SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg began 2017 with a bold personal challenge: "to have visited and met people in every state in the US by the end of the year."
So far, his whistlestop tour of the states certainly bears all the hallmarks of early political canvassing.
As part of the challenge, Zuckerberg reportedly wanted to meet longtime Democrats who voted for Trump in the last election and asked his team to reach out and find such people.
[...]
Such a tour becomes even more conspicuous in light of unsealed court filings from a class-action lawsuit in 2016 in which Zuckerberg attempted to dilute shareholder power and afford himself permanent control of the $440 billion company.
Of particular note in the proceedings was a message sent to Zuckerberg by Marc Andreessen, one of Facebook's most prominent investors, in which he raised the issue of "how to define the government service thing without freaking out shareholders that you are losing commitment."
"It's the thing people will point to on announcement and say 'what the f**k are you guys doing agreeing to this', particularly since... government service would require you to give up control of Facebook anyway and it's a moot point," said Andreessen, adding credence to speculation that Zuckerberg will make a run for political office at some point in the future.
One of the richest men in the world will be looking out for the little guy, right?
Source: https://www.rt.com/usa/386718-zuckerberg-political-campaign-rumors/
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:22PM (1 child)
Dumb fucks.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:18PM
In the next life may Facebook be blessed with having to debug obfuscated perl using only an 026 keypunch machine that has the windows 8 metro touch UI without a keyboard.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Wootery on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:33PM (6 children)
I for one don't consider rumours spouted by Russian state media to be front-page material.
(Score: 4, Informative) by takyon on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:52PM
Mark Zuckerberg had supper with Ohio family that voted for Trump, adding to speculation about a presidential run [salon.com]
Zuckerberg moves spark 2020 speculation [thehill.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:24PM (1 child)
If what the Russian state says is good enough for the administration, then it should be good enough for the rest of us also.
On a rarely serious note: there is nothing wrong with looking at a variety of sources including CNN, Fox, Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, RT, BBC and others, as long as you understand their various biases. You don't have to accept what they say uncritically . . .
(switching back to normal mode)
. . . unless you are orange.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:18PM
Yeah but calling something biased reveals that you're biased. It's all a giant circle, help!
(Score: 1, Disagree) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:19PM (2 children)
Especially when the claim is impossible; he's too young. Am I the only one in America without a law degree who has read the constitution? You have to be at least 42 to become President. He's old enough to run for congress, though.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:44PM
Not 42, 35 years old.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:49PM
Another swing and another miss.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:34PM (4 children)
...and the first billionaire president.
(Score: 5, Funny) by DannyB on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:27PM (3 children)
If we're going to have a Jewish president, I would prefer a 2000 year old Jew, who many worship and give their money to.
And yes, if it is not clear, I am referring to Bernie.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:03PM (2 children)
I think I read he is an atheist. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist. [wikileaks.org]
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday May 03 2017, @12:43AM
Atheist Jews are still Jews. Don't believe me? Go somewhere in San Francisco where a lot of Jews hang out and chat them up.
You won't be disappointed.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 03 2017, @04:36PM
Whether he's atheist or not should not be the major factor for a voter. The concern should be whether he will enact good public policy. I would prefer to vote for a Christian -- if I thought there could genuinely be a "Christian Politician". But they all embrace horrible policy ideas. Or maybe they are "christian" in name only and don't really believe anything. Maybe they don't even know what the word means.
You could point out to Southern Baptist peeps that old testament prophecies are already fulfilled that the Jews would regather in unbelief in Israel. It's already happened.
But on topic, it seems like policies are what a voter should be looking for in a candidate.
Why is it that when I hold a stick, everyone begins to look like a pinata?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:37PM (10 children)
That's all we need. Some kid from nowhere gets really lucky with a fricking company, suckers trust him, he sells out to every corporation willing to pay him, and now he thinks he's presidential material.
Oh - wait. Don't we already have something like that?
Business as usual I guess.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 4, Informative) by ilsa on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:26PM (7 children)
The irony is that at least Zuckerberg *was* successful. Trump, by all accounts, was a sheister from day one. If it wasn't for his name, he would be a nobody. The majority of his fortune came from his daddy. He's had so many bad business deals and so many bankruptcies that if he had simply taken all the money he inherited and dumped it into gov't bonds, he would be far wealthier now than he is.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:47PM (6 children)
As I've heard the story, Trump got a nice bundle from Daddy, added some to it, lost it, made another bundle, lost most of that, then made another bundle. Easy come, easy go, I guess. He's not a yuge success, but he has done pretty damned well, overall.
