Slashdot Mirror

Another is the road system. It is stupid to let a bunch of companies build toll roads.

Oh, it won't be a bunch of companies, it'll be one that happens to have ties to Trump.

Yes, the right wing does want to do that too.

Of course like so many of his tweets, this one was also wrong, that the NFL has no preferential status..

Actually they do, just one order removed in that it applies to all stadiums for all sports. In fact, multiple republicans have gone on the record that they wanted to repeal it because of the police brutality protests (democrats want to scrap it because its corporate welfare).

But, surprise, surprise, privately trump wanted to keep the subsidy and got it stripped from the final version of the gop taxscam. The fact that he's taken millions from NFL team owners probably has something to do with that. Stir up the racist base in public and then give handjobs to the rich in the backroom. Plutopopulism!

I did read the links. O'Keefe does hidden camera investigations. The fact he did one into AntiFa isn't the only evidence against them. And the charges against O'Keefe are politically motivated bullshit - his sin was exposing the lies and bias of leftist media organisations and NGOs.

Nope. His sin was being a lying bullshit spewer, which lead to him becoming a criminal, your sin, of course, was to believe him. Repetitively.

Any prosecutor dumb enough to allow such a taint into a trial, well, no wonder incompetence is rampant.

But hey, keep relying on them, it's a big sign that you've got less than nothing.

Facebook needs to do far more than just curtail fake news. It tries to curtail "hate speech", however does not have a clear policy on what exactly constitutes "hate speech". As a result, Facebook moderators routinely curtails the free expression of conservative ideas. Just because a person disagrees with you does not make it "hate speech". Just because you do not like what a person has posted does not make it "hate speech". In truth, very little of what gets labeled as "hate speech" is truly "hate speech". Facebook should remember that it MUST embrace the concept of ideological neutrality or it will be working hand in hand with those that produce fake news.

America is not authoritarian. You may want to look up what the word means.

"Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms." Check. "Juan Linz's influential 1964 description of authoritarianism characterized authoritarian political systems by four qualities: Limited political pluralism," (Check.) "[...] A basis for legitimacy based on emotion, especially the identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems" (Check.) "Minimal social mobilization" (Check.) "Informally defined executive power with often vague and shifting powers." (Check.) ... you were saying?

Russia is openly authoritarian, and does not pretend otherwise.

That's not at question currently, but thanks for handwaving.

Why is it your only counter argument is to bring up two news sources that are not at all relevant and unmentioned? You're not disproving the point, which is that our credible, mainstream media staffed by highly educated, erudite journalists, regularly produces fake news. It's a simple matter of psychology: post misleading news, wait for people to react, it's something known as "impression formation". Once an impression has been formed, it sticks. This is how they psyop the masses. This is how they persuade people. A lot of these people will never check the news, they'll never check the sources, they'll never look for the original video, and they'll never see the truth.

Despite two hours of available air time, ABC's Good Morning America skipped a damning New York Times story with a bombshell claim: Hillary Clinton, during the 2016 presidential campaign, was told that Harvey Weinstein was a rapist, but still took his donations and raised money off him.

Four viral claims spread by journalists last month that are false.

New York Times prejudiced against India. ""Of all places" is a very patronising way to describe India, which is one of the leading manufacturers in automobile industry with various auto giants having its manufacturing facilities in India. This is not the first time NYTimes has shown its prejudice against India. Earlier, they had published an op-ed about India that was centered around the CBI raids at the residences of Prannoy Roy and Radhika Roy, the founder promoters of NDTV. The editorial was titled 'India's Battered Free Press' which read like a textbook case of how it has been distorting the truth. NYTimes' former Delhi bureau chief Ellen Barry had also indulged in white-washing the 2002 Godhra carnage where as many as 59 people were burnt alive in a train. She had also spread lies to insult the victims of Godhra carnage in her report on Gulbarg Society verdict. NYTimes also encourages troll-like behaviour while reporting on democratically elected public representatives where being 'liberal' is associated with smoking, drinking and Hindu woman having Muslim friends and boyfriend."

Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding 'story'

The greatest danger to our nation comes from a free press that chooses sides in the political process. And that has openly and unapologetically taken place.

Sorry, Scentcone, but the requirement was:

Please name one elected official that "paid for" their action or inaction on any of the following issues...

You only named two politicians, but Nancy Pelosi is still in the House, as minority leader(a position which gives her no real consequences to the failed actions of the majority party), and received almost 80% of the vote in the most recent election, and hasn't really "paid for" it with any substantial opposition developing, while Hillary Clinton received a 3 million popular vote lead in the most recent election, and only lost due to the Electoral College, not to any particular opposition from the people.

You'd have done better to find Democrats who lost election in 2010, or even 2012, rather than focus on the two that make for the worst examples for you. And even then, you'd have to prove they really lost because of the ACA. Even Scott Brown can't really make that claim, he was bounced right after. And Boehner? Got trounced because he wasn't a fanatic and lives with the stain of his predecessor's sexual perversions being exposed. Yay?

Then, of course, we got years more of the Republican's uncontrolled deficits and out-of-touch agenda, leading to what? A technical victory with no demonstrated accomplishments? Even their tax plan makes them look bad. How do you lose by cutting taxes? Huh.

Your conjecture over the attempted repeal doesn't even give names, just asserts an outcome, which also applies to your blathering on immigration reform. We've had almost a decade on the former, and yet you can't produce a single name, and the latter goes even further back, and still nothing. You know you were asked for something real.

But you've got nothing.

PS, actually, it was Trump who appointed a person without a lengthy judicial background. Not to mention other nominees without experience.

It appears your command of the facts happens to be insufficient. You're confused about appointments and political consequences, and are not apparently aware that your conjecture was already rejected and substance demanded.

What parts, would that be? Especially since Steele himself wrote that it couldn't be verified. And it was his dossier! Wishing something is true doesn't make it so...

Technically, it probably isn't a Ponzi scheme. There are many similarities, though. I'm not the only person who has commented on this. For example: http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/364306-bitcoin-is-a-ponzi-scheme-and-it-will-collapse-like-one

The FCC is an independent agency of the US government, not part of the executive branch, and so not part of the Trump administration.

This is a bright line that needs to be preserved. We don't want presidents to be able to order the FCC to act, especially the current one. And Obama's pressure on the FCC to regulate the internet was part of the history that got us in this mess in the first place.

Anyway, The Hill had a level-headed and short description of the action here. It was really nice to get a break from sensationalized--and factually off--articles screaming about the world coming to an end.

See it here: http://thehill.com/opinion/tec...

This covers some of it. There's a bunch of other crap relating to it you can find on thehill who've done a good job documenting it. Also includes FOIA'd documents(via judicialwatch) from during the Obama era showing that the previous administration along with the state dept., knew something was afoot and ignored it, or were so inept they simply let it happen.

That the Moore signing in the yearbook was forged was fake news that Fox put out and they retracted the story after they had spread it around. Breitbart and other news kept their copies of the stories even after Fox retracted the source story.

http://thehill.com/homenews/me...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...

I find it twisted that Republicans are the ones who complain about fake news the most, except the news they watch and read puts out much more fake news than most mainstream media. I guess it's the same as Trump having called Clinton a liar, when he's Mr. 5 public lies a day.

It is a scandal that such a group can make such important decisions and that the congress is not taking action. It is very likely that the vote on December 14 will just follow the recommendation of its chairman and that the comments of the public are completely ignored. Instead, there is a lot of PR: there was a recent comment by Ken Engelhart in the New York times with the title "Why Concerns About Net Neutrality Are Overblown" Well Engelhat had been a Telecom guy for 25 years. Well what ever helps old friends ... It looks not good. If one believes this article then the only remaining hope would be the courts.

The state, which most actively opposed — and continues to oppose — Trump, is getting the punishment even while the nation as a whole is prospering.

Yeah, turns out Hillary wasn't indicted because the FBI is corrupt as hell. I thought the investigation was supposed to be about collusion between Trump and Putin. And what they have done is they have taken a campaign manager who was with Trump for three months and apparently gone back all the way to 2012 and indicted him for income tax evasion and things like that.

