were after all, pretty wise.

                No, they say it should not be taken lightly, but also that all experience has shown that nothing needs to be done specifically to discourage it. It says that people are naturally resistant to change and will therefore willingly suffer for quite some time before being pushed far enough to take action. What they are saying is that they do not themselves take this decision lightly, and they were declaring that this fact should be self-evident because NOBODY would willingly start that war unless the problems were truly insufferable:

                "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:38PM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:38PM (#435172)

            Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason.

            So is your position that the first amendment only protects written word and actual speech? If not, then how can you possibly justify this? You can perform an action in order to convey a message, and that is rightly recognized as being protected by the first amendment. Just because you don't like someone's speech doesn't mean it's treason or not protected by the first amendment. At any rate, read the first amendment.

            Burning a flag does not meet the Constitution's definition of treason, once again putting you at odds with the highest law of the land. Furthermore, you seem to automatically assume that someone burning a US flag indicates that they don't like the US; that is not necessarily the case at all. You could burn a US flag to celebrate the fact that you have the freedom to do things such as burn the US flag, for instance. It's also possible that someone is protesting the US government because it doesn't respect the freedoms and principles this country is supposed to stand for. You have arbitrarily decided that burning a US flag can mean one thing and one thing only. When you fail to take into account someone's intent, you look just like the SJWs you often complain about.

            Stripping people of their citizenship also isn't constitutional.

            Many reading the above are outraged. Allow me to explain the why.

            I don't know about outraged, but I vehemently disagree because it's a blatant violation of the Constitution.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:19AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @12:19AM (#435211)

            We should be burning Confederate and Nazi flags at every opportunity! They are as anti-American as you can get.

            Burning the American Flag is an acceptable form of protest. So is flying it upside-down, because the country is in distress.

          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday December 02 2016, @10:07PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Friday December 02 2016, @10:07PM (#436255) Journal

            The SCOTUS was wrong. Not the first time. Burning the flag is not free speech, it is an act of rebellion and possibly treason. One change in your thinking and it makes perfect sense.

            Rebellion and indeed even treason against government injustice are as American as apple pie. If you're so offended by the ideals upon which this nation was founded, then maybe YOU should get the fuck out.

        • (Score: 5, Touché) by Webweasel on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:10PM

          by Webweasel (567) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:10PM (#434963) Homepage Journal

          I'm an amendment-to-be, yes an amendment-to-be,
          And I'm hoping that they'll ratify me.
          There's a lot of flag-burners,
          Who have got too much freedom,
          I want to make it legal
          For policemen to beat'em.
          'Cause there's limits to our liberties,
          At least I hope and pray that there are,
          'Cause those liberal freaks go too far.

          --
          Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:45PM (#434988)

        We didn't elect a dictator? Really? I'm sure that will come as a surprise to Trump. As will that he will find there are limits to his power.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:27AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:27AM (#435255)

          Watch him do everything he can to permanently dismantle those limits.
          He already summoned all the heads of major media orgs for a dressing down. [nypost.com] A literal attack on the freedom of the press.

    • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:22PM

      by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:22PM (#434929)

      1. you're assuming he was serious. -- he's walked back on almost every comment he's ever made
      2. you're assuming he's even capable of following through -- good luck fighting the First Amendment
      3. you're assuming he knows what the Internet Archive is or gives two shits about it. -- that "libel law" comment was referencing media that unfavorably covered him. nothing to do with reference sites, libraries, or w/e

      There are many valid reasons to not like Trump. No need to start making up hollow ones.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:32PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:32PM (#434938) Journal

        1a. I have seen no reports of him walking back anything he's said about clamping down on free speech.
        1b. It shouldn't matter if he did walk it back as far as precautionary measures by organizations like the internet archive are concerned.
        2. Never count on institutions to save you from a determined person placed into power. The 4th and 8th amendments did nothing to stop us from torturing people for years. The damage that can be done in the mean-time is tremendous.
        3. If he successfully knocks criticism off the internet(again, I understand how this is supposed to not happen) archive copies of that criticism would be a natural next target even if he didn't understand it now, he might later.

        And in response to your summary: things he said he will do are never and will never be hollow reasons to be concerned. Believe the autocrat when he says what he wants to do. [nybooks.com]

        • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:53PM

          by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:53PM (#434948)

          1. I don't expect him to individually walk back every statement he's ever made. But he has a clear and well documented history of saying one thing and then changing his mind. There's no reason to believe that his libel law thing is any different.