Now, Zuckerberg? He won a lottery that keeps on paying. Sorry, but I just don't see that he's a "success" in the business world. I suppose that if not blowing everything on stupid shit counts as "success", then Zuck can claim success. Trump actually has a better claim to being a "success" than Zuckerberg does.
Give Zuckerberg another ten years, and see what he does with his money. If he continues to grow it, then he can make a claim to "success". If he builds another company or ten that are successful, then I'll have to give him credit for "success".
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:22PM
So he could, for instance, put it all in one of those retirement 2040 accounts that rebalances automatically - make about 5% a year and that would count as successful businessman in your eyes? Because that's basically the same level of success Trump has had.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:17PM (4 children)
> Now, Zuckerberg? He won a lottery that keeps on paying.
Being born to wealth isn't just a money lottery, its also a connections lottery.
Its those family ties to the old boys club that enabled trump to go bankrupt so many times and still recover.
When he went broke he still knew people who would bail him out.
Zuckerberg had some connections, his family was wealthy enough to send him to Stanford but they weren't wealthy enough to bribe the school to accept him like trump's daddy (and kushner's daddy [propublica.org]).
Zuckerberg did get lucky with facebook. But he was not the only person to 'invent' social networking. Remember friendster? The difference between zuck and trump is that despite starting with a lot less, zuck has out-competed everyone else in a business where there are nearly zero barriers to entry. He even kicked google's ass and sent them packing (G+ lol). It was luck that put him in the right place at the right time, it was skill and hard work that turned the luck into success. Trump, despite vastly greater connections, has crashed and burned in every business venture except licensing his name. He's got at least 6 bankruptcies [washingtonpost.com] losing billions of other people's money.
So no, trump does not have a better claim to success. He won a much larger jackpot in the birth lottery, and he's consequently been able to survive yuge fuckups. Zuck's taken his smaller jackpot and hasn't screwed the pooch once. Not that I wouldn't enjoy seeing facebook go down in flames.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:08PM (1 child)
For some reason, I see the ability to survive yuge fuckups as a necessary trait for today's president. I also see that as a requirement for the next president too. The first candidate that has a track records of fixing yuge fuckups gets my vote.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:30PM
As long as he didn't save himself by sacrificing billions of dollars of other people's money!
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday May 03 2017, @12:42AM
> Stanford
Harvard, actually.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @05:11AM
it was skill and hard work that turned the luck into success.
Someone else's skill and hard work. His only skills are manipulating gullible idiots into using his service and helping him build it, but gullible idiots are not hard to fool. Most people with such skills do not so succeed to wildly, so it's essentially luck.
Facebook and similar services have done irreparable harm to society by destroying privacy even further and building massive surveillance engines (which also affects people who do not even use the service). We should not praise people who build such monstrosities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:36PM (1 child)
Trump proved that anyone can be elected president.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:48PM
> Trump proved that anyone can be elected president.
Obama proved that anyone be elected president.
Born to a middle-class family. Absent father. Black. Middle name Hussein.
Trump proved that any old white guy with tons of celebrity name recognition and billions of dollars can be elected president.
Which wasn't very much of a stretch.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Fishscene on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:39PM (5 children)
...anyone WORSE for the job. /end opinion
I know I am not God, because every time I pray to Him, it's because I'm not perfect and thankful for what He's done.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:17PM (3 children)
...we have now is worse.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:23PM (2 children)
And, the only reason that chump got the job, is the other candidate was so terribly UNFIT!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:23PM (1 child)
Indeed. Historians say Andrew Johnson was our worst President, and I looked him up. His career was remarkably similar to Hillary's.
Carbon, The only element in the known universe to ever gain sentience
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:33PM
As political claims go, that one is one of the most vague and meaningless claims I've seen.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:05PM
Hillary Fucked Bernie von Wasserman-Schulz?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:39PM (54 children)
We've had a reality TV star go straight from household name to president without even taking the stop at governorship that a Hollywood actor would for example. Why not some other guy everybody knows?
Is this how we elect presidents now? Just be ultra rich, be a household name, and have an interest in the job, and you're in, experience be damned.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:57PM (52 children)
I don't know. Zuckerberg as president would be as much of a farce as Trump. The only difference would be the flavor of narcissism, with Millenial instead of Baby Boomer.
Who is the actual president would only matter if the president meant to not do the utter bidding of the Wall Street overlords. That has never happened in my lifetime, though I read in the history books that a small handful of presidents did so in the past, like Truman, FDR, and TR.
2-3 years ago I ardently wished Elizabeth Warren would run and be another Teddy Roosevelt, but she failed a key test of character when she sold her soul to Hillary Clinton in the last election, and is damaged goods now.
So yeah, sure, Zuckerberg, run for president. Why shouldn't one feckless loser follow another?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:11PM (1 child)
Oh my, the angst! It seems you've got your Purity Test to rival those of the other special interest groups, like the anti-abortionists. "100% compliance or you're dead to me!"
Good luck with your Diogenesian quest for the one perfect politician.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @03:31AM
I don't see the problem with purity tests, at least sometimes. Some issues are 'strike one, you're out' to me. If you support mass surveillance, you're out. Supporting our two party system is another deal-breaker. There are plenty of horrible positions a politician could take that we should not tolerate.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:37PM (48 children)
Why shouldn't one feckless loser follow another?
He strikes me as being extraordinarily beta. He may or may not be, the point is he looks and acts on TV like a guy who I could boss around while I do his wife in front of him and he wouldn't even have the guts to complain about it. Kinda like Sweden or Germany in the invasion right now LOL. And I'm just little old me, not even Trump, God knows how Trump could dominate him in any discussion or debate.
Remember Trump ridiculing "little marco" or "low T jeb"? Imagine that turned up to 10. If those guys couldn't handle it, I get the impression Zuck would wilt like lettuce in a cutting torch flame. Imagine Zuck's lines at the debate: "Please God Emperor have mercy on me"
I don't think he'd make it out of primary season, his fellow D wouldn't allow it.
Remember, the Republicans tried incredibly hard with "he's got a lot of money, a lot of name recognition, and hasn't offended anyone" and Jeb didn't turn out so well.
There's also identity politics, the D party jumped the gun on kicking out all the white males, and Zuck is a ... white male. He doesn't stand a chance unless he leans on the Jewish identity or comes out as bi or gay or pedo or some other protected minority. There's no place for white people in the Democratic party anymore, its like asking if a jew could have led the nazi party in 1935 "well in theory handwave handwave handwave history this and that" but in practice yeah thats not gonna happen nope.
He also has a severe perception problem being a California guy thats appealing in California and maybe urban Massachusetts and thats about it. "From the land of antifa, you know, the folks 90% of the population want gassed, we bring you some smarmy know it all kid to show you how to be holier than thou" yeah thats gonna sell real good. Trump could invite Putin to invade "Red Dawn" style and in 90% of the country outside California Trump would STILL get more votes just because he's not a smarmy know it all holier than thou kid from California.
Given all this, and given my political leanings, I strongly encourage the Democratic party to rally around Zuck. Hell I'd toss in a couple donation bux.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:55PM (3 children)
>pedo
>protected class
Only in your pizzagate fever dreams.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:05PM (2 children)
Only in your pizzagate fever dreams.
Mark this post and come back in 2027, maybe 2037, we'll see who was right or wrong. Suggesting society will completely reverse cultural course like you are suggesting is, technically, possible, I agree with that. I think it incredibly unlikely whereas you think it likely, but we do agree its theoretically possible.
Whats your logic for that not being a political progressive goal? I mean, its on the spectrum to the left which means its gonna be mainstreamed sooner or later, sure as the sun rises in the east.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:15PM (1 child)
If you can't tell the difference between two consenting adults of the same sex, and child abuse....
You know, I think I agree with GP. You're clearly a pedophile.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @05:40AM
It's worth noting that merely having a sexual attraction to prepubescent children (i.e. being a pedophile) does not mean you actually have sex with them. As long as they do not act on their desires, I see no reason for anyone to treat them with contempt; that only makes things worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:56PM (5 children)
Congratulations, you have taken the crown for most worthless posts from TheMightyBuzzard!
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:40PM (4 children)
( o Y o ) ---- Look, boobies!
