DC Inauguration Protestors Are Being Hit With Facebook Data Searches (citylab.com)

Re:So now under Trump... by elrous0 · 2017-02-06 12:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

"...which begs the question..." by turkeydance · 2017-02-06 12:52 · Score: 4, Informative

it raises the question but does not beg.

Re:"...which begs the question..." by zlives · 2017-02-06 13:00 · Score: 1

questioning is now begging... i think you are just supposed to take it.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Skidge · 2017-02-06 13:08 · Score: 1

Wow, two "begs the question" summaries in two days. We did better this time, though.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by tsotha · 2017-02-06 13:15 · Score: 1

Unfortunately dictionaries and style manuals have thrown in the towel on this one. "Begging the question" just doesn't mean what it used to mean any more. Not even officially.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-06 13:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Begging the question" just doesn't mean what it used to mean any more.
"Begging the question" is almost always used incorrectly, and most people don't even know the correct meaning. But enough people get annoyed by incorrect usage, that it is best to just avoid the phrase entirely in your own speaking or writing.
Use "raise the question" if that is what you mean.
Use "circular reasoning" if that is what you mean.
Or, if you really want to look pretentious, use "assuming the antecedent".
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-02-06 14:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

"Begging the question" is almost always used incorrectly...
Unlike, for instance, French (a "dead language spoken by millions"), which has a rule-making body with the force of law that can fine you (in some jurisdictions) for saying "hamburger" in an otherwise French sentence, American English is a living language.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say. It changes from time to time. This is one of those times and one of those changes.
It is also a Germanic language, not a Romance language.
It's similar to the prohibition on ending a sentence with a preposition (which is a rule from Latin which academics keep trying to impose on English speakers, though the grammatical form always was legitimate in English and other Germanic languages). "Begging the Question" began as a mistranslation of a Latin phrase (attributed to Aristotle) that was incorporated as a technical term (for a particular logical fallacy) into a specialized academic vocabulary. But the phrase has ALSO come to be used for other things (which actually match the string of words more closely).
Some academics claim their subculture's first use makes it the only "correct" meaning of the phrase. But like other words and phrases in English, the common usage defines the (set of) "correct" meaning(s).

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:"...which begs the question..." by tsotha · 2017-02-06 14:32 · Score: 1

Yeah, I agree. I avoid "begging the question" in my writing, along with similar phrases like "could care less".
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Orgasmatron · 2017-02-06 14:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

No matter how many people use literally to mean figuratively, no matter how many dictionaries take note of the inverse usage, it is still wrong, and anyone trying to avoid looking like a moron would be wise to steer clear of incorrect uses. Ditto "begging the question".

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:"...which begs the question..." by arth1 · 2017-02-06 15:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

.That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say. It changes from time to time. This is one of those times and one of those changes.
Yes, and it's also dumbing down the language to the level of the ignorant. And it causes confusion when the listener assumes original usage. I do not believe either a good thing.
Other examples of words and idioms often used to mean something different from the original:
- Literally. Factually. An antonym of figuratively, and not a synonym.
- Evacuate. A synonym for empty. You empty/evacuate buildings and areas of people; you seldom empty the people.
- Push the envelope: Stretch the limits, not pass the buck.
- Peruse: Going over something in detail, not skim over it lightly.
- Nauseous: Noxious. His socks were nauseous, and she became nauseated.
- Noisome. Related to nauseous; it means smelly, not noisy.
- Proscribe: Forbid, not recommend.
- Ultimate: Last, not greatest. Ultimate position is the opposite of pole position.
- Nonplussed: Dumbstruck and fazed, not unimpressed and unfazed. Only Americans seem to use this one contrary to original usage.
- Comprise: A synonym for contain and not consist. "Comprised of" is almost always wrong. USA comprises 50 states; it is not comprised of 50 states.
If there can be any doubt whether all your readers have switched over to the "new meaning", don't use it.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by AthanasiusKircher · 2017-02-06 15:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

No matter how many people use literally to mean figuratively, no matter how many dictionaries take note of the inverse usage, it is still wrong, and anyone trying to avoid looking like a moron would be wise to steer clear of incorrect uses. Ditto "begging the question".
While I absolutely agree with you that educated speakers/writers need to simply avoid "begging the question," I also absolutely disagree with you about your use of the word "wrong" here.
Language is about communication of meaning. It's not a "game" where you get to "win" if you check off enough of the "rules." I'm not sure there is ANY English speaker out there familiar with the phrase "begging the question" who is unfamiliar with its meaning to "raise the question," and generally it's clear from context if this is the meaning intended.
Meanwhile, I can guarantee you that outside of philosophical circles and wacko grammar pedants, NO ONE will understand you if you use "begging the question" to mean petitio principii.
Hence, 98% of people will understand the common meaning of the phrase "begging the question" to mean "raises the question," and of the remaining 2%, the 1% of philosophers won't much care which meaning you use. And the other 1% of wacko grammar pedants actually KNOW about the modern usage, so they'll understand it too, even if they mutter under their breath.
So, if we're looking at language as successful communication, using "begging the question" to mean "raising the question" has a near 100% success rate in communication, and a 1% failure rate among the lunatics who don't realize language isn't a weird game where you keep score. But if you use "begging the question" to mean petitio principii, you'll likely only communicate with 2% of your audience at best (and that's assuming an educated audience). Communication failure.
There are all sorts of reasons "begging the question" was doomed to failure as an English phrase from the start -- it was a bizarre and archaic attempt at a translation of the Latin phrase even when it was coined hundreds of years ago, and it was based on a poor Latin translation of the original Greek. The "modern" meaning of "raising the question" has been used in learned discourse and by good writers for well over a century -- in previous threads about this, I've posted an example of a debate in Parliament from the 1820s I think where the "new" meaning was already so well established that a representative could make a pun on the two meanings.
The battle has been lost. "Wrong" is meaningless here.
That said, I'll agree with you that "literally" is a different sort of beast, since it has much greater potential for confusion between the two meanings. That doesn't mean I would condemn the new meaning as illegitimate -- but I agree that there's a good reason to stick to the original meaning there. "Begging the question" is no longer even in the running. I avoid it everywhere not because of confusion (since EVERYONE knows what it means, i.e., what you declare to be "wrong"), but because of the tiny minority of self-righteous lunatics who can't understand that educated usage has already changed... about a century ago.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Imrik · 2017-02-06 17:30 · Score: 1

I prefer taking it as the original meaning no matter how absurd.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Orgasmatron · 2017-02-06 18:25 · Score: 2

I stand by my assessment. This usage is wrong.
Like it or not, right or wrong, people judge you by how you write and speak (and look). If you have good ideas and want them to be heard, the very last thing you should do is hinder that effort by allowing yourself to sound (or look) like an uneducated moron.

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:"...which begs the question..." by mrbester · 2017-02-06 19:12 · Score: 1

English is as much a Nordic and Romance language as it is a Germanic one. Meaning it is a mélange of all of them. Point to a word from Old through Middle English still in common use and I'll point to another from Latin and yet another from Sanskrit.

--
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Re:"...which begs the question..." by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-06 19:18 · Score: 1

You, and others, are attempting to equate the incorrect use of "begs the question" with "raises the question". In common use "that begs the question" usually is intended to mean "that fails to raise the question."

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:"...which begs the question..." by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-06 19:47 · Score: 1

Nauseous has 2 meanings, queasy and nauseating. For clarity's sake, use nauseating in preference to nauseous when appropriate.
Ultimate: final, farthest, extreme, fundamental, essential, beyond which there is no other. In the context of progress, ultimate may not only be greatest, but the greatest possible
Comprise: To consist of or take in; contain; include; embrace. [Funk & Wagnalls]. I'm still a bit confused on proper usage.
Thanks for peruse and nonplussed; you've enhanced my knowledge.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Hognoxious · 2017-02-06 21:09 · Score: 1

I've never heard it used that way. You're making shit up again.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Hognoxious · 2017-02-06 21:15 · Score: 1

That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say.