If the FBI knew that Manafort was a Ukranian money launderer in 2014, why wouldn't they tell Trump unless they were going to blackmail him with that information?

Robert Mueller found such strong evidence of Trump colluding with Russia that he decided to chase down a couple of tax evaders instead. Muellerâ(TM)s charges against Manafort were known to Obamaâ(TM)s Justice Department in 2013, investigated, and completely ignored. The FBI actually allowed a presidency candidate (Trump) to hire someone they were investigating since 2014 or earlier (Manafort) without sounding the alarm. Manafort wasn't arrested till now after uranium one scandal broke. This smells like a dirty intentional sabotage to me.

I had an employee once that ended up in prison, twice. Am I responsible for his actions?

Factually incorrect narratives? You mean like ABC News did just today? The Dow plunged 350 points after the false report.

It's pretty hard to defend anyone for attacking the media when they do such a good job at either lying or being totally incompetent at their job. Remember how they showed why they're so mistrusted when they lied about Trump and the koi pond?

Compare and contrast

Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding 'story'. Here are several credible mainstream media outlets and Jezebel reporting the story.

Bloomberg's White House reporter: Trump and Abe spooning fish food into a pond. (Toward the end, @potus decided to just dump the whole box in for the fish)

New York Magazine: Trump Under Fire for Improper Fish-Feeding Technique

Jezebel: Big stupid baby dumps a load of fish food on Japanese koi pond http://bit.ly/2zAyCD6

CNBC's Christina Wilkie (in a now-deleted tweet): "Trump and Japanese PM Shinzo Abe were scheduled to feed koi spoonfuls of food. Until Trump poured his entire box of fish food into the pond."

New York Daily News: Photo of Donald Trump dumping fish food into koi pond during Japan visit draws Obama comparisons

The Guardian: "White House reporters, keen perhaps to pick up on a Trump gaffe, captured the moment when he upended his box on their smartphones and tweeted evidence of his questionable grasp of fish keeping. Some speculated that a poor palace employee would be dispatched to the scene to clean up the mess as soon as the two leaders disappeared inside."

CNN: Trump feeds fish, winds up pouring entire box of food into koi pond

The media was not only blatantly overt, but intentional in its deception. The greatest danger to our nation comes from a free press that chooses sides in the political process. And that has openly and unapologetically taken place.

Media shows why it's so mistrusted after falsified Trump fish-feeding âstory'

That's what chairman Pai wrote, that the Comcast and torrents issue should have been addressed under anti-trust and consumer protection laws, rather than the failed way they tried to it, which the court threw out due to lack of legislative authority.

Except the FTC would have limited powers of enforcement and would essentially be a paper tiger.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...

His statement that what they did was a mistake is true almost by definition - the court threw it out.

The courts threw out the previous version but upheld the current version.

The FCC isn't Congress, they can't make laws.

And yet Ajit Pai is making up his own rules all the time. But just like the lie of “judicial activism”, the right is always fine with something as long is it’s for things they like. It’s always “activism” whenever they disagree.

FTC already said when they take over regulation from the FCC, they will keep net neutrality.

The difference is the switch from title-2 to title-1 reclassification, and the Information providers control, which would also regulate Facebook/Google, etc.

Lots of fud going around has people worked up and worried, just read what FCC Chairman has been saying and google ftc net neutrality.

Way overreaction from media getting people upset.

Oh, hannity.com, that's bound to be truthful and impartial.

Oh progressive! How one whines, when something comes up that really hurts that bubble they live in. Oh how they whine over a source, and can't read it because it might actually make them question things. Do you have any idea who Sara Carter is? Do you know why she's a respected investigative journalist? No, you probably don't.

I'll give you a hint though, she's the reason why Lois Learner is trying to get her own testimony sealed showing she used the IRS as a political weapon against Tea Party groups trying to get non-profit status. And while you're at it, you can read this right here and see how that uranium really was exported out of the US by slight-of-hand, and how it ties into Sara's article. FYI: Hillary Clinton's office was directly responsible for this action.