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @09:59PM (3 children)
Still a better post than anything VLM's written lately.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:30PM (2 children)
Even with the missing < that the code I help write ate on me?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:52PM (1 child)
Yes, if you'd use that for all your posts that aren't relating technical information I think it would be for the best.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 03 2017, @12:54AM
Right then, I'll change my sig.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:57PM (4 children)
I'd like to put in a formal SN request / bug report for "hatefacts" as a moderation.
I see a difference between "my political views conflict with observed reality therefore I feel the need to lash out" vs "the GNAA cut-n-paste the N-word five hundred times". There should be different mods for each.
The world is full of right wing / national socialist hatefacts. I should know, I'm a master of them. Yet hatefacts are equal opportunity in that even I can see there exist left wing hatefacts, for example there is likely evidence that President Rodrigo Duterte is in practice not entirely infallible. Or despite endless repetition to the contrary as a slogan by folks of my political leanings, I can see the logic in claiming that "Hitler did a few things wrong" in that there are several historical events where if he had zigged left instead of zagging right things would have objectively turned out better for him or even better for us as a planet.
Anyway I think I've made a solid argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:18PM (3 children)
Anyway I think I've made a solid argument.
You're completely confused as to why homosexuality is unlike child abuse, aren't you?
Maybe you should resign your current job and become a Catholic priest. You'll be happier that way.
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:59PM (2 children)
You're completely confused as to why homosexuality is unlike child abuse, aren't you?
Aren't they generally, although not universally, related by cause and effect? That's pretty common knowledge, I think.
Oh AC, of all the strange things to rant about. Unless AC is into some kind of conspiracy theory that Zuck is bi or maybe changing over to trans-lesbianism. I mean, the rumors hardly slowed down Hillary, so he could kind of run in her honor...
That might be his secret sauce to get the democrat nom. I'm about 95% sure he's married, keep her around, go trans-lesbian, run hard on that, that'll get the noms. Probably won't win the election... But its a very realistic strategy at least up to the summer convention season.
I'll give you credit AC, that's actually kinda brilliant in its own way. You are on to something there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:35PM
Aren't they generally, although not universally, related by cause and effect? That's pretty common knowledge, I think.
Lolwut?
I think you just demonstrated that you do not think.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday May 03 2017, @08:02AM
Aren't they generally, although not universally, related by cause and effect? That's pretty common knowledge, I think.
Perhaps you should educate yourself before spouting off, VLM. I won't hold my breath, but here's a pretty good source [ucdavis.edu] that might give you a more realistic view than what you apparently consider to be "common knowledge."
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:01PM (32 children)
Yes, he's a nebbish. A nebbish will never beat somebody like Trump.
Being Jewish will not help him. That would only help him if he were trying to raise money from the wealthy old Jewish ladies on the Upper West Side who sustain 90% of Democratic Party fundraising. He does not need their money. Also, politically we're rather past the high water mark of Jews as morally and electorally infallible. The grip that Hollywood and mass media, two Jewish-controlled institutions, has had on American culture and the American mind has been broken and discredited. It's not that America has turned toward anti-Semitism, because that would be terrible, but that people have begun to realize that they care about Jews, Israel, and their priorities about as much as they do about the Karen people of Burma, ie., they don't give a damn. For a small fraction of the voters who are actually anti-Semites, they would froth at the mouth to come out against him. So if anything the mass indifference to his Jewishness + the intense hatred of the few real anti-Semites might wind up being a net negative.
And you're also right that he has extremely limited geographic appeal. The people who turned out for Trump would despise Zuckerberg as much as they despised Hillary, with an extra helping of contempt for the effete Millenial punk he is. Heck, I even have relatives who work at Facebook who don't respect the guy.
In sum, I can't think of a more total non-starter of a presidential candidate than him.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:14PM (31 children)
people have begun to realize that they care about
The neocons did a lot of good for Israel. If they were an Israeli political party that would be great, for Israel anyway. They are, however, Americans, theoretically on our side, but they aren't.
What good did that Israel-first political group do for the USA? Well, nothing, just Fed us up and killed a lot of us.
So yeah a political movement who's only slogan is "Fuck America, Americans need to suffer to help out Israel" doesn't sell very well anymore after trying it for a couple decades and seeing the result. Can't claim commie style that we just didn't try hard enough, too many dead Americans to claim that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:25PM (30 children)
It's one thing for the neocons to support Israel because they think it will hasten the Rapture, but it's quite another to turn over the formal reins to a Jew. In other words, they use Israel for their own purposes, not because they like Jews.
