Slashdot Mirror
Trump Opposes Plan For US To Hand Over Internet Oversight To a Global Governance (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump opposes a long-planned transition of oversight of the internet's technical management from the U.S. government to a global community of stakeholders, his campaign said in a statement on Wednesday. Congress should block the handover, scheduled to occur on Oct. 1, "or internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost," Stephen Miller, national policy director for the Trump campaign, said in a statement. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a former presidential primary foe of Trump's who has refused to endorse the real estate developer, has led a movement in Congress to block the transition, arguing it could cede control of the internet itself to authoritarian regimes like Russia and China and threaten online freedom. Technical experts have said those claims are baseless, and that a delay will backfire by undermining U.S. credibility in future international negotiations over internet standards and security. Publicly proposed in March 2014, the transfer of oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is expected to go forward unless Congress votes to block the move. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports the Obama administration's planned transition to a global community of technologists, civil society groups and internet users, according to policy positions available on her campaign website.
Except the U.S. has already been in charge for 20 years and I've yet to see them seriously try to ban criticism of the U.S. government or its leaders from the internet. Do you seriously think the same would be true if China or Russia had been in charge?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The last I'd heard, news fact-checking organizations were reporting that he told the truth 15% of the time. Why would I ever care what the opinion of someone like was?
And don't tell me "because he's going to be president". The people of the United States are still smarter than that.
Here's one of your news organizations fact checking some things about Donald Trump.
Bruce, I don't know if you've noticed, but the media sometimes misrepresents things. For example, the polls say that 44% of Trumps supporters have a college degree, which the media is quick to point out is less than 50%, so Trump supporters are mostly uneducated.
What they (and you) fail to notice is that the national average for college degrees is 30%, so on average Trump supporters are more educated than the national average. (And here's a reference to the analysis as backing for that statement.)
From that article:
What’s more, Silver found that 44% of Trump voters have college undergraduate degrees, compared to 29% of US adults.
What I don't understand is why Clinton supporters always resort to insults.
I mean, you're especially recognized as being a smart person, yet I don't see you posting a rational reason why Clinton would be a good president.
Set aside that she's not Trump, because there are at least two other candidates, can you point to one thing she's done that has been of benefit to the people of this country? (With links please - don't just make things up.)
Bruce, You're a smart dude.
Can you explain why you need to defend Clinton... with insults?
P.S. - The term "offensive" is used entirely too much recently, but I was honestly offended by your statement. It was an insult, targetting a clearly defined group of people; hence, offensive.
I have not been keeping a formal record, but I do hear big whoppers from him. His accusation last week that Hilary started the Birther campaign was not just pants on fire. More like pants undergoing nuclear fusion.
Bruce Perens.
"Meanwhile, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.". I don't really care, though.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?
Yes. Look at Detroit. The population there has collapsed from 1.8M in 1950, to less than 700k today. There are vast tracts of empty houses, and abandoned strip malls. An influx of 600,000 Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy, and would almost certainly be an improvement over the type of people living there now. Just require them to stay put in Detroit for 5 years. By the end of that time, there would be thriving Syrian neighborhoods and shopping centers, and they will be happy to stay.
The mayor of Baltimore, another city in decline, has said she would welcome Syrian refugees.
Disclaimer: I live in San Jose, California, which has an extremely high percentage of immigrants. There are several muslim families in my neighborhood. They are just normal people going about their lives.
The whole birther campaign was a lie. Did Donald ever send investigators to Hawaii? Kenya? What were the amazing things he said they found? How come he thought this was important even though Obama would still have been a US citizen if he had been born in Kenya? This alone should disqualify him. Electing him would be akin to electing a 9/11 truther, not the good kind of truther, the kind who thinks the Jews did it.
His claim to have put it to rest was a lie. His claim that Clinton started it was a lie.
His claim to have been against the Iraq war. A lie.
Donald lies about why he can't release tax forms. An IRS audit does not prevent public release.
He pretended to be his own publicist. This is the kind of crazy stunt that would have destroyed Hillary if anyone found out.
