Slashdot Mirror
Zuckerberg Could Run Facebook While Serving in Government Forever (techcrunch.com)
Reader randomErr writes: Closer look at SEC documents reveal that Zuckerberg only needs to own enough Facebook stock or have the board's approval to be allowed to serve in the government. This comes hours after, Facebook co-founder said his 2017 personal challenge is to meet and listen to people in all 50 states, hinting that he may have intentions of getting into politics. Without the limit, Zuckerberg has the opportunity to be appointed or elected to a more significant office and have as much time as he wants to make an impact, rather than just dipping in potentially as a cabinet member whose terms typically last less than two years. Of course, getting elected would require the faith of the people which has been shaken by the fake news scandal. Some would surely view a role in government as a selfish push for power despite Zuckerberg's massive philanthropy initiatives. Certain government offices might have historically required him to give up control of Facebook, but Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President
He will keep us safe from news
Is this supposed to be some kind of news or something? Do you miss Dice yet, fellow readers?
Resign.
stock is enough?
What Predator vs. Alien? (Or was that the last presidential election?)
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
You have no shame. At all.
Zuckerberg is already at the top of the fake news feed
It had been a while since slashdot reminded us to worship Zuckerberg. I can't say I was missing the call to prayer or anything, but I had noticed its absence.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Is he an immortal? A vampire? a Howard?
The summary is confusing. Owning a certain amount of stock or having the board's approval qualifies him to serve in government? With less stock or without board approval could he not serve in government?
Since he refuses to hire older workers, and practices age discrimination, why would older people vote for him?
So Facebook would let him run for government... but it's more important that he demonstrate to the government that he won't have any potential conflicts of interest (unless he runs for President, of course).
or any of the rest of Red State America. Foolish shareholders. Sycophant board. Doesn't end well for Fakebook.
Zuck vs Cheetoh-Faced ShitGibbon - I heard that Gibbons in general were rallying troops against Donna Strumpet.
Well of course Zuckerberg wants to get into politics. It was signaled long ago, but became abundantly clear when he suddenly disavowed atheism (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/30/mark-zuckerberg-says-hes-no-longer-an-atheist-believes-religion-is-very-important/). You can't be serious about politics in the good ol' USA unless you're a devout religious something-or-other.
It's not about Zuckerberg being appointed to or running for political office. The justification for this news story is the jab at the end about "fake news," lest we forget for a moment that we are all smart people and nobody we know voted for Donald Trump, therefore there must be foul play.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Yet another person I will be very happy to vote against.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
He's a college dropout who became a billionaire. I thought Red State America loved that? Or do you also have to be a racist?
You just tell them what they want to hear and they'll vote for you, whether you make any attempt at being sincere or not. When they are reminded of your past opposite positions, just deny that ever happened and make some half-assed attempt to play to their fears about something else. In short, lie. Seems to work pretty reliably these days. And you don't have to be a racist, but you absolutely shouldn't denounce racists either, because every white vote counts, even the evil ones.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
What the fuck are the TFS and even the headline about??
Granted, English is only my second language. But surely this weird drivel follows no discernible structure. Who edits this shit? Is this on purpose, as most headlines read so convoluted to be barely intelligible?
Other way around.
Isn't this a case of counting eggs before they hatch?
Does someone presume he is just going to be given a "significant" position in government? Where is he getting it from? Who is electing him? Obama and Soros? Are we to just accepting that we are returning to self-proclaimed monarchy and nobility?
CAPTCHA: royally
The gross accumulation of wealth is destabilizing.
It should be universally capped and indexed to inflation.
Start with the President via a Constitutional Amendment.
Something like $10 million ($20 for married couple so President and First Lady) should be more than sufficient.
Just when I think, "at least things can't any worse," you slap me in the face and spit on me. -_-
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Trump's going to nationalize the Silicon Valley companies.
Make News Fake Again!
Fuck the Zuck.
That is some flagrantly transparent overton window shit right there!
Certain government offices might have historically required him to give up control of Facebook, but Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Anyone who thinks that Facebook can actually cut down on the fake news posts should take a look at their efforts to stop the clickbait posts. It's gotten worse. Much worse.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Now, every psycho billionaire in America has seen how it's done.