I'd rather have the whole damn government in the private could where the fixers can't destroy hard drives, delete pst files and wipe servers with no trace as easily as they have. Whatever supposed risk to national security that you're so worried about is less damaging than the actual criminality we've seen.

I'd love to see the original real citation for this welll known 'fact'.

There are many. Finding the original would be a pointless endeavor though.

I wonder if it includes things like the military, a federal expense, defending the liberal coasts, and pouring federal money into the navy and Air Force bases that do so.

Yes, those have been factored into many charts, though some concentrate on the "welfare" aspect.

That's free money for California, where I live btw.

Nope. Quite expensive actually. Military spending isn't funded by a magic fairy. The days of sending forth conquering armies to gather tribute are long gone.

Blue States are actually on the hook, especially for the Right-wing war-mongering. And frankly, the GOP would gladly close every base in California, they HATE the state enough to spite the country. It has become their Sodom and Gomorroh, and it's barely 30 years since Reagan, who they never mention as being governor of California or an actor.

I also expect that eliminating the state deduction will force out of control liberal states to lower their taxes and stop flushing money down the toilet and useless social programs that only grow every year but don't help the people they're supposed to much less have an end goal.

Except you are assuming they are "out of control" and "flushing money down the toilet" on "useless social programs" that "don't help the people" which is bad enough, yet your method is even more deeply flawed since instead of offering a better alternative, you are just randomly attacking your opposition under a false pretense of noble motives.

Eliminating the mortgage deduction should force housing prices to come down, too. I'm ok with that, also.

Except it won't happen, since you aren't even addressing the reason for high housing prices. Here's a hint: The financiers don't want housing prices to come down, they LOVE the escalation.

The tax system has artificially altered major parts of our economy into a twisted mutated wreck. Time to restore,rose rather than fight over who gets to fuck over whom in a giant game of musical taxation chairs.

You're blaming taxation. The true causes are far more sinister and nefarious. You're being exploited and oppressed, but you don't know who has the whip.

PS, Newt Gingrich claimed he fixed that bit about paying people not to work, rural poor people do vote for Republicans, and yes, big companies like Wal-Mart and McDonalds do instruct their employees to get on food-stamps and other programs.

Also, the pill-pushers are big pharma, who the GOP loves. Just like Big Tobacco.

Mysteriously, however, funding schools, health programs, and improving people's lives by fixing their homes is forbidden as it is offensive. Except for the private religious schools indoctrinating the next generation of Wor$hipers at the Church of Christ Money-lender. That is a goal worth billions.

Bartering is a Taxable transaction

Well, we all know what really matters is that there will be new tax breaks for people who own private planes. You know...the middle class.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-...

Let's see. Increase tax burden massively for grad students. So what else do we have? Well, we've got a tax break for private jet owners added in http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/360785-senate-tax-bill-includes-tax-break-for-private-jets (Note that The Hill is a general news site related to Washington politics, generally pretty non-partisan). We've got a removal of the tax deduction for state and local taxes https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-tax-local/u-s-towns-cities-fear-taxpayer-revolt-if-republicans-kill-deduction-idUSKBN1DH01D, which is both of quesitonable constitutionality due to the double taxation, screwing over specifically the people in "blue" states which generally have higher state taxes, and harming disproportionately people in middle income brackets. So, yes, please tell Snotnose above or me what sources we should be looking at to see what is wrong about their description. What information that we are not seeing in our echo chamber should change our viewpoint?

Nearly every movement has some dummies who break the law in it's name.

Nice equivocation. Yes, no movement is immune against some of its members being criminals. Antifa's entire modus operandi, however, is based on violence — For the Greater Good[TM]. They not only don't discourage it, as any half-decent organization would, they openly encourage it:

“There is the question of whether these people should feel safe organizing as Nazis in public, and I don’t think they should,” said Isaacson.

Mueller is spotless. There is no plausible reason to fire him other than to obstruct justice.

