Slashdot Mirror
Of 8 Tech Companies, Only Twitter Says It Would Refuse To Help Build Muslim Registry For Trump (theintercept.com)
On the campaign trail last year, President-elect Donald Trump said he would consider requiring Muslim-Americans to register with a government database. While he has back-stepped on a number of campaign promises after being elected president, Trump and his transition team have recently resurfaced the idea to create a national Muslim registry. In response, The Intercept contacted nine of the "most prominent" technology companies in the United States "to ask if they would sell their services to help create a national Muslim registry." Twitter was the only company that responded with "No." The Intercept reports: Even on a purely hypothetical basis, such a project would provide American technology companies an easy line to draw in the sand -- pushing back against any effort to track individuals purely (or essentially) on the basis of their religious beliefs doesn't take much in the way of courage or conviction, even by the thin standards of corporate America. We'd also be remiss in assuming no company would ever tie itself to such a nakedly evil undertaking: IBM famously helped Nazi Germany computerize the Holocaust. (IBM has downplayed its logistical role in the Holocaust, claiming in a 2001 statement that "most [relevant] documents were destroyed or lost during the war.") With all this in mind, we contacted nine different American firms in the business of technology, broadly defined, with the following question: "Would [name of company], if solicited by the Trump administration, sell any goods, services, information, or consulting of any kind to help facilitate the creation of a national Muslim registry, a project which has been floated tentatively by the president-elect's transition team?" After two weeks of calls and emails, only three companies provided an answer, and only one said it would not participate in such a project. A complete tally is below.
Facebook: No answer. Twitter: "No," and a link to this blog post, which states as company policy a prohibition against the use, by outside developers, of "Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period." Microsoft: "We're not going to talk about hypotheticals at this point," and a link to a company blog post that states that "we're committed to promoting not just diversity among all the men and women who work here, but [...] inclusive culture" and that "it will remain important for those in government and the tech sector to continue to work together to strike a balance that protects privacy and public safety in what remains a dangerous time." Google: No answer. Apple: No answer. IBM: No answer. Booz Allen Hamilton: Declined to comment. SRA International: No answer.
Facebook: No answer. Twitter: "No," and a link to this blog post, which states as company policy a prohibition against the use, by outside developers, of "Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period." Microsoft: "We're not going to talk about hypotheticals at this point," and a link to a company blog post that states that "we're committed to promoting not just diversity among all the men and women who work here, but [...] inclusive culture" and that "it will remain important for those in government and the tech sector to continue to work together to strike a balance that protects privacy and public safety in what remains a dangerous time." Google: No answer. Apple: No answer. IBM: No answer. Booz Allen Hamilton: Declined to comment. SRA International: No answer.
They were also the only one to give *any* answer.
I think I speak for anyone who's read a history book when I say this is an absolutely awful idea. I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them. If you're in favour of this then you're a fascist or you're an idiot. There's literally no middle ground. This is how it starts.
I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
based on hypotheticals? Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
This is just stupid. Why would anyone ask Twitter to do anything of the sort? It's like asking Ford Motor Company "Would you build electric chairs?" Of course they'll say no, just for the PR and to not alienate customers, since they know the government is not going to ask them to build electric chairs.
The fact of the matter is any of several thousand software companies could easily throw together a registry of this kind. It's straightforward stuff. Heck, outsource it to India. They'd have no problem doing it even knowing what it would be used for.
Better known as 318230.
Dear Twitter: would you censor anyone on your platform who has different political opinions from you? "Absolutely!"
Next is what - thought offender database? Sex offender database is inhumane already but why stop there?
I know Twitter gets a lot of stick but well done them.
Twitter is simply unqualified for the job technically. Unlike the other companies listed there, Twitter still lacks a friggin business model, not to say core competency. It's disingenuous to imply Twitter is anywhere close to the other, real businesses, tech or not.
Instead of admitting "No, we aren't competent for anything technical," why not turn this into good PR and say "No, we won't." As if anyone with half a brain in the Trump administration would even consider Twitter for real-world jobs.
Ask 8 companies a suggestive question with the intend to either dissect their answer to find anything speaking against them or pointing at the answer later trying to accuse them of not fully staying to it. Companies either have no time to put up with your bullshit or do not want to have an answer people may mistake as binding in the media and do not answer. Then post "7 our of 8 companies do to refuse to do it". Nope. 7 out of 8 companies refused to contribute to your shitty article.
Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
So, we should wait until the actual contracting stage to express indignation? The fact the other companies didn't unanimously and immediately shit-can this idea says more bad things about America than burning a flag could ever accomplish.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"Hi , this is some random website called The Intercept (fair warning, if this is a legit site, I personally have never heard of it, ever)
Would you ever sell your services to make a registry for muslims? We need a response in 24 hours."
Every single legitimate company: "uh... this is the media department, we can pass this up the chain, but this is a legitimately open-ended and confusing question with a lot of "what-if's" that haven't been defined yet. I'll pass this up to my higher ups, but I can't say when I'll have a response. If you want a sound-bite... I can't give one immediately."
The Intercept: didn't immediately respond.
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
Trump never said he wanted to make a muslim registry or ban all muslims or throw them in camps or anything else. All he said was we should stop taking in migrants from syria and other islamic terror zones until we can actually vet these people and find out who they are. I don't understand how that can be a bad thing?
Of course that goes against the narrative of racist identity politics and lies the media continues to push. When will you learn this is the kind of stuff that got trump elected to begin with?
It doesn't matter what Trump said as long as we can be offended by what the media and far left says he said.
"If you pay us enough, we'll do whatever you want." No sure why this would surprise anyone after the Yahoo revelations.
Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period
They're fine with surveillance and harassment of anyone who dares speak unapproved speech - which usually means truth or conservative values.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Anyway I expect that if this administration-to-be were to go down this path of fuckwittery they sure as hell wouldn't get any cooperation from any tech company. I expect their efforts wouldn't get much cooperation from anybody for that matter.
Successful Corporations are not going to speak out on a "maybe". They're going to wait until its in headed to Congress.
Will that be the final solution?
They can say whatever they want, but the truth of the matter is, if Trump makes it happen, if there is a law requiring it, twitter will fucking do it.
Reality: Money is more important than morals to the people who run twitter. If the law says they have to do it, and they don't, they will suddenly cease to exist as a business
The other tech companies didn't answer for that reason. Given the choice of 'comply with the law' or 'go out of business', they'll comply with the law. So will twitter, but twitter is openly willing to lie to you about it.
What that should tell you is that twitter is probably already doing it cause they clearly have no problem lying to people about what they will and won't do, consider them already compromised. We already know they do it and pretend to 'cut off' companies that get caught doing it. Ironically those 'cut off companies' go 'out of business' and all the employees suddenly start working at a new company with a twitter feed ... but twitter somehow doesn't notice.
Seriously, twitter IS ALREADY DOING IT.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
How about a database of Israelis/Zionists? You know, those who operate the invisible government in America?
Muslims are patsies in the so-called war on terror.