God help us, because the two parties won't.
Every day these posts get worse and less veiled. Pretty sure we'll see slashdot running official ad's for Facebook and Apple instead of just "news stories"
Certain government offices might have historically required him to give up control of Facebook, but Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
But he stated it as if it were common knowledge so nobody would challenge. He's depending on idiots to just accept it. Get with the manipulative program dude.
Are you telling me Slashdot is posting FAKE NEWS in TFS?!?!?
Doesn't this guy have enough freakin' power already? A politician with access to personal info of 1in 4 people is the last thing we need. And, politicians are allowed to own stock. This is stupid dangerous. He'll also be in a position in which profiles may have to be divulged "voluntarily" to defense agencies. He's not the answer to not having Hillary in office, but that's the part he will play to keep people happy under Trump.
"College dropout" damn, that is a real zinger to sling at a billionaire. /s
Come on, man, work on your game.
Our congressional leaders can't pass a law against it, it's prohibited by the constitution for the legislative branch to interfere with the executive branch in that way. That's why those boundaries were always informal ones, yet none the less respected.
Fuck Zuck!
I think a lot of folks who voted Trump and a Republican Congress are about to find that out with Obamacare, as it becomes clearer with each press conference that the Republicans have no actual plan, and are more than likely simply going to tinker with the ACA, and that the "great repeal" is going to be little more than a rebranding, with some funding changes, and probably defunding of Planned Parenthood and a means for Catholic and Evangelical employers to squeak out of having to pay for the birth control.
The block grant plan will be the most fun to watch, because it's going to mean an even greater health care disparity between the poorer (and more often Red states) and the wealthier (more often) Blue states. But overall, the likes of Paul Ryan are making it as clear as they dare that there isn't going to be an overnight repeal of Obamacare, which means the transition is going to be multi-year, and longer than the life of the current Congress. It makes me wonder if the Republicans will simply use the whole thing as a delaying tactic, make the changes I suggest above, rename it and then try to use it as a feather in their own cap.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
That must not be true, or we wouldn't have the 22nd amendment right?
I think this is a grand plan to drive anyone with intelligence and ambition out of the "Red" states. This ensures their GOP vote for the foreseeable future and consolidates all those nasty Lib's in the "Blue" states where their vote won't matter.
Cheap storage VM.
Yes, those poor Blue states, with their higher standards of living, and where women won't be forced to die of ectopic pregnancies because "GOD!"
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Wonder what his policies will be like? Hah, a little joke there, nobody in America gives a shit about policy.
If he runs Democrat he'll be called a pedophile Muslim loving communist by Republicans and if he runs Republican he'll be called a racist sexist fear monger by Democrats.
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
Yes, because the law is the only possible constraint. Ignore centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition and public morality were imaginary all along! It's the law or nothing!
I bet you're a small government conservative, too, aren't you?
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
How fucking dense do you have to be not to realize this? Facebook is SIGINT raised to the extreme power. He has been "part of the government" for many years now. Lets make it official. Maybe he too can be president one day if the Bilderberg group says so.
The boundaries weren't there at all.
This is just media spin, again, as usual. Past presidents have (or still are) filthy rich and have substantial investments.
You don't have to be the managing CEO of a company to get benefits from decisions that impact the industries of companies you own. Oil and Steel are two examples among many.
While the president may be the most visible, most politicians come from or have substantial wealth...and if one thinks they don't take that into account on their own scale their delusional.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
This explains why Zuckerberg has renounced atheism. He could not get elected President in the US as a declared atheist. If he's going on the stump with the goal of the Whitehouse (having seen how easily Trump did it), he needs to get his ducks in a line now.
I think you need a Schwarzenegger or Jesse Ventura candidacy for proper "Predator vs" politics.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yes, because the law is the only possible constraint. Ignore centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition and public morality were imaginary all along! It's the law or nothing!
I bet you're a small government conservative, too, aren't you?
As a small government conservative: laws.amendments that restrain the power of government are great! "Centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition" are worthless for protecting us from assholes. Of course, so is the Constitution once there are enough asshole in the SCOTUS.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
He won't need the NSA to spy on Americans.