Uh, no. Mueller was the head of the FBI when it was investigating Russian bribery and influence attempts during the Uranium One deal, but didn't think it prudent to share the existence of his investigations as the federal government considered approving the deal.

It is pretty normal to attack and discredit the investigator. I recall Bill Clinton doing the same thing. There is zero proof Hillary was even consulted on the Uranium One deal, and all evidence is to the contrary. So you have what 9 agencies approving it. If they are that concerned eminent domain that land back and put it under goverment control.

Personally I think this is all a desperate attempt to distract as the indictments begin rolling out. If ther FBI didn't share information it should have, well we will find out. That doesn't discredit Mueller's investigation.

Mueller is spotless. There is no plausible reason to fire him other than to obstruct justice.

Uh, no. Mueller was the head of the FBI when it was investigating Russian bribery and influence attempts during the Uranium One deal, but didn't think it prudent to share the existence of his investigations as the federal government considered approving the deal.

There is plenty of evidence since 2010 that the Clinton's did sell access to the SOS allowing a Russian Federation backed concern consolidation of uranium mines. It also shows that Holder and Obama sat on the evidence.

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow

The way video game companies constantly promise their games a) look as good as the trailer b) won't have DLC and c) won't be broken alphas non functional until patched.

The way Trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall.

The way McDonalds promised The EggMcMuffin wasn't just pure egg and nothing but. That they weren't advertising in schools and more.

"Nuclear power as it is right now is as cheap as any wind or solar and it can get cheaper if we start building them again" - because nuclear is subsidised, have a read of these articles
http://thehill.com/opinion/ene...
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

> (Clinton Uranium deal investigated by the FBI,

No. And shame on you for lying about it.

It was not the "clinton uranium deal" that was investigated. It was a bunch of russians doing kickbacks and money laundering, going as far back as 2004. As for Clinton's involvement, this is what the article says:

Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation,

The millions went to a company that also worked with the clinton foundation, but note that the article explicitly avoids saying the millions were passed through to the foundation rather than being spent elsewhere, like aforementioned kickbacks to russians.

Furthermore, whenever the Uranium One deal is mentiond, everybody should remember this key fact: Russia was never given an export license, thus the uranium could never leave the US (and in fact barely any of it even left the ground because importing uranium from abroad is cheaper than mining it here). Here's the official statement from the Nuclear Regulatory Agency:

Neither Uranium One nor ARMZ holds an NRC export license, so no uranium produced at either facility may be exported.

> and Comey wrote the Hillary conclusion months before interviewing Hillary.)

Another half-truth that is a full lie. Interviewing her was basically a formality, especially if you believe the narrative that she's a master manipulator. The FBI investigation began no later than August the year before, 9 months before Comey began drafting the statement. All of the evidence gathered by then was already exculpatory that the writing was already on the wall.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/31/politics/comey-clinton-investigation/index.html
A person familiar with the matter pushed back on the notion that Comey had already reached a conclusion that affected the investigation.
The person said back in spring 2016, agents and Justice Department officials were talking about how the investigation would end and there was a belief that the evidence was going in a direction to not support bringing charges. This individual said by April 2016 the FBI had reviewed most of the evidence and didn't find evidence suggesting that Clinton had violated federal law. The person said the FBI wanted to interview her but didn't believe it was going to change the outcome.
The source also said Comey was not involved in the day-to-day steps of the investigation, so even if he reached a conclusion it wouldn't have affected the result of the investigation.
A second person familiar with the matter told CNN that Comey had not already made up his mind, and that it did not influence the investigation. The second source says the FBI had already reviewed much of the evidence by spring and it was becoming more clear that it was not likely to support bringing charges.

> If we can't abide the truth, then we're no different from the media talking heads.

You are different from the media talking heads. You are an unabashedly hyperpartisan liar, they are just poorly informed. You, on the other hand, know the whole truth because it takes exceptional discipline to write out all the parts that don't support your ideology of idiocy.

RBC counted 16 groups relating to the Black Lives Matter campaign and other race issues that had a total of 1.2 million subscribers. The biggest group was entitled Blacktivist and reportedly had more than 350,000 likes at its peak.

