Slashdot Mirror

I know what you're saying. But the big question is, why did the Yahoo Board of Directors make such a HUGE mistake.

A few of the Marissa Meyer stories, over several years. Major problems were reported almost 5 years ago:

The Truth About Marissa Mayer: She Has Two Contrasting Reputations (Jul. 17, 2012) Quote: "She used to make people line up outside of her office, sit on couches and sign up with office hours with her. Then everybody had to publicly sit outside her office and she would see people in five minute increments. She would make VPs at Google wait for her. It's like you've got to be kidding."

Yahoo! CEO Mayer Is Delusional and Must Go - RealMoney.com (Oct. 21, 2015)

Marissa Mayer: A Case Study In Poor Leadership - Forbes (Nov. 20, 2015) Five reasons people don't like Yahoo's Marissa Mayer (Oct. 7, 2016)

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer led illegal purge of male employees, lawsuit charges (Oct. 6, 2016)

How was Marissa Mayer viewed within Google? - Quora

What made Marissa Mayer an incompetent CEO? - Quora

Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Thoroughly Failed on Promise to Not Screw Up Tumblr (Jun. 16 2016)

âShatteredâ(TM) Revelation: Clinton Campaign Hatched Russian Hacking Narrative 24 Hours After Hillaryâ(TM)s Loss: http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...

Well pretty much the whole thing. The deficit was actually doubled under obama, more than all other presidents before him combined. So there was no massive deficit reduction but an actual increase.

The number of unemployment did go down but the number not in the labor force actually went up by 13.5%. As for the number of actual jobs created, obama numbers are actually lower than Reagan.

I think the health care has been covered but lets by all means drag it out again. The number on health care did go up. But since you had no choice any more it had to go up. While the numbers on health care insurance did go up, the high delectable made the insurance useless.

As for the economy as a whole obama saw the greatest increase of 2.9%. Which is lower than Jimmy Carters 5.6% and Bush Primes of 3.8%

So yeah, I believe we can say that under obama the economy was a disaster and his policies where a failure. Jimmy Carter even beat him for gods sake. I fact the way the numbers are looking now that all of obama's pigeons are coming home to roost, he might just go down as the worse president in the last 100 years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-jobs-report-labor-market-participation-rate-2017-1/#since-obama-took-office-in-january-2009-the-us-economy-has-added-11250000-people-to-total-nonfarm-payrolls-1/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/29/americas-economy-before-obama-versus-after-obama//
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/obamas-numbers-january-2016-update//

On the plus side, illegal immigration is at the lowest it's been in 2 decades, the economy is up by 20%, and we made a strong-but-measured move in Syria which has garnered praise from many world leaders.

It's fine to carp about every little thing the president does, but no one really expects the president to please everyone all the time. I'm against a fair number of the littl'er policy changes (such as abortion policy), but I also realize that several small issues can be compensated by one or two really big issues.

For example, our strong but limited response on Syria will have a positive effect on relations and negotiations with Iran, N. Korea, and China. Limiting illegal immigration should eventually bubble up into more jobs, and at the same time we're concentrating on illegal-immigrant violent criminals and ignoring illegal immigrant students.

I'm happy to trade some of the smaller problems for bigger ones.

I think the US is in a good place right now.

(And then there's the very real question of whether this is fake news, which has been patently true for about 80% of the shocking(!) revelations posted on this site. How long has this commission been around, and have they done anything of any note? Or is it just another example of government waste?)

Google long ago gave up on it's core premise to "do no evil" and yet people still haven't caught on and bailed out. It is blatantly obvious how evil Google is, just google it. Anyone who disagrees should email me at my gmail account. For more information on how evil Google and Alphabet (a shell company Google created to hide more misdeeds) visit my YouTube channel and check out my videos. Now give me a minute, I need to check another tab in my Chrome browser.
.
. /sarcasam off

In all seriousness though, the saying coined by Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight Rises seems to be holding true for Google: "You either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain." From handing over the email of private citizens to the US government https://yro.slashdot.org/story... to upranking liberal sites on political topic searches https://news.slashdot.org/stor... to skewing auto complete of searches about Hillary Clinton pre election http://www.breitbart.com/tech/... there have been some mis-steps at Google lately.

Whether Google really is violating the law, the prosecution itself is a convenient means of suppressing opposition. Google was "with her" all the way. Could this be a payback from the Trump's Administration?

Or, the other way around, has the previous Administration sat on it because Google was all for the Democratics? Worse, maybe, Google's unprecedented cooperation was due to the subtle blackmail in the first place?

Whatever the answers to these questions, I'd rather they not be asked at all — there should be no thoughtcrimes for the government to prosecute. At all.

Discrimination may be stupid and unethical, but it should not be illegal.

Just as they love their lapdog MSM, the lib-left hate/fear "alternate media". http://www.breitbart.com/big-j... [breitbart.com]

...because "alternate media" present "alternate facts", aka lies. Brietbart is the PRIME example.

> There is a pretty high correlation to trump supporters and people who argue against fact-checking. Just saying.

There's a pretty high correlation between lib-left (Clintons and Dems) and people who argue for internet gatekeeping... just saying.

