Slashdot Mirror

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

READ the pledge document before stupidly ranting.

This is a typical election cycle political trap. A group produces an anti-kiddie-porn and block-kids-from-seeing-porn pledge, offers it to a candidate, and if the candidate does not sign, then the groupd and the candidate's opponents scream that the candidate is FOR kiddie porn etc.

Personally, I hate this pledge crap. There are many groups on all parts of the American political spectrum with these things (because they have worked well as traps in the past). Trump and/or his people clearly did read the document, noted that all he was pledging to do was uphold current laws on this stuff and appoint some unspecified number of bureaucrats to study this stuff, so signing it was a "no-brainer" alternative to a stupid political trap. The worst part is the mention of " public-private partnerships with Corporate America" as far as I'm concerned - that concept is common political talk these days in most political circles, and it's the gateway drug to fascism, but it is NOT Trump's words and in this context is no worse than every place Hillary has used it.

This pledge is irrelevent other than all the headlines we will NOT see screeching about Trump supporting kiddie porn. Pledge or no pledge, Trump signature, Clinton signature, no signature --- it has no actual effect. Remember: This is one of hundreds of pledges both candidates will sign, and it's less-high-profile than public commitments like the ones Obama and Clinton both much more publicly made in 2008 opposing gay marriage.

No, but the support for the movement is almost all religious. Enough.org is an example of 'sciencewashing' - they claim to be non-religious in order to appear more scientific and respectable, but you don't have to dig too far into their site to find things like http://enough.org/recoveringhe... - "People of faith are under constant spiritual attack as the enemy seeks to divide, destroy, and rob generations of their innocence and their youth. Lives are being shattered by gross consumption of sexually explicit content. The church is engaged in constant spiritual warfare as the enemy preys on the temptations of an already hyper-sexualized society; yet, the issues of sexual sin and sexual brokenness are often not brought to light within the church due to ignorance, shame, guilt or embarrassment."

Enough is Enough, who wrote that statement, are also the authors of the pledge he signed.

The key objective difference is the nature of the "mistakes." Trump's "mistakes" you say people are cheering are thought crimes. And, for example, I don't know if people cheered when he said what he did about John McCain. I think most supporters just didn't care. That's Trump's opinion. There are a lot of Republican voters who really don't like John McCain and don't give a fuck what Trump says about him.

Also 9 times out of 10 the "mistake" is intentionally misreported by the media, so opponents think his supporters are "cheering" at something that never happened. For instance, in this very article, if you read the pledge, Trump pledged to vigorously enforce existing laws against online child sexual predation/trafficking. The headline says "crack down on Internet porn," which has nothing to do with the pledge. The article author is either illiterate or lying (my guess is lying...our media is propaganda and the author doesn't seem illiterate). So if you see people cheering for this pledge, they're probably cheering about Trump's stance against child predation (reality), but you think they're cheering for cracking down on Internet porn (something that never happened).

Doesn't require a walkback, it requires more slamming of the lying media. Here's the actual pledge. It's about vigorously enforcing laws against online child sex predation. Nothing to do with "cracking down on Internet porn."

Do you think there's anything wrong with this pledge?

The organization is against porn. The pledge, however, is just to vigorously enforce laws against child sex predation online.

A shocking and misleading headline?! About a political candidate?! The hell you say!!!

I expect the "rationale" for ignoring this one will be that the president doesn't have the power to do that without the help of Congress and that Congress won't do it.

The rationale is that the pledge doesn't match the sensationalist headline. Trump did not pledge to "crack down on Internet porn," but to vigorously enforce laws against child sex predation online:

If elected President of the United State of America, I promise to:

1) Uphold the rule of law by aggressively enforce existing federal laws to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online, including the federal obscenity laws, child pornography laws, sexual predation laws and the sex trafficking laws by:

a. appointing an Attorney General who will make the prosecution of such laws a top priority in my administration and,

b. Providing the intelligence community and law enforcement with the resources and tools needed to investigate and prosecute Internet crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.