As mentioned in the article, IBM's past with this kind of thing is suspect. See http://www.nytimes.com/books/f... So you'd think they'd have given a loud and clear "no". As should the other tech firms. And Microsoft's doublespeak about not responding to "hypotheticals" is disingenuous. Trump's statements about a Muslim database are quite real.
A sign of the times? Zeitgeist, perhaps?
Will you help when Elizabeth Warren asks you to join the death squads to kill bourgeoisie fat cats?
Trump won. Clinton lost. It's time to either get over it, or stay forever in your safe space, and not bother anyone.
The oz goverment just makes us complete a mandatory cencus with hefty fines for not complying or lying. They collect all kinda of senstive shit like religion, sexuality etc. The last one they famously decided it would be "helpful" to force you to complete it with you full name and contact details.
we as a population are bunch of trusting morons.
God, you're yet another lying lefty trying to pretend to be a Trump voter in order to smear all Trump voters. Just crawl back under the rock you snuck out from.
Someone needs to learn do a two minute google search before they type when trying to call out "fake news". He's on video calling for it as "good management". For those with hearing troubles, Reporter: "Should there be a database or system that tracks Muslims in this country?", Trump: "There should be a lot of systems, Beyond databases. I mean, we should have a lot of systems. And today you can do it. We have to have a border, we have to have strength, We have to have a wall, And we cannot let what's happening to this country [something]" Reporter: "But that’s something your White House would like to implement." Trump: "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely," As with most political lies your correct to a small degree, he's not calling simply for a Muslim database, he's calling for a much larger system which includes a Muslim (probably more of an "undesirables" database consisting of Muslims, Foreigners, Mexicans, etc) database but goes much further.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-muslim-registry-video-president-islam-policies-immigration-a7424511.html
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/nov/24/donald-trumps-comments-database-american-muslims/
Trump can't be allowed to do these things. Period. The electoral college needs to do it's work and save us from the likes of him.
Last time you guys tried that, SJWs and leftards kicked your ass all the way back to the bunker, Adolf.
You are welcome on my lawn.
And without those companies help, there is no way to find out who may be radicalized, so keep the safe line and keep all muslims out. Europe should do the same, and I think many countries will after the next elections.
Not yet, but it will help. If you start the final solution before registering, the muslims will be better prepared to evade it.
Yahoo news dreamt up that canard and asked him in an interview. In polished political form he ignored the question and answered one that wasn't asked. Which, by the way is the only way to handle stupidity like this. Otherwise... "IS IT TRUE YOU RAPED THAT Parakeet?" - "NO, THAT'S A LIE" next day paper headline: "Lying Candidate DENIES Raping Parakeet!, By YOU Decide.."
And you fools fall for it. This story isn't a tech story, it's a political hit piece wrapped trying to pump out a few more news cycles.
I expect more from you. Sure, most of you are die hard kiddy liberals, but you aren't stupid.
Is it just me who wonders if such a thing already exists in a less draconian form? If our communications are being monitored, surely the first thing you'd do is categorise them so you can filter later? Using this system, it would be possible to track Christians, racists and vegetarians, without the explicit aim of tracking muslims. Secondly, the way the question is phrased, unless the BSD licence has a "not for muslim-tracking use" clause I've missed, several high profile open source companies would technically not be able to answer no. They don't ask how their tools are going to be used. Another example of badly thought through journalism to create sensationalist headlines. Not slashdot worthy.
based on hypotheticals? Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
Huh? NO! If there is anything really bothersome about the Pepe's taking over, it is this order to sit back and watch them at work . So after we get the Muslim registry, what will you demand next? We just just give it a try it a try and see how it works?
It's obvious to anyone with a brain cell that Il Pepe and followers are built on hate and anger. While useful in small amounts, when it is the core principle, it always kills itself.
Make no mistake, I believe that religion is responsible for most of mankind's ills, and that radical Islam is a poster child for evil, and I have no problem at all with terminating them with extreme prejudice. I prefer to administer criminal justice to actual criminals however. But when a group of people is branded as terrorists without evidence, well google Nazi Jewish ID cards. Perhaps this will be part of the model? I have no desire to implement such a program, and don't need to wait to condemn it. http://www.tennesseeholocaustc...
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
So, we should wait until the actual contracting stage to express indignation? The fact the other companies didn't unanimously and immediately shit-can this idea says more bad things about America than burning a flag could ever accomplish.
The very appeal to "keep calm" and to "let's see how this unfolds first" is pretty creepy as well.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Nice try but the 40s were barely the hallmark of social justice and the left did not want to go to war. It wasn't until the US was threatened by Japanese and German forces near the US that some sensible decisions were made.
These alt-left stories do nothing but galvanize the other 60% of the country that voted for Trump. IBM, Twitter, Facebook, Google and Microsoft have already helped the US government and part of the US government has already built and maintained a Muslim registry from Clinton to Obama and none of them cleaned it up, only expanded it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
"Hi, this is Joe Schmoe from The Intercept. Would you start a Muslim registry if Trump asked you to?"
"Who are you reporting for?"
"The Intercept. Hello? Hello?"
Writes: Google - no answer
And if you get the rest of his quotes you'll see his is specifically talking about people from certain countries, and he specifically denies that it would include "all muslims". So you can cherry pick to get the picture you wish to convey.
Out of 8 tech companies, not one says it would help build Muslim registry for Trump.
Setting up massive databases for dubious purposes is sorta what they do, no? :-/
And Larry Ellison has all the morality of a greased eel, from what I hear.
Sure, it's an appalling idea, but can we wait until it's an actual plan before pouring out the vitriol?
There is no need to see an "actual plan." The idea is, as you say, appalling. There's no reason to look beyond that.
The question to the tech companies about their willingness to get involved in such a fascist endeavor, however, is legitimate. Given the political climate, the increase in hate crimes, and the appalling comments made by Trump and some of those he is placing in positions of power and influence, we should know where people stand.
Considering how easy it is to put together such a database and integrate it with current watch lists, I wouldn't be surprised if the NSA and/or FBI already had such a list. Not that ethnicity/religion lists/tags would necessarily be limited to Muslims. Neither organization has a reputation of restraint where data collection is concerned.
The real question for government/corps is are they willing to be part of the implementation of watching people on such lists? The answer, so far, tends to leans to a "Yes" in too many cases.
The question for the rest of us is would we use our own skills, if paid well enough, to help implement watching/restricting people based on religion? History tells us that enough of us will.
The follow up question then becomes: Are we willing to speak out against such things? Here history shows a mixed record. Sometimes enough people do; too often, enough people don't.
Here on /. and elsewhere it seems that anyone who stands up for constitutional rights is labeled as a "leftists" or "liberal" as if those are terrible things to be. Our founding fathers were leftists and liberals. They insisted on basic human rights, limits on government interference in daily affairs of private individuals, regulation of trade and commerce for the benefit of society, the role of government to actively promote health, education, justice for everyone (except slaves--a compromise which we've come to regret), and freedom of speech and religious practice. Muslims fought on the side of liberty in Revolutionary war, and Washington publicly voiced his willingness to employ anyone, regardless of religion, including Muslims, in this fight.