          2. Free Speech/1st amendment is a bigger deal to most people/organizations than torturing of terrorism prisoners in foreign black sites. Many that would look away for the latter would be up in arms for the former.

          3. Let's go with your assumption. Even though I think it's crazy. So he suspends the First Amendment and before the Supreme Court shuts him down, he tells the Internet Archive to delete everything he dislikes. I assume they'll say no and sue him for First Amendment violations. And then what? He sends troops to destroy their servers? Huh? How exactly does he carry out his order? And more importantly, why? I get you don't like him, but thinking he's that unhinged to sacrifice his Presidential term to go nuclear on a non-profit archive site is tinfoil hat territory.

          And yeah, hollow arguments are bad. They're easily picked apart and bring down the rest of your arguments and your own credibility. It's a weak link. Ever notice how people seem to focus on that one incorrect point in a sea of valid arguments? You're not doing your position any favors.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:59PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:59PM (#434954)

            Why bother with the courts when you have the NSA/CIA/FBI to do your bidding?

            • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM

              by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:07PM (#434960)

              Then by that measure any private citizen or nation-state is a potential danger. Why single out Trump?

              IA should've done this years ago when the Snowden revelations came out that showed the breadth of technical capability that the NSA has.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:05PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:05PM (#435002)

                Agreed that the Internet Archive should have started working toward an off-site backup years ago.

                Given the response to Trump by many people, this could be a very good time to raise funds for the backup site. With the long reach of the three letter agencies, I wonder if Canada is the best choice...but then I'm having trouble thinking of a better country.

                ** New contraction, invented at breakfast today -- lies by Trump = lumps.
                usage: "I guess I'll read the headlines and see if there are anymore lumps today."

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:00PM

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:00PM (#435026) Journal

            I don't want to debate Trump's positions or whatever in detail, but I'd just note something here:

            Free Speech/1st amendment is a bigger deal to most people/organizations than torturing of terrorism prisoners in foreign black sites. Many that would look away for the latter would be up in arms for the former.

            Free speech has been curtailed many times in U.S. history. We had the Alien and Sedition Acts [wikipedia.org] within a decade of the adoption of the Constitution. Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus [wikipedia.org] during the Civil War and threw protesters, journalists, legislators, and even judges in military prison -- for indefinite periods -- who disagreed with the war effort. Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918 [wikipedia.org] with intent to jail war protesters and those who criticized the government; there was little public opposition to this. The Smith Act [wikipedia.org] was used to prosecute declared Communists, Socialists, union members, racist organizations, etc. -- and many prosecutions under the act were widely supported by the U.S. public. In more recent decades we have seen measures like expansion of Free speech zones [wikipedia.org] to limit where free speech and protest is allowed.

            I could go on, since this just lists some of the most well-known and wide-ranging cases in U.S. history of suppression of free speech. Just yesterday we had the President-elect calling for jailing and revoking citizenship for flag burners. (And yeah, I'm well aware that Clinton too co-sponsored a bill that would have tried to jail them too a decade ago; I don't agree with her either.)

            It's nice and all to say that people would be "up in arms" when restrictions on free speech are created, but historical precedent shows otherwise. When people are SCARED or believe there is a THREAT, the public is mostly happy to support restrictions on speech.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:44PM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:44PM (#435136) Journal

              Apt examples, Athanasius. Depressing in their veracity, but apt.

              It's why America is a process and not a destination, and nobody gets to call the game when the score moves in his direction.

              In the wake of the election poor dears on DailyKos and HuffingtonPost were raising their fists, proclaiming it's now time to "fucking fight." They should have been fighting all along, no matter who was in DC, because every single one of those fuckers works 24/7 to fuck over the American people no matter what the party label next to their name says. Instead, they laid down and said nothing while Obama and his cronies continued the same abuses that Bush and his cronies continued from Clinton and his cronies...

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:02AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 02 2016, @04:02AM (#435794)

          You're contradicting yourself... on one hand you're saying believe what he says, but on another you're not acting (by your online posts) what you're preaching.

          Go read his book "The Art of the Deal". He is a businessman, he mentions that the best way to negotiate is to open high so you can then negotiate down. This means he will always start with an extreme statement so when you get down to negotiating with folks on the other side, you got room to move. You start from a position of strength.

          .. so you claim that one should believe what the autocrat says.. do you believe what he says in his own book about how he behaves?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:32PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:32PM (#434937)

      To help the foreigners figure this out, the left traditionally rallies around these vague concepts of a "free press" kind of like how the righties rally around the flag and oppose burning it. All very meaningless but highly symbolic.