I think a lot of folks who voted Trump and a Republican Congress are about to find that out with Obamacare, as it becomes clearer with each press conference that the Republicans have no actual plan, and are more than likely simply going to tinker with the ACA, and that the "great repeal" is going to be little more than a rebranding,
That's certainly what we're afraid of. But there are some hints the GOP is finding it's long-lost balls, and waking up to the fact that, since a big jump in exchange insurance rates played into last election, a big drop in rates would save their asses in the next.
Otherwise: fuck the GOP. I don't know a single conservative who actually likes the GOP, it's merely the barely lesser evil. The pendulum swing that brought us Trump has just begun, and unless the GOP is nimble, it won't survive as a party to the end of it all. And if the Dems aren't scared by the level of support Bernie got, they should wake up - that wave is still rising, too.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Congress hasn't pushed anything on the office of the President of the US like this, because of Constitution. The only limit that seems to be on the President is part of the Constitution. Executive branch officials and positions are not out-of-bounds from Congressional meddling.
If Congress wants to put limits or controls on the President like that, it'll take amending the Constitution, at the very least.
With all data on individuals he has access to, whether or not they have a facebook account. him going to the government would just be awesome.... NOT!
Trump's going to nationalize the Silicon Valley companies.
But of course he might screw up and try to nationalize Silicon Graphics or Silicone Valley (the San Fernando Valley porn industry), then deny he ever did it, then threaten to sue anyone who calls him on it. I just hope that doesn't end in a massive wave of bankruptcies (for Silicon Valley, SGI is already dead and Silicone Valley will never die).
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
" Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there "
Oh, they were "there" - they just weren't codified into law, because that was never necessary before. We never had a billionaire fraud property owner pariah win the presidency in the modern era.
You realize this can all be true at the same time, right?
And it was the alt-right spinning pedo stories against the candidate that wasn't accused of raping a 13yo girl or sexually assaulting a dozen others. Trump was.
Here's a quote from Mark Zuckerberg:
Zuck: Yeah so if you ever need info about anyone at Harvard
Zuck: Just ask
Zuck: I have over 4,000 emails, pictures, addresses, SNS
[Redacted Friend's Name]: What? How'd you manage that one?
Zuck: People just submitted it.
Zuck: I don't know why.
Zuck: They "trust me"
Zuck: Dumb fucks
The money is going to have to come from somewhere. Since it's clear that the pre-existing condition part of the ACA is immensely popular, that means that the Republicans are going to have to find a way to keep it alive. All I've heard thus far is talk of block funding and high-risk pools, and you get to fill in the blanks and how those will jive. If you're going to make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get affordable insurance, it means somehow those people are going to have to be subsidized, either by some level of government or by all the other people, and if it's a high risk pool that most certainly means taxpayer funds.
The Republicans attacked the ACA at every opportunity, probably believing much as everyone else did that by the time the Republican Party was in a position to actually do something about the ACA, it would be so deeply embedded that it could never be eliminated. Now suddenly they're in the nightmare position of having to actually square the circle. I suppose the only real advantage they have is that Trump probably won't give a shit what they do, so long as the names "Obamacare" and "Affordable Care Act" disappear so he can talk about another "yuge" victory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Amendments are not the same thing at all. First of all, the parent said "pass a law" and an amendment is not a law. Second, setting aside the fact that passing an amendment in our hyperpartisan political climate is effectively impossible, it isn't something that our Congressional leaders can do on their own - it must further be ratified by the three fourths of the states.
Also, an amendment which merely laid out a few ground rules for exactly what constitutes a conflict of interest would be pretty ineffectual. It would invite someone like Trump to come along and just start "pushing boundaries" again, and enforcement of this amendment wouldn't really be possible since all of the enforcement mechanisms fall under the executive branch. So for an amendment like that to work it would either need to give congress the power to influence the president, thus gutting our principle of separation of powers, or it would need to establish a regulatory body which was independent of all three of the other branches of government. Effective creating a fourth branch whose sole purpose is watching the others.