Those who hold to these values are part of the true American culture and legacy. Those that would disrupt of pervert it for there own ends or would use technology to violate those principles are the ones tearing this country apart. A European, pseudo-Christian background doesn't lend credence or weight to their xenophobia. In fact, American's revolution was a rejection of just very those dangers of imperialism and religious domination of society.
Because of all this, we have a right and duty to pointedly ask people and corporations if they are actively, or even passively, complicit in these same "hypotheticals" that have been voiced by those soon to assume positions of great power.
When the bear attacks do you blame the bear or the asshole poking it with a stick?
No, the SJWs were protesting the fact that we were attacking Germany when they didn't attack us.
On my way to Tai Chi class just to fuck with them.
Get up!
It doesn't matter what Trump said as long as we can be offended by what the media and far left says he said.
Except, of course, that he actually did say many offending things. We don't need a far left media to tell us that. We just need to look at his Twitter rants and watch his unedited public speeches.
This is just more fake news - the kind that slashdot is railing against...oh, only if it's for the opposing ideology...
Betcha they would be on board with a nationwide gun registry.
They had no problem hooking their pipes up to the NSA and will do whatever they are instructed to
You're going for the loaded question of the week award, I see.
I wouldn't be surprised of Booz Allen declined to comment on the basis of they don't discuss classified projects. They do all sorts of projects for the NSA, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if there's already a secret list making a public registry irrelevant.
Trump talks about considering an idea (which means nothing) and then another company starts getting feedback about the hypothetical situation that might never occur sparking outrage about faux news. There is never going to be a Muslim registry, and many of Trump's comments after that initial comment reflect what might actually happen: People from terror states being tracked, which is just prudence -- and already happens. This whole based on religion tracking thing will get destroyed in any higher court in the land, so I have no doubt that Trump would never waste his time. I second the sentiment that this is simply shit journalism and should have never got on slashdot, and slashdot is becoming a shit news source by extension.
... about the Jew registries. ...
Or the Armenians
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Germany formally declared war on the US on 11 Dec 1941, even though the terms of the Tripartite Pact (Germany, Italy, Japan) did not require it to do so.
Prior to this, there was already an undeclared war in the Atlantic (see: the sinking of the Reuben James).
Learn some fucking history.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
The biggest danger is from our own politicians we always reelect and their fickle panicky fanatical followers.
*We have found the enemy...*
Anyway, it's very easy for Twitter to make public statements while doing something else entirely. It's a good PR effort
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Why is this modded -1? It is absolutely true. Slashdot has fallen a long way down since the 90's.
I fully expect Top 10 SEO/clickbait headlines soon too.
It really is getting pretty bad.
Um, actually no hasn't back-stepped on a number of issues. That's just the liberal media trying to make him look weak. If you actually read transcripts of interviews with him and not the edited aired videos you'll see he actually still stands on so many of his issues it's not even funny.
Whether or not Trump turns into Hitler, it’s now clear how it happened in Germany and that the USA can claim no moral superiority over Germany.
He has been asked about it directly multiple times and refused to rule it out:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Refusing to rule out systemic oppression has a lot of people worried.
Maybe if you listened to people you obviously disagree with you might understand their concerns a bit better.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If Trump creates a national Muslim registry, I'm going to sign up.
And I'm a Lutheran.
Under absolutely no circumstances are we to allow a President of the United States to discriminate against any religion. Because if it's Muslims today, who's next tomorrow?
The only way to put a stop to this hate is for every freedom-loving person in America to put themselves on the registry, regardless of their religious affiliation, making it meaningless. Only in that way can it be defeated.
Twitter is one of the most heavily gov censored platform there is in the US...also note how the state 'by outside developers'...
If its not them, then they should consider changing their certs frequently and using algorithms designed to thwart even quantum computers.
The FBI almost certainly has a database of radical Muslims, which is what this debate is all about.
Are you for real? Who were the Isolationists? Hint: Taft was a REPUBLICAN.
You DO NOT rewrite history to fit your agenda.
...then as a good atheist-Jew, I will certainly register.
And, incidentally, Germany today still has government databases containing the religious affiliation of every citizen (not just police databases of radical Muslims; it has those too).
No, he never did. His original proposal was a blanket ban on all Muslim immigration, which is not unconstitutional. That then ultimately morphed into extreme vetting, where nobody who hates the country would be allowed in. (It's another thing that we can't throw out the Jeremiah Wrights, Louis Farrakhans, Keith Ellisons and Bill Ayres' out of the country: that would be unconstitutional, b'cos unfortunately, they are already citizens.)
And I don't see how any of these 'tech' companies can make any such lists. It's not difficult to open fake identities on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and all other social media sites. I have only one Facebook account, which is not under my actual name, and has no actual personal information. Such a thing would have to be done by the DHS, but again, since religion is not one of the questions that anyone gets asked, it would have to be introduced.
I do think there is a way of achieving something close. Current immigration application forms ask people whether they are, or have ever been members of the Nazi party, blah blah blah. Change that to questions like whether they support Shariah law and spreading it to non-Muslim countries like the US, whether they support honor killings, et al. It's true that nobody who does will honestly answer it, but here's the rub: if any immigrant does say no to the above questions and then go on to do anything to the contrary, it would be grounds for instant deportation. The beauty of it is that it doesn't even ask if one is Muslim, so if someone is a foreign Noam Chomsky trying to get in, and after getting in, publishes stuff in support of Hamas or al Qaeda, that will be instant grounds for deportation. Once we have SCOTUS filled w/ originalists, instead of hacks like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So, Franklin D. Roosevelt was not a leftist? The New Deal was not leftist? You mean you've been bullshitting about him for all these years?
Back to the Breitbart of Deplorables for you, lad.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Twitter needs to help support a bullish economy, along with other startup unicorns, to avoid the problems elsewhere in the economy. Why are you being anti-American by pointing this out as propaganda?
... the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!
And a not so well known fact: german subs sank about 100 ships in front of the US coast. See e.g.: http://www.learnnc.org/lp/edit...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So, the companies fail to comment on an issue related to their respecting UN conventions, agreements, international law or just being decent people? Grreat. Then again, if Trump makes his future aides to look a little harder, they'll find that the existing registries should easily satisfy their craving of total information dominance on the subject of religion of the US inhabitants. In my country, our population registry will tell religious affiliation which relates to the status of the state church and its role to play in the society. Perhaps Trump would like to have something similar in the US?
Muslims as a group contain a subset of lunatics who think they have some sort
of right to kill other people.
If Muslims cannot control their own people and get this shit under control once
and for all, then the US government can and should do it.
Public safety is more important than the "rights" of a set of religious idiots. Frankly,
ALL religion should be abolished permanently, because it has caused way too much
trouble in the history of mankind and enough is enough.
If we really wanted to eliminate muslims, it would be trivial.