      We have no free press in the USA in that the legacy media is unified into left wing corporate "fake news" propaganda, and thanks to wikileaks we can see the emails where the "free press" directly acts as a subordinate of the PR department of the Democratic Party. Some of the attacks they made on Trump during the election are hilarious but of course some pissed him off. Therefore anyone that fights against the unified press is "against the free press" and so on, even though its really against specific fake news propaganda. It doesn't mean anything abstract, of course. It just means the legacy media is pissed off at him because he's pissed off at them because the legacy media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the other side's political party.

      Continuing the fun for foreigners, for a few decades we've had unified single party globalist crony capitalist rule and one party or the other was just window dressing that changed nothing. For example Obama is just the 3rd and 4th Bush terms with respect to all policies that actually matter, and so on. So people opposed to change, which is basically the entire establishment, promote Trump as being insane or a lunatic. Which if he was in the one party and a believer in the one party would be correct, if Hillary thought she were a member of the one party and started spouting out stuff completely off the party agenda, maybe she'd be nuts as an explanation. If he were a member of the one party theoretically supporting the one agenda of the one party, then all his stuff about immigration or economics would literally be insane. The legacy press and .gov do not understand how to even talk about opposition to the one party. The USA in 2016 is very Soviet Union in the 80s, rotted out from the core but officially the one party is the best thing ever and nothing else exists and no opposing opinion is sane.

      Adding the final bit of fun to for foreigners we haven't actually changed anything important in decades so negotiation doesn't exist. Or when we do change things its hyper polarized and there is no negotiation. And here comes this wheeler dealer businessman who's spent his whole life starting negotiations at a ridiculously good position for himself and then argue to something reasonable. The press and lifelong politicians literally can't process that kind of input, GIGO. Why would someone propose option "X" unless it either changed nothing so it has bipartisan support or he's got the votes in which case he proposes exactly what will be voted for. Compromise did not exist in the pre 2016-ish American political system, and the idea of negotiation or compromise literally mystifies the legacy components of the gov and press.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:46PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:46PM (#434939) Journal

        And here comes the conspiracy crowd to tell us how the "luggenpresse" should really be destroyed to make way for his alternate-reality sources that tell him his conspiracy theories are right no matter how much they have to completely distort sources.

        "A member of a political party talked to media about a story? Clearly this is a sign that that political party controls everything, it's not relevant that party leadership from both major parties are given unscripted airtime on major networks frequently, often without challenge. It was leaked therefor it automatically means the worst case about every institution because that's how conspiracies work!"

        You are begging for an autocrat to destroy free press in this country because you've locked yourself into a series of "alternative" news outlets who live and die on telling you that everyone else is lying and they're the only ones you can trust. They've hijacked your due cynicism about institutions in our country in order to insinuate themselves as the sole purveyors of "real truth" by turning that cynicism into paranoia.

        Let me repeat this most important point so you don't go replying to some random detail, outraged:
        They've hijacked your due cynicism about institutions in our country in order to insinuate themselves as the sole purveyors of "real truth" by turning that cynicism into paranoia.

        Trump promising to ignore our foundational principles and use the government to attack and destroy the press isn't a joke. A lot of the press still does good work, and by ignoring how unprecedented this is, you're putting our entire system of democracy at risk.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:53PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:53PM (#434949)

          A lot of the press still does good work

          I guess we're going to have to disagree on that.

          Clickbait, human interest stories, outright fake news, propaganda exclusively from only one political party, if it bleeds it leads, sportsball scores and commentary, weather reports for people without the agency to type in www.weather.gov... What great grand thing are we losing here? Flush em.

          paranoia

          Pre-wikileaks that might have worked. Post wikileaks, LOL no.

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:14PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:14PM (#434967)

            You really are lock-step with the new order. Ikanreed is right, you've been shifted into an alternate reality by all the conspiracy stuff you read. I still am unsure whether Clinton would be better or worse, but you VLM are so tilted into the lies and promises of Trump that he just might be able to lead us over a cliff with you cheering him on. Your desire to punish liberals overrides your common sense and makes you downplay the most fascist authoritarian stuff Trump says!! At least the more honest Trump supporters say he is a huge tool, but they hope he'll shake things up without destroying the country.

            • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:34PM

              by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:34PM (#435042)

              without destroying the country.

              Its worth as a thought experiment to test things out by imagining the opposite. So ... lets say as a thought experiment everything he actually said (not propaganda reactions and clickbait headlines, but stuff he actually said) was simply rubberstamped by ... everyone. Press, congress, everyone.