FWIW, it's fine to be a Jew. It's fine to be a Jew holding office. It's fine to be a Jew and be president. It is not fine to be all those things and warp the policy and might of the most powerful country in the world to the racist and bigoted purposes Israel always pursues. It's absurd. It's as absurd as me becoming president and forcibly breaking England's hold on Scotland because I have Scottish ancestry, and granting every Scot a huge annuity out of the American treasury, and selling them weapons from the top shelf to enable them to ethnically cleanse the English from their lands and gobble up tracts of land south of their border, and fund the building of a giant wall around the English to transform their territory into an open-air prison. That prospect is so fantastical that anyone hearing it would wonder what kind of hallucinogens I'm taking, but it's exactly, exactly what we actually do for Israel.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:05PM (28 children)
A lot of its the cost benefit ratio at work.
Saudi Arabia is a crap country full of crap people that land airplanes in our skyscrapers and crap laws and crap tier human rights. But, they tolerate our military presence mostly and sell a lot of oil, so the net balance is about zero. Yeah they suck, but on average they're worth it.
Israel, well we get, um, nothing? Although the cost is truly over the top immense. Abandon them and let nature take its course like Zimbabwe or soon to be South Africa? I'm sure they'll get along great with the natives after all that imperialism, LOL.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:47PM (26 children)
The only serious democracy in the region. The only nuclear power in the region. Proven able to hold their own in an area of the world that absolutely despises them. Why should we not be allies again?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:34PM (1 child)
Reasonable points. Sounds like Japan or Russia not Israel. Or maybe France. We don't fight for Japan or Russia or France or do their bidding. Likewise I'm totally not saying "bomb Japan again" but there's a spectrum of friendliness and putting them in charge of US policy as the 51st state is clearly going way way way too far. "We are best buddies" is a long way from "we die, a lot, for you, on your command".
For a good time, I could claim you described South Africa back in the good old days. "Serious", and "Power" being somewhat relative terms on that continent, LOL. Certainly, S.A. back in the good old days wasn't exactly Euro/USA levels of democracy, but observation shows S.A. was a lot more civilized than Rwanda, for example. Now that's a rough neighborhood. Frankly everyone in Africa of every color had a better quality of life when the Euros were in charge in the colonial era. And if they thought the euros were kinda tough masters, they're gonna have so much fun now that China is taking over, now they are a bunch of real hardasses.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:25PM
France? Those cheese-eating surrender-monkeys? They'll end up being the first arab nation with nukes here in the next few decades because of their immigration policies. That's how much they love to surrender.
Japan? We absolutely do protect them or they'd be Chinese right now. They're allowed fuck-all for a military, remember?
As for Israel dictating American policy? Get off the crack, man. You're eventually going to notice you live in a nation whose majority religion's deity was Jewish. That tends to lead to favorable feelings towards them.
We also like an underdog, which they are in spades. Every last nation within two borders of them hates their breathing guts and would love nothing better than to see them all dead. And yet they stand. Do they have help? Sure. That's still huge fucking brass cajones though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:41PM (22 children)
Proven able to hold their own in an area of the world that absolutely despises them.
Not so much "hold their own" as "spend billions in foreign aid fighting off everyone."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:15PM (21 children)
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. They need no foreign boots on the ground to hold their piece of it against all comers and that's worthy of respect.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:30PM (12 children)
The deserved respect for their toughness and talents is being offset by the blunt and shameless commitment of their "democratic" (don't be the Arab 20%, or the left) government to Apartheid 2.0
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:38PM (11 children)
You're going to call Apartheid on Israel when they're surrounded by nations where being Jewish is a death sentence? Bitch, please...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:43PM (1 child)
None of them claim to be a democracy.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:50PM
*BZZZT* Wrong! Try again. Half of them claim it but don't functionally have anything resembling it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:45PM (8 children)
Even the U.N. called it Apartheid, before the new guy got a call, and quickly pulled the report out on a technicality before showing the lady the door out.
And yes, I will. Do I need to Godwin the thread to point out that having shitty neighbors doesn't allow you to discard your own obligations?