The lib-left loves their lapdog MSM...
* The same lapdog MSM that kept quiet despite knowing that JFK was screwing more women than Bill Clinton could ever dream of.
* The same lapdog MSM that suppressed the story of Bill Clinton's sexcapades.

Actually, if the MSM had broken the Clinton/Lewinsky story, Matt Drudge would've remained a nobody. Instead, the Clinton/Lewinsky story proved that the MSM couldn't be trusted, and that "alternate media" (e.g. Drudge Report) was more reliable at times. The MSM have only themselves to blame for people trusting alternate media more than MSM.

Just as they love their lapdog MSM, the lib-left hate/fear "alternate media". http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news
> would be consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared
> that the Internet was allowing average citizens, especially conservatives,
> to bypass legacy gatekeepers and access information that
> had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

Like husband, like wife; fast-forward to 2016... http://dailycaller.com/2016/08...
> Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign has sent out a
> fundraising email arguing the website Breitbart News has no "right to exist,"
> and suggests that if elected, the website will be shut down entirely.

We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming. Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.

We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch of frozen crops, famine, disease, plague, and death.

We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to the temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.

Our current conditions are not identical to the MWP. The current rate of warming is much faster than during the MWP and it's likely that globally temperatures are warmer now than they were back then.

We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch frozen crops, famine, disease, and plague.

There has been some recent research that indicates the main cause of the Little Ice Age was a series of large volcanic eruptions in the 1200s. The Maunder Minimum may have exacerbated the LIA some but probably wasn't a primary cause.

As the climate is always changing, and Mr. Hockey Stick says it's man doing it. how much is man doing it and how did he prove that?
If climate change is accelerating because of what man is doing, how much acceleration can they account for? In what way did they come up with their numbers?
Rather than telling me all about the end of days, tell me about real science and hard numbers please.

This is an interesting question that a lot of the evangelists don't know. In interviews and debates, it's a good question to ask.

The answer is: about 1/3 of the noted increase in temperature is directly due to humans, about 1/3 is the result of natural variation, and 1/3 is unaccounted for.

Of course this is a statistical measure, sort of like trying to determine whether throwing 4 heads in a row was a fluke or an indication of a trend, but it's the best answer we have with our current understanding and datasets.

It's interesting to point out the differences between science and, for example, religion.

How does religion typically deal with sceptics and dissenters? Usually with scorn, derision, excommunication, and occasionally death. In the bible it says "shall not suffer a witch to live", and so on.

Science is the complete opposite of religion. Scientists would never ostracise, belittle, or spew hatred on sceptics, would never blackball, blackmail, or threaten other scientists, would never cause them to lose income or hold an undergraduates' opinions hostage as a condition for getting a degree.

So when you read that 97% of scientists believe in global warming, you can tell that they come to that opinion honestly, and without coercion from other scientists.

Science is completely unlike religion.

As the climate is always changing, and Mr. Hockey Stick says it's man doing it. how much is man doing it and how did he prove that?
If climate change is accelerating because of what man is doing, how much acceleration can they account for? In what way did they come up with their numbers?
Rather than telling me all about the end of days, tell me about real science and hard numbers please.

This is an interesting question that a lot of the evangelists don't know. In interviews and debates, it's a good question to ask.

The answer is: about 1/3 of the noted increase in temperature is directly due to humans, about 1/3 is the result of natural variation, and 1/3 is unaccounted for.

Of course this is a statistical measure, sort of like trying to determine whether throwing 4 heads in a row was a fluke or an indication of a trend, but it's the best answer we have with our current understanding and datasets.

It's interesting to point out the differences between science and, for example, religion.

How does religion typically deal with sceptics and dissenters? Usually with scorn, derision, excommunication, and occasionally death. In the bible it says "shall not suffer a witch to live", and so on.

Science is the complete opposite of religion. Scientists would never ostracise, belittle, or spew hatred on sceptics, would never blackball, blackmail, or threaten other scientists, would never cause them to lose income or hold an undergraduates' opinions hostage as a condition for getting a degree.

So when you read that 97% of scientists believe in global warming, you can tell that they come to that opinion honestly, and without coercion from other scientists.

Science is completely unlike religion.

We are currently in a period of temporary warming due to the high amount of mid-20th century solar activity. Our conditions in the current period are identical to the temporary warming known as the Medieval Warming Now just as then, global temperatures are controlled by the sun and solar activity.

We are now entering a era of minimal solar activity, identical to the Maunder Minimum which brought about the horrible period of death, disease, and famine known as the Little Ice Age. If history and science has anything to say in the matter, we should be consuming more carbon fuels, and engaging in an expansion of carbon emissions in order to stave off another ice age, another epoch frozen crops, famine, disease, and plague.

Can you explain this, then?

No, I wouldn't even try to begin to explain anything found on the pages of Breitbart.

-

The left is filled with useful idiots.

And so is the right, my friend. Neither has a corner on idiocy.

Bullshit. Sure, there are whackos of every stripe and type getting their 2 minutes of fame and air time, but 99.99999 percent of the left is NOT supporting sharia in any way, shape, or form. If you really believe they are, stop watching FOX News for a few minutes and let your head clear.