              How destroyed would the country be? Oh, not at all? Yeah I'm not so worried there.

              Remember we're in a shared culture where for half a century every R candidate has been literally Hitler yet they always fail to light up the ovens. So there's no small amount of "boy who cried wolf" going on.

              The maximal peak of "country destruction" is likely to be something like CNNs shareholders feel a little bad for a little while.

              I'm pretty good with that.

              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:05PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:05PM (#435150)

                > How destroyed would the country be? Oh, not at all? Yeah I'm not so worried there.

                If we spend the tens of billions of dollars to build that wall and the tens of billions to maintain it?
                If we deport every single undocumented immigrant?
                If we criminally prosecute women for having abortions?
                If we create a registry of muslims?
                If we murder the relatives of terrorists?
                If we bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding?
                Encourage Korea and Japan to acquire nuclear weapons?
                Seize the oil in Iraq?
                Bring back stop and frisk?

                The list of actual things he said just goes on and on.

                No other major party candidate has suggested any of the things that Trump has said.
                If you think he's the same as all the other republicans, then you are choosing to ignore reality.

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:54PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:54PM (#435088)

              Your desire to punish liberals overrides your common sense

              Actually, it is after seeing liberals in operation, and wanting to COMPLETELY disassociate with them.

              Liberals have become pariahs by their own hand, and absolutely no one wants to be within 100 yards of them lest your flesh rot off.

              If the left supports a free press, it's strictly for your HuffPo and fuck everyone else.
              If the left supports freedom to protest, it's only for BLM and fuck everyone else
              If the left supports journalistic integrity, it is to call everyone else brainwashed liars and the need to clamp down on "fake" news.

              Sorry, these perceptions don't come from some alt-right orbital mind control laser, more the alt-right is a response to seeing the unabated hypocrisy of liberals in action. Any support from them is little more than (((I'm alright, Jack))).

              While your concern about the nature of what could happen with the press is mildly amusing, the timing is a little suspicious to suddenly have a revelation about how important the press is, so kindly fuck right off; I can make my own determination about your sincerity level.

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:16PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:16PM (#434970) Journal

            And before your attitude led to the election of fascist, this would probably have been where I'd have been like "Enjoy your delusions" and bailed out of the conversation.

            But now, now I've got to fight. Fight to fix what's been broken so badly. There's got to be a weakness in this shell of anti-reality you've built yourself.

            Maybe some hint that I'm on your side that our press sucks? That I've never ever ever been a fan of TV news, and I'm totally aware that the 24 hour news cycle is broken?

            Maybe try again at pointing out that parties communicating with the media as "watchdogs" for their opposition isn't new or surprising?

            Point out that Assange went off the deep end this year with buying into an actual satanic cult on completely specious evidence?

            I don't know man. There's got to be a way to get through to you.

            • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:50PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:50PM (#434990)

              Yeah, I've been through several decades of the leftist being on "my" side.

              Until they stab you in back.

              The more perceptive have realized that dealing with the left is a deal with the devil.

              No one wants that kind of help.

              • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:04PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:04PM (#435000) Journal

                Man, that sounds like you're projecting something personal onto this.

                Also, by leftists do you mean actual leftists, or the moderate progressives? Because there's almost none of the former in the US with any political sway.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:05PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:05PM (#435001)

              Maybe some hint that I'm on your side that our press sucks?

              Interesting way you have about building coalitions.

              Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians, your bullshit oversimplifications remains bullshit oversimplifications in spite of a good half of you contributing to electing an actual fascist.

              Fuck you and false your false equivalences. Fuck every single idiot who ignored the incredibly fascist things this guy said and just rolled their eyes and went "He's not a Nazi, what about emails?"

              Do I think the people advocating "shrinking government" have ever even briefly considered doing that? No. So fuck off.

              Fuck your false equivalences a second time.

              And here comes the conspiracy crowd to tell us how the "luggenpresse" should really be destroyed to make way for his alternate-reality sources that tell him his conspiracy theories are right no matter how much they have to completely distort sources.

              I don't know man. There's got to be a way to get through to you.

              Yes, you've made it abundantly clear the only side you are on is your side.

              Thanks, but no thanks.

              • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:13PM

                by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:13PM (#435005) Journal

                "You said I was wrong about something! That's it! I'm siding with a fascist who stands in staunch opposition to the thing I claim to value most."

                You are everything wrong with politics.

            • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:47PM

              by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:47PM (#435051)

              I kinda like this conversation because it demonstrates how the cultural escape velocity has been reached such that communication is quite challenging. The minority of the country that lost seem very confused about Trump.