This is... possible, but it's not supposed to be necessary. The whole point of the separation of powers is that the three branches will curtail one another. What's supposed to happen, but won't, is that when Trump starts acting up like this congress threatens him with impeachment and he backs down. I can only imagine two scenarios actually playing out: first and most likely is that congress, confused and afraid, hide under their desks and try to keep anything from happening, hoping for a do-over four years from now. The second possibility, the long shot, is that after an unextraordinary turnover of power following the midterms in two years, the majority democrats and a few republicans threaten Trump with impeachment and he says that's a rigged system, says they shouldn't be in congress anyway, demands to see their long-form birth certificates, declares that congressmen are taking all of our jobs, claims that he'll make a deal to build a congressional wall on their dime because he's a deal maker who knows how to make deals, and then the congressmen will hide under their desks and wait, hoping for a do-over... yadda yadda.
Those are the only two things that I can picture actually happening.
WHY would we want him in office?
The fundamental problem is the death spiral: young, healthy people don't want to pay for the high-expense folks, so simply drop insurance, causing rates to rise and more to drop.
The straightforward solution is a high risk pool, as we do for car insurance, but that doesn't stop the death spiral. The only remaining sane options are tax-funded: either medicaid for the high risk (which would be unpopular once people find out how bad doctors that take medicaid are), or, my prediction, government-as-re-insurer.
Single payer is Communism, as everyone knows, but move the solution to re-insurance and it's actually a good trade-off: same taxpayer subsidy, but we keep the variety of choice of insurers and plans.
The right will bitch and moan about the government spending, but since no one in the GOP actually wants to reduce spending, it's hardly a real obstacle.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Are you saying that it is impossible for politicians to naturally change their opinions over time? That a politician is only reliable if they make an opinion and stick to it all their life even if the opinion turns out to be a bad one?
Either side would be wrong by understatement.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
None of those other things are enforceable. Your argument is only reiterating exactly what you replied to.
Since when do liberals care about American tradition?
Well that would be a great start. Why should the great religion of humanism get a pass? Though you all were about separation of church and state. Or was that only when you disagree with the particulars?
I know. Places like Chicago, New York, and LA. Who wouldn't want to live in that utopian paradise? LMFAO
In politics, what could possibly go wrong.
At least we did not get a corrupt criminal suspect who has already exhibited they would sell out this country in a heartbeat for the right amount of cash.
Nah, its to inundate the Red states with federally funded illegal immigrants and foreign refuges that will always vote for the party that will give them free stuff.
From The Telegraph, Mark Zuckerberg reveals he is no longer an atheist:
The Facebook founder [...] said he believed religion was "very important". It comes after a year in which Zuckerberg, who was raised Jewish, met the pope and [...] praised the Buddhism of his wife Priscilla Chan, posting a photo of himself praying during a visit to a pagoda in Xi'an.
Last week, Zuckerberg posted a message on his own Facebook page wishing followers a Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah. In response to a comment asking if he was atheist, he said: "No. I was raised Jewish and then I went through a period where I questioned things, but now I believe religion is very important."
This makes perfect sense for a wannabe politician: A 2012 Gallup poll concluded that potential voters were more likely to refuse to vote for an atheist candidate (43%) than a candidate that was Muslim (40%), gay/lesbian (30%), Mormon (18%), or Jewish (6%). Similar results were found in a 2014 Pew survey that found 53% of those surveyed would reject an atheist presidential candidate, leading "never held office" (52%), age 70-80 (36%), adulterers (35%), and gay/lesbian (27%). Both polls concluded that being atheist was among the least positive aspects as well (Gallop had atheists at the bottom of the list with 54% positive, beating Muslims (58%) and gay/lesbians (68%), while Pew had atheists as tied with gays/lesbians at 5% positive, with the only less supported group being adulterers (2%).
The Gallup poll also tracks favorability of these traits over time, demonstrating that support for an atheist presidential candidate is very slowly improving from 1978's 40% to 1999's 49% to 2012's 54%. Contrast that to the support for a Jewish presidential candidate, which has grown from 82% to 92% to 91% in the same respective polls. They also break these figures down by political party: Republican voters care more about these sorts of things, and their atheist/Jew favorability gap (48% vs 95%) is far greater than the Dems' (58% vs 92%). The GOP's 95% willingness to vote for a Jew is even larger than their willingness to vote for a woman (92%).
Zuck may milk the Jew+Businessman stereotype for personal gain but he is also showing his diversity through the aforementioned visit with the pope. Expect to see similar press-friendly stories on his 50 state tour, whose primary objectives will probably be publicity and then research for where he wants to align his political platform.
Use my userscript to add story images to Slashdot. There's no going back.
This also applies to the Democrats as well.
This is why I looked at this election as this wasn't about two parties vying it out. There was a third party that was behind both parties that has always been manipulating both sides in order to gain the advantage. Its kind of like the "win-win" scenario. No matter who gets in, the third party will still win. Unfortunately the third party is not the US people in most cases.
>> Of course, getting elected would require the faith of the people which has been shaken by the fake news scandal.
Good God, the "fake news scandal" is itself "fake news" and you people (of a particular political persuasion) fell for it. Shaking my head at how easily manipulated you people are.
... Silicone Valley will never die
I would not bet on that. If 9/11 did not teach companies about providing redundancies to everything in the event of disaster, we would be foolhardy. There are plenty of other states that could provide EVERYTHING that Silicon Valley provides with a little effort. I would hope that Silicon Valley would not be so arrogant to make the assumption that they are irreplaceable.
Now THIS would be a true statement. Wow if you did not post AC, you probably would have been modded "Funny" or "Insightful"
Personal consience, ethics, and morality are all imaginary. Do we really need to go through this?
"TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY."
Or, if you prefer the academic instead of Terry Pratchett, reference nihilism.
I'm not sure you understood the post you responded too...
Sure I did, it was in response to the "Silicone Valley would never" die remark from the previous post.
Our congressional leaders can't pass a law against it, it's prohibited by the constitution for the legislative branch to interfere with the executive branch in that way.
In what "way"? Please point to the passage of the Constitution that you're claiming makes this restriction. The only argument I've seen is it puts additional constraints on qualifications to be president (in addition to age 35 etc.) but that sounds pretty weak to me, since Congress can also pass laws saying the President can't commit all sorts of crimes. The issue isn't a matter of qualification (what the president does BEFORE taking office) but rather a decision to continue acting in problematic business dealings AFTER taking office.
Congress has basically plenary power to pass laws regulating the Executive as long as it doesn't hinder execution of the delegated Executive powers of Article II. There have been a number of SCOTUS rulings to this effect. Moreover, there was even a statute that basically included presidents in this sort of regulation from the Civil War through 1989 (and an attempt exempt the President when the law was recodified in 1962 under JFK was summarily rejected), but then they exempted president and VP.
It would be one thing if Congress were singling out the president for this sort of requirement (which might place an undue burden unfairly on the occupant of the office), but this is a law that applies to a multitude of government officials and serves a clear anti-corruption purpose. And there's no good argument that requiring divestment would interfere with the president's Article II powers, so I think there's little chance even a conservative SCOTUS would say such a statute is out of bounds. But who knows these days??
You just tell them what they want to hear and they'll vote for you, whether you make any attempt at being sincere or not.
The most important thing when running for elected office is sincerity. If you can fake that you've got it made!
"Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President."
Can he also re-write the Constitution's emoluments clause with a mighty tweet?
Trump has shown that you don't need to work your way through a state legislature; in fact, it was his selling point against a "business as usual" opponent. He also showed that one doesn't need to spend big to get the press, although with Zuckerberg earning $21,000 per minute, Zuckerberg could buy the press and silence both Democrat and Republican opponents. (Like atheism, there's good reason to avoid joining the entrenched players.) Trump is the leader that the USA deserves, but Zuckerberg has the power to be the leader that the USA needs. Since Zuckerberg is a businessman first, I want to know more about his "Get rich quick" policies before I expect "hope and change".
He will build a wall around the internet and make us pay for it!
Er, are you sure that's not exactly what you did get?
But do you see the difference between the Silicone Valley line in the OP that you quoted and the Silicon Valley that you then commented about. They are not the same thing.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
... you know...