But we want to pick and choose who the good ones are, and that slows us down. Dont back suni vs shia vs whatever other cults there are. Burn them all !!
He has been asked about it directly multiple times and refused to rule it out:
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
Refusing to rule out systemic oppression has a lot of people worried.
Maybe if you listened to people you obviously disagree with you might understand their concerns a bit better.
Please then tell me, exactly what don't I understand? Or did you jump to conclusions based on my accurate comment?
It doesn't matter what Trump said as long as we can be offended by what the media and far left says he said.
Except, of course, that he actually did say many offending things. We don't need a far left media to tell us that. We just need to look at his Twitter rants and watch his unedited public speeches.
Yes, he said some offending things. We have the entire list repeated daily to us, despite some being out of context. Does that give license to be inaccurate about this and other things?
Please stop spreading fake news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMbpSg8b_dg - hey, there is still the possibility this was edited and there is actually something missing between the talk about Muslims and "the registry" that would be managed good. Burt why would "these people" that would be "managed good" in this registry be signed up at Mosques, if they are not Muslims? Hey, maybe he wants to register people protesting at Mosques because he later wants to take away their guns.
You heard it here first: Donald Trump is against the Second Amendment. Or did you ever see him packing heat?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
If he wants every Muslim on the planet to declare jihad on the entire USA and all its citizens then all he needs to do is start this register.
11th September will be a mere drop in the ocean for what happens when the registration process starts.
Every american anywhere on the planet will be a target.
This man really does not have a clue about the real world. He is downright dangerous and should never have been elected.
Get the fuck out of MY country with that shit and go crawl under a rock and die you racist scum.
Some day you're going to talk the above sort of bullshit around the wrong people, and someone is going to
teach you the sort of hard lesson that lasts a lifetime.
I'm not going to "No Comment". I just unsubscribed from Twitter.
I can't stand facist moves like this.
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
Then you should seek to strip away dangerous powers from the government *before* the "wrong guy" gets control of the system, not after. There was no pearl-clutching outrage in the MSM over Obama's drastic expansion of the national security shadow state, persecution of whistle blowers, abuse of the IRS to punish political opponents, and so on. His supporters thought he was a wise philosopher-king who could do no wrong.
Well, now that same machinery of power and control has been handed to Trump. Enjoy being hoisted on your own petard!
These alt-left stories do nothing but galvanize the other 60% of the country that voted for Trump.
Are you looking to build a fake news story because with those numbers you're off to a good start
Almost 50% of eligible voters in the US did not vote in the 2016 General Election, and Trump captured 46% of those votes which comes to about 23% of all eligible voters.
23% of the country is 160% less than the 60% you claim.
blog
You DO NOT rewrite history to fit your agenda.
Actually that is pretty much EXACTLY what happens in the real world.
Obviously you have little knowledge of history books.
This is post truth journalism.
B'cos you still live in a country that's not under shariah law. Try living in Pakistan, for instance. If you happen to have an underage daughter, don't be surprised if one day, she suddenly disappears, and the next day, a whole bunch of Muzzies let you know that she's married to a Muslim and converted to Islam
FDR was a leftist and didn't want to go to war until his hand was practically forced, partially by The New Deal. The New Deal was very much leftist, tripled taxes mainly affecting the poor and causing the 1938's depression with unemployment at 19% in 1939, it wasn't until the US spent billions on the "war effort" that the mismanagement of The New Deal was undone even though FDR doubled the national debt.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
They will hold out one hand for the cash and use the other to hold their nose.
After Indonesia gained its independence from Dutch colonial rule, it officially recognized only monotheistic religions under pressure from political Islam. Further, Indonesia required an individual to have a religion to gain full Indonesian citizenship rights, and officially Indonesia did not recognize Hindus.[21] It considered Hindus as orang yang belum beragama (people without religion), and as those who must be converted.[21] In 1952, the Indonesian Ministry of Religion declared Bali and other islands with Hindus as needing a systematic campaign of proselytization to accept Islam. The local government of Bali, shocked by this official national policy, declared itself an autonomous religious area in 1953. The Balinese government also reached out to India and former Dutch colonial officials for diplomatic and human rights support.[22] A series of student and cultural exchange initiatives between Bali and India helped formulate the core principles behind Balinese Hinduism (Catur Veda, Upanishad, Puranas, Itihasa). In particular, the political self-determination movement in Bali in mid 1950s led to a non-violent passive resistance movement and the joint petition of 1958 which demanded Indonesian government recognize Hindu dharma
Exactly. Anyone can use loaded questions that aren't based in facts to generate outrage. To give the answers to such questions any value at all is building a house of cards.
It doesn't matter what Trump said as long as we can be offended by what the media and far left says he said.
People are not offended by what "the media and far left says he said", they are offended by what he actually said.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'm an atheist, and have talked to other atheists and non-Muslims too. A lot of them, including me, will sign up for that "Muslim registry" if it ever comes into existence.
So let him make his "undesirables" registry. And let's flood it with so much junk data that it becomes totally worthless.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
lot's of construction jobs in building the camps and less people shooting at you then on the wall building front.
And stuff like this happened in WW2!
While you're at it, would you please get the Christians and their stoneage beliefs to fuck off to Christianistan?
Thanks, we really appreciate your support of science and reason. :/
Founding fathers were most akin to what we now call "libertarian". The word liberal means something wholly different today.
I blame the assholes with the pic-a-nic baskets.
Race baiting, discrimination baiting, and any other form of political masturbating has no place on this site.
This never would have happened under the original ownership, and it makes me sick to see it here.
I have a huge fuck you right here for the person that submitted this article and more so for the person that approved it.
I was not happy when this site was sold off, I am saddened to see it decline to be a tool for political hacks.
FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKK YYYYYYYOOOOOOUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rick B.
I firmly suggest you listen to all the words in that video and realize that, despite the youtube description of the video, at no point is Donald Trump talking about a registry or a database for muslims. And you have the guts to point us to a video that disprove your point... Well done dude.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
I'm very opposed to such a registry, but it seems silly to ask companies whether they'd "build it" when a small team of two or three people could easily slap postgress and a web interface together. Whatever fraction of the US population are Muslims can't be much... 20 million? Twice that? Doesn't matter, it's easily in the capacity of a free database and some elementary web programming, esp for a site that's not offering lots of complicated choice paths and won't be visited repeatedly by any given person. Seems to me like approaching Boeing and asking them if they'd be willing to build a go-cart... even if every company says No, it doesn't make building it prohibitive in the slightest.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I don't think we need special rules for muslims, or any government meddling.
Why not ridicule the stupidity of their religion? It worked for Christianity.
Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
In this particular case, they claim to be offended by something he did not say.
Well, that's utter bullshit.
The very first link's very first sentence in the transcript:
"During the presidential campaign, Donald Trump suggested that he might favor creating a database for Muslims who enter the United States."
That's just adding religious affiliation to the already massive amount of information we collect about visitors entering the U.S., including their fingerprints and criminal records.
It's for visitors.
Slashdot editors: Please corrector your headline to add the word "Visitors" after the word "Muslim", and replace "Muslim-Americans" with "Muslim Visitors" in the first sentence of your summary.
Thanks.
No, they claim to be worried by this refusal to rule out registration, which would seem to be the only way to fulfil his pre-election promises.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I dunno... how about a dating site where people are matched to people of the same faith? That's kind of important to a lot of people, and a valid reason for collecting and using the data.
You're not going to capture quite as much of the population as you might with Twitter, but your data might be more trustworthy.
.....the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!
Not only that, but one of the companies that wasn't even ASKED was Oracle, the company that makes its money selling DATABASES!
Of course, Oracle is pretty evil, they might actually say "yes".... And then we wouldn't even have a news story.
No, they claim to be worried by this refusal to rule out registration, which would seem to be the only way to fulfil his pre-election promises.
So you admit the claim he called for a registry is false. Good, we are making progress. You claim that it is the only way to fullfill his election promise "as you interperet them" is just as erroneous, and if you had listened to what he is saying it certainly is not something he is asking for. But, you probably don't even know what he is saying, you probably are only aware of the snippets that are fed to you by the like minded.
Hillary's (and the media's) use of racial charging for the purpose of creating divisiveness if far more offending than any of Trump's poorly worded rhetoric.
Just ask twitter to register all white people and they would be happy to do so.
And that New Deal led to the most prosperous period in US history, and FDR was elected president four times.
Call me when Donald Trump wins his fourth presidential election.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"While he has back-stepped on a number of campaign promises after being elected president"
You stupid alt-left cuckold, don't run such a dumb crooked bitch in four years and you may not lose in an EC landslide. That won't change what he does to SCOTUS but it'd be more than you deserve. Aw, who am I kidding, you dumbo rats will never learn.
My entire point was that they never claimed he said that. It's pointless arguing with you if you don't even bother to read what the other person is saying.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I don't think declining to comment is a sign of any entity's ethical position any more. In today's world, where a single statement can be used by anyone with an internet connection to peg anyone else as supporting a particular political agenda, it's no surprise that larger companies are simply refraining from comments on these matters. There are extremists on each side that will attempt to twist any comment into a damning statement.
Sure, I saw all the interviews Obama where sat down with the American Spectator and Breitbart.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Stop the fear mongering. And let's say the government wanted to create a registry using social media data, according to the Snowden leaks, they don't need to ask for it. Because they are either already giving willingly or it can be taken via backdoor. And if he really wanted to, the president could get the data "legally" via FISA court.
Twitter doesn't do government services and they'll be out of business shortly. Also, their leader is a left wing ideologue.
The rest of the companies would gladly take on the work. This surprises you how?
Did you somehow think that your ideology was going to keep on preventing people from working with Trump without political power? Think again.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I'm astonished at many of these comments. This was not some "random question" like "do you support puppy-kicking". It concerned a repeated-stated policy direction of a now-elected high official. The Intercept is not some unknown blogger; it's a billion-dollar news organization that's won major awards.
Calling it "hypothetical" is not just wrong, because of the stated-policy angle making it not remotely hypothetical, but pointless - if somebody calls and asks if you support puppy-kicking, the "hypothetical" aspect doesn't mean that puppy-kicking is not illegal, making the answer obvious. The "Muslim Registry" is unquestionably unconstitutional, the way collecting data on all phone calls was obviously unconstitutional when Clapper lied to Congress about it - the court decision later was routine, as NSA lawyers certainly could have told them when they were developing it - the whole thing depended on secrecy from court examination, which is why even the congressional committee members were surprised to hear about it.
Before the Snowden revelations (by The Intercept, partly) the NSA metadata programs would have been called "hypothetical", so there really is a need to ask about these proposed programs before they are just enacted in secret.
Saudi Arabia's Prince Alaweed is of course the second largest shareholder, purely by coincidence.
I am going to go out on a limb here, and say, no, you're not going to build a wall, and you're not going to build "camps".
Because it would be a ridiculous, expensive, counterproductive, unconstitutional and just plain tiresome thing to do. And most Americans aren't quite that fucking dumb.
I absolutely agree with you that the US was guilty of many sins in the 40s (Jim Crow South, Segregation, Japanese-American Internment Camps, etc.). Americans should be ashamed of those actions, just as modern Germany is now ashamed of Hitler and the Third Reich (as they should be).
Regardless of this point, most Americans did not actually vote for Trump. Of those who could be bothered to vote in the first place, vote totals as of yesterday affirm Clinton has a popular vote lead:
Hillary: 65,250,267
Trump: 62,686,000
Trump lost the popular vote (yes I'm aware that's not how the US picks the President), and he lost it by a more significant margin than Bush lost it in 2000. Your statement implying 60% voted for Trump has no basis in reality. If you believe Trump's claim that there was massive, widespread voter fraud which allowed for illegal votes, then you should be supportive of the recount efforts underway in multiple states.
Yes, he is a narcissist, but I'll take Zaphod Beeblebrox over Joseph Stalin any day. Hillary is a genuine psychopath.
In a country with a population of 320 million people, do you really honestly believe that the only possible alternative to Donald Trump is Hillary Clinton?
IBM had no comment on that? They have some experience with that sort of thing in the past. Oh well, I suppose the Department of Final Solutions Department will have to outsource that work to India!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The facts of the Tripartite act and war declarations does not refute the fact that there were protests against attacking Germany from liberals of the time.
Swearing about it shows that you are angry and driven to be agreed with as correct. Your facts are correct, your conclusion that because of a declaration of war liberals of the time were not protesting the war is not.
Trump proposed system for immigrants from certain countries and visiting foreigners. INS already tracks aliens including record of their views (taking during interviews) and affiliations. But here we have this "SJW-meltdown" type title, place is becoming twitter/facebook
Man, Microsoft sure used a whole lot of words to say "yes".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
You think that would stop idiot protesters? https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And yes they did, but not until months after we declared war on Germany.
That's great. And he left office in 1912.
Some of the Allies committed war crimes against Germans. Are the SJWs taking responsibility for *that*?
Your eagerness to make a political point in 2016 by overlaying the term "liberal" on 1940s politics speaks volumes.
President Roosevelt, the progenitor of the New Deal, a set of social and economic programs that would define liberalism for the next three decades, was eager to enter the war on Great Britain's side. Hence, Lend-Lease, etc.
Isolationists, led by Sen. Taft (R-Ohio) were opposed to entering another war in Europe. This loose coalition included Anglophobes and fringe groups like the German-American Bund. Lindbergh a liberal? Father Coughlin a liberal?
As for my swearing? Fuck you. You're fucking up my America with your mendacity and bullshit.
Will you help when Elizabeth Warren asks you to join the death squads to kill bourgeoisie fat cats?
Of course, somebody is going to have to help her fight the Kzinti. After all, that seems like the most likely scenario where that might actually happen...
Fanatically anti-fanatical
In combination with the title, this is a garbage piece with no other purpose than to add to the, already loud, anti-Trump echo. I don't like the guy either, but you sore losers are starting to piss me off. Go suck a lollipop and calm down already.