It's not just the guys in the Occupied Territories. Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent are being actively discriminated against, because the place can be either Jewish or Democratic, but both ain't gonna work...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:52PM (7 children)
The UN just elected Saudi Arabia to head their Women's Rights council. They are a joke. Not even a good one.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @08:47PM (6 children)
Shooting the messenger doesn't change the reality on the ground.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:38PM (5 children)
When the UN has every single time sided against Israel on everything it has ever said about the nation, you can go ahead and just dismiss everything they have to say on the matter. At this point I wouldn't believe them if they said Israel was majority Jewish.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:53PM (4 children)
Nope, you can't dismiss everything they say, because that's pretty much what you should be listening to, if you ever want to see actual peaceful relations there. Nukes prevent war, but actual peace ain't coming when everyone else refuses to disregards Apartheid against their cousins.
The UN also officialized the creation of Israel, and adopted multiple resolutions recognizing the green line as its border. Hardly "every single time".
The fact that the Zionist hardliners will create their Great Israel from the River to the Sea, current inhabitants be damned (literally), pissing off all the parties involved except the lapdogs US and UK, and making a mockery of their "democracy", doesn't make the UN unfair or biased when pointing it out...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:15PM (3 children)
Yes, I most certainly can. The UN has not been useful for one damned thing in its entire history. It is entirely a sounding board where petty tyrants get to call the bigger tyrants cocksuckers and legitimize their own personal variety of tyranny. Nothing else.
Those "current inhabitants" did not exist before Israel was reformed. There never was a Palestine full of Palestinians. There was sparsely populated desert. Those there now are either people or the descendants of people who moved there with the express purpose of ridding the world of the Jew Menace as their religion commands. They are fighting for land that they have been trying to steal from Israel since WWII and to exterminate all Jews.
And progs like you side with them every single time even though they are violently against everything you stand for at home. Simply because your nation stands against them and you default to thinking everything your nation does is evil. Useful idiots, as Stalin would say.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:39PM (2 children)
That first paragraph belittles all the conflicts in which UN peacekeepers have protected millions of lives. Not everything is good with the UN, but not everything is bad either.
That second paragraph is straight up unchecked Zionist propaganda, which I did not expect on even your best trolling days. "Hey, there were Jews 200 years ago. Then there were not, but nobody was there, no sir, not even in the Holy City itself, before, during, or after the crusades, until the Jews came back to the empty desert that they own"
The third one is just plain dumb, period.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:57PM
May the light of knowledge shine upon you to unveil the horrors that are TMB posts. If you find yourself agreeing with anything he says do a critical analysis and wonder if perhaps your views are wrong. They may still hold, but better safe than sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @04:08AM
Nobody was there. It wasn't quite empty desert. It had locusts, date palms, terrorists, mosquitoes, and many other creatures. There were no people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:39PM (7 children)
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. They need no foreign boots on the ground to hold their piece of it against all comers
More like 1 of one and a baker's dozen of the other.
They would not even have any boots if it weren't for all the foreign aid.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:49PM (6 children)
Their economy's actually doing quite well for them but you were going for snark not facts, yes?
$127.4 billion is the number you're looking for. Not this year; over the last three quarters of a century. That's not even pocket change compared to the money we waste at home every single year; that's the penny we pass on the sidewalk that we don't bother to pick up.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @08:54PM (5 children)
How many of the 3000 Flint-like ongoing lead poisoning cases can you fix with $125B ? How many of the 70000 Structurally Deficient bridges ?
Instead of taking care of Americans, our taxes are used for the Crusade-by-proxy...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:34PM (4 children)
You really want to suggest cutting spending to a libertarian as a progressive?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:42PM (3 children)
I'm pretty sure I was suggesting allocating funds better.
Honestly, my love letter to Uncle Sam this year was 12% of my 6-figure income (under 17%, counting Uncle Jerry)... That's just ridiculously low by most civilized standards. I don't need lower taxes.
I just would prefer scrapping a third of the pentagon in exchange for funded schools, structurally sound roads, and clean water.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:00PM (2 children)
Whew, you almost hurt my brain there thinking a progressive might want to stop spending money we can't afford. Glad you clarified.
Really? Most people I know making even $50K/year see 35% of their check just go *poof* every payday. Those making six figures it's more like 40-45%. You really might want to include all of the taxes you pay.