              Sure... um, I'll oppose Trump if you dump on Assange some more. What does that even...? I mean across political boundaries that strategy doesn't even make sense. Oh perhaps you think I dislike Assange, like Hillary who wanted to call in a drone strike on him. Naw I'm all good.

              Or call the guy running on the anti-globalist anti-war platform a fascist some more. I heard that worked wonders for the D party in the heartland, every time Hillary called white people deplorable racists they were supposed to vote 1% more for her but to her complete surprise it seemed to go the other way. I mean, words don't even make sense across political boundaries anymore. She thought those were seductive words of endearment but the electorate said F you in response, huh.

              fix what's been broken so badly.

              Like, um... well, famously he was verbally disrespectful to the female groupies who sluttily threw themselves at him when he was a young single guy. Of course its hard to respect women who don't respect themselves, but that's not a total excuse for his behavior, takes two to tango and all that. Oh well I'd rather elect a leader than a saint. And, um... Yeah I guess that's all that's broken so far. You see anything broken out there?

              • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:49PM

                by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:49PM (#435085) Homepage Journal

                The minority of the country that lost seem very confused about Trump.

                So far, Trump's 2.3 million votes behind Clinton. He's only President Elect because of the electoral college. The same thing happened in 2000, and had the popular vote mattered, why might not have been attacked the next year, and we certainly wouldn't have invaded Iraq, and certainly wouldn't have ended up with such a huge deficit; war is damned expensive.

                OTOH, maybe it was the best that Clinton lost, even though I voted for her. I did a little history digging, looking up the President who historians say was our worst, James Buchanan, and his pre-President public service life was amazingly like Hillary's.

                --
                mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
                • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:41PM

                  by krishnoid (1156) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:41PM (#435106)

                  I did a little history digging, looking up the President who historians say was our worst, James Buchanan, and his pre-President public service life was amazingly like Hillary's.

                  How dare you impute the good name of James Buchanan! I demand citations!

                  Actually, I was just curious of the resources you consulted when researching a semi-subjective topic like this.

                  • (Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:00PM

                    by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:00PM (#435117) Journal

                    It's usually something covered in any sort of college level American history class, so specific citations aren't really part of how I came to understand this, but Buchanan was infamous for taking an (apparently) very pro-slavery position and nixing the reneging on the compromises between the North and the South in a way that sharpened divides and amplified animosity, then flatly ignored the backlash(like bleeding Kansas) hyperpolarizing the nation. In many ways historians think he was responsible for making the civil war inevitable, by making moderate abolitionists like Lincoln(who advocated for a buy-out of slaves until the war) the enemy of The South.

                    He then proceeded to ignore secession, when states pulled out due to not liking the results of an election(man, sound familiar?) making his refusal to address the reality of the country complete. He just ignored everything. In short, he was a legalist, obsessed with following the law, in a time when a pragmatist or a moralist would have served better.

                  • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:47PM

                    by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Thursday December 01 2016, @03:47PM (#435471) Homepage Journal

                    It started with something I read in The Atlantic, so I looked him up in Wikipedia and Britannica. I realize you can't use an encyclopedia for real research, I was simply curious.

                    Of course, Buchanan had no private email server...

                    --
                    mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
            • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:41PM

              by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:41PM (#435080) Homepage Journal

              "I don't know man. There's got to be a way to get through to you," says the atheist trying to convince the fundie that God doesn't exist, or vice versa.

              It's hopeless. It's like trying to convince a schizophrenic that he wasn't a fighter pilot in the Vietnam war, despite the fact that the war ended when he was twelve and he is clueless about the operation of an aircraft (this was a real person I knew!).

              --
              mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
      • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:49PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:49PM (#434944)

        A fourth bit of fun for foreigners trying to figure this crazy stuff out is social media and social signalling has taken over the lefties and to some extent discussion in general in American politics. Trump could be censored and ignored, but they won't because they get viewers. So he can control the news cycle and get press precisely because he knows saying the prez should get to throw libelous journalists into the tower of london at his whim will create a national coverage of conversation about the topic in general. If he went really beta and asked them pretty please to not be so naughty and how far left would be have to compromise his values to get them to not call him a racist for a week or two, then they'd ignore him and nobody would ever hear about him nor would there be any national discussion of the topic.

        If Trump hadn't said "toss them in the dungeon" then we'd be getting a megadose of the usual narrative, the headlong acceleration into normalizing pedo that the left seems to be aiming for as the next social change to ram down our throats. In that way he might actually be doing them some good in giving them something less unappealing to talk about. I'd certainly rather have propaganda writers in dungeons than pedos normalized and working as schoolteachers for my kids, for example, and that being the next big thing, Trump is delaying or eliminating social change which is good and admirable.