Russia paying money to leftist and progressive groups in the US in order to create dissent and foment violence has been going on for more than half a century, as has their placement of operatives in Washington. That makes Democratic complaints about supposed Trump-Russia ties so ludicrous.

In other news, turns out there is more to the Russia-Clinton-Uranium story.

These are the 2 big stories regarding Russia today, and explains a lot of what went down, and the concentrated effort (and we do know it was a Clinton campaign effort thanks to wikileaks) to link Trump to Russia during the campaign in order to take the heat off herself.

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

http://www.newsweek.com/james-...

It's Comey and the Obama DOJ that needs to be investigated for obstruction of justice.

No they need to investigate these guys named as DEVO for the suppressed secret information.

These are the 2 big stories regarding Russia today, and explains a lot of what went down, and the concentrated effort (and we do know it was a Clinton campaign effort thanks to wikileaks) to link Trump to Russia during the campaign in order to take the heat off herself.

http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

http://www.newsweek.com/james-...

It's Comey and the Obama DOJ that needs to be investigated for obstruction of justice.

...to send me your life savings?

Actually the hysteria is mounting.

Fixed that for you.

The Russian's hacked power plants storyline was bullshit.
CrowdStrike is bullshit.
The "17 intelligence agencies" line was bullshit.
The Russia hacked election systems is bullshit.

find this report by the Director of National Intelligence particularly interesting

Sure, lets look at this - while remembering the FBI wasn't allowed to examine the DNC servers so how exactly would they have "high confidence" in any thing - but this time noting the weasel words:

We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.

Zero evidence provided, only claims and accusations. Well guess what Chem Trailers, Sandy Hook Truthers and Birthers have? Claims and accusations.

Then there's the fact the entire "Russia wanted Trump to win so hacked the election" makes no sense whatsoever. The election was Hillary's to lose, right up until she picked Tim Kaine as her running mate and decided to skip campaigning in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Michigan. So according to the storyline, Putin was crafty enough to dig up dirt on Hillary (which was all true) but dumb enough to collude with someone as dumb as Trump. Which means the CIA, NSA & FBI would know all about it. Which meant Hillary would too, who had already campaigned on shooting down Russian jets in Syria. So what's really going on?

The entire "Russian hacking" storyline is nothing but Swiftboating from Clinton supporters, as she was the candidate who engaged in corrupt collusion with Russian interests to sell a fifth of America's uranium.

And you can skip that Snopes link that handwaives away Hillary's culpability for a number of reasons:
1) Access is corruption
2) Avoiding the appearance of impropriety applies to politicians, not just judges
3) Her own campaign was warned internally that the deal was a political liability for her
4) Hillary flat-out broke her confirmation promises on keeping a wall between the State Department and the Clinton Foundation

At this point, Chem Trailing anti-vaxxer Birther Sandy Hook Truthers have more respectability than Russiagaters.

Your red herring is bullshit. Illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate than US citizens.

Legal immigrants have a lower crime rate than the US average. Illegal immigrants do not. Are you conflating the two as mass immigration supporters usually do? There's a good write up on this common fallacy here:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...

The statistics for illegal immigrants are truly shocking when they can be found. Here's one example: One 2001 study that does take country of origin and geographic concentration factors into account found that Mexican immigrants “commit between 3.5 and 5 times as many crimes as the average native.” It also pointed out the large concentration of Mexican immigrants in the Southwest, which indicates that a nation-wide sample may not represent what is happening in states with a large concentration of criminal aliens. from this article: http://www.heritage.org/immigr...

Yeah, he won the clown car race with 16 (or was it 17) candidates by a healthy margin by differentiating himself. But polling throughout the race had him at unprecedented unfavorability ratings, with only Clinton able to even remotely complete. He polled worse than lice and Nickelback.

Also, among the groups of independents, Democrats, and Republicans, Republicans are the smallest group, and only a small subset of them voted in the primaries.