Can you explain this, then? Funny how they made sure to exclude women who were pro-life, but at the front and center included a Sharia-loving, Islam apologizing, hijab-wearing woman.

Time to open your eyes. The left is filled with useful idiots.

Yet when the haters on the right does the exact same thing. It is okay?

Where is the right trying to "deplatform" left-wing speakers?

Let's put it this way when Obama was putting out Obamacare did he threaten every single democrat who voted no?

What does that have to do with free speech on gigantic platforms like YouTube?

Now which side is dangerous, which side is vengeful?

Let's see, who is committing the violence and trying to prevent the speech of others? That would be the left.

Also remember every single Islamic terrorists is a conservative. They are all right wing. They all want theirs at over science. Now which American party also wants religion over science?

Which political party responds to critiques of Islam with cries of "Islamophobia" and "racist"? Which political party is against restrictions on Muslim immigration? Which political party has apologists for Sharia law leading women marches?

The left went from fighting political Christians to embracing Islam.

They just suck at interviews.

The first thing to do is to find out where the money is going, and publicize the numbers. One thing we should know is how much money colleges spend on things that don't have anything to do with education. For example, apparently at the University of Arizona,

Jesus Trevino, the university’s Vice Provost for Inclusive Excellence, is paid $214,000 per year to develop diversity and inclusion themed programming for the community and instructional material for the faculty.

Really, how many documented cases of speakers being prevented can you provide? How many injuries? How many hospitalizations?

Here are a few:

(1) Berkeley riots, which injured people, and caused the university to cancel a speech by Milo Yiannopoulos:

The university insists that it made elaborate preparations for protests. It canceled the speech only after what it called an “unprecedented” invasion of the campus by “more than 100 armed individuals clad all in black” who engaged in violent, destructive behavior. They hurled metal barricades, threw Molotov cocktails and smashed windows at the student union.

The event was cancelled after left-wing rioters, who the university claim were not students, smashed ATMs and bank windows, looted a Starbucks, beat Trump supporters, pepper sprayed innocent individuals, set fires in the street, and sprayed the words “Kill Trump” on storefronts.

Video was posted showing violent leftists chasing and beating a man with sticks.
The man appears unconscious in the street as they beat him.

(2) A speech at Middlebury College was severely disrupted by protesters. After the speech, when the speaker and Professor Allison Stanger left, they were attacked, and Prof. Stnager's neck was injured:

Then I went onstage, got halfway through my first sentence, and the uproar began.

First came a shouted recitation in unison of what I am told is a piece by James Baldwin. I couldn’t follow the words. That took a few minutes. Then came the chanting.
. . .
This went on for about twenty minutes.
. . .
Professor Stanger and I were led out of the hall to the improvised studio.
. . .
Then there was the sound of shouting outside, followed by loud banging on the wall of the building. . . . Then a fire alarm went off, which was harder to compete with.
. . .
We finished around 6:45 and prepared to leave the building . . . I didn’t see it happen, but someone grabbed Allison’s hair just as someone else shoved her from another direction, damaging muscles, tendons, and fascia in her neck.

There, several masked protesters, who were believed to be outside agitators, began pushing and shoving Mr. Murray and Ms. Stanger, Mr. Burger said. “Someone grabbed Allison’s hair and twisted her neck,” he said. . . . After the two got into a car, Mr. Burger said, protesters pounded on it, rocked it back and forth, and jumped onto the hood. Ms. Stanger later went to a hospital, where she was put in a neck brace.

(3) About 600 people protested the immigration ban at the Portland Airport. There was a 4-person counter-protest:

One of the counter-demonstrators was assaulted just after 5 p.m., Port of Portland spokesman Steve Johnson said.

Grant Chisholm, 39 of Portland told The Oregonian/Oregonlive that he was at the airport with three other members of the group Bible Believers for a counter-protest when a Trump opponent hit him in the head three times with something metallic. Chisholm dropped and drifted in and out of unconsciousness, he said, while vomiting a

Diversity is strength.

Trump shoots off mouth about topic with no justification in fact. News at 11.

Which is exactly the point. When he doesn't like the way the news is talking about he changes it by saying something outrageous.

Donald Trump isn't crazy. And he isn't really careless -- not about the things that matter to him. He's manipulative. His supporters understand this, and don't mind when he is factually wrong because they understand he is a bullshit artist. They just think he's their bullshit artist.

The difference between bullshit and a conventional lie is that the bullshitter doesn't lie to deceive, he lies to produce an effect. Bullshitting is often safer and more effective than lying because a lie disproven is neutralized, but disproving bullshit is a waste of time because nobody is meant to believe it.

And here's the specifics about this particular lie:

The MSM has been reporting on Trump's ties to Russia for the past 4 months, mentioning "recorded conversations" and "an ongoing investigation". All of these have mentioned that there is "no conclusive evidence yet" in the investigation. The overall spin has been that Trump is a lackey of the Russian government, we have him under surveillance, and we are slowly gathering evidence which will be conclusive.