Got any citations? NO? Of course you don't unless you go earlier than the 20th century. For example, George H W Bush relinquished his oil company (Zapata)before taking a position in the CIA. Pennsylvania oil merged with Zapata resulting in Pennzoil. I believe divestiture has been a non issue in the past because all past presidents have had some prior experience in public service where divestiture had already occurred. But the point is that divestiture DID happen in the past uniformly. FDR bought some land in Georgia (Warm Springs) but placed this in trust. It was a philanthropic project of his. George Washington on the other hand left political office the largest landowner in the US. He wasn't when he entered office. So somewhere between the first president and now some standards have been introduced. Trump is thumbing his nose at ethics but he does have a clause that will nail him easily. I really do believe the legislature is just waiting to impeach him and put Pence in office. The legislature will likely get a few extreme actions from Trump first just to make some political hay. But Trump is leaving himself wide open to impeachment with his refusal to divest. There are just too many laws that apply to everyone around him that will likely be broken due to the failure to divest. As soon as those laws a broken Trump is implicated as a conspirator.
But to the point, you are completely wrong in your assertion that there have not been observed standards in modern times.
Certain government offices might have historically required him to give up control of Facebook, but Donald Trump is currently redefining how much ownership of business one can have as President
False.
I don't recall any laws being changed in this regard. Trump is only pushing boundaries that were never really there. If you dislike it, get your Congressional leaders to pass a law against it.
There were there as tradition, like most things are, for instance filibusters were mostly a tradition never laws, many things work that way under the assumption that elected official and grownup responsible people, and it was assummed no one would elect people with obvious conflicts of interest, so previously presidential candidates promised to use blind trust because they were good honorable people, Trump is none of those things, except possibly 'people'.
Yes, It is all a play on words just as the previous posts and whether you remove the 'e' my comment still applies.
This is why we need to ditch First Past the Post. The voting system encourages two large parties, which tend to be more alike (and centrist) than not, just because of the large numbers involved. But then we still need voters, so our party politics focuses around wedge issues. Our politicians very deliberately set us against one another, because they must. They have no incentive to do otherwise, nor to de-escalate any of these issues. American politics has become more fiercely partisan over the last few decades, and I am quite concerned that if this trend continues, it will be politically expedient for some asshole to lead this country to another civil war. At the very least there can be no particularly good argument against getting more information from the voter about their preferences.
For the record, and not that I enjoy his brand of politics more, but I suspect that the real loser of this recent election was Gary Johnson. He had some gaffes, but I feel like he would have had much stronger support if anyone had any expectation that he would win -- which is exactly the problem with FPTP, it encourages people to vote tactically, against their actual preferences.
Want to cast a real anti-Establishment vote? Support ranked choice voting. It's time to kick the lizards out, and they can take their damned political machine with them.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
Who can fight against a so powerful mind control system.
First they make tests, now he want more.
Its the really citizen Kane.
The world is going bad.
Some of the establishment GOP idiots TRIED that play, but then Trump cranked-up the ol' Twitter box and SHAZAM! the whole thing fell apart... so the thing you allege happened, did not actually happen, thanks to Trump.
You win today's award for "Fake News Presenter on Slashdot"
Note: As odd as it sounds, there is actually a legitimate argument about this. The office in question was setup after the house page molesting scandal as an attempt to clean up that mess, but it has been used by both Republicans and Democrats to make nasty attacks upon each other because anonymous complaints were enabled. Before that office was created, the House had a bi-partisan ethics committee that traces back many decades and used to handle such matters as well as anything run by politicians can. Had the House eliminated the modern office, the stuff would have defaulted back to the old committee. Trump's bigger argument was not so much about the substance of which mechanism handles such issues and more about the congress having bigger more-important fish to fry.
"1) Nobody serious (read: current political leaders, people with net worth in the billions, or more than 10% of the country's population) is suggesting that the election results are invalid, or that Donald Trump should not be sworn in as president. It's not like the Birther movement or anything... *cough*"
(a) LOTS of people, including some of our mast famous entertainers, people from the Clinton campaign, news people, college professors, etc ARE suggesting Trump's election is invalid,so are you saying none of these left-leaners are serious people?
(b) I VERY tired of Obama and his supporters whining about the "birther" stuff. Obama made money for years off the claim he was from Kenya (that's how his literary agent listed him while he was making money from his books) and rather than spending YEARS hiding his birth certificate, he could have done what every president before him did when asked: just pull the actual certificate out and show it. Obama could have ended the whole thing in MINUTES and at ANY TIME. He prolonged it as a way to make some of his opponents look crazy and then lump ALL his opponents together and claim they all were racists. The reason the birthers were so suspicious is that he first claimed to be from Kenya and then when challenged on eligibility to be POTUS he his the one thing that would easily end the issue.