        Trump knows how to manipulate the media into discussing whatever topic he wants, and because nationwide trust in the media has dropped to end stage Soviet Union trust in propaganda, nobody cares if some propaganda reader on CNN cries her eyes out about it on TV, in fact many people tired of being lied to really enjoy that kind of thing. F those liars, Trump makes them cry, guess I like Trump!

        • (Score: 2, Funny) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:12PM

          by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:12PM (#434965) Journal

          Wait, the left is trying to legalize pedophilia? Does this mean that MikeeUSA is a lizard person too?!?

          I found this interesting in particular. Feminists like to destroy men who are elementary school teachers with insinuations about pedophilia. However, research shows that we actually do need more men teaching elementary school. Now you're saying that the left is trying to get actual pedophiles to teach elementary school. This is suspiciously similar to how the right adopted feminism's position on gender transition while simultaneously under the delusion that feminism sees woman suited bathroom rapists like me as legitimate women. Very strange things happening!

          Cutting through the hyperbole, I think I see what you're saying, and the larger point is a fairly good observation about the zeitgeist.

          • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:53PM

            by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:53PM (#435055)

            There you go I was channeling a little Trump there, trying to control the social media story cycle and get engagement by going off on a mostly true yet somewhat ridiculous tangent that would be super exciting out of context while bringing attention to my main longer format point. Meanwhile my competitor trying to push the meme story about 3d generative art for sale isn't getting the social media love (nothing personal, was actually a pretty cool story, but for the sake of example it gets stepped on, pity because its a good story). So its win win for me. It was a self referential comment in attempting however poorly to implement the activity itself not just talk about it in an abstract sense.

        • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:27PM

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @07:27PM (#435070) Journal

          the headlong acceleration into normalizing pedo that the left seems to be aiming for
           
          Is there some corollary to Goodwin's law where we can just stop the thread when someone accuses someone else of being a pedophile because they disagree about politics?

          • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:52PM

            by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:52PM (#435145) Journal

            Exactly. Hey, ikanreed and VLM, can you stop trying to out-clever each other, Stephen Colbert style, and argue points you actually believe? This exchange between you descended quickly into a muddle.

            --
            Washington DC delenda est.
            • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:15PM

              by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:15PM (#435154)

              Sorry I wasn't intentionally implying that about anyone here but that was a minor fad in the clickbait arena not long ago. Still going on to some extent. I do unfortunately believe that's the next stop for the normalization train based on some minimal evidence. If it isn't, then what is? Poly I guess. Beastiality? There's a whole industry of people needing something to push to keep the money flowing...

              As far as personal comments about one another, ikanreed is a strong debating partner, good I like that. Wrong about things, but strong in spirit, good good. Challenging, almost. That is invigorating. Good. However I can now see that turning SN into an time western saloon brawl, however fun it might be, is rightly disconcerting for folks who just came here to talk about reprograming the player piano and the new arduino count carding shield so sry bout the disruption, you all.

              • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:30AM

                by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday December 01 2016, @11:30AM (#435392) Journal

                As far as personal comments about one another, ikanreed is a strong debating partner, good I like that. Wrong about things, but strong in spirit, good good. Challenging, almost. That is invigorating. Good. However I can now see that turning SN into an time western saloon brawl, however fun it might be, is rightly disconcerting for folks who just came here to talk about reprograming the player piano and the new arduino count carding shield so sry bout the disruption, you all.

                I personally don't mind vigorous debate about anything between intelligent people. It's a live-action enactment of "Truth on Trial: Ethics in America [wikipedia.org]." (I reviled Scalia, but watching him match wits with the others in the room was like watching a cobra fight a mongoose.) The Stephen Colbert-style of inversion inside inversion, though, becomes too damn hard to follow (as in, "Wait, so now you're parodying his parody of your parody...?"). Just go toe-to-toe, straight up, and say what you mean. Then it can be more of a conversation for the community than an exchange between two people that feels, well, self-indulgent.

                --
                Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @10:28PM (#435165)

          pedo

          You do know that most child molesters aren't pedophiles but opportunistic molesters, right? Pedophiles need help and therapy and hell maybe even libido-killing medications, child molesters need prison. Pedophilia is thoughtcrime, child molestation is actual crime. See the difference? One is thought, one is action. Stop conflating the two, and stop advocating for the punishment of thoughtcrime, you won't like where that goes.