> ..then as a good atheist-Jew, I will certainly register.
You think this is going to be voluntary?
Did you miss the point of this story? It is something that will be done to you without your consent or even knowledge. That's why the cooperation of companies like google and facebook are relevant - they have all the data to infer your religion already. Its just a database query for them.
Here is the interview with Yahoo News. In the interview, Trump was asked about a database of Muslims. Below is what Trump said:
Yahoo News asked Trump whether this level of tracking might require registering Muslims in a database or giving them a form of special identification that noted their religion. He wouldn’t rule it out.
“We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely,” Trump said when presented with the idea. “We’re going to have to look at the mosques. We’re going to have to look very, very carefully.”
My entire point was that he never said it.
uses politifact as a source...
Oh you poor stupid sheeple. There's really no hope at all for you...
All through the campaign, journalists kept hammering on stuff like this. They'd start with the idea that he wanted to stop Muslims entering the country UNTIL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON AND DEVELOP PROPER SCREENING. In an attempt to both paint Trump as a racist, and to generate click-bait headlines, (because now getting paid for clicks seems to be the core of modern "journalism") they started asking about a "Muslim Registry" or "Muslim Registration". Eventually, in response to all those questions, the Trump campaign indicated there MIGHT be some value in a registry of Muslims who enter the US from certain hotbeds of terrorist activity (like Pakistan, Syria, etc) so that authorities could know who these people were, where they were and what they were up to for the duration of their visit..... and now we are all supposed to breathlessly shriek in horror of some Holocaust-style roundup of an entire race of people for extermination or some such bull excrement.
The story is fake. It's like journalists repeatedly hammering a person with the question "have you stopped beating your wife yet, yes or no" and then when the person finally gets exasperated and says "No!" the journalist runs to print with the story headline "Man proudly beats his wife and refuses to stop, authorities refuse to intervene and now all women at risk of beatings!"
This sort of fake journalism will continue as long as people are stupid enough to keep falling for it. It's about as solid a story as the claim that Chelsie Clinton is Web Hubble's daughter or the story that Obama is gay and his wife Michele is actually a trans (rolls eyes).
Oh, and footnote for the stupid and uneducated: Islam is a SYSTEM OF BELIEF people voluntarily choose, it's NOT a race. Opposing Islam is NOT racism! Opposing Islam is like opposing NAZI-ism, it's NOT like opposing black people, or asian people, etc. During WWII, allied nations kept track of ANY known NAZIs within their borders, did not allow NAZIs to build bundes halls in their countries, etc.
Here's the official tally of responses:
No - 1
Please stop wasting our time. - 2
It turns out there IS such a thing as a stupid question! - 5
#DeleteChrome
Why should tech or any other company reply to a question like that?
Just like Trump and Hillary, there's no better alternative to slashdot.
Yes, I hate this open partisanship too. I don't hear about weird Linux Desktop Environments anymore! or bitching about Javascript and SystemD!
Actually, no. If you read up the history of the spread of Islam following the death of Mohammed, and how Muslims - regardless of whether they were Arabs or Turks - treated non Muslims in lands that they conquered, you will see that Islam was born 'radical' and remained so. If anything, interference by Western powers helped civilize them to a major extent
A good example of this - take the ex Soviet 'stans'. Historically, they shared the story of their southern neighbors - Afghanistan and Iran. The first capital of Islamic Iran was Samarqand and then Buqhara, which were capitals of the Samanid empire. Then the Turkic peoples of the region were Islamized, and they started up various dynasties, like the Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, Khwarezmids, Timurides, Kazakhs, Uzbeks and so on. As a people, they were neither more nor less tolerant of non Muslims. Like Tamerlane, who ran an empire from Samarqand, merrily massacred not just Muslims who opposed him, such as in Iran, but also people in Armenia, Georgia and India.
The first Russian conquests of Central Asia began as a result of Kazakhs making raids into Russian territory and enslaving Russians, as well as abducting their women & children and forcibly marrying them. So despite being Euro-centric, there was no way that Russia could ignore that, so they started their invasion of the region and conquered Turqestan, leading to what was known as the 'Great Game' b/w the Russians and the British.
Similarly, the reason Egyptians, Syrians and others in the Middle East were liberal was after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, when those countries were occupied by the Brits and the French, and had Westernized rulers who took off some of the edge of Islamic fanaticism. But that didn't help due to the Wahabis in Arabia, who managed to gain power through their alliance w/ the Sauds, and the discovery of oil.
Had the Ottoman empire never fallen, and had the Russians never conquered Turqestan, then the Middle East and North Africa would have been part of a caliphate, while Turqestan would have been a country that would have included the stans as well as Afghanistan and parts of Iran.
Yes, well all want to be safe at home, while shoving slabs of tasty pizza in our mouths.
Still, there's a problem, the registry is Unconstitutional, breaking the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
I think that an attempt to disenfranchise or disestablish a religion, is the same thing as establishing the remaining one.
Too quickly, we are going from here, to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Fascists walk among us.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
You dummies do realize that neither Trump nor anyone on his campaign has ever suggested a so-called "muslim registry", right?
This is all from liberal paranoid fever dreams.
But it's very instructive for what you intend to do if you ever get power again.
If you're not disgusted by a soon-to-be president who refuses to rule out mandatory registration for followers of a religion, I don't know what to say. We don't do that here.
You're missing the point of this exercise. The purpose of the registry is so that the government can provide mullahs in local mosques with a list of all the Muslims in their area, to help them better minister to the needs of their fellow mujahedeen. It's a way for the government to build bridges with the Muslim communities. Stop trying to put a negative spin on Trump's efforts to make America great again.
Since Nazis were mentioned in the header unto meaningful effect, Godwin's Law cannot apply.
Jews did not fly aircraft into buildings. Jews did not behead people in video recording and dissemination.
How about this question? Under what condition must the Constitution be a suicide pact?
I said 60% of the country, not 60% of the people. That's how Trump won, he got 60% of the vote.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
he's more like the second coming of Mussolini. Hitler was more competent than Trump (at least until the syphilis took over) and had more support from his population...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
that these companies should have already made official statements that they won't work with Trump on this. The fact that they haven't (and that their PR depts can't just repeat an already well defined position when asked) is just bad juju all around.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
see here. There's nothing useful to add to that process that is not also oppressive and evil.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's not how voting works. The US is divided into "electoral votes" which basically is divided up among states (and in some cases, counties). Trump got ~57% of the "country's" vote, you don't vote directly which is what many Dems are missing in these cases, popular votes don't matter, have never mattered.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
they should have long since denounced it and took a firm position that they would not help Trump build the registry. This shouldn't even be a story. It's like asking if we should round up all the Jews. It's not something you 'just ask', and if anyone does the answer should be: "No, and what the hell is wrong with you?"
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
That's weird, I was never offended by anything he said.
If you're not disgusted by a soon-to-be president who refuses to rule out mandatory registration for followers of a religion, I don't know what to say. We don't do that here.
