Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Signs Pledge To Crack Down On Internet Porn (pcworld.com)
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has pledged to crack down on Internet pornography via corporate partnerships -- and he could possibly establish a federal commission on the harmful effects of porngraphy, a nonprofit announced Monday. The announcement comes a day after the New York Post ran a full-page nude photo of Melania Trump, wife of Donald Trump, on its cover. PCWorld reports: Enough is Enough, a nonprofit dedicated to confronting online pornography, child pornography, child stalking and sexual predation, published Trump's signed pledge on Monday. Trump's opponent Hillary Clinton refused to sign the pledge, Enough is Enough said, though her campaign told EiE that she supported its goals. "Preventing the sexual exploitation of youth online requires a multi-faceted holistic strategy with a shared responsibility between the public, industry, and government," Donna Rice Hughes, the chief executive of Enough is Enough, said in a statement. "The need for aggressive enforcement of existing laws and adequate funding for Law Enforcement to do the job is long overdue. For nearly two decades, bi-partisan government commissions, task forces, Internet safety groups, and researchers, who have recognized the significant risks associated with unfettered Internet access by youth, and have called upon the government and law enforcement to take aggressive action."
You underestimate the impressive levels of cognitive dissonance practiced by Trump supporters. . . (watch them rant against this post with their one free hand. . .)
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The NY Post just ran a story this weekend about Melania Trump posing nude in a lesbian-themed photo shoot. This is open hypocrisy, really.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the nude photos of Trump's wife.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
In the future citizens will be able to access Trump-approved porn, provided by Trump business affiliates.
If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
Haphazard thinking is better than lying and cheating, "liberals" of course are the most authoritarian, "if you like your porn you can keep it,"...and then California bans porn production
I am completely against this. It bothers me on a couple different levels.
1) Can we stop using bigger government to solve problems that don't need to be solved by government? There are plenty of routers and filters available for parents to purchase if they don't want their children to see anything bad on the internet. Or better yet, if you are so concerned, maybe don't give your child their own phone at 7 years old and then expect the government to protect them.
2) As a Christian, I don't want to restrict your God given freedoms by imposing my morals on you. I think I have a better way. I don't want to force that on you. I want you to see (through how I live my life) that my way is better and willingly and voluntarily joining me on this path. I am so tired of Christians trying to force religion on other further alienating non-Christians.
Do I think porn is good for relationships? Absolutely not. But why is it the governments responsibility to "protect" relationships? If you want messed up relationships (assuming porn causes messed up relationships), go for it, it is your God given right.
My apologies to everyone whose God given freedoms have been restricted by Christians who are trying to do "what is best for you" and treating you as children as a result...
I don't know what is more depressing, the fact that you would hand over your country to a guy like Trump for a little job security or the fact that you actually think Trump can reverse the effects of globalization and technological automation without making the U.S. the next North Korea. . .
Trump is not a candidate, he is an intelligence test. You failed the test.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
At this point, we're getting back to where we were hundreds of years ago when all marriage was of convenience and marriage for love was a thing for poems and stageplays.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Nothing is a deal breaker for Trump fans. Trump could rape the father of one of his supporters and the supporter would cheer. Or at least blame Hillary.
People like Trump supporters are nothing new. This is from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar (Act I Scene2):
"Three or four wenches, where I stood, cried 'Alas, good
soul!' and forgave him with all their hearts: but
there's no heed to be taken of them; if Caesar had
stabbed their mothers, they would have done no less."
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
GOERING: Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
GILBERT: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
GOERING: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
From the 1930's to about the 1950's or so, most normal people idolized the cream of the intelligentsia, Albert Einstein was quite the celebrity in his day, even among common folk. Werner Von Braun and the Rocket Kids of the 1950's-1960's were probably the last of the scientists regular people looked up to.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
California Republican party is an odd mix. There are a lot of social conservatives, a lot of basically fiscal conservatives, and a lot of libertarians. It's not endangered because they do have large numbers. They don't do as well as they probably should because the party in power has typically had first crack at reapportionment (granted not true the last time). Three of the last 5 governors were Republican, and one got the job because the Democratic governor decided not to renew a tax break and was recalled. All 5 of those governors are essentially moderates anyway.
And that's just Republicans. The two parties have their faithful from the extremes, but most people are in the middle. California allows a "decline to state" voting registration, and those numbers are pretty high, above 20%. Most of those numbers are at the expense of Republicans to be sure, as their numbers are declining. But that doesn't mean they're voting Democrat when they get in the voting booth.
So that's why I said that with a decent Republican candidate, someone with a good brain, decent personality, isn't an ass (isn't Trump), isn't a wacky extremist (no Palin or Cruz), tends more moderate than acting as party faithful. Hillary is not liked, not just by Trump or Republicans, but a lot of Democrats are holding their nose to vote for her, and not just the Bernie camp. The decline-to-states for sure are no fans of Hillary. So such a Republican candidate would stand a fair chance in California and the results would be close.
At the very least we'd have an interesting campaign based on issues and debate rather than a campaign that's interesting because of the personalities and drama.
The FBI said that nobody else had faced criminal prosecution for what Clinton did, and in fact nobody's shown me a counterexample. She's getting the exact same legal treatment anyone else would for similar offenses. If you have a counterexample, I'd be very interested in a cite. For the rest, please provide cites if you want me to take you seriously.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes