Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Trump Opposes Plan For US To Hand Over Internet Oversight To a Global Governance (reuters.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the out-of-control dept.

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.

46 of 527 comments (clear)

  1. The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.

      Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has. The Brits have their libel laws, the French have their "religious symbols" bans. Many EU countries outlaw holocaust denial and/or hate speech.

      I finally agree with Donald on something. Has Hillary taken an official stance on this issue.

    2. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And before anyone says it, yeah the U.S. was wrong on Snowden and Assange and many other cases. But who else would you rather have calling the shots? A bunch of European countries who consider criticizing Islam a hate crime, or who want to ban all non-SJW's from being allowed to speak lest they hurt some Snowflake's feelings? Or maybe one of the hundreds of vile dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and religious wackjobs across the world who want to ban all speech criticizing them and their ideology/religion/cause of choice?

      Seriously, even Australia and Canada have gone down the insane rabbit hole of criminalizing basic free speech lately. So who else is left who even stands a CHANCE of preserving any semblance of free speech on the internet?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Entrope · · Score: 5, Informative

      Her campaign says she "supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders".

    4. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by pgnas · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you absolutely out of your mind? Seriously, look at your options, complete censorship vs not. This administration has clearly shown you their roadmap and you still are willing to accept this? I am truly beside myself when I see how easily people are willing to give in to complete control and regulation, how this US administration uses supremacy and somehow convinced you it is tolerance. Do you know why the Internet "blew up"? It was a LACK of regulation. I don't like all of the things that Donald Trump stands for however he is a capitalist, not a socialist, not a communist or a fascist. I think we have had it far too easy for some reason we become completely lazy and prefer to be taken care of rather than getting our hands dirty, sweaty in a little bit and doing some actual work, but I digress. Regulation is control, regulation is not thinking for yourself, regulation is admitting you're not capable and regulation is a way of not taking responsibility for your actions. You may want someone to garner your free speech, but I don't and I think if you realized and thought about it a little bit further than just this election you might feel differently.

    5. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    6. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Funny

      if China or Russia had been in charge?

      Absolutely I do. China and/or Russia would have no problem with people criticizing the U.S. government or its leaders on the internet.

    7. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow, AND have potentially fractured standards.

      It's not as simple as us controlling it versus "them" controlling it. Unfortunately, the us-vs-them portrayal resonates better as a compact political sound-bite.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    8. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      Considering that the US started the whole fucking mess and that Germany and Turkey had to take in MILLIONS upon millions of refugees despite being significantly smaller in size and despite not being the ones to initiate the conflict, yes, taking in 6,000,000 refugees (you seem to have misplaced the comma) would be a decent START.

    9. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Z80a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about just fixing where they live?
      It's a lot cheaper and don't have the whole awful cultural clash.

    10. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Namarrgon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like. It wasn't all that long ago.

      Capitalism, like every other organisation, needs checks and balances. There's no other way to ensure accountability, and without accountability then unrestrained capitalists can do just as much damage to society as unrestrained communists or dictators. Moderate regulation is a necessary tradeoff to stop psychopath CEOs like Shkreli from efficiently strip-mining their markets to the bone.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    11. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.theblaze.com/storie...

    12. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about just fixing where they live?

      A good first start would be for America to stop sabotaging every attempt to end the conflict. America has consistently insisted that Assad has to go as a precondition to even talking about ending the war. Of course, Assad controls the most powerful army in Syria, has no reason whatsoever to agree to that, and America has no willpower to get engaged enough to force him out. So the war goes on, and on, and on.

      If you want to get something (in this case, peace), you have to give something up (Assad stays on in at least the Alawi Shia rump of Syria). That is the way negotiations work. You can't just demand everything you want, up-front, as a precondition to talking.

    13. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about they fix their own goddam house?

      Because the people with power don't want the war to end.

      Who wants the war to end:
      The refugees (obviously), but they have no power.
      The EU, but they are too politically impotent to do anything.

      Who wants the war to continue:
      The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos.
      America, because an end to the war would mean politically unpopular compromise.
      The Turks, because they can use it as leverage to get what they want from the EU.
      The Kurds, because they can keep their autonomy while the war sputters on.
      ISIS, because the war is their only reason for existing.
      Israel, because it divides and weakens the Arabs.
      Iran, because the war gives them influence.
      Assad, because he is winning.

      I would bet on the war continuing for a long time.

    14. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ichthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the US has some of the most restrictive rules on speech of the western world.

      Back that shit up with factual examples, or get the fuck out.

      --
      sig: sauer
    15. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?

      what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in

      60,000? Were you planning to set up a recruiting booth inside a Daesh training camp? Daesh might not even have 60,000 fighters world-wide.

      Let in 600,000 refugees and you might get a handful who turn jihadi.

      You'll get another handful who commit murder, some others who steal cars, start businesses, become political pundits, stand up comics, teachers, professors, drug addicts, you'll even get a few Trump supporters!

      It's 600,000 people, you're likely to get a bit of everything, good and bad.

      And frankly lets be honest, you don't actually give a crap about terrorism.

      Anyone who gives it a moments thought realizes the US already has a lot of Muslims, and the easiest way to get a bunch of Muslim terrorists in the US is to elect Trump and essentially declare Muslims to be the enemy.

      So no, I don't think you're that stupid, I don't think you would have the same reaction if these were western European white Christians.

      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.

      And if that's your true motivation then it's the argument we should be having.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    16. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ichthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Hell yes! As we repeatedly see on college campuses (campi?), hate speech is defined as anything that SJWs disagree with. If you disagree with that definition, please offer one of your own and we'll evaluate the need for "stopping" it together.

      --
      sig: sauer
    17. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So who else is left who even stands a CHANCE of preserving any semblance of free speech on the internet?

      A country that seizes domains registered in foreign countries at the request of corporations?

      Sorry I'd rather live with anti-hate speech laws, than do whatever the hell a corporation decides to allow you to do laws.

    18. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Informative

      The fact you think 10% of refugees are terrorists speaks volumes. The actual number is 0.00038%. So the chance of a terrorist coming in with refugees is three orders of magnitude lower than the chance that you'll be murdered in Chicago by an American.

    19. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like

      That's not unregulated capitalism, and things are just as bad today: the powerful are just better at keeping a low profile.
      Also, corruption happens just as much in regulated systems as non-regulated systems.

      More regulation does Not eliminate or reduce the problem, not a single bit.

      And the issue is not specific to capitalism, and occurs with ANY system, including communism, where it is the government itself that tends to become corrupted absolutely, See: China/Russia.

    20. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I really have no idea what Kerry is trying to accomplish in Syria. Not sure he knows, either.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty good racket determining what is and what is not hate speech. "How much money to appease your gods?" and all that.

    22. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    23. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      ~785000 Refugees have entered the contry since 9/11
      12 where arrested for terrorism
      0 successful
      12/785000*100 = 0.00152% attempted terrorist refugees
      0/785000*100 = 0% successful terrorist refugees

      Not the same numbers I've heard from other sources. I believe only 3 are confirmed by name but even using this more generic 12 its still a non existent problem.

      A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a dozen — a tiny fraction of one percent of admitted refugees — have been arrested or removed from the U.S. due to terrorism concerns that existed prior to their resettlement in the U.S. None of them were Syrian.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/19/the-viral-claim-that-not-one-refugee-resettled-since-911-has-been-arrested-on-domestic-terrorism-charges/

    24. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by schnell · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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 .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    25. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Jack9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy

      The Detroit economy needs jobs, not hard workers. When the auto industry started shutting down factories, Detroit fell. Importing more labor, won't fix the problem.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    26. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      > 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.

    27. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Namarrgon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just to pick the first three:

      John Jacob Astor: bribed officials & politicians to ensure his monopoly, exploited natives with liquor.
      Andrew Carnegie: insider trading, exploited workers, murderous strike-breaking.
      William A. Clarke: inspired the Corrupt Practices Act 1912, but not in a good way.

      We all agree that economic activity needs to follow basic laws, but I'm mostly referring to regulations that limit corporate exploitation of things that aren't illegal, yet can be clearly damaging to society. Pollution and dumping of waste is an obvious one (incidentally, benefits of EPA regulations outweigh costs by 10 to 1). Worker health & safety is another. Price-fixing, false advertising, leveraged monopolies, offloading of external costs onto the general public etc - all things that benefit the corporation at the cost of others, often in hard-to-quantify but very real ways.

      Regulations are a burden on the economy - but kept reasonable, they prevent excesses that can be much worse.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    28. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by NotAPK · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    29. Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Gussington · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He doesn't appear to understand the meaning of the word free trade because support for free trade were words out of his mouth after talking about implementing tariffs, though.

      He has no idea what he is doing. And just because you are upset with your plumber, you don't get your Real Estate agent to do the job because he has a nice smile.
      Hillary may not be ideal, but at least she's a plumber.

    30. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I mean, the US has the least regulated airwaves in the western world

      Tell the grandparent he's a fucking cunt on the TV in America. Now try it in Britain. One of these will land you with a large fine, the other will not.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullshit.

      A more or less open, liberal internet. If China, or Russia, or whomever doesn't like it, they'll fork it? And how does handing control to an organization even more prone to bribery, compulsion, and control by inimical governments in any way ensure that the system remains open? If they "don't like it" that much, they'd fork it anyway. All your proposal does is allow them the opportunity to control the whole thing, not their fork.
      Simply, that's bullshit.

      If someone doesn't like something, you don't GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO CONTROL IT in order to preserve it. That's colossally dumb.

      --
      -Styopa
    32. Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is bullshit.

      The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos.

      Wrong. Russia wants the war to end. They value regional stability, and Syria is their ally and has a strategically-located port that they use.

      Assad, because he is winning.

      This one is just plain stupid. Assad was losing until the Russians came in to prop him up. Assad wants the war over because if he loses it, he's dead. Assad wants stability and peace in his country (with him in charge of course) just like Russia does.

      The rest I'm not sure about, but I really fail to see how the Turks really want to have a war raging next door, terrorist attacks, and millions of refugees to deal with.

  2. What are the actual implications of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    For example, what happens if I want to access content that another country and/or religion deems offensive to their god?

    Are those people now going to have a say in how the internet should operate? Will they be able to prevent me from viewing such content from another country?

    As much as I hate to admit it, even with all the stuff going on today, the US is still one of the least fucked up countries on the planet. It worries me what will happen to the internet if everyone suddenly gets their say in how it's operated. And I don't say this as an American either, since I'm Canadian.

  3. Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? by Stonent1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I feel the exact same way about Hillary.

  4. Re:Don't be afraid of this! by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    B.S. If conservatives wanted to censor the internet, they had 20+ years to do so. Ask yourself who is doing the censoring on college campuses these days. I'll save you the trouble of not answering the question and inform you that it's not conservatives.
    The bottom line is this: ICANN as it has been for the past 20+ years isn't broken and doesn't need changing.

  5. Re:Are you smarter than a Trump supporter? by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Informative

    What I don't understand is why Clinton supporters always resort to insults.

    It's all they have. They can't run on her record or her predecessor's record, they have to know their policy prescriptions stink on ice and would be about as popular with the public as pralines-and-dick ice cream...so out come the insults.

    --
    20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  6. Re:Trump is right on this, as on many things by quantaman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't agree with everything Trump wants to do It's pretty obvious to anyone that knows anything Trumps position is way better for the internet than turning it over to an international panel that can start censoring the hell out of it.

    Trump is infamous for his proclivity for suing people and desire to use libel law against critics. If the Internet were governed by the US under a Trump administration I think you'd here a lot of grumbling from his administration about doing something about websites that are being unfair to Trump or the administration.

    He's already threatened to use the power of the presidency to go after Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post and it's been mean to him.

    Trump is far less racist than Hillary (just look at past Hillary remarks like arriving late because she was on "Colored People Time").

    Wow, your evidence of Hillary's racism is a misremembered SNL sketch?

    It wasn't even intentionally racist, it was supposed to be a joke about a politician inadvertently saying something racist (which they ironically did).

    I thought Trumpites understood the good "Hillary is a racist" stuff is back in the mid-90s with all the super-predator stuff, you really need to catch up on your twitter.

    Trump chose a black woman to win and work with on the Apprentice - sure it's a TV show but she did work for him and supports him, as do a number of prominent black celebrities.

    You're literally making the argument that Trump can't be racist because he has black friends.

    Trump also wanted to cooler evaluate NATO commitments before taking action,

    He seemingly wants to extort allies into paying the US for protection, I say seemingly because he doesn't have coherent foreign policy.

    and yet the media portrays him as a warmonger. Why?

    Because he's generally really quick to call for military action and to call for major war crimes like stealing other countries natural resources, up until the military action turns out poorly. And then he hops in a time machine and goes back to change his mind.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  7. Sort of amazed by ramriot · · Score: 4, Informative

    I accept a few posters going off the deep end, not reading the copy or just plain not understanding the issues, but practically every post with a score missed the point entirely.

    This whole issue is just a boring technical matter. The only reason it is news is that politicians with an axe to grind want to make it so.

    ICANN has been running successfully as an international corporation with multinational stakeholders for much more than a decade now. Its one remaining tie to the US is the contract that it has with the Department Of Commerce to manage internet names and numbers. That contract will lapse unless renewed at the end of September and ICANN will then carry on exactly as it has been, except without the theoretical DOC control, the US then becomes a stakeholder like everyone else.

  8. Re: Does anyone care what Trump thinks? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  9. Re: Does anyone care what Trump thinks? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "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."
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Re:Are you smarter than a Trump supporter? by Boronx · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can you explain how someone could huff and puff about insults and yet support Trump? I think your feeling of offense is feigned.

    How's the birther business working out for Donald? First he goes after Obama without any evidence of wrong doing, gets in front of every camera he can find. He never acknowledges the simple fact that even if Obama was born outside the US he would still have been a citizen. He runs with it clear until the after the convention *this year*, still without a shred of evidence, and then when faced with a general public who rightly understand that birtherism is a merely a ploy to gin up the racists, he flip flops. There's no new evidence, he just decided to switch sides.

    He peddled a horrible lie for eight years, dropped it when convenient, then he lied about the lie!

    This move follows the same template as all of Donald's moves. It doesn't take a fact checking website to figure out he's the worst liar to take the national stage in decades. All you need is to think a little bit, and remember longer than five seconds.

    There are a lot of people who get excited about Trump even though they understand his fundamental dishonesty. For some reason they have faith that on that one issue that's important to them, he speaks from the heart. Why they would believe this from someone who pretty much never speaks from the heart is beyond me.

    --
    Play Command HQ online
  12. Re: Does anyone care what Trump thinks? by Boronx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  13. Re:Don't be afraid of this! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    Conservatives have tried many times to censor the internet, mostly because they fear the pornography it makes so easily accessible. They have failed in their attempts, but not for lack of trying.

  14. Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    Compare http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/ and http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/. Hillary has around 15% of her statements as False or Pants on Fire, while Trump has over half his statements as False or Pants on fire. Facts matter more than you how you feel. Hillary isn't the most honest politician, but compared to Trump she's a paragon.