Here's an example quote from the NYT before Trump's tweet:

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

Suddenly Trump says that he was wiretapped, and all the MSM outlets have been in complete freakout mode disavowing their previous statements.

It was glorious! The alt-right has been laughing at the lefties for the past week or so.

Trump shoots off mouth about topic with no justification in fact. News at 11.

Which is exactly the point. When he doesn't like the way the news is talking about he changes it by saying something outrageous.

Donald Trump isn't crazy. And he isn't really careless -- not about the things that matter to him. He's manipulative. His supporters understand this, and don't mind when he is factually wrong because they understand he is a bullshit artist. They just think he's their bullshit artist.

The difference between bullshit and a conventional lie is that the bullshitter doesn't lie to deceive, he lies to produce an effect. Bullshitting is often safer and more effective than lying because a lie disproven is neutralized, but disproving bullshit is a waste of time because nobody is meant to believe it.

And here's the specifics about this particular lie:

The MSM has been reporting on Trump's ties to Russia for the past 4 months, mentioning "recorded conversations" and "an ongoing investigation". All of these have mentioned that there is "no conclusive evidence yet" in the investigation. The overall spin has been that Trump is a lackey of the Russian government, we have him under surveillance, and we are slowly gathering evidence which will be conclusive.

Here's an example quote from the NYT before Trump's tweet:

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

Suddenly Trump says that he was wiretapped, and all the MSM outlets have been in complete freakout mode disavowing their previous statements.

It was glorious! The alt-right has been laughing at the lefties for the past week or so.

Two news items bemoaning the lack of internet gatekeepers...

1) http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was allowing
> average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.

2) http://www.drudgereportarchive...

> Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT
> made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern.
> "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all
> these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping
> function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

The FBI and numerous sources state that it's probable it was hacked. Left wing source and Right wing source just in case you are biased in one direction or the other. Why can be found here, or talk to a security expert who has dealt with forensics if you want the technical details.

Well, I guess your handle says it all.

Speaking of Trump and security . . .

There was Proof that Hillary did most of the things people are accusing Trump of. Hillary and Bill's dealings with Russia led to Russia having control over 20+% of the US Uranium. Hillary had dozens of phones, many unsecured, accessing her illegal private email server. Hillary and Bill are "paid" hundreds of thousands of Dollars while Hillary was acting as Secretary of State, all of which remained "classified" and hidden from public view (except the bit that was hacked and released proving she lied about fixing US Borders). Hillary praised KKK member Byrd and Eugenicist Margaret Sanger openly. In fact go look at the ranks of the KKK and count how many Democrats there are versus Republicans. There was one allegation based on third hand information, Warren Harding, who fought against the KKK and their methods.

Want more? How about _Candidate_ Obama visiting more than thirty foreign Governments to boost support for his campaign holding closed door meetings with those foreign Governments (some hostile). Left Wing Sources, Right Wing source. Just so you can't claim my sources are biased, and there is plenty more to find.

Typical Alinsky tactics. Claim the enemy does what you do, lie and keep lying about what you do. Idiots fall for it. Too bad for the Alinskyites more and more people have caught on and no longer believe the lies. There is a reason that NYP, WP, CNN, et. al have a trust rating of about 6 today.

> Actually its ABC's fault.
>
> Back when Clinton was president, the story about Monica was given
> to ABC 3 times over a 8 month period. They buried it every time they
> got it. There is no telling how many stories the "big 3" buried.

Add Newsweek to the list. http://australianpolitics.com/...

> At the last minute, at 6 p.m. on Saturday evening, NEWSWEEK magazine killed a
> story that was destined to shake official Washington to its foundation: A White
> House intern carried on a sexual affair with the President of the United States!
>
> The DRUDGE REPORT has learned that reporter Michael Isikoff developed the story of
> his career, only to have it spiked by top NEWSWEEK suits hours before publication.

By the way, the crying about "Fake News" by the lib-left elite is not new. It's been going on for over 2 decades already. http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...

> Three years before Matt Drudge changed the world and how news would be
> consumed, President Bill Clinton's White House feared that the Internet was
> allowing average citizens, especially conservatives, to bypass legacy gatekeepers and
> access information that had previously been denied to them by the mainstream press.
>
> The infamous 1995 "conspiracy commerce memo" tried to demonize and discredit alternative
> media outlets on the right to mainstream media organizations and D.C. establishment figures.

When the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998, the Clintons denied-denied-denied. Hillary Clinton even said that internet news needs a "rethink", and bemoaned the lack of "gatekeepers" whatever that means. http://www.freerepublic.com/fo...

And when she was running in 2016, her campaign sent out a newsletter saying that the Breitbart website did not have a right to exist. And it also suggested that if Hillary was elected, Breitbart would be shut down.http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/18/hillary-campaign-vows-to-destroy-opposition-website/

TLDR; The lib-left has controlled news for a long time via their media lapdogs. Thanks to the internet, anybody with an internet connection can break a story that the lib-left wants to bury. Do not expect the lib-left to go down without a fight. The next Democrat president, 4, 8, or however many years from now will rush in internet censorship ASAP. It may be under the guise of stopping "Fake News" or "Hate Speech" or whatever excuse, but underneath, it'll be the lib-left censoring conservatives.