Does this apply to everything? Like if the bulk of people think the moon is made of cheese?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:"...which begs the question..." by TheConway · 2017-02-06 21:56 · Score: 2

begging the question, at least, HAS correct usages. 'could care less' as it is commonly used by Americans, and intended to mean 'I couldn't care any less than I do, because I don't care' means absolutely the opposite of what is intended.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Oligonicella · 2017-02-06 22:11 · Score: 1

You lost me at Sanskrit. Give me a couple words in Sanskrit still in common use.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by serviscope_minor · 2017-02-06 23:12 · Score: 1

English is as much a Nordic and Romance language as it is a Germanic one
In what context? We have very many Romance *words*. The grammar is very much more in the Germanic mould, no matter what a bunch of uptight, stuck up Victorians (and people who inxplicably hold them in very high regard) seem to believe.

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by meta-monkey · 2017-02-07 02:44 · Score: 1

It's not a "game" where you get to "win" if you check off enough of the "rules."
Well it is the way I do it.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by budgenator · 2017-02-07 03:27 · Score: 1

Other examples of words and idioms often used to mean something different from the original:
-
- Evacuate. A synonym for empty. You empty/evacuate buildings and areas of people; you seldom empty the people.
To evacuate the people, one would use a cathartic, a purgative, a laxative or an emetic; typically this is performed on individuals rather than large groups.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:"...which begs the question..." by DarkOx · 2017-02-07 04:44 · Score: 1

That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say.
I would say correctness requires both sending and correctly interpreting the message. If your use of English is such that your audience correctly understands the message with your original meaning and was not distracted by the character of the message itself, so as to drive its content from their minds, it is correct English.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:"...which begs the question..." by BundesSheep · 2017-02-07 05:11 · Score: 1

I've always assumed there is a sarcastic component to "could care less". Something along the lines of: "I suppose I could care less about this. I mean, if I think about it for long enough I should be able to devise some kind of scenario in which the amount that I care about this topic drops even further. But I can't seem to find the motivation to actually do it, though".
Re:"...which begs the question..." by MortimerGraves · 2017-02-07 07:42 · Score: 1

Wiki list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A few that stand out as having current use in English, that may differ from their original meanings, (and don't come via Latin, though may come via Hindi, Nepalese, etc.) are: Avatar, Gurkha, Guru, Karma, Loot, Mugger, Punch (the drink), Sulfur, Swastika, and Thug.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by mrsquid0 · 2017-02-07 10:30 · Score: 1

So do I, and I try to avoid using the newer meaning. However, languages evolve and getting upset about it is not going to change that.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:"...which begs the question..." by Freultwah · 2017-02-08 23:31 · Score: 1

Actually, I don't think you can, unless you want to seriously limit your vocabulary. English managed to shed a large proportion of its original vocabulary post-William, so it's mostly French and Latin now. Germanic vocabulary amounts to ~26 per cent, while both Latin and French words amount to 29% each. Have a blast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:So now under Trump... by danbuter · 2017-02-06 12:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is based on a law pushed through by Obama. Trump just gets to use it. i.e. Just because your guy is in, don't let him pass bad laws. The next guy might not agree with you.

What is the problem?.. by mi · 2017-02-06 12:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

A number of crimes (including violent ones) have been committed, which the relevant law-enforcement agency(ies) are duly investigating. They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:What is the problem?.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 13:08 · Score: 1

What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
The news is that Facebook rats you out. So don't use Facebook if you don't want its database wielded against you.
Re:What is the problem?.. by mi · 2017-02-06 13:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

The news is that Facebook rats you out.
Unlike in certain 2nd and 3rd-world countries, where police could (indeed, are) used by the powerful not to fight real crimes, but to suppress political opposition, this is rarely the case in the US in general, and certainly not the case in TFA.
Thus the negative connotations of the verb "rat" are misplaced.

So don't use Facebook if you don't want its database wielded against you.
Not just Facebook — if you are planning to burn a bystander's car, or smash a store-front, or throw a brick at someone, the very Earth should burn under your feet and the Internet too should reject you. Such folks are neither "brave" nor are they "heroes" — they are scumbags abusing the liberties this country affords political protesters.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:What is the problem?.. by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-06 13:37 · Score: 1

They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
They are using social media to connect these people to others. If you are "friends" with one of these people, you are likely okay. If you are connected to two or more, you are likely going onto a watchlist. I suggest getting a Trump/Pence bumper sticker just to be safe.
Re:What is the problem?.. by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-02-06 13:44 · Score: 1

What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
People are committing preplanned crimes while logged into Facebook. It's not newsworthy, but it is pretty outrageous.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Re:What is the problem?.. by RightwingNutjob · 2017-02-06 14:08 · Score: 2

Only news to idiots. Information wants to be free, as a wise sage once said...
Re:What is the problem?.. by geekmux · 2017-02-06 14:09 · Score: 1

A number of crimes (including violent ones) have been committed, which the relevant law-enforcement agency(ies) are duly investigating. They have detained some suspects and are collecting evidence. What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
Why hundreds of people were protesting isn't some kind of unsolved mystery that demands or even justifies law enforcement digging through the last decade of electronic personal data in order to "crack" the case. How would you feel after getting arrested for DUI if law enforcement searched through you entire house, your office, your vacation cabin, and your parents house, just because you happen to have a set of keys on you? If private data is irrelevant to the crime, then it's fucking irrelevant, and privacy should be protected.
Forget Facebook simply handing over information. The root of the issue is the bullshit justification that a search warrant of this kind was even authorized.
Re:What is the problem?.. by mi · 2017-02-06 14:24 · Score: 1

Why hundreds of people were protesting
Bzzz, wrong. Tens (perhaps even hundreds) of thousands were protesting. Two hundred were arrested.

How would you feel after getting arrested for DUI if law enforcement searched through you entire house
I'd feel crappy about DUI...

If private data is irrelevant to the crime
Ah, but it is relevant! For example, did these people start to riot spontaneously, or were some of them part of conspiracy? And, in the latter case, who else was part of the same conspiracy — even if they weren't arrested? This is, how organized crime-rings are broken up — and there is nothing wrong about it.
It is a perfectly valid and legitimate investigation, and to denounce it in any way you have to approve of the rioting in the first place...

then it's fucking irrelevant, and privacy should be protected.
Yep. And that's what the Fourth Amendment protects. If they wish to search my house after a DUI, they'll need to convince a judge of the high probability of their cause.
But police talking to Facebook is not a search. It is a normal investigation, where police may talk to your associates, friends, neighbors, landlord, etc.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:What is the problem?.. by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-02-06 14:33 · Score: 1

Why hundreds of people were protesting isn't some kind of unsolved mystery that demands or even justifies law enforcement digging through the last decade of electronic personal data in order to "crack" the case. ... The root of the issue is the bullshit justification that a search warrant of this kind was even authorized.
What's that got to do with finding evidence for intent and/or conspiracy? Both are legitimate pieces of evidence to search for, in a place that is legitimate to search with a warrant, and such warrants may be properly granted if probable cause exists.
A group of identically masked "protesters" working together to commit felony assault and arson is just about the definition of "probable cause" for suspecting conspiracy and intent, and legitimately searching for evidence to nail the conviction.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:What is the problem?.. by Orgasmatron · 2017-02-06 14:41 · Score: 1

On the other hand, Soros doesn't fund organizations that organize and encourage people to drink and drive, so your DUI isn't feeding a RICO case.

--
See that "Preview" button?
Re:What is the problem?.. by h33t+l4x0r · 2017-02-06 15:22 · Score: 1

Not too long ago Apple defied an order to unlock a known terrorists' phone. Today, Facebook is rolling over on ordinary protesters. Times are changing.
Re:What is the problem?.. by arth1 · 2017-02-06 15:26 · Score: 1

Unlike in certain 2nd and 3rd-world countries, where police could (indeed, are) used by the powerful not to fight real crimes, but to suppress political opposition, this is rarely the case in the US in general, and certainly not the case in TFA.

Ah, but I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards than that, and compare our law enforcement to first world countries.
Re:What is the problem?.. by mi · 2017-02-06 16:58 · Score: 1

Not too long ago Apple defied an order to unlock a known terrorists' phone.
A disgusting stand...

Today, Facebook is rolling over on ordinary protesters.
False. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary protesters did not riot. A tiny minority did, of whom an even tinier minority got arrested and are being investigated — for the rioting. Again, they aren't being investigated for being protesters — ordinary or otherwise — they are accused (credibly) of rioting. So, you posted an untruth, which you knew to be untruth — that is, you lied. Why did you lie, boy?

Times are changing.
For the better!

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Re:What is the problem?.. by RightwingNutjob · 2017-02-06 17:22 · Score: 1

Why thank you, oh Illustrious Ghost of Edsgar Dijkstra! You have picked your nit so eloquently that I now see the error of my ways! What a fool I was to leave the cold comfort of clinical exactitude and venture into the wilderness of metaphor and pith!
Re:What is the problem?.. by franzrogar · 2017-02-06 20:28 · Score: 1

You ask: " What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?"
I will try to answer it if this was 1980 (the year): "You were in a manifestation, you were arrested and the police enter into your house, take all of your diaries, your bank account information, your telephone call registry, your photobooks (those when you were a child too), your clothes (to check if there are anything in there), your trashbin, the documents you might have from your work, the information about your work companions, your driving license, your car keys, your car documents, they rip apart your childhood toys in case there's something hidden inside, they interrogate your family, friends, neighbors, boss, about everything you might have done, think, written, ask; they add you to a list of suspects, they interrogate you.... AND all of this just because YOU MIGHT BE one that destroyed a shop glass, or a car, etc."
Did you got the "you might be" part? Did you notice that you have lost your privacy forever (all persons that were asked about you will never trust you again)? Did you got you'll be marked as criminal forever because of a "you might be"?
When your government shits in the Human Rights, you're nothing more than a shit. If you let them, you're worst.
Re:What is the problem?.. by jareth-0205 · 2017-02-06 23:04 · Score: 1

What's so outrageous or even particularly newsworthy about this?
The news is that Facebook rats you out. So don't use Facebook if you don't want its database wielded against you.
Before you get too smug, think how far this can go - your phone, without Facebook, collects your location constantly, should that be available to any policeman that wants to look? What about all your email history? All the calls you've made? We've already placed limits on what's reasonable to be used by law enforcement, Facebook is just another thing that we will have to make decisions about because it's *not just Facebook*, it's every piece of technology that you interact with that stores personal information.
Re:What is the problem?.. by Raenex · 2017-02-06 23:18 · Score: 1

These are organized gangs that went to the inauguration with the intent to commit violence. They deserve to be investigated as such.
Re:What is the problem?.. by coofercat · 2017-02-07 00:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

If I may... the news here is that committing a crime and being arrested for it (might) mean law enforcement get to see every last thing you've ever posted to the Internet, even if you thought those posts were vaguely private and beyond the reach of the likes of a google search. Many of us already knew this, but the point is being made clearly and explicitly here.
I can understand the dislike of the criminals in protests, but I'm amazed at the partisan vitriol in most of the modded up comments. It seems that if you're a /.er, you must have huge disdain for criminals who attended a protest against a very controversial (and currently unpopular) president. In order to show how much you dislike said criminals, you must entirely support law enforcement, no matter how invasive they are. You're allowed to voice your dislike of law enforcement's methods and the general loss of privacy the modern age brings in other threads, but not this one.
"Throwing the book at the criminals" seems reasonable enough, but let's leave all their friends, relatives and random acquaintances that they've ever had out if it, eh?
Re:What is the problem?.. by vel-ex-tech · 2017-02-07 05:37 · Score: 1

I assume that all the proper warrants were obtained then.
All though, in order to assume that, I'd have to assume that TwitFace wouldn't just hand the information over.
Re:What is the problem?.. by phorm · 2017-02-07 06:19 · Score: 1

Indeed. If you arrested for looting etc, and your facebook says "I'm gonna burn some shit and grab me a new TV", then IMHO you deserve what you get (with proper warrants, of course).
Re:What is the problem?.. by TheRaven64 · 2017-02-07 08:55 · Score: 1

There were quite a few arrests after the London riots a few years ago because idiot rioters decided to take photographs of themselves committing crimes and post them online. While I'd love for there to be some 'don't use Facebook' moral to this story, in reality the moral is that if you're going to commit crimes it's a really bad idea to post evidence of your guilt in a public forum.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:What is the problem?.. by TheRaven64 · 2017-02-07 09:00 · Score: 1

Not too long ago Apple defied an order to unlock a known terrorists' phone
No they didn't. They cooperated with this request, but the law enforcement operatives failed to follow the instructions and locked it further. They refused a request for a blanket mechanism to unlock all iPhones.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News

Re:So now under Trump... by zlives · 2017-02-06 12:59 · Score: 1

also why would this even matter... its public data...

If if was a fifth by wbr1 · 2017-02-06 13:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

If these were legitimately violent protesters being arrested..for violence..then by all means search. If this was random jo standing and shouting without violence, then no. Context is important here and TFS and the first linked TFA are not clear on if all who were arrested were violent, nor who had devices/accounts searched.

Part of the reason of that is the opacity with which government treats these things. That makes it hard as hell to be an informed populace and fight overreach. It is also something Obama promised and never delivered, he in fact often did the opposite. This is not a partisan statement, as I have nothing but disdain for or current administration and tend to lean pretty damn liberal. I mention it as a point of fact that few, if any of those in power have your or my interest at heart, regardless of the populist messages they spew.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:If if was a fifth by tsotha · 2017-02-06 13:17 · Score: 1

So far there's no indication peaceful protestors are being charged with anything. What would the government charge them with?
Re:If if was a fifth by geekmux · 2017-02-06 14:28 · Score: 1

If these were legitimately violent protesters being arrested..for violence..then by all means search.
Wrong.
You should be authorized to search data if and only if it is deemed relevant to the crime. Why people were protesting isn't some kind of fucking mystery to solve, so spare me the lame excuses of justifying a search warrant to dissect the last decade of personal data for someone who was pissed about who got sworn in two weeks ago.
If you got arrested for DUI (cause and effect is rather obvious), the police don't have an automatic right to search your house, your office, your garage, and your vacation home just because you happen to have a set of keys on you when you got arrested, and yet this is exactly the kind of searching you're justifying "by all means".
I find this kind of "overreach" (a.k.a. illegal) activity very harmful to society in general. Law enforcement dismissing or sidestepping the law doesn't exactly shine a guiding light down the straight and narrow path for the rest of society to follow.
Re:If if was a fifth by Rick+Schumann · 2017-02-06 14:53 · Score: 1

At this point in time, until proven otherwise, I wouldn't put it past this Administration to harass protestors, peaceful or otherwise, just because they exist.
Re:If if was a fifth by Entrope · 2017-02-06 15:31 · Score: 1