2) Aggressively enforce the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requiring schools and public libraries using government eRate monies to filter child pornography and pornography by requiring effective oversight by the Federal Communications Commission;

3) Protect and defend the innocence of America’s children by advancing public policies that prevent the sexual exploitation of children in a manner that is consistent with the government’s compelling interest in protecting its most vulnerable citizens, within the limits set forth by the First Amendment.12

4) Give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children in the digital age.

5) Establish public-private partnerships with Corporate America to step up voluntary efforts to reduce the threat of the Internet-enabled sexual exploitation of children by the implementation of updated corporate policies and viable technology tools and solutions.

You'd think by now people would understand the need to actually read the source documents instead of relying on the sensationalist headline, as the media is nothing but propaganda. Trump pledged to aggressively enforce existing laws against child porn and online child sexual predation, trafficking and exploitation. There's nothing in here that says Trump is going to "crack down on internet porn." The organization may be anti-porn beyond child porn, but the pledge is just about kids.

http://enough.org/objects/EIE-...

While it is true they speak of internet child porn, they also speak about NORMAL porn. Look for obscenity as a keyword (good luck defining that) and look up paragraph 4 and the research section among others : they are speaking of normal porn impact on youth , NOT child porn.

"We are dedicated to continue raising public awareness about the dangers of Internet pornography." - Enough.org, main page.

"The two primary Internet dangers today are children's free and easy access to all types of pornography, and sexual predators' easy and anonymous access to children." - Enough.org, 'about us.'

"[Enough is Enough President] Hughes says combining the policing of raunchy footage of consenting adults with advocacy against child abuse makes sense, citing what she says are high rates of teens viewing bestiality and group sex, and the potential that viewing hardcore porn could be a steppingstone to further depths." - http://enough.org/news/2IB385Y...

Yes, they just want to ban child abuse, right?

The pledge
(for the click impaired)

If elected President of the United State of America, I promise to:

1) Uphold the rule of law by aggressively enforce existing federal laws to prevent the sexual exploitation of children online, including the federal obscenity laws, child pornography laws, sexual predation laws and the sex trafficking laws by:

a. appointing an Attorney General who will make the prosecution of such laws a top priority in my administration and,
b. Providing the intelligence community and law enforcement with the resources and tools needed to investigate and prosecute Internet crimes involving the sexual exploitation of children.

2) Aggressively enforce the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) requiring schools and public libraries using government eRate monies to filter child pornography and pornography by requiring effective oversight by the Federal Communications Commission;

3) Protect and defend the innocence of America’s children by advancing public policies that prevent the sexual exploitation of children in a manner that is consistent with the government’s compelling interest in protecting its most vulnerable citizens, within the limits set forth by the First Amendment.

4) Give serious consideration to appointing a Presidential Commission to examine the harmful public health impact of Internet pornography on youth, families and the American culture and the prevention of the sexual exploitation of children in the digital age.

5) Establish public-private partnerships with Corporate America to step up voluntary efforts to reduce the threat of the Internet-enabled sexual exploitation of children by the implementation of updated corporate policies and viable technology tools and solutions.

Because a little piece of paper called the US constitution defines freedom of speech as something the "government" may NOT take away NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT a situation is.

Well, unless you shout fire in a crowded theater.

Or, they classify what you say (or write) as obscenity, which is illegal.

Or, maybe they'll just convict you of conspiracy, though you've committed no actual crime.

Or, they'll hold you and your friends for 12 hours and search your car, because of what someone thought they heard you say.

Yeah, God bless America. Land of the free^H^H^H^H.

I've got one of those Intellimouse Explorers (the huge silver ones with the superfluous tail light and like three extra buttons; well, what the hell, here's a http://www.microsoft.com/Mouse/explorer.htm link) and sites that won't let you back out are an incredible annoyance. See, two of the buttons on there serve as Forward/Back (respectively) while browsing the web, and after about 20 minutes of using them, I was hooked. You wouldn't believe how simple (and remarkably intuitive) to navigate with your thumb. Now if I could just find a good use for those buttons in Half-Life... I mean, sure, it's easy enough to hold down the back button and select the page before the offending site, but that would require moving my cursor over six or so linear inches of desktop space. Isn't that just a little bit unreasonable? No? Ah well.