I can't think of many places where you wouldn't get fired for that sign.

Infowars? Breitbbart?

Sarah Silverman once went on Conan dressed up as Hitler, complete with stache and Swastika. That's a bit more than a sign.

"Ah, but that's different, she was obviously doing it to make a point."

So was PewDiePie.

Ben Shapiro

In his own words:

Donald Trump’s nomination has drawn anti-Semites from the woodwork.

I’ve experienced more pure, unadulterated anti-Semitism since coming out against Trump’s candidacy than at any other time in my political career. Trump supporters have threatened me and other Jews who hold my viewpoint. They’ve blown up my e-mail inbox with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. They greeted the birth of my second child by calling for me, my wife, and two children to be thrown into a gas chamber.

And here's a breitbart piece on the subject...

He has started playing the victim on Twitter and throwing around allegations of anti-semitism and racism, just like the people he used to mock.

Ben, no one hates Jewish people.

I can't think of many places where you wouldn't get fired for that sign.

Infowars? Breitbbart?

This study is racist and xenophobic and slashdot is also for posting it. America is a country of immigrants and Indians have just as much right to a programming job as anyone who was born here.

Racism is usually usually defined as prejudice or antagonism based on race, and xenophobia has something to do with fear.

The problem with your argument is that there is no actual racism or xenophobia involved. No one is "afraid" of people from India, no one "fears" the Indian programmer, and from the looks of things in this country no one tries to keep "the Indian savage" down or prevents them from doing anything a regular citizen could do.

They drink at the same water fountains as anyone else, and no one cares.

This is the typical argument of the left. It's OK to hit a racist, so you start by labelling everything you don't like as racist.

Then when you're caught breaking windows or giving someone a beat-down, you sayl "yeah, but he's a racist!".

In fact, you don't even need to apply the label yourself. So long as someone else calls it racism, you're free to riot and beat people all you want.

That's really the reason the left uses all these silly labels, it's to justify virtuous acts of violence.

It's OK to hit a racist.

After banning (and shadowbanning) quite a lot of Trump supporters, it seems like the Brownshirt alliance of Anti-Trump fascists is now only allowed to persist, but to prosper.

Ask the people in Berkely who just wanted to hear Milo Yannopolis speak but were assaulted with flagpoles instead just who are the violent brownshirts of today...

But I guess you consider it OK to beat women with flagpoles because they are just Trump supporters, right?

Watch that video, I dare you to come back and say that Trump supporters are the brownshirts.

Because NAZIs were anti-immigrant... doh, hell that was their cornerstone policy - opposition to a group of immigrants.

You're conflating controlling your borders versus purging citizenry based on ethnicity. Nearly every country in the world controls its borders and limits immigration.

It doesn't... by itself

So you're full of shit, as usual.

though it DOES by itself make you evil

Uh huh, anybody who disagrees with bullshit identity politics is "evil". Modern feminism isn't about equality, it's about male bashing because women have already achieved equality in the West.

What completely solidifies the case against modern feminism is how they act as a shield for Islam and say nothing about importing a real rape culture via mass immigration. The women's march was even so stupid as to have an Islamic apologist raising the ISIS salute at the head of their event.

And we didn't even get to the abundance of flagrant white supremacist statements he has made

Indeed you didn't because you didn't quote any and you won't find any. Several publications have promoted this claim and subsequently backed down when challenged, because it isn't true, and even more so, he has explicitly spoken out against white nationalism. That's one of the things that makes him hated by the core and original Alt-Right (they call people like Milo "Alt-Light").

No, that's what their ideas LED to, not where it BEGAN.

Their actions are what defined them. A handwaving analogy between sensible border policies and a rejection of the loony left with Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

NOT what anti-immigrant rhetoric actually says, and sure as HELL not what Milo says. I'll be willing to believe you when America considers it equally vital to build a wall on the NORTHERN border and keep Canadian immigrants out (by something other than your culture I mean).

Because the practical reality is there aren't a flood of illegal Canadian immigrants coming over the border. Somehow this seems to escape your grasp. I'll also believe celebrities and other social justice idiots on the left have a good handle on immigration issues when they pledge to move to Mexico, and not Canada, in protest of Trump.

I've heard it, it's even somewhat true. It doesn't make the other side any LESS true.

It actually does. It completely refutes your comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany, and it completely invalided the other side he was steeped in before he stepped out of the echo chamber and researched for himself.

Plenty do, What is the relevance of that to the desire, and right, of Palestinians for democracy ? Oh right- NADA.

Puh-lease. You're the one bashing Israel as Nazi Germany, where in reality they are surrounded by countries much more apt of the label.

How does SHARING a country equal DESTROYING a country ?

They are already sharing the country, as I referenced, despite your claim that they are Nazi Germany. Very strange that 20% of the population in Nazi Germany would be Jews, doncha think? But what would happen if 80% of Israel were "Palestinians"? Would it be Israel or Palestine? So much for a two-state solution.

Only racist, nazi fucks think that.

You think running around calling people racist and Nazi still works. It doesn't. People elected Trump despite the shrill cries of social justice idiots like you.