Which is why there are many questions yet unanswered. Without any mention of any other nations, American voting machines are notoriously easy to hack https://fossbytes.com/defcon-2... http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... 2012 - https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/... 2011 - https://www.salon.com/2011/09/...

2005 - https://arstechnica.com/uncate...

This is not fake news, this is not remotely deniable. I knew that the voting manchines were Internet of things easy to hack almost 15 years ago. http://euro.ecom.cmu.edu/peopl...

There have been some strange happenings like in the 2012 election where Carl Rove had a public meltdown when he refused to concede the Ohio vote, expecting some districts to come through and push the Republican candidate over the edge and win Ohio. It was interesting in the aspect that Ohio had a strange even in a previous election where the exit polls gave the state to a Democrat, but the vote tally did not. The Republican response was the typical Good Republican Voters screwing with the Media. But that's just a side story, and I digress.

The big question is - with the machines having terrible security, why the hell would a tech-savvy nation not hack and alter the results to mess with an adversary nation or to put in a person they had sway with?

Additional Information

From article dated: JULY 2, 2017
Puerto Ricos Power Authority Effectively Files for Bankruptcy

And then there is this.
"Electricity is given free of charge to every one of the commonwealth's 78 municipalities, to many of its government enterprises and even to some private businesses located in buildings owned by municipalities. PREPA has $1 billion or more in accounts receivable, much of which is owed by other units of the Puerto Rico government."
Renewable electricity as a solution to Puerto Rico debt crisis? You must be kidding

And some wonder why the Electric Grid is getting repaired?

so your comparisons to Google's situation fall apart right from the get-go.

The subject of the thread still lists hosters (of services) in addition to registrars. Moreover, registrars — such as Google — have an even greater responsibility. Whereas a hosting provider may choose to discontinue service to a particularly unpleasant customer, a registrar should not have such ability — certainly not without first seeing the customer's domain safely migrated elsewhere.

Speaking of IANA, it, rather than the US government, is the organization with the authority you're talking about. The USG gave it away in 1998 to ICANN

Bullshit. Whatever it is ostensibly, the governance of the Internet is still very much controlled by the US government with ICANN allowed to do its thing only as long the US is Ok with it. Many of the root DNS-servers are US-owned...

As I said earlier, the domain-registrars are very government-like in their very purpose, like Registries of Deeds, for example...

The courts have repeatedly ruled that inciting violence—which is what The Daily Stormer is accused of—is an unlawful form of speech

You aren't offering any citations — how is mere accusation of inciting violence sufficient for government to suppress speech?..

But, meanwhile, do I understand you correctly, that you'll have no problem with any and all "Antifa" sites losing their domains? They aren't merely "accused" of inciting violence, not even merely observed engaging in it, they openly admit it.

don't you dare suggest that private entities are obligated to assist them

Just as Daily Stormer agreed to Google's terms, Google have agreed to — and did for a while — host them regardless of their views, voluntarily. They did not have to take them, but they did.

Notary Publics are private too, and they aren't obligated to serve anyone in particular. But, once they notarize your signature, they can't — should not be able to — withdraw their certification on the basis of you being an asshole...

The sudden pull of the domain-registration is a scandal and a violation of the Nazis' civil rights.

Let me spell it out for you since you are clearly logically challenged and/or incapable of grasping basic concepts:

If a business or country hires/pays/blackmails/threatens a person to steal for them and then that entity receives the stolen goods, then that entity is morally and legally guilty of the theft. However, in the case of China, they literally don't give a shit what the rest of the world thinks or demands or what is legal/illegal, unless it actually costs them money or power in some way. The US has mountains of evidence from our counter espionage against China that they have stolen US IP hundreds if not thousands of times in the last 20 years. Evidence like photographic evidence of the thief dead dropping the data to a Chinese diplomat, electronic evidence of payouts to the thief from a Chinese state backed entity, testimony from the thief that his family back in China was under threat, etc.

You might want to do a little light reading, maybe have a few of the facts before you start making a fool of yourself. http://www.ipcommission.org/re...

Some other pertinent information:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
http://www.sciencemag.org/news...
http://www.politifact.com/pund...