And, yes, I'm certain you would deeply love relegating us to playing military second-fiddle to Russia, China, and possibly even Europe. Even if the money simply went back to the people who it'd been stolen from in the first place. Your type dislike the US even being able to do what's in its best interests, regardless of who likes it.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday May 02 2017, @11:30PM (1 child)
Come on, stay in non-trolling mode ... You perfectly know that cutting even half of the Pentagon would have the US play second fiddle to absolutely nobody, even if they combined... And I said a third.
Novel concept: Maybe be staffed/equipped to fight two simultaneous World Wars ... when they happen, not when having so many nukes means that even a single one isn't about to happen. And I'm saying that as someone with a lot of friends deriving a paycheck from our obsession to remain in overkill mode even as the debt piles up and our infrastructure crumbles.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:02AM
As a vet myself, I know it's technically possible to spend a lot less than we are and get a better military than we have. As a realist who's been around a few years, I know it's not practically possible to do so. Somewhere in the middle is what I'd aim for but I can't back any reduction in combat effectiveness.
Or we could, you know, stop handing out money to people just because they think they deserve it for existing.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:05AM
The only serious democracy in the region. The only nuclear power in the region. Proven able to hold their own in an area of the world that absolutely despises them.
The country is one of the few in Africa never to have had a coup d'état, and regular elections have been held for almost a century. However, the vast majority of black South Africans were not enfranchised until 1994. During the 20th century, the black majority sought to recover its rights from the dominant white minority, with this struggle playing a large role in the country's recent history and politics. The National Party imposed apartheid in 1948 [...]
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 03 2017, @12:38AM
They design every other Intel CPU. They work with us to design and test systems that defend against incoming missiles, morters, artillery, and rockets. They are willing to take our most hard-core Jews, the ones who refuse to push buttons after sundown on Friday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:33PM
> It's one thing for the neocons to support Israel because they think it will hasten the Rapture,
I used to believe that. Then I paid attention to what they were really saying.
Sure, some of the seriously whacko evangelicals think its about the rapture.
But for most of them its about holocaust guilt. We really blew it with things like turning away the jewish refugees on the SS St Louis [ushmm.org] and letting nazi sympathizers like Henry Ford [rarehistoricalphotos.com] and Charles Lindbergh [express.co.uk] as well as sincere anti-war protestors keep us on the sidelines while hitler murdered millions of jews.
Long ago it became dogmatic over-compensation and two wrongs do not make a right. But to ascribe their motivations to rapture hypocrisy is to misunderstand your opponent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:56PM
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/01/stocks-drop-after-trump-says-hes-actively-considering-breaking-up-big-banks.html [cnbc.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @05:31PM
Well the cover charge for running in a serious sense is 100 million. To win considering the past few campaigns it's another 500 million or so. The candidates either have to get it through corporate *goughlegalbribescough* which they in turn get tax breaks and laws passed that favor them. Or you run on your own money. Zuckkerberg has enough cast to run on his own.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 02 2017, @01:53PM (15 children)
Obama will be our last president whose not a billionaire or part of some fucking dynasty.
Pretending to have a democracy was fun though.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @02:15PM (14 children)
What would be better, given that we even allow you to vote? Changing who votes would be great of course: you must have a traditional engineering degree with at least a minor in economics, and you must be invested in the future of the nation (have 3+ kids).
Normally we choose by looks. Given photos of two unfamiliar candidates (senators or governors from a different state) people can usually predict the winner.
Sometimes a good campaign slogan helps. Everybody wants "change", as long you carefully avoid giving details that might piss people off. (no, I don't want that change at all, I want the other change) Promise the moon ("You can keep your health insurance plan. You can keep your doctor.") and speak in poetic words. It's all nonsense.
At least a billionaire knows how to manage money. Having a good feel for money is important. Somebody who is a mere millionaire might be a bit erratic dealing with millions of millions. It's hard enough stepping up 4 orders of magnitude; 7 is worse. For example, "the wall" feels expensive to most people, but it's barely even pocket change to the US federal government.
The dynasty types will know the levers to pull. They might be more able to get stuff done... though perhaps that is a bad thing. Somebody with that kind of power can get away with murder.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:05PM (9 children)
It's amazing the number of my fellow engineers who get this mistaken impression that they know jack-shit about running a country.
Anyone who has spent substantial time with engineers would know that that being able to plan a 40nm board layout or check a manual to determine the appropriate wire gauge for support 17 tons across a 20 foot span doesn't make you smart.