The legal standard to get a search warrant is called probable cause. In particular, the officer requesting the search warrant must demonstrate (to the judge or magistrate who signs the warrant) that facts and circumstances known to the officer give a reasonable person a basis to believe that a crime was committed there or that evidence of a crime exists at the location.
In this case, the police probably made the (no-brainer) argument that mobs of Black Bloc rioters do not spontaneously condense out of the air. They had to organize somewhere, their organizational efforts probably constituted conspiracy to break the law, and their phones and Facebook accounts almost certainly have evidence of that conspiracy.
If you want to change that legal standard, you'll have to make a more convincing argument that essentially whining and calling it overreach while demonstrating a lack of understanding of what the law actually says.
Re:If if was a fifth by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 17:12 · Score: 1

The problem is, it seems highly likely by comments on 4chan and advertisements (https://www.google.com/webhp?q=%22get+paid+fighting+against+trump%22+site:backpage.com) that someone is bank-rolling this. These aren't "protests", someone is paying these people money to incite riots, commit violence, and destroy property.
Given the similar tactics across the US, this is a coordinated effort. Hopefully that's what these LEO's are investigating.
Re:If if was a fifth by Opportunist · 2017-02-06 18:17 · Score: 1

Depends on what they find in those Facebook postings. Want to bet that I could easily find something to make your life very interesting and busy for the foreseeable future given your social media contents?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:If if was a fifth by budgenator · 2017-02-07 06:57 · Score: 1

So far there's no indication peaceful protestors are being charged with anything. What would the government charge them with?
I'm sure there are, it's just the nature of the beast. The paid, professional agent provocateurs, consider getting otherwise peaceful protesters arrested or to incited to violence a priority. At Kent State they got people killed. It's good exposure for "the cause" TV eats that shit up.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:If if was a fifth by budgenator · 2017-02-07 07:00 · Score: 1

You might have a problem convincing a Judge that a social media posting has an expectation of privacy, just saying.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Stop by sexconker · 2017-02-06 13:05 · Score: 2

Stop using "begs the question" incorrectly, you clowns.

Further:

According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es).

What's the problem, exactly? One arrested individual is making this claim. Facebook says they do so with a court order, subpoena, or actual warrant. You need an actual warrant to get most info.

Now if you had evidence that Facebook was turning over tons of data on anyone who was simply at the protests without a warrant/subpoena/order, then we'd have a story.

Re:Stop by geekmux · 2017-02-06 14:35 · Score: 1

Stop using "begs the question" incorrectly, you clowns.
Further:

According to Facebook's legal guidelines, a search warrant, for example, could allow Facebook to give away content data including "messages, photos, videos, timeline posts, and location information." A subpoena or a court order would give authorities less information, but would still include the individual's "name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es).
What's the problem, exactly? One arrested individual is making this claim. Facebook says they do so with a court order, subpoena, or actual warrant. You need an actual warrant to get most info.
The issue is not Facebook responding to a search warrant, because you don't just need a warrant. You need an valid fucking reason to justify one, and I'm not seeing how rioting one night somehow justifies digging through the last decade of someone's online personal life.
THAT is the "problem" here. And before you argue this, imagine this kind of bullshit overreach if you were arrested for shoplifting with a set of house keys on you. Think that automatically gives law enforcement the right to search your entire house? I think not. Search warrants need to be constrained by relevance.
Re:Stop by sexconker · 2017-02-06 17:11 · Score: 2

You don't see how violent rioting in response to an election is cause for the government to look into someone's background?
Somehow, I bet you support mandatory background checks for buying firearms even for people with no history of violence or crime.
Re:Stop by usuallylost · 2017-02-07 00:59 · Score: 1

Their communications are directly relevant to the investigation of what they are being accused of. When you commit a crime there is the actual act for which you'll be charged. Then there is often the separate charge of conspiracy to commit that act. Law enforcement is going through their communications to see if there was a conspiracy to riot.
Basically if you just showed up, planning to be peaceful, and got pissed off and spontaneously started throwing rocks in a fit of rage that is often a less serious charge than if you and your friends plotted before hand to show up and start throwing rocks. At this point accessing their communications is directly relevant to the investigation and will very likely be a determining factor in how they are charged.
Re:Stop by geekmux · 2017-02-07 03:02 · Score: 1

You don't see how violent rioting in response to an election is cause for the government to look into someone's background?
Certainly. That said, you don't see how this is a perfect avenue that is ripe for abuse with no one in the legal chain exercising reasonable constraint when requesting that background information?
Somehow, I bet you there's no constraint being exercised with respect to reasonable legal limits here, as the "potential terrorist" FBI file grows thick, regardless of citizenship status.
How ironic these same people are angered over how foreigners are being treated by the government.
Re:Stop by budgenator · 2017-02-07 07:19 · Score: 1

Depends on what crime they are investigating, if they're investigating a conspiracy to incite riot, the search warrants tend to be broader.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:Good. If it wears a mask, kill it by DogDude · 2017-02-06 13:11 · Score: 2

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/M0KMM9W... Those are some strong words, AC.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re:So now under Trump... by ScentCone · 2017-02-06 13:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

So now under Trump... protesting is illegal.

Hey look! Fake News from the Snowflake News Network.

Please explain, specifically, how you come to this conclusion. Or are you in the "arson is just protest" school of thought? You are? Great. Thanks for demonstrating (so to speak) exactly why liberals have been losing state legislative seats and governorships for the last six years, along with both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Please continue with your way of thinking in advance of the next legislative elections, so this trend can continue.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

Re:So now under Trump... by HornWumpus · 2017-02-06 13:23 · Score: 2

Until they start, they are _all_ asshole fascists.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:So now under Trump... by prisoner-of-enigma · 2017-02-06 13:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

Funny how, if we're all a bunch of racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, xenophobic, neo-nazi, fascist, greedy, evil, violent, intolerant bastards like you say we are, we didn't riot, burn shit, threaten to blow up the White House, dress up like vaginas, scream, whine, cry, bitch, moan, and boycott everything when Obama was elected (twice!). I mean, it's not like we AGREED with Obama's policies in the slightest, certainly no more so than you agree with Trump. Yet somehow the only time you see this behavior is when liberals lose. Conservatives...not so much.

It reminds me of the argument that gun owners are some sort of threat to the general public. We've got more than 300 million guns and several trillion rounds of ammunition. Trust us, if we were a threat, you'd know it by now.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Re:So now under Trump... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-02-06 13:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

just because people object to Trump using overreaching laws, doesn't mean that they supported Obama - or more particularly Obama's signing of the enabling law. And even if they did, changing your mind about the proper scope of presidental powers as you see them used, or on any other political issue, being met with derision, "told you so" or "our turn now that we won, ha ha" is the opposite of helpful. It's just being an ass Also, the way you wrote that implies you are okay with Trump using this law, so you may want to be aware of that.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

Re:Beg the question by hackwrench · 2017-02-06 13:45 · Score: 1

I'm not seeing a post that said beg the question. Is there some feature of Slashdot I am unaware of that is hiding it?

Re:So now under Trump... by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2017-02-06 13:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

Well, actually it can be a "protesting" tactic.

But being an "act of protest" doesn't make it any less a violent criminal act, or any less subject to prosecution and criminal sanctions.

It also doesn't make planning to do it in a group any less a felonious conspiracy.

= = = =

I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Re:Oh, it's in the summary by hackwrench · 2017-02-06 13:52 · Score: 1

You picked a strange place to raise the issue of using "beg the question", AC.

Re:So now under Trump... by Obfuscant · 2017-02-06 13:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Protesters should just arrest Black Bloc assholes.

"You're a protester, you're under arrest!"

"I'm a vigilante, I'm arresting YOU."

"I protest you arresting me. Therefore I am a vigilante, too."

I don't see it by hackwrench · 2017-02-06 13:59 · Score: 1

I don't see how his statement minimizes the damage. To me it was a statement of how if someone official wanted to attack the right to protest a much bigger roundup would have been made.