The first one is an opinion piece that asks questions.

Sure. And that asking betrays the author's desire for "hate speech" being banned.

nobody who really doesn't believe in AGW would be prosecuted.

Ah, yes, yes, sure. As Snopes said:

California Senate Bill (SB) 1161 sought to make dissemination of scientifically inaccurate or misleading information by businesses and organizations an offense covered by California's unfair competition law.

Small comfort, though — because what is and what is not "scientifically inaccurate" will be up to the prosecutors (and then juries).

I'm certainly not going to want you shut down by legal means.

Most generous of you. There is, however, a sizeable minority, which sees it differently — and these Constitution-undermining proposals reach as high as pages of New York Times. And the far-Left is particularly against it — openly and unabashedly advocating violence against holders of certain opinions. Just as the subject of this thread says...

Don't take my word for it — the "classical" Liberals are appalled by these alt-Left's trends as well, even if their argument against it boils down to the self-serving "it will backfire" warnings...

Let that co-opted weasel dangle.

In 2010 you both held Mr. Assange in higher regard and pointed out to those, who'd consider him "an ass":

One must be careful not to dismiss the truth because it's delivered by an "ass".

But now that your precious Hillary has blamed him, you are not only call him names yourself, but do dismiss the truth he delivers... Or is "ass" materially different from "weasel"?..

Same topic from a non-paywalled site. For the four /. readers that read the summary and the article.

Let's check in with 3rd party candidate "Jill Stein"

uh oh

Looks like Jill Stein was with Trump's treasonous national security adviser in Russia in the runup to the US election, and is now under investigation for colluding with Russia's attack on our democracy.

If you want me to take your 3rd party seriously, then show up at the local, state, and house/senate level before you shoot for the presidency. As it stands, the last 3rd party candidate vote totals in the 3 states that swayed the electoral college are greater than Trump's margin of victory.

So far a Putin connected 3rd party candidate aided Putin' Puppet "Moscow Donald" disastrous election as president, with all the negative consequences that has caused.

The only thing that liberal 3rd party voters did in the 2016 election was sway the election for a candidate whose stated policies are in direct opposition to their own interests.

A category 4 hurricane just hit the Texas coast and our President still hasn't appointed anyone to head the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, or any of the agencies that deal with hurricanes.

Today, as he flew off on a golfing trip to Camp David, he was asked if he had a message for the people of Texas. His reply was, "Good luck".

http://www.nydailynews.com/new...

If Trump appointed Brock Long to head Fema you'd be lying.

Oh wait... you are!

And wonder of wonders, Brock is not incompetent!.

Also, Democrats are slowing down the confirmation process so that at the current rate, congress will get through all of Trump's nominations in 11 years (!).

Also also, the senate pulled a parliamentary trick to block Trump recess appointments.

Be sure to blame all of that on Trump!

Asking for someone's email, the budget for a simple calendar or graphic, or trying to fish for information doesn't meet that criteria.

Whew. For a second I thought that people could simply request thousands of Hillary Clinton's emails while serving as Sec. of State in an attempt to fish for information prior to an election. Good to know that they don't meet 3301s criteria.

Oh wait, they did, and a Federal judge even ordered the State Department to supply thousands of emails concerning disparate subjects in response to a single request. And again for John Holdren's emails.

You're simply wrong. "machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics" includes emails and budgets. "appropriate for preservation by that agency" includes emails and budgets (but possibly not slack channel contents, since they would be difficult to automatically archive). "other activities of the Government" extends to any government business.

Motherboard needs to appeal the denial within the agency. Obtain a final agency decision. File a FOIA suit with a judge. Watch agency lose if the requests are at all specific -- i.e., keyword searchable or associated with particlar identifiers such as an email address. It's been done before and it can be done again.

That analysis has been questioned by several. In fact the nation that did a story on it is now reviewing their own story for accuracy. There are just too many unknowns and holes in their report. https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com] https://www.aol.com/article/ne... [aol.com] http://thehill.com/policy/cybe... [thehill.com]