What's the relevance of THAT to the plight of Palestinians ? Palestinians aren't even Arabs!

"The Palestinian pe

Twitter is out of control and it's obvious that there is no leadership at the helm. They're banning accounts left and right, and typically without any serious reason. Or when they do it's over something mildly offensive. Meanwhile Twitter leadership acts like 12k calls to assassinate the President don't constitute unimpeachable grounds to bring down the banhammer.

So remember kids, you can't say "I hate n----s" on Twitter if your account comes off as white. That's a violation of their community standards, but committing a federal felony in what you write, that's Twitter's idea of protected speech.

The only question at this point is who is dumber, the board or shareholders, as no one is bring Twitter into court to explain why Twitter is letting inmates run the asylum and just as important... how many tens of millions of wasted engineering manhours have been wasted on this bullshit.

You're splitting hairs.

No, you are by trying to say Trump's actions were fundamentally different. They were both temporary halts to immigration to examine the vetting process.

Trump campaigned on a promise of banning Muslims, it was a specific campaign promise and frankly a foundation of his campaign's support.

And he also backpedaled and talked about extreme vetting. The fact is he did not implement a Muslim ban.

That is quite different than Obama changing the vetting procedures and needing to re-vet everyone and causing delays

Erm, except that is actually what Trump's executive order set out to do. Funny how nobody said a peep about all the hardships that Obama's order must have caused.

He was reacting to terrorists getting through the vetting process, which obviously needed to be tightened.

So is Trump. He's just not waiting around for more terrorist attacks to happen.

Hair Fuhrer's goal is to stop Muslim immigration completely, even if he can't legally just do that.

Constitutionally he may be able to do so. You can find arguments for and against, such as this one, which cites specifically 8 U.S.C. sec. 1182(f):

"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the "

The only way to conflate those two things is if you think both of them are in response to a threat, except Trump thinks that the threat is "all Muslims" instead of terrorists.

While I think you'd have to have your head in the sand to not recognize the problem with Islam as a whole, Trump's executive order specifically targeted countries that Obama identified as dangerous hotbeds of instability.

Some good news re. H-1Bs: N.R. Narayana Murthy, the president of Infosys, said

Indian software companies must truly become multicultural. They must recruit American citizen [and] American residents in the U.S., they must recruit Canadians in Canada, British people in Britain, etc. . . . we should stop using H-1B visas and sending a large number of Indians to those countries to deliver services.

I don't know if he means it, or if he's just talking. But the fact that he's at least admitting the possibility of hiring Americans is a step in the right direction. We'll see what he follows up his words with deeds.

The article also says,

U.S. officials say the H-1B program suffers from fraud and extensive corruption, especially in India where inflated resumes and faked documentation are used to get poorly trained and poorly paid Indian workers into American job sites.

The white nationalist shit is all over their site in plain view, so you must be one of those who think I should just laugh it off.

Here's a choice quote from this article:

Should the liberal tribe (and let’s not deny it any longer – that’s both the Democratic and GOP Establishments these days) do business with them? Well, the risk otherwise is that the 1488ers start persuading people that their solution to natural conservatives’ problems is the only viable one. The bulk of their demands, after all, are not so audacious: they want their own communities, populated by their own people, and governed by their own values.

Sincere attempt to rationalize white nationalism LOLZ SO FUNNAY!

Under Stalin no doubt.

RCAF, but I can see how you'd make the mistake, since your understanding of history you actually have access to is already so poor...

It depends if George Soros funds the protests or not.

George Soros (Hillarys primary financer) instructing Hillary on what policies to carry out as Secretary of State:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

https://i.sli.mg/64gA6D.png

Top contributors for Hillary Clinton page:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

Soros admits creating the European migrant crisis:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/02/soros-admits-involvement-in-migrant-crisis-national-borders-are-the-obstacle/

Soros tells Europe to take in at least a MILLION refugees every year:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/616541/European-Union-Migrants-Refugees-George-Soros-Hungary-Viktor-Orban-Europe

Soros finances Handbooks to spur EU-bound immigration:

http://news.sky.com/story/1551853/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-migrants

Soros urges giving Ukraine $50 billion of aid to foil Russia:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-soros-idUSKBN0KH0NQ20150108

Hacked emails expose George Soros as Ukraine puppet-master:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-01/hacked-emails-expose-george-soros-ukraine-puppet-master

George Soros funds Ferguson Black Lives Matter protests:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

Soros funds paid "protestors" to spur civil unrest:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ferguson-Missouri-paid-protesters/2015/05/25/id/646587/

Soros funds MoveOn and Media Matters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Funding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org#Financial_contributors

Soros funds Black Lives Matter:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/11/13/anti-american-left-funds-blacklivesmatter-now/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/hired-black-lives-matter-protesters-start-cutthech/

Globalists Unite: Hillary Clinton Running Mate Tim Kaine Dines with George Soros Son as Donald Trumps Rise Terrifies World Elite:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/globalists-unite-hillary-clinton-running-mate-tim-k

It depends if George Soros funds the protests or not.