Re:So now under Trump... by Gravis+Zero · 2017-02-06 14:05 · Score: 2

Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

Actually, it depends on if the targets of destruction are incidental or purposefully selected. If they are incidental then it's a riot. However, if there is a reason behind their choice of targets, it's a violent protest.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:Does BeauHD mean Beau - Head Damage? by ArchieBunker · 2017-02-06 14:07 · Score: 1

How does your neck feel from holding up such a huge fedora? You must be a real blast when people are having a light conversation until someone makes a grammatical error and you start foaming at the mouth.

--
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard

Re:So now under Trump... by kelemvor4 · 2017-02-06 14:10 · Score: 5, Informative

protesting is illegal.

No, but rioting is. You know - burning cars, hurting people, damaging property. Just like it was under Obama and every other president we've had. Protesting and rioting are not the same thing, obviously.

Protest Definition != Riot Definition

This is good news by anthony_greer · 2017-02-06 14:17 · Score: 3, Informative

If every single marketing drone in corporate America with the right subscription can mine all this data to sell us useless plastic trinkets that we don't need, then why not let the police mine it to solve crimes that were committed during a large public gathering?

No one is saying they are going after the innocent granny holding a "i would have rather had Hillary" placard but if she happened to share a photo of some anarchists destroying property that can help the police identify them, then hell yes the police should be searching it so long as they had probable cause and got a warrant.

Re:This is good news by Is+Don+the+new+Ron · 2017-02-06 18:33 · Score: 2

My chief concern here is if the rioters were really arrested based on what they uploaded to social media. No, I don't mean the privacy or police state angles, but the very idea that rioting has somehow become socially acceptable, something to show off to friends, like a trophy or new-born baby. I hope it's something more sophisticated than that, because this could very well evolve into something more ominous, when real life death and destruction become mainstream entertainment, a modern day sacking of Rome, with the invaders taking selfies while butchering, pillaging and doing their other evil deeds.

--
Deja vu: In the 80s we had a 70ish actor as POTUS, a woman PM in the UK, and a bald leader of that other nuke superpower

Been tracked online is not news by AHuxley · 2017-02-06 14:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you are protesting and have your phone on you with a social media app working..
Expect all that networking to be collected by some agency and later passed to law enforcement.
A US social media brand offering services in the USA has to respond when asked by courts in the USA.
If you want to protest having a device that broadcasts unique data about yourself is not going to go unnoticed by a long list of agencies given the day and event.
Know that all and any public comments on social media are been tracked. Friends of friends joining or showing support for local events and will be connected back by 2 or 3 hops of friends.
In the USA you have freedom of speech, freedom after speech. People can peaceably to assemble and petition the Government.
The protection of been compelled to be a witness is well understood. Any device found may not always enjoy the classic unreasonable searches and seizures protection.
Older cell phone would have unique International Mobile Equipment Identity as part of the device and would often be opened and noted by police as part of a battery protection offer. The request to avoid battery leakage would then allow that IMEI number to be matched over vast US wide call logs.
Modern devices might just work when police turn them on and show apps used.
Any account mentioned or found on the "net" to be public facing can be found or a court request made for more information.
Given the long history of tracking protests online in other nations e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... "1986, French university students coordinated a national strike using Minitel, demonstrating an early use of digital communication devices for participatory technopolitical ends" expect the same tracking in 2016/17 globally. Police around the world have been tracking people online for decades. Once something is public on line, expect all connections to that account to be tracked back for many hops.

--
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"

Re:Been tracked online is not news by meta-monkey · 2017-02-07 02:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

I agree with everything you said. But understand in this case we're talking about warrants issued for people who were arrested for rioting, not protesting. There were hundreds of thousands or even millions if you count the nationwide pussy march thing who peaceful protested, chanted, waved signs, etc. There were about 200 rioters who assaulted people, smashed property, torched cars, beat the hell out of a trash bin (???). These are crimes, and you don't have a right to do these things. And since it seems these people were identically dressed and coordinated their actions. An investigation into organized violence is completely reasonable.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:So now under Trump... by ShanghaiBill · 2017-02-06 14:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

It could also be the false flag operation. Police used fake protestors at Vietnam War protests to provoke violence and discredit the real protestors. I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support. When Trumpsters see these people rioting, looting, and waving Mexican flags, they feel their intolerance and xenophobia is even more justified.

Re: Beg the question by mmell · 2017-02-06 14:58 · Score: 1

Yes, it's called "alt-Slashdot, I don't think it's fake news for White Nationalists, stuff you can cite when truth and logic fail you".

Re:So now under Trump... by prisoner-of-enigma · 2017-02-06 15:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't know if Trump supporters are smart enough to do the same, but these rioters are certainly discrediting the cause they nominally claim to support.

Funny, I saw the protesters as doing exactly what they said they'd do all along: act like a bunch of spoiled babies who didn't get their way and are now throwing a tantrum. They don't rationalize. They don't listen. They don't engage cognitive thinking skills. They distill it down to "you don't agree with me, therefore you are a hateful, mean, stupid, intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Hitler lover and I'm completely justified in doing whatever my emotions lead me to do and you can't criticize me because criticism is racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc."

It's the logical endpoint of the "there is no truth and right/wrong is an illusion" ideology.

--
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky

This is my surprised face by drinkypoo · 2017-02-06 15:09 · Score: 2

It's not right, but you still have to expect this crap.

That's why the masks are a good idea.

You can do face paint instead, with patterns designed to fool face recognition systems, and that's less suspicious-looking than a mask — if only slightly. But it's a hell of a lot harder to take off, and go back to looking normal.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:This is my surprised face by meta-monkey · 2017-02-07 03:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's why the masks are a good idea.
They wore masks for the rioting. This is an investigation into the few hundred people who were arrested for assault, vandalism, destruction of property, etc. Nothing to do with the hundreds of thousands or millions of people who peacefully waved signs, marched and chanted.

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Re:This is my surprised face by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:31 · Score: 1

IF you think masks and face paint deter modern facial recognition, you are sadly mistaken. Thanks to the close work of Facebook and the NSA, they are nearing 80% success with bone structure, just the eyes, head sizes etc. And I am fairly sure that most of these idiots wearing masks post their dumbasses on facebook all the time. Hell they probably have pictures of them putting on those masks that very day in their accounts. That crap might have worked 20 years ago, but that ship has sailed. Given that they probably have the pings of every cellphone that registered to the nearest tower, I'd say that took them from 80% to probably 100%. Think they were smart enough to leave their phones at home? I seriously doubt it.

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:10 · Score: 1

you don't agree with me, therefore you are a hateful, mean, stupid, intolerant, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic Hitler lover

You forgot transphobic and misogynistic .

Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by Xenographic · 2017-02-06 15:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have yet to see any actual evidence of that, unless you count pure conjecture by The Young Turks & co.

Meanwhile, I have seen a fair bit of evidence that someone employed by Berkley appears to have admitting to assaulting someone who was unconscious on Twitter, complete with pics of the guy. I suppose that person could've taken a picture of an unconscious person and claimed to have punched them for fun on Twitter without actually doing it, but that sounds even dumber.

Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by Xenographic · 2017-02-06 20:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Your assertion is at the two year old level: no facts, no logic, just babbling.
Normally the person asserting a claim is supposed to provide the proof. I note that you provided no evidence of a "false flag" and instead pointed out that there are tons of people who hate Trump, lending credence to the idea that some minority thereof might be angry enough to injure someone they believe supports him. You neatly fashion that into some kind of strawman, making claims I did not.
As for the other part about the Berkley employee, I'm perfectly capable of linking it and it's easy to find by searching, but I'll just hold off on naming names until I see a proper police report.
That said, you remember that plot to attack the Deploreaball that PV exposed that certain people were claiming was some kind of sting operation? There have been actual arrests as a result of that one. If you go back to the actual video, they were planning to put butyric acid in the ventilation systems as well, something NBC did not mention.
Or did you mean the part about the Young Turks (the original ones) throwing the Armenians out of their homes and leaving them to die? Pretty much only Turkey still denies that, for political reasons. Definitely not a group I'd want to name myself after.
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by Oligonicella · 2017-02-06 21:50 · Score: 2

He's been in less then a month and he has alienated a significant percentage of the voting public.
Bullshit. What he's done as Pres has nothing to do with it. They came in feeling and screaming their alienation from the moment he was selected nominee and haven't abated since. If he had instead done other things these last two weeks, they would have *still* felt alienated.
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by DNS-and-BIND · 2017-02-06 21:56 · Score: 1

THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM-BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)
Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State.

Now of all the players in American politics today, which group does this best describe?
Shutting peoples opinions down is not fighting fascism. It *is* fascism!

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:04 · Score: 1

And Hillary wouldn't? At least Trump is obvious in what he does. The Hillary Administration would have been far worse in the long run, be it trade deals which help the remaining jobs move overseas (and add more IP restrictions, DMCA style which would add a great barrier for entry for new businesses, and allow established businesses the ability to shut down new entrants to markets), the lack of interest in the rural part of the US, (obvious by the speech about shutting down coal mines when that was the -only- employer in many a town), and the continual beating of the gun control drum. The worst part was the focus on CA's shoreline cities and NYC, with no thought given to the rest of the US between the two.
Even the meth-heads don't like Trump, but they did vote for him. Why? Hillary would be more of the same -- any remnants of their way of life under attack, continual attacks by the left (you never saw Trump's campaign calling wide swaths of the US's electorate names), and greater economic woes. Remember, for most of the US, the economy has not changed since 2008. It only has been bigger cities that have seen job growth. Trump is a wildcard, but he is the only ghost of a chance of someone paying attention to a lot of the US that isn't in the highest populated areas. If one was called a deplorable in a flyover state repeatedly, they really wouldn't want to vote for that politician.
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by DarkOx · 2017-02-07 01:09 · Score: 2

I am not making any apology for the left or the protesters. Don't read this that way. I think they are viscous mob opposed to the values that built this nation and make it the greatest on earth.
You have to understand their mindset though, they don't care about opinions and thinking. I and likely you see individualism as being about to explore your own ideas, do you own thing to the extent it allows you to earn a living and lawfully procure the food and shelter you require. You and I probably don't care or seek to control where or in whom they stick their genitals (provided the other party consents), we don't care what clothes they wear etc. We do care that we are permitted to form our own opinion of them.
If someone looks like a girl I am going to use the pronouns and language I am familiar with to talk about them, that is my freedom. To demand otherwise is to oppress me. I might think they are crazy person, I am entitled to that opinion and I should be entitled to act on that opinion when it comes to doing something like deciding to employ them.
They see that as antiindividualistic, in their warped view, you and I must validate and enable their choices or they are being oppressed. This is obviously madness, and if society is allowed to go down the road were everyone is their own little god entitled to a reality all their own, actual reality is certain to come crashing down upon us sooner or later. They don't get that though because their entire lives have been selfish, this is a generation of people who grew up without values. They only know if they scream loud enough they get what they want. It always worked before, so now that they are not getting their way they only know to try an scream louder.
It won't end well for them. The question is are we going to allow them to make it not end well for us too, or are we going to "Make America Great Again" and put a stop to it.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

I and a lot of other people are really pissed.

"However," replied the universe, ""The fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

At least one pole says that 40% of the voting public [thehill.com] thinks Trump should be impeached.
On what grounds? As far as I'm aware, there is no constitutional provision which allows for "impeaching the president because I don't like how he behaves on twitter."
In other words - until and unless you can cite a valid legal standing for impeaching him, a poll of this nature is simply boils down to, "Do you like Donald Trump? Check Yes or No!" It's a fucking popularity contest, and it's absolutely NO surprise that 40% of the voting public are stating they don't like him and would rather see somebody (anybody) else in office. Of course, if you impeach a sitting president, you don't get to usher Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton in on a cloud of ecstatic sighs and a fanfare of "but they won the popular vote." You don't even get to hold a new election, as if it's a do-over. What you get, if Donald Trump is removed from office, is President Mike Pence. So be careful what you wish for, as some of his policies are probably a lot more objectionable than the Donald's.

This goes way beyond the kind of disapproval that happens during any president's term.
For historical perspective - Harry Truman's lowest approval rating during his term was 22%. Nixon? 24%. Bush II? 25%. Carter? 28%. Bush I? 29%. Reagan? 35%. Johnson? 35%. Clinton? 36%. Ford? 37%. Obama? 37%. Trump? 42%. Eisenhower? 48%. FDR? 48%. Kennedy? 56%. (source)
While it's very early in Trump's presidency, MANY recent presidents - including those who you no doubt admire and think were absolutely phenomenal presidents - have had MUCH lower approval ratings than 42% at some point in their term. Your arguments are meaningless bluster fueled by Facebook echo bubbles, self-congratulatory SNL satire, and self-righteous masturbatory navel-gazing on the part of a bunch of children who have NO concept of the scope of history, and for whom "today is always the worst thing possible, because clearly NOBODY has had it as bad as we have. We've inherited a society that is wealthy, powerful, and incredibly advanced, and all we can do is bitch about how nobody is handing out free iPhones."
Disclaimer: I did not vote for Trump. I did not support Trump. I think he's going to be a pretty awful president, and I will spend a lot of energy trying to block his policies in the next four years, and I'm hopeful that he'll be voted out in 4 years' time. But I am sick and tired of children with no historical perspective telling us how this is the worst possible society and that Trump is basically the arrival of the Antichrist, signalling the end times. He's a rich, petty man who has found his way into high office - much like many other rich, petty men who have done so. He will not destroy the world, he will not destroy America, and he will not end civilization as you know it.
In the meantime, you should think about spending some of that energy on the following:
1) Understanding the *legitimate complaints* of Trump supporters, and thinking of ways you can improve America for them too;
2) Engage in actual political activism, rather than just smugly congratulating yourself for another snarky Facebook repost of HuffPo or Common Dreams;
3) Study history, and understand that for all his faults, Trump will likely be viewed historically as a "marginally bad to mediocre" president;
In short - shut the fuck up. Your incessant whining is obnoxious, annoying, and ridiculous.
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by Merk42 · 2017-02-07 04:10 · Score: 1

They felt alienated because as a nominee he said he'd do things that they didn't agree with (e.g. The Wall, Repeal ACA).
So now that he has a chance to do these things, and in some cases is already doing them, they still feel alienated.
Re:Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow? by Merk42 · 2017-02-07 04:43 · Score: 1

2) Engage in actual political activism, rather than just smugly congratulating yourself for another snarky Facebook repost of HuffPo or Common Dreams;
What would this entail?

Investigative Tactics by fisternipply · 2017-02-06 15:27 · Score: 2

I continue to be outraged at how MPD treats protesters. The phrase "no comment on investigative tactics" says a lot: Our government is using "tactics" against citizens. This is all leading somewhere tragic and dark.

Re:Investigative Tactics by wyHunter · 2017-02-07 05:20 · Score: 1

Funny, you didn't object when a Democrat was in the white house - as some of us right wingers do when EITHER party is in because...they are both evil.
Re:Investigative Tactics by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:34 · Score: 1

nope, they even had commercials that said shit like 'key phrases like small government is code for racism and sexism' So they're all for big government 'oversight' and now they are surprised at what they got.
Any government big enough to give you anything you want is big enough to take away everything you have. Gerald Ford could not have said it better.
Re:Investigative Tactics by wyHunter · 2017-02-09 09:22 · Score: 1

Gerald Ford did say it :) It isn't clear to me how small government is a code for racism and sexism, but I know the idiots do say that. Just like the idiots who say '88' is a code for neo-nazism when in reality it was Earnhardt, the nascar driver, car number. I won't say that folks aren't racist and sexist - but I see this pretty equally amongst right and left wingers.