He frequently denies saying things he clearly said, such as his approval of Japan and South Korea building their own nuclear deterrent. Or that he didn't make some horribly derogatory remark or other, like when he made fun of a disabled reporter.
Donald keeps saying his tax plan will cost him money. It won't.
Even his big policies he's famous for are lies. The Wall is pointless, a huge waste of money. Donald knows this. The Muslim ban, besides being unconstitutional, is also impossible to implement and would have little to no effect on terrorism. Donald knows this too.
There are long transcripts of his many, many court cases where he's forced to retract baseless things he'd said, and they are very revealing. The guy screws up and can't admit it. Can't stop from blaming others. If he overpays for a property, he lies about the cost, etc.
Play Command HQ online
How about just fixing where they live?
Because the law of unintended consequences is nowhere stronger, more visible or more impactful than it is in foreign relations.
I think the Obama administration's foreign policy in the Middle East has been feckless at best. But it's earnestly debatable whether that is worse than nothing at all.
Think about it - the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an attempt to "fix where they live." For some people, it made their lives better. For most others, it made it far worse. I think arguments that "how" it was done made the difference are largely specious - to quote the apocryphal Colin Powell "Pottery Barn Rule," we (the US) broke it and we bought it. We took on all the problems of a region divided by sectarian religious and ethnic divisions more than a millennium old that make the US Republican/Democrat divide look like an intramural volleyball game. There was just not going to be a happy ending there.
So we go and get involved in Libya. Did that help or hurt? Probably hurt. So we don't really get involved in Syria. Did that help or hurt? Probably hurt.
That's the thing, there is no unambiguously good or right answer to getting involved in areas where the fundamental tension is too big, too old and/or too "foreign" for you to solve. Was the Republican approach in 2003 bad? Yes. Was the Democratic approach in 2011 bad? Yes. There is no clear right approach and the end result is more dependent on luck and externalities than anything else.
And by the way, this is no endorsement of Trump - rather the opposite. I think the above is proof that anyone who thinks there are simple answers to questions that thousands of smart and informed people have struggled for decades to solve is an idiot. Easy answers sound good, but in situations like these there is simply no such thing as any easy answer. Anything you do will almost invariably have unintended consequences. Getting involved has them, as does not getting involved. Dealing with toxic areas of the world has only "least bad options" at best. "And when you sup with the devil, you should bring a long spoon."
"95% of all Slashdot
> Rather it's about race and culture, the US with an additional 600K Arab Muslims is a smidgen less like the US as you envision it.
The US received a far higher ratio of terrorists to total harmless migrants when they let Irish people over in the latter half of the last century, they were merely fortunate that those terrorists had ambitions against the UK rather than the US.
They did however engage in vast amounts of organised crime in the US, and as part of that killed way more people than ISIS have in the US.
You're absolutely right, I see no Trump supporters making any complaints about the amount of white Irish Catholic terrorists they let in in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s who went on to murder way more Americans than ISIS ever have managed. When Trump supporters talk about this thing it's pretty obvious to anyone with even remotely any objectivity to see it's about racism on their behalf because otherwise their entire argument makes no sense as race is the only differentiating factor between what they're purportedly complaining about and many other examples of actual incidents of what they're purportedly complaining about.
I don't understand why when Trump supporters complain about over the top political correctness they're so evasive themselves at calling a spade a spade, I'd have more respect for them if they just admitted they're mostly all racist, and many show a penchant of support for the Nazi ideology. They bitch about "liberals" not allowing them to call a spade a spade, but when someone does exactly that by objectively demonstrating why their view is racist or comparable to Nazism then suddenly they're not so keen on the idea of shouting down political correctness and speaking the blunt truth. Suddenly political correctness is their best friend, and we must moderate our description of them because they find it offensive.
Boo fucking hoo, what a bunch of cowardly cry babies if they can't even stand up for what they believe in - that's why they wont give you the argument we should be having, because they wholeheartedly support political correctness, just only when it shuts down conversation and questions about their true views.
Yes, but my understanding is that in the US "truth" is a defense against a slander suit. Other countries, am looking at you Australia, do not offer that defense by itself, and in addition to truth you have to prove that your statement was also in the public interest.