George Soros (Hillarys primary financer) instructing Hillary on what policies to carry out as Secretary of State:

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/28972

https://i.sli.mg/64gA6D.png

Top contributors for Hillary Clinton page:

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

Soros admits creating the European migrant crisis:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/11/02/soros-admits-involvement-in-migrant-crisis-national-borders-are-the-obstacle/

Soros tells Europe to take in at least a MILLION refugees every year:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/616541/European-Union-Migrants-Refugees-George-Soros-Hungary-Viktor-Orban-Europe

Soros finances Handbooks to spur EU-bound immigration:

http://news.sky.com/story/1551853/sky-finds-handbook-for-eu-bound-migrants

Soros urges giving Ukraine $50 billion of aid to foil Russia:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-crisis-soros-idUSKBN0KH0NQ20150108

Hacked emails expose George Soros as Ukraine puppet-master:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-01/hacked-emails-expose-george-soros-ukraine-puppet-master

George Soros funds Ferguson Black Lives Matter protests:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

Soros funds paid "protestors" to spur civil unrest:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ferguson-Missouri-paid-protesters/2015/05/25/id/646587/

Soros funds MoveOn and Media Matters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Matters_for_America#Funding

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MoveOn.org#Financial_contributors

Soros funds Black Lives Matter:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/11/13/anti-american-left-funds-blacklivesmatter-now/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/george-soros-funds-ferguson-protests-hopes-to-spur/?page=all

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/19/hired-black-lives-matter-protesters-start-cutthech/

Globalists Unite: Hillary Clinton Running Mate Tim Kaine Dines with George Soros Son as Donald Trumps Rise Terrifies World Elite:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/12/globalists-unite-hillary-clinton-running-mate-tim-k

I call bullshit. I remember Trump telling supporters during a rally to hit protesters and he would pay for their legal fees. I remember seeing on the news an elderly man at a Trump rally punch a protester in the face as the protester was being dragged out by security.

They've hugged and made up since then.

I am sure the ass hat that burned down that mosque in Texas was a Trump supporter.

Are you referring to the mosque that was burned down in 2016, or the mosque that was burned down in 2015? Because the 2015 arsonist is a Muslim who attended prayers 5 times a day, before burning down his own mosque on Christmas day. As for the 2016 arson, I'll wait for the police report, thank you.

I am sure the neo nazi wanna be that burned down those churches in the south this last summer would vote for Trump.

Actually, there was a grand total of one black church that was burned down and vandalized with "Vote Trump" graffiti. It turns out the arsonist was black, and a member of the congregation to boot. More encouragingly, the church has since raised over $170,000 from donors to rebuild the church, many of which were donations from Trump supporters.

If you are not willing to speak out against those instances of violence by your fellow Trump supporters you have no right to bitch about being targeted.

Got any more? Knocking these down is pretty fun.

It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban, and it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions, so it isn't a religious thing.

Section 5 (b) of the executive order:
"Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual's country of nationality."

Considering every one of these countries are majority Muslim, this is indeed a religious thing.

Muslims in the US have come out in favor of extreme vetting

And yet, more speak out in opposition.

some Muslim *countries* have come out in favor of the ban

Oh good. The countries who actually have originated people who commit terrorist acts on US soil in the past 40 years aren't upset because they weren't on the ban list. This makes the US safer how, again?

and the president's approval rating has jumped 5 points

So polls by media outlets with a conservative lean that support your position are trustworthy, but all others are "fake news" put out by the "mainstream media". Just want to make sure I've got the logic sorted out here.

And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea

The act was invoked as a direct reaction to the civil war in Syria, the formation of ISIS, its subsequent offensive into Iraq, and the annexation of Crimea. All major regional events. The act was invoked this time to block entry by terrorists from countries with no recent major events. Technically the president has the power under the act to say, "only caucasian females with blonde hair weighing between 100 and 140 pounds may enter the US," but he still has to justify it.

Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

In the simplest terms, because executive orders that very blatantly do not help any of the things they say they are for are not a good thing.

Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

Well, that ended pretty predictably. At least the pro-Trump diehard posts are consistent in their straw man demonizing.

Speaking as someone who has spent thousands of dollars in legal assistance getting the appropriate visa in place allowing me to work in the US (but luckily am not from one of the countries in the executive order)... go fuck yourself. This isn't about American jobs, its about screwing over people you don't like and trying to win political points with morons.

People have spent years getting those visas. People may have even been living the in US for decades. This is not a moratorium on new visas, this is retroactively screwing people who have followed the process to get into the US legally.

I don't get it either.

The order does not affect people from other countries, it doesn't affect people from your country, and it specifically doesn't affect *you*.

It doesn't affect 87% of all Muslims, so it isn't a ban, and it affects the 10% Christian populations of those countries and other religions, so it isn't a religious thing.

And the DHS has further clarified the executive order by saying that it doesn't affect green-card holders.

Furthermore, many countries don't allow immigration at all, and many other countries have onerous requirements to immigrate, so the US is not unusual in that regard. Obama banned immigration from Cuba, and Carter banned immigration from Iran with no fanfare.

The "no fanfare" bit - was that because Obama and Carter were Democrat? Or was there some other difference(*) that no one has noticed?