Maybe we are impressed by a president elect that refuses to play the denial game. Is he supposed to spend his entire time denying shit others make up? And he already said he is not after 'followers of a religion', but people from countries which harbor terrorists. Seems you need to keep making stuff up to make a point.
Twitter data for surveillance purposes. Period.
They're fine with surveillance and harassment of anyone who dares speak unapproved speech - which usually means truth or conservative values.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
It's almost guaranteed that the NSA has already created a database of muslims in the US under the orders of Obama or Bush.
Why bother creating a public one?
Well, you, sir, may be the one here who isn't thinking about all possibilities.
Is it an awful idea to build some sort of "Muslim registration database". Yeah, probably. But if I'm a huge company like Microsoft and some journalist asks me if I'll state an official position on whether or not I'd ever help with such a thing? My smartest move is to ignore the question with a "No comment." and go on with my day.
The thing is, Trump hasn't even taken office yet - so ALL of this stuff is still conjecture at this point. All we really know about Trump so far is that he exaggerated a lot, and made a lot of big, bold promises that can't really be acted upon. Every day, the media is all over the guessing game of "Who will he put in his cabinet for position X?". Once all of those positions are chosen and final, THEN at least some more useful guesses can be made about the direction he'll actually take on policies, based on their previous history. But so far, we don't even have those folks all lined up yet.
Just like his promise to "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it", where *reality* is, Federal government hasn't even been able to build a continuous fence due to private property ownership of much of the land? Trump's talk about this registration database might turn out to be something far more "watered down", like a govt. database that doesn't require anyone "register" with it at all. The companies who declared "No, we won't assist!" prematurely would now be out of the running, or in an awkward situation, if the Dept. of Immigration or some other Federal dept. eventually wants to build a new/better database of, say, Muslim extremists still operating inside the country.
Sex Offender Registry
First they came for the Sex Offenders, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Sex Offender.
No Fly List
Then they came for the Terrorists , and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Terrorist.
Muslim Registry
Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Muslims.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Obama passed a law that Sex Offenders will have a identifier on their US passports to prevent "Sex Tourism". Get ready for identifying marks soon for other offences !
Twitter needs all the positive press it can get.
I need a list of every Trump voter, it's for national security.
Nobody is being branded.
I'm on tons of lists for all sorts of demographics. So are you.
If one extra list is added that helps put together clues for stopping terrorism, then it can only be a good thing. The only people worried about it are terrorists and their sympathizers.
All we needed was one.
You lost. It's over.
You gotta go, Pedro.
Actually, back then, the Social Justice Warriors (in the form of the National Union for Social Justice) were generally supportive of the Nazis. Gotta do something about those privileged Jews...
Does that give license to be inaccurate about this and other things [he said]?
No. Just because Hughes, defending Trump's lies, openly declared that, "There's no such thing, unfortunately, anymore as facts," doesn't mean she is correct. There are facts and, just because someone abuses them, that doesn't give anyone else the right to do so as well. Actually, it means that it means the rest of us have to be more careful to stick to facts.
However, Trump did sail uncomfortably close to the wind on this one. See In Context: Donald Trump's comments on a database of American Muslims from Politifact.
The disturbing truth is that he did not automatically rule out a database for Muslims, which, given the nature of the US Constitution, basic human rights, and common decency, he should have done without hesitation. He left the door open and/or outright endorsed the idea, depending upon how you read the context of his comments. That leaves the question open which means that we, as citizens have the right and duty to speak up for constitutional rights.
This is not a "left wing" or "main stream" media exaggeration. These are Trumps own words. Since some of the people he has picked for positions of power and influence have a history of racist and European supremacist views (again not "left wing media" distortion, but their own words, well documented), this becomes a greater concern.
Is Trump supposed to deny or rule out everything that is dreamed up by his detractors? I think he's smart not to play that game.
Nobody is being branded.
You know, maybe a brand instead of a patch worn on the clothing. Good idea Pepe'!
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
SJWs weren't possible back then, as there was no such thing as the twitter/tumblr to have a bunch of weird people that pretend to be fighting inequality by doing weird insane racist posts.
Probably the closest thing you had back then were the aristocrats, and i bet they were just as useful as the modern SJWs are.
So you confirm he is talking about registry of all the non-Muslims at Mosques, so to better take their guns away. Any further confirmation that Trump is after the 2nd?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
And through it all, the social justice movement was remarkably sympathetic to the Nazis. It wasn't until after America formally entered the war that their periodical, "Social Justice", was forced to cease publication, and their leader, Charles Coughlin, required to stop his antisemitic broadcasts (because he was basically campaigning for the enemy).
The movement's ties to Nazism were lampooned, actually, by no less a political cartoonist than Doctor Seuss
We need to track Muslims. They cause problems across the globe. There are many who think Islam is a religion. It is not. It is a political system. While religion in general can cause problems in our civilization, and some have in the past. We need to focus on the current few centuries: Where one political system disguised as religion is impacting every other group.
And despite what your typical West-coast SJW lefty thinks there are people outside of that are who can write code and build complex systems. In fact I would wager there are more capabilities outside of the west coast than in it (globally). Especially in the light that many SJW's seem content on ignoring facts at all costs (unscientific) and make blatantly wrong statements having never been to the Middle East or interacted with a very large group of Muslims (again, unscientific). The costs of an error in judgement will be huge.
The choice is clear: Islam or humanity. Choose one. But choose wisely.
Would you blame them? Moscow had been captured by Chengiz Khan, and later again burnt down by Tokhtamysh, who ruled the Tatar empire. So it was obvious to them that they had to take out all the sultanates around and east of the Urals.
You're missing the point of this exercise. The purpose of the registry is so that the government can provide mullahs in local mosques with a list of all the Muslims in their area.
So You and Trump want to do this by having them sign into a registry when they are at the Mosque you want to give the names to. Gee, I hope Trump pays dome good tax payer money for the Trump corporation doing the Good Management of that effort.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Some of our founding fathers were also slave owners. The word "liberal" had damn well better mean something wholly different.
It was the other way around - Germany declared war on US, after US declared war on Japan after Pearl Harbor. US response declaration came later, and was merely a recognition of the fact that state of war existed in the wake of the German declaration.
Dude, you need to surf the internet and listen to some *serious* racists. You are being totally trumpesque with such uncalibrated verbiage.
I'm guessing you don't sufficiently appreciate the game that was being played during the debates where trump was trying to get clinton to mouth the specific word chain - 'radical islamic terrorist'.
Part of the troll game probably involved knowledge of how Hillary had long ago compromised her integrity on the topic. Note the pattern- person with no integrity uses cracks in another's integrity to nullify any perceived difference in integrity under the idea that-
"criminals are bad, raping children, murdering people, stealing. You are a criminal." Forget the fact that it was just a 5mph over the limit crime on the highway that only collectively had the consequence of some small fraction of people maimed and slaughtered by dangerous fast moving hunks of metal...