"2) Nobody is saying that Donald Trump was elected so there must be foul play. People are saying there is foul play due to the evidence being presented."
(a) Actually, yes, there are progressives claiming Donald's election while all the polls said he could not win is indeed proof of foul play.
(b) What evidence, exactly, has been presented? That FBI report? Have you READ the thing? It's a content-free document. The DNC talking point that "all 17 agencies agree"? Can you name those agencies? Do you TRULY believe the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency or the Office of Naval Intelligence did an independent investigation of John Podesta's e-mail phishing an independently concluded that insanely smart Russkie spies brilliantly figured out how to crack his account (ignoring the fact that the doofus used the password "password")? Let's face it, the Obama administration is just shovelling a load of horse manure here and telling us "all 17 agree" as part of a narrative (which aligns nicely with that Ben Rhodes bragging about how easily the Obama admin manipulates liberal journalists)
"3) If the current evidence doesn't suggest to you that there has been foul play, then what evidence would you need to convince you that there was?..."
How about ONE SINGLE SOLITARY SMIDGEN of evidence rather than just wild claims by political appointees who were assuming they had 8 more years of comfy employment ahead and suddenly found that Trump was heading into office? There has not been ANY actual evidence presented, just lots of general accusations spiced-up with a TON of innuendo. General accusations that some Russian (implication: tied to Putin) got at Podesta's e-mail using some exotic means (rather than a simple phishing that everybody on the net is familiar with) and then (via persona/methods unknown/unproven) passed the info to Wikileaks which then somehow provided honest info about team Hillary which allowed the voters to (gasp!) see through some of the fake team Hillary image-making and thereby had some (not measured) effect on the vote that then allowed Trump to win in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania (where he campaigned really hard and which Hillary took for granted)
As a small government conservative: laws.amendments that restrain the power of government are great! "Centuries of precedent; personal conscience, ethics, tradition" are worthless for protecting us from assholes. Of course, so is the Constitution once there are enough asshole in the SCOTUS.
That last sentence is particularly telling. When you come right down to it, after you've stripped away the puffery and pageantry, laws really are just a set of rules we agree to abide by because the benefit to society is greater when we do. They're really nothing more than articles in the social contract that Hobbes defined way back when.
And as you rightly note, they are designed as asshole repellent. Their purpose is largely not to set norms, but to curb extraordinary, often sociopathic behaviour. Lawless societies, such as remote rural areas in the developing world, are largely peaceful and orderly. Most people don't steal, even when they can. Most people don't fight or kill each other, even though they could. But in those rare cases when someone does transgress, it can cause huge disruptions to the village. A killing can result in reprisals and, often enough, collective punishment, including arson attacks against entire families.
And that's when the rule of law comes into play. Its purpose, to a large degree, is to objectify and depersonalise the process of dealing with situations of injustice or inequity, in order that the effects don't upset the social order.
But it's only one tool among many. Personal conscience, peer pressure, social opprobrium and—yes, tradition—are extremely strong forces when they're brought to bear on non-sociopaths. That's why we have them. And that's why they succeeded in restraining even extremely pathological individuals like Richard Nixon (ultimately, and admittedly with the threat of legal action impending).
The fact that Donald Trump, and his sycophants on this site, don't seem to see the merit of such restraints is not a commentary on the effectiveness of tradition, and abstract social constructions such as ethics and public morality. It's not a commentary on them; it's an indictment of the man himself. This is precisely what people mean when they talk about having a presidential temperament. It's the willingness of the wolf to allow himself to be constrained by sheep.
And I know you're turning your Galtian profile to the sky right now, and laughing in derision at the metaphor. But it worked for a couple of centuries. You can philosophise all you like. It fucking worked. Until now.
What changed? Not the law, not the value of ethics, morals and traditions. What changed was the man in the Oval Office.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
Facebook has done so much to better society, it makes total sense the the guy who created it should become president.
</sarcasm>