Re:So now under Trump... by PopeRatzo · 2017-02-06 15:32 · Score: 1

Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

Sure it is.

http://www.pbs.org/ktca/libert...

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:44 · Score: 1

But because someone or a few dozen or hundred do such things does that warrant all protesters get doxxed by .gov and that's legal jurisprudence? Think hard, Trumpy.

Re: So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 15:51 · Score: 1

I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.

Oh, they're raising that flag now. Too bad for them that it just opens up accusations against the groups that funded the so-called Tea-Party movement.

I'm sure they can fabricate some evidence, but really, what's the point? A more likely explanation would be that somebody opposed to the protesters arranged for disruptive provacteurs to be involved.

COINTELPRO is real.

Re:Does BeauHD mean Beau - Head Damage? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-06 16:05 · Score: 1

Here I'm just wondering why you decided to bring that phrase into this. You're the first one to bring it up.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-06 16:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think pointing out that their silence helped lead to this can be helpful, as long as it's not done in a "haha, told you so" manner. If the partisanship isn't pointed out, people go back to ignoring it when their person is in power again.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Re: So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 16:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thanks for demonstrating (so to speak) exactly why liberals have been losing state legislative seats and governorships for the last six years, along with both houses of congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. Please continue with your way of thinking in advance of the next legislative elections, so this trend can continue.

Gerrymandering, electorate manipulation through mechanisms such as Voter ID, DMV closures, and polling site elimination, along with lying to the public and refusing to do their sworn duty out of a partisan lie they can't even openly take responsibility for, but have to blame on others? That's right, not only could they not muster up the courage to reject Merrick Garland, however transparently, they couldn't even take responsibility for it.

There's a reason why the new elections were ordered in North Carolina,(which thanks to their stubbornness on the bathroom bill will likely cost the state even more) reforms in districts in Wisconsin, Florida, Alabama, and Virginia, (all drawn by what party? Hmm.), why the Republicans in Arizona lost their attempt to defy the will of the voters(who are supreme over the legislature), and why Trump lost the popular vote(his landslide claims a lie as obviously false as his fraud claims), only winning because the electoral college lets a candidate several million votes behind do so.

Yeah, and Mitch McConnell can't even afford to let Trump spend the money investigating the problem because just like the birtherism, he doesn't want an answer. It would burst all the tiny Republican hearts to know they truly lost even despite their cheating.

But yeah, let the right-wing continue their behavior. A few more hamfistedly handled executive orders like the immigration one, and even the most naive fool will realize what kind of incompetence is sitting in the Oval Office.

All the illusions of grandeur will wash away. The only question is if Trump will have the grace to resign, if they'll manufacture some medical issue, or if the CIA will take care of it. He's not savvy enough to just shut up and follow the script like Reagan. Sorry, but he is that kind of buffoon.

So thank you, keep doing that, and maybe convince yourself to support an oppressive dictatorship because of all the "civil unrest" that needs law and order to crack down on it. Wannabe authoritarians like you are so obvious.

I'm still laughing over the alternative facts. You are a funny bunch. The jokes write themselves.

Grand Moff Trumpkin will lead you to your defeat.

Not all are guilty by SeattleLawGuy · 2017-02-06 16:33 · Score: 1

Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

Agreed. But not all of the people who were arrested were doing those things. Some got arrested for things like turning the corner at the wrong time and finding a riot in front of them. You would need more information about the particular facts in the case to know whether the law enforcement request made sense. Most do; some don't. If they try to charge the person with a crime or if the person decides to sue them, then the person gets to find out more and challenge it in court. That's not perfect, but it's still a much better system than many countries in the world have.

Worry about the data that doesn't get reported, not the data that does.

--
Real lawyers write in C++

Beg The Question - Metapost by SeattleLawGuy · 2017-02-06 16:39 · Score: 2

"Beg the Question" has one colloquial meaning that is wrong but 80-90% of people believe is correct and one actual meaning that is right but that 90-95% of people don't understand. As a practical result, you should never use "beg the question" in a sentence, except perhaps with a particularly intellectual friend.

Instead, use "raises the question" (the colloquial meaning) or "contains circular reasoning" (the actual meaning).

Posted without Karma bonus due to metapost.

--
Real lawyers write in C++

Re: So now under Trump... by Imrik · 2017-02-06 17:23 · Score: 1

They didn't undermine the democratic process to get Trump elected. They undermined it to weaken the position of whoever was elected. Since Trump was elected, his position is weakened by the apparent support of Russia. If Hillary had been elected her position would have been weakened by the information released.

Re:So now under Trump... by Opportunist · 2017-02-06 17:54 · Score: 1

Oh, be careful there, you could get arrested for attacking police officers...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:So now under Trump... by Opportunist · 2017-02-06 17:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

It makes sense when you have the "problem" in civilized countries that you cannot forcefully end a peaceful protest without looking like the bad guy. Or maybe you can't do it at all because people actually have a right to assemble and protest peacefully.

But if all you need is some to start rioting to get rid of the problem...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re: So now under Trump... by Opportunist · 2017-02-06 18:04 · Score: 1

Hey, racism is on the decline, ain't that great? I mean, think about it, of the last three presidents, only the black one has never been compared to some sort of monkey.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re: So now under Trump... by Opportunist · 2017-02-06 18:09 · Score: 2

Are they? Then why keep looking for "evidence"? The whole shit reeks of the school of Cardinal Richelieu and his famous "Give me six lines written by the most honest man, and I will find something there to hang him."

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 18:21 · Score: 1

Nope. It's terrorism. And blocking the sidewalk, preventing entrance to a business, is economic terrorism.

Re: So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 18:26 · Score: 1

And deplorable.

Re:So now under Trump... by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-06 18:54 · Score: 1

If the targets are purposefully selected, it's a lot more than just "violent protest." Criminal threatening, battery, racketeering, and a host of other crimes, both federal and state, are reasonable charges.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:So now under Trump... by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-06 19:02 · Score: 1

You are thoroughly confused. War is a governmental activity, protest is outside of (and usually against) government.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re: So now under Trump... by mi · 2017-02-06 19:05 · Score: 2

People praying for the misery and suffering of others.

No evidence of such prayers being made was offered. But, even if they were — they are just that, prayers. Words.

Most people would have noticed that key point.

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re: So now under Trump... by ChrisMaple · 2017-02-06 19:10 · Score: 1

refusing to do their sworn duty

Like Obama and his cabinet? Particularly his Attorneys General, who refused to prosecute anyone who was black.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:So now under Trump... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2017-02-06 19:36 · Score: 1

You're assuming that it was partisanship. It could simply have been knowledge of the law being passed (use often gets more media coverage), misunderstanding of what the law allowed, or simply a lack of imagination (assuming it would be used for more standard criminal matters).

And, far more importantly, hating this use in no way implies supporting its passage. That was a anti-liberal smear put forth by an AC who is backing it because Trump is doing it. There's nothing in evidence that suggests that people opposing it supported when Obama did it. It's merely an attempt at mutual muddying the waters that obscures the important point: X is happening, and X is bad and should be stopped. I don't care if Alice pissed on my Cheerios yesterday, if Bob's pissing on my Cheerios right now, that's the problem I can try to stop.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-06 19:45 · Score: 1

It could also be the false flag operation.

This is true - but a false flag operation with that many people is difficult to maintain. With thousands of people rioting, if they were all secretly Trump-supporters, *someone* would blab.