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:32AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Thursday December 01 2016, @09:32AM (#435356)

            Pedophiles need help and therapy and hell maybe even libido-killing medications

            Someone doesn't need help merely because of their sexual attractions. If they're thinking about actually raping anyone or they themselves want help, then sure.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:19PM (#435008)

        While there were many red flags in the earlier sentences, "wholly owned subsidiary" let me know I can safely ignore all of your political opinions from now on.

        Thanks for the hyperbole.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:21PM (#435009)

      The general fact that he's made multiple public comments suggesting using the powers of his office(including ones that don't exist like federal libel laws) to target free speech and free press?

      Please cite them. Primary sources only if you don't mind.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:41PM

        by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:41PM (#435017) Journal

        Uh, no. Primary sources are for journalists, historians, and other direct researchers.. If you reject secondary sources that report what people have said and done, you're too far gone to reason with. Sorry that's my line for unacceptable standards of evidence in casual debate. I can accept that you might reject tertiary sources, or reject individual secondary sources as making things up too often(Brietbart news comes to mind).

        Here, let's start with tone of anti-press sentiments:
        "I do hate [reporters] And some of them are such lying, disgusting people. It’s true" [businessinsider.com.au]
        "Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post.” [theguardian.com]

        Less than cleverly veiled threats:
        Trump saying that when we becomes president, The New York Times and Washington Post are going to "have problems" [businessinsider.com.au]

        and to repeat a quote from before [nationalreview.com]

        During his campaign, Trump sparked fear among free speech advocates with threats to close up “certain areas” of the internet in an effort to prevent terrorists from communicating or recruiting online.

        “Somebody will [say] 'Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people," Trump said last December.

        Now, you should not just now be finding out these incredibly basic facts. It's something of a cliche on the internet to tell people to do their own research when losing an internet argument, but you really ought to have a baseline understanding of a presidential candiate's views on free speech before an election. So fuck you for demanding "citations" of an obvious fact. Fuck you for not even beginning to read about the world you live in. And fuck you for acting so high and mighty about your own damn ignorance. It's really not excusable.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:34PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @08:34PM (#435101)

          Uh, no. Primary sources are for journalists, historians, and other direct researchers.. If you reject secondary sources that report what people have said and done, you're too far gone to reason with.

          So if I want to do the thinking myself instead of what other people tell me, I'm being against reason? Right.

          Sorry that's my line for unacceptable standards of evidence in casual debate. I can accept that you might reject tertiary sources, or reject individual secondary sources as making things up too often(Brietbart news comes to mind).

          If you cannot present sufficient evidence so that even the most superficial skepticism is dispelled, then your argument is weak. The fact that this is a "casual debate" only means that you are presenting a weak argument in a casual debate. Now, you don't have to necessarily prove your claims if you don't want to, but I'm going to call them out for what they are - opinions being falsely presented as facts.

          You've provided a number of links to sources that are just as ideologically driven and willing to push their agenda as Breitbart after I explicitly asked for primary sources. I wonder why that is? Could it be perhaps that you have no evidence and are instead relying on biased sources engaging in overloading the reader with superficial and inconclusive circumstantial evidence because you don't actually have any strong evidence to support your position?

          Now, you should not just now be finding out these incredibly basic facts. It's something of a cliche on the internet to tell people to do their own research when losing an internet argument

          I'm not losing any argument because I am yet to make any points. It's impossible to form a rebuttal when the other side simply makes an unsubstantiated assertion and then gets upset at you when you ask for evidence.

          ...but you really ought to have a baseline understanding of a presidential candiate's views on free speech before an election.

          I don't have to have any understanding of US presidential elections because I'm not eligible to vote in the US or even a resident, and therefore have no moral obligation to be informed about it. I'm just a guy on the Internet who despises bullshit no matter who pushes it. Not that attacking my character has any relevance to the discussion.

          So fuck you for demanding "citations" of an obvious fact. Fuck you for not even beginning to read about the world you live in. And fuck you for acting so high and mighty about your own damn ignorance. It's really not excusable.

          That is rather unwarranted. Why so angry when all I did was to politely ask for strong evidence?

          • (Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:36PM

            by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @09:36PM (#435130) Journal

            I'd like to reaffirm that yes it's kinda shitty of you to politely ask for citations for bare minimum facts that you ought to know, and assuring me that you only had the best of intentions doesn't really help me feel better.

            I can sorta understand the whole "not in the US" part, but then why do care that much if it's true now?

  • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:02PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:02PM (#434920) Journal

    You assert that it is silly, but give no reason why it would be silly?

    On the contrary, it would seem that this person has said plenty of things that would lend credibility to the idea that:
    * he doesn't understand the limits of presidential power
    * he doesn't understand, and / or doesn't care about the constitution

    He has demonstrated many times now that he will fly off the handle in a rage at people who offend him.

    He isn't used to being told "no". Or hearing things he doesn't like.

    Combine that with some power. So why exactly is it so silly?

    Unbelievable maybe. Shocking maybe. But those are quite different things than silly. One might say it is silly to think that he would get elected.

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
    • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:25PM

      by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:25PM (#434931)

      He may want or dislike many things, but as every president learns, President != dictator.

      As for the rest of it, see my other comment here: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=16749&cid=434929#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:54PM

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:54PM (#434991) Journal
        To your points in the other post you link to.

        > you're assuming he was serious.
        > he's walked back on almost every comment he's ever made

        That only means you can't believe anything he says. He's unpredictable. You don't know what he might do. Something to be afraid of.


        > you're assuming he's even capable of following through
        > good luck fighting the First Amendment

        That doesn't mean he might not TRY to fight. Which should be frightening enough.

        But, being president with a majority of his party in congress, he could maybe even get unconstitutional legislation passed. It could take years to wind through the courts and to the Supreme Court. Which by that time might be stacked with his own appointed judges. Something to consider. Again just because it is unthinkable doesn't mean it cannot happen. He got elected didn't he.


        > you're assuming he knows what the Internet Archive is or gives two shits about it.
        > that "libel law" comment was referencing media that unfavorably covered him. nothing to do with reference sites, libraries, or w/e

        He only gives a s**t about anything that affects him personally. If the Internet Archive happens to archive content praising him, that would be okay. But archived content criticizing him might be another matter. He's already demonstrated how thin skinned he is. He might stop at nothing to remove content from the Internet Archive. Stop at nothing. Sick every possible agency on them. IRS. DOJ. FBI. NSA. CIT. Etc. It doesn't matter if he wins. He could just punish them out of pure evil spite.

        The fact that the libel law comment was referencing unfavorable media coverage should indicate how out of touch with reality he is. Or was pretending to be. Just because that comment was not referencing reference sites doesn't mean such sites are magically immune from his wrath, once aroused by some slightly wrong comment.
        --
        People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by inertnet on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:46PM

    by inertnet (4071) on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:46PM (#434940) Journal

    It appears that many people still haven't realized how he got elected, while it actually was a very simple strategy. First of all, he acted as a confident man with power (silverback) and sweeping statements that got a lot of people enthusiasm going. This is how he got large groups of people to support him:

    Put Hillary in jail. This is not an issue anymore.
    Global warming is a hoax. This is not an issue anymore, he's not going to abandon treaties, as he said before.
    NATO is bad. After the election he spoke to its chairman and explained that he wants other countries to spend 2% on defense too. Chairman is now happy.
    Shut down Obamacare. After the election he wants to keep it running and maintain at least parts of it.

    I can't remember the rest because I'm not American and just a bystander, but the modus operandi is clear to me. Make groups of dissatisfied people believe that you're going to solve their problems so they'll vote for you. After the election you can then act like a real politician and change your positions.

    Very clever and I'm surprised that nobody seems to realize this.

    • (Score: 2) by Kilo110 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:56PM

      by Kilo110 (2853) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:56PM (#434952)

      Well his campaign-persona was very polarizing. It's a strong image to shake loose. But yeah, it's really obvious what he's doing once you put that aside.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:05PM (#435030)

      Its not clever at all. What you're describing is textbook demagoguery and its been known for millenia, and plenty of people have been pointing out for months that Drumpf is a demagogue.

  • (Score: 2) by tisI on Thursday December 01 2016, @02:45AM

    by tisI (5866) on Thursday December 01 2016, @02:45AM (#435248)

    My take on global nervousness would be that the Donald is an unbalanced unpredictable wildcard of a guy, non-politician type.
    Sure the world is nervous. He says crazy inflammatory shit. He has access to nukes and the power to use them. Not that nukes are any threat, but his history is to bully and intimidate his way through his business interactions. As I have read, most if not all associates (contractors) lose their asses when he burns his *name-your-favorite-Trump-business-here* to the ground. Bankruptcies all around, except for Trump. He always made/makes out fine for himself in the end.
    And this is what we got now. Your life's savings are in this guy's hands. Literally the world is now this guy's playground. Like it or not.

    Just say'n

    --
    "Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."