Bush and Clinton tried to build one before, part of it eventually was used to become what we now know as the no-fly list. Obama had the chance to get rid of it and didn't. But I guess it's okay if the establishment does it.
Equal Protection Under The Law. Nice concept.
More to the point, the lawyers of 7 out of 8 companies advised their clients to STFU and hope the issue goes away.
That sounds like my rationalization for not giving any real consideration during the campaign to the contingency of Trump winning. Oops.
I wasn't very clear. The US and Germany declared war on in other within days of each other in December of '41. But Germany didn't start sinking ships off the east coast until spring of '42.
What saddens me is that Slashdot actually links to this piece of shoody, amateur attempt at Journalism.
The quote about IBM helping to computerise the Holocaust is a blanket statement that takes IBM's happiness to sell equipment to Hitler's Germany in 1993 [something many large companies in America and Europe were happy to do] to suggesting the active and direct involvement of IBM in the Final Solution.
Is Trump supposed to deny or rule out everything that is dreamed up by his detractors? I think he's smart not to play that game.
Of course he shouldn't respond to every silly question out there. That would be a waste of time. If people are going to ask him stupid, outlandish questions, then he should ignore those questions like most sane people would.
Except, in this case, as in far too many other cases, the question was not outlandish based on what he had already said about the need to keep a watch on all Muslims. He is the one that invited the question based on what he said in his many speeches. The question didn't come out of nowhere. Also, when asked, he did not ignore the question. Instead his answers not only left the question open, he implied that he might be actually considering a database on all Muslims. Since the President Elect left the question open, and since his answers could easily be taken as contrary to the constitution that he will soon be swearing to uphold. then we have a right and duty to keep asking these questions until he definitively closes the issue. Theoretically, all he has to do is say that he won't institute such a database. So far, I can find no evidence that he has done this.
Of course, now that he's been purposefully vague about the issue, many people will have trouble believing him at this point, especially given his troublesome record of truthfulness. We will have to watch what he does.
The problem is that if such a database were implemented (if it is not already in place) then it will be done in secret. We can watch, but we will not be able to actually see what is going on unless it is leaked. We have already seen that our government agencies are willing to violate our privacy and rights. Where will that violation stop? What is the line they will not cross and who will be there to make sure they don't cross it if not the President who authorizes such measures?
Since those questions can't be answered by us mere mortals, the next question then becomes: will our tech sector aid in creating/maintaining such a database. It is a question for companies and individuals alike. If we are powerless to properly monitor and regulate our own government, then all we have left is peer pressure and appeals to conscience to do what is right.
jfc you're an idiot.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
JFC.
Learn some f'ing history.
FDR was a leftist and didn't want to go to war
It was the Congress that didn't want to go to war, passing the Neutrality Acts of 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1939.
FDR opposed and criticized the Neutrality Acts isolationist intent repeatedly, though he did use the prohibitions on sale of war materials sales a few times, such as when he invoked the 1935 one to block the sale of ammunition and weapons to Italy following its invasion of Ethiopia. But then his sentiments were generally against the forming Axis Powers.
the 1937 law carried a compromise with FDR, that allowed him to sell material to England and France to resist Hitler under a provision called "cash and carry", ie, no credit, only direct cash in hand sales, and they have to pick up the stuff themselves and not draw us into the conflict.
the policy of neutrality didn't end until FDR successfully got the Lend Lease Act passed in spring of 1941, at which point we were involved in the war in Europe in all but name, supplying planes, weapons, ammunition, intelligence, and training to England and the Free French. and personnel as well, though they had to join the English military.
So no...you are completely wrong.
until his hand was practically forced
Again: he was the one who WANTED to fight.
Again: Pearl Harbor didn't force his hand, it forced the Congress to finally go along with him.
, partially by The New Deal.
No.
Just...no..
Pure ignorance on your part.
The New Deal was very much leftist,
Yes it was. Because conservative corporate cronyism had caused the Depression.
tripled taxes mainly affecting the poor
Nope.
Wrong again.
The Revenue Act of 1935 was a progressive tax, which means it impacted low incomes the least, and grew in impact the more you earned, up to 75% of the highest incomes. This was followed a year later with a bill that taxed the largest corporations (exempted small businesses).
and causing the 1938's depression
Again.
Still wrong.
The Recession of 1937 was caused by prematurely cutting spending, tightening the money supply at the federal reserve, and trying to balance the budget in the middle of a recovery while said recovery was still fragile. IE, "austerity", like what the GOP tried to do, but thankfully didn't, in more recent history in 2010 and 2011.
AND to that point FDR had been hesitant to run much of a deficit at all, only about 3%
companies at this time also underwent a period of merger mania, reducing competition and increasing prices for goods and services, causing peoples limited purchasing power to decrease.
with unemployment at 19% in 1939
you mean 1938, in the middle of the recession of 1937, which ended by mid-1938.
by 1939 the rate was already dropping again, incomes were reaching previous levels, and the economy was recovering again.
, it wasn't until the US spent billions on the "war effort" that the mismanagement of The New Deal was undone
nearly full employment was reached before the War Machine was even really kicking into gear.
and the New Deal programs continued into and past the War, indeed, they were the only thing supporting many families who saw incomes drop as a result of the war as people were called up for the draft.
even though FDR doubled the national debt.
again: prior to the war, there was very little deficit spending.
that debt didn't come from the new deal, but from building the war machine and fighting WWII.
like I said: you need to learn your history.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God.
They put forth irreconcilably different images of who God is, if you are a believer of one, then the other is by definition not God (to you). The Christian God is a god of love which is entirely different from the Islamic portrayal.
Further, Jews do not worship the same God as Christians because they deny that God ever took on human form to die on the cross and be resurrected.
Each of these religions require that you accept their written texts, and only their written texts as truth and they all conflict (yes the Christians and Jews share the old testament but they diverge at the New Testament).
You need to start listening to former Muslims who can actually read Arabic and know what the Quran says (there is no such thing as an English Quran, if it isn't written in Arabic, it isn't the Quran) instead of getting your info from NPR or learn to read Arabic yourself. Most American "Muslims" have never read the Quran.
OTOH, we know *you* have been radicalized.
Maybe if he never said he'd have such a database, he would consider the question outlandish. Its not like there isn't any hyperbole being employed. So you can go on to talk about all the problems with this database that nobody proposed, but I'm not sure who you are really arguing with in that case, or making a point to.
Trump did talk about vetting an tracking people who want to enter the country from known terrorist states. Your points don't seem to apply very well in that case. But I suppose you'd rather argue against something that wasn't ever proposed... for what reasons I'm not sure but if it turns you on, keep at it.
of course twitter won't, jihadi's are a big part of their customer base. ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, twitter only shuts them down when they are forced to do so.
but a gay guy talks shit about an actress for a shitty movie and they are all over that.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Trump is clearly anti-journalism. Any real news service has documented this, even Fox. If you ever bothered to wander outside of Breitbart, who you love to cite, you'd know that.
You're nothing more than an alt-right Trump apologist.