Also, I would do anything to save myself from people who've only ever taken econ 101 reducing every social problem to a linear supply/demand curve.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:16PM (1 child)
Engineers generally lack the skill to get people to do what they want, as politicians. When they morph into technocrats, though, they can become a much more positive and helpful variety of bureaucrat.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:30PM
Steps for an engineer to gain the skills to become president / ceo type.
Step 1. Surround yourself with people who only say Yes.
Step 2. Insulate yourself from cause and effect loops.
Step 3. Tell yourself it's THEIR problem if you don't understand something.
(Score: 2) by fliptop on Tuesday May 02 2017, @04:33PM (5 children)
Perhaps, but I'd rather have engineers in public office than a bunch of lawyers. At least engineers know how to solve problems, not make them worse.
To be oneself, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:39PM
.... aaaaand that's the problem in that a lot of "problems" are rackets where the "right" people are making money.
What an engineer sees as a ridiculous design mistake is some saledroid's commission opportunity or upselling feature.
If the purpose of the government was to fix things, things would run quite a bit different and engineers would already be in charge. If the purpose of the government is to entrench corruption, then you need something like the breaking bad "Criminal" defense attorney.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:45PM (3 children)
At least engineers know how to solve problems,
That's a false equivalency.
Engineers know how to solve a specific class of problem involving hard sciences like physics and chemistry.
Lawyers know how to solve a different class of problem involved soft sciences like psychology and sociology.
Guess which class most closely resembles the problems of governing, especially governing a democracy?
(Score: 3, Informative) by VLM on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:05PM (1 child)
Lawyers know how to solve a different class of problem
With all due respect its more like the consultant who's pretty good at keeping the money rolling in and fixing things may or may not help with keeping the money rolling in.
Like the old joke about a lawyer starves in a one-lawyer-town but once a town has two lawyers nothing gets fixed, but the two lawyers do get fat. Any other profession, if the existing population in a professional field is starving, doubling the population would result in utter famine, with the sole exception of lawyers, LOL.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @07:41PM
With all due respect you suck at analogies.
Telling jokes that illustrate your ignorance of fields you have no experience in isn't an analogy, its just superficial invective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 06 2017, @04:14AM
Guess which class most closely resembles the problems of governing, especially governing a democracy?
Neither, because the differences are insignificant. Lawyers tend to want power and money above all, and many are sociopaths/psychopaths. Of course, that problem applies to most politicians, and being an engineer would not really solve anything. The soft sciences are also generally useless and studies can be replicated only some of the time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @10:00PM
Right now, it isn't engineers with economics minors. We get:
gardeners, hair stylists, receptionists, janitors, burger flippers...
Um... let's go with the engineers.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:14PM (3 children)
Whoa, lemme stop you right there. This is a common misapprehension repeated by people who don't know billionaires. Billionaires don't know shit about managing money. They have accountants and lawyers for that. They also generally don't know shit about business. They have vastly more talented lackies for that. What they know about is rigging the game.
There are a couple of exceptions to that. Michael Bloomberg is one that springs to mind. He does understand managing money because he made his fortune rather than having it handed to him. He also understands managing people; I have only ever heard people extol how well-run his company is, and everyone who deals with the City of New York reports his level of organization and management was head and shoulders above Giuliani or de Blasio.
The dynasty types you're lauding do know how to pull levers, but they only ever pull them to further concentrate their own wealth and power above the already stratospheric stratum they're at. They never do anything to help anyone else.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 02 2017, @03:38PM (2 children)
He also understands managing people; I have only ever heard people extol how well-run his company is
I've only heard about how horrible working at his company is for programmers, because his company is a huge proponent of the open office, with really nothing more than flat tables in a giant open room. How forbidding quiet and privacy to people who need to concentrate to get their work done equates to "understand[ing] managing people", I'd really like to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 02 2017, @06:37PM
Big deal.
No, seriously, big deal.
His company is exactly like 90+% of all other big companies with that open-office stupidity (which is about saving money on floor-space per employee).
And that may be a big deal to you personally, but when it comes to the entirety of managing a company its a drop in the bucket.
(Score: 1) by Atatsu on Wednesday May 03 2017, @01:32PM
Spoken like someone who has never actually worked in an open floor plan environment! The last company I worked for had an open floor plan and it was awe.... nope, you're right. It sucked.