Muslims in the US have come out in favor of extreme vetting, some Muslim *countries* have come out in favor of the ban, and the president's approval rating has jumped 5 points.

Add in the fact that this is a temporary ban, that the order specifically directs the departments to sort it out, and that this was a campaign promise... it looks less like a fascist order and more like a reasonable and prudent order(*).

I *honestly* don't see why anyone thinks that this is a big deal.

It rather looks suspiciously like an issue of convenience - something people can protest without actually caring about which side they're on.

Is it anything else?

Can someone explain how this is anything to get worked up over?

(*) And for the record, Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952:

"Whenever the president finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, the president may, by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrant's or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

Obama used this same law at least six times between 2010 and 2014 against people in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Crimea without even a whimper from the ACLU, ADL, John McCain, Gender Netural Graham, Chuck You Schumer, Hillary, Mark Zuckerberg, Hollywood elites, or the establishment globalist media.

Judge for yourself

(disclaimer: anything on Breitbart should be taken with a huge grain of salt)

First link I came to (there are plenty more, both hostile and supportive):

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...

barely even knows she exists.

Seriously?

You are seriously saying that the alt-right, sites like Breitbart, "barely even knows she exists."

These 85 stories mentioning her count as barely knowing that she exists in your opinion.

Well okay then.

They do allow hate speech and threats against other peoples lives. Twitters double standards on hate speech are well documented:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/01...
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...
http://www.truthrevolt.org/new...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...
http://www.redstate.com/diary/...

When you get to define hate speech as speech that disagree with than everything quickly becomes hate speech.

A lot of people are, this policy is going to be something that will start to draw companies back out of China on top. It's easy to see the reasoning as to why they're implementing this policy though. It's Trump.(or if you're not a FT sub you can read the synopsis here.) Not him, in itself, but the idea that a populist can rise through the ranks and throw the entire establishment on end. Hell China has banned anything to do with the US election, is requiring heavy censorship on all CN sites that have comments over the election as well. They absolutely don't want people in their own country getting any ideas that even in democracies that someone can seriously upset the power balance and doing the same there.

Because the press was going to spend every moment describing how "valiant" John Lewis was, and how "Heroic" a person he was and .....

Er, no. It was a non-story until Trump made it a story.
Lewis baited Trump and your god emperror took the bait hook, line and sinker.

It was no coincidence that MLK's right-hand man hit at Trump's biggest sore spot - legitimacy - friday afternoon before the MLK holiday.
It was literally the best time of the entire year for Lewis to be attacked by a man so racist that he believes all black people live in "inner city wastelands."

Just like he was baited into attacking the gold-star family. Khan's speech was a side-show during the convention, it would have gone unnoticed if not for Trump being triggered to do his standard MO of "If someone hits me I hit back 10x harder."

Same thing with the miss universe he called miss piggy - another non-story until he went ballistic at 4am on twitter telling people to look at a sex tape that didn't even exist.

You fools think Trump a 4D-Chess grandmaster when all he is a bundle of insecurity and neurosis that are so exposed that anyone who has taken a psych 101 class can see them.

The really interesting question is what issues do you and the super ken doll share in common that cause you to so enthusiastically carry water for the guy?

Trump does not have what it takes to be "the greatest monster in human history". Even as a villain, he is a joke.

I'd say he's all set up, it's just a good thing he doesn't have a temper.

"It is the president’s sole decision, and he must input the codes in secure communications with a Pentagon command and control center to launch US nuclear weapons.

“He doesn’t have to check with anybody,” said vice president Dick Cheney in 2008. “He doesn’t have to call the Congress. He doesn’t have to check with the courts. He has that authority because of the nature of the world we live in.”
http://www.breitbart.com/news/...

You mentioned "next 4 years" as if that were a Trump thing, but you've got it backwards.

Nope, it's forwards, the reality.

Trump appears to be completely pro-consumer in his dealings with corporations; or in other words, a "populist" leader.

Trump appears. That's the correct choice of words. He appears. Actually is.

Recently he came out against the anti-consumer policies of big pharma, and intends to put pressure on them to reduce consumer costs overall.

You mean he randomly babbled a pointless bit of words that mean nothing, and you bought it.

He's met with several companies and suggested that there will be a tariff on off-shored work, with the result that several companies are pledging to keep work in America.

You mean he's met with several companies and offered to hand them taxpayer dollars if they pretend to have work in the country.

He's also convinced Boeing to reduce costs, which isn't a consumer benefit per-se, but it saves the government from being fleeced by Boeing a little.

You mean he randomly spouted his mouth off (again, this is a habit of his), and complained about something that wasn't even real.

It really appears that he's serious about making things better for the people.

Based on what? His complete lack of authenticity and genuineness in his speeches and mannerisms?

He's done a small amount before being elected, and appears to be trying to keep that campaign promise.

When the article about minimum H1B salaries of $100K, people were saying "well, he got one thing right".

Give him a chance.

He might actually make things better.

Nope. He has to change. Stop blathering, stop lambasting, stop acting like a tantrum toddler.

You know, start growing up and acting adult. Not being an asshole.