The false flag operations we've seen in this election cycle have generally been small-scale: an individual committing some petty act of vandalism or graffiti, but making it appear to be done by the other side as a hate crime. The biggest example I know of (that has been identified as a false flag) was a black church burned down and spray-painted with "Vote Trump" (story), in which the culprit later turned out to be a member of its own congregation (story).

Re:So now under Trump... by Mistakill · 2017-02-06 20:39 · Score: 2

6 Members of the press were arrested for 'rioting'... While I think the people who were actually rioting should be charged for such, I believe the police just arrested in many cases people who pissed them off...

Re:So now under Trump... by Hognoxious · 2017-02-06 21:03 · Score: 1

In that case the American Revolutionary War didn't happen. So when you've finished sucking Donald's cock remind him to drop the keys off when he flies over to visit Her Majesty.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re:So now under Trump... by Oligonicella · 2017-02-06 21:41 · Score: 1

And their goal was picking a fight. Which happened.

Re:So now under Trump... by TheConway · 2017-02-06 21:50 · Score: 1

Since praying gains nothing, I'd say breaking things is worse

Re: So now under Trump... by Oligonicella · 2017-02-06 21:59 · Score: 1

A key point you seemed to not have notice is the distinction between abstract and reality. Violence impinges on reality, prayer does not.

Re:So now under Trump... by ravenshrike · 2017-02-06 22:04 · Score: 1

If the leftist babies really want to go to war over this they would get their asses handed to them. There are between 400 and 600 million civilian owned weapons in the US, primarily owned by red staters, with the majority of the military coming from the same stock.

Re:So now under Trump... by jareth-0205 · 2017-02-06 22:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

They don't listen.

Seriously? Listen to what? You have a press secretary that doesn't respond to questioning, that spouts obvious bullshit about trivia, making anything he says about anything extremely untrustworthy. You want people to not assume the worst, you need to command trust.

Re: So now under Trump... by serviscope_minor · 2017-02-06 23:38 · Score: 1

Like Obama and his cabinet? Particularly his Attorneys General, who refused to prosecute anyone who was black.

Well, if you don't like reality, make up alterntive facts as they're now called. Everyone else still knows them as "lies", however. Out of interest are you holding a vigil for the Bowling Green Massacre?

--
SJW n. One who posts facts.

Re:So now under Trump... by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2017-02-06 23:51 · Score: 1

Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

No that's a Saturday night out in Liverpool

--

Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

Re:So now under Trump... by MitchDev · 2017-02-07 00:05 · Score: 1

Trump seems to forget he is only the president, not "El Presidente for life"

The world has moved on by sjbe · 2017-02-07 00:21 · Score: 1

No matter how many people use literally to mean figuratively, no matter how many dictionaries take note of the inverse usage, it is still wrong, and anyone trying to avoid looking like a moron would be wise to steer clear of incorrect uses.

The only people that look like morons are those who continue to argue something long after the battle has been lost. Historically you are correct. Good for you. In modern usage the term "begging the question" now means something different than its original use because it is widely understood to mean something different now. That's how living languages work. How it is used and understood is all that really matters. Pointlessly clinging to an old definition when the rest of the world has moved on makes you look rather foolish and out of touch. Nobody likes the pedantic guy who tries to tell everyone they are wrong about the language. Don't be the guy at the party who says "well technically Frankenstein isn't the name of the monster". Nobody cares and you look like an ass when you point it out.

Re:The world has moved on by aquacrayfish · 2017-02-07 06:04 · Score: 1

'Begging the question' is an idiom ( help me if I'm using that word incorrectly) that has meaning and origin outside of a dictionary. Conversely, the literally/figuratively discussion is simply a dictionary lookup. In a living language, and especially when it comes to vernacular, meanings of phrases absolutely should change. Dictionary definitions matter, however, and should not. Like the "could care less" or "exception that proves the rule" idioms - most people use it the wrong way to convey a sentiment, and usually people understand what they're saying. Those 'misinterpretations' of the phrase, however, rely on using incorrect meanings of words to convey thought. Those are the only times I get into a twist over it.

So, 'begging the question' - whatever, it's a construct that goes beyond the basic meanings of its words. I don't use it because there are less clunky alternatives. If people use basic words incorrectly, however, it's still a battle worth fighting. To me it's likely willfully not thinking critically if for no other reason not to confuse/annoy people.

Re:So now under Trump... by Feyshtey · 2017-02-07 00:27 · Score: 2

"Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss"

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi

Riots can be a protest by sjbe · 2017-02-07 00:28 · Score: 1

Rioting is not protesting.

Some protests take the form of a riot. Not all riots are protests and not all protests are riots. Rioting is not peaceful protesting but it absolutely sometimes is a form of protest. Riots are not organized but they are often in response to some perceived grievance or out of dissent.

Re:So now under Trump... by Feyshtey · 2017-02-07 00:35 · Score: 1

The media refuses to cover peaceful protests?!?? Seriously? They report every single day since inauguration about a protest somewhere, but most of them completely fail to mention the burning police cars, burning limousines, smashed business windows, and people being drug out of their cars and getting the shit beat out of them. Or if they do it's a passing mention. There's absolutely shit that isnt getting reported, but it isnt the the peaceful protesters.

--
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,..." - Nancy Pelosi

Re:So now under Trump... by DarkOx · 2017-02-07 00:38 · Score: 1

Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."

Actually yes it is protesting, what is no longer is peaceful assembly. You therefore enjoy no right to do it.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:So now under Trump... by houghi · 2017-02-07 00:40 · Score: 1

Throwing tea in a harbor was not exactly legal either. So it goes back a long time.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:So now under Trump... by DarkOx · 2017-02-07 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

Right, As much as I hate seeing people get hurt I am hopeful this how the left with its us against them identity politics it always engages in finally burns itself out. Hopefully regular will wake up a look around in 2 years and realize that all the damage all the violence came about from left wing protesting and all of them reached their point of justification not from Trump but from supposedly respectable news media, entertainers, politicians and the like.

Trump does some peevish name calling but its almost always directed at an individual and its *usually* based on something they did or failed to do, got poor ratings, gained a bunch of weight, got hacked, etc. That is different than the left were they toss around words like bigot and fascist quite often with no real historical justification at least not in terms of scope, they will outright fabricate claims of bigotry and racism which they will than often level not at individuals but at entire groups; the whole things really translates as "I know you are but what am I".

Hopefully middle America and lots women especially who went Hillary because they bought into the lefts lies about the "war on women" will wake up and see that:

1) They are at least as safe from external and domestic terror threats as before (Albright/Rice/Bush/Obama/Clinton/Kerry) were not foreign policy savants.

2) Their darker skinned friends and neighbors have not been dragged away in the night

3) They still have access to healthcare similar in quality to what they got before

4) Public schools still exist and maybe someone is actually trying to make them better in a meaningful way besides just pumping in more money which has not worked for the last 30 years.

5) Taxes are lower and people have a little more in their pockets

If all that comes to pass hopefully many of the remaining leftists will be removed from the Senate. We can get back to group of well meaning sensible liberals and traditional ( Taft style ) conservatives.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

You forgot transphobic and misogynistic , you cis-male hetero shitlord!

FTFY.

Re:So now under Trump... by wisnoskij · 2017-02-07 01:19 · Score: 1

Ya, all the rabid leftists calling for a violent revolt, have just been undercover for the last 10 years, just in case Trump ran and won the election.

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Re:So now under Trump... by MitchDev · 2017-02-07 01:28 · Score: 1

You need to EARN trust

Re:So now under Trump... by budgenator · 2017-02-07 01:44 · Score: 1

I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.

Well the rioters are looking at 10 years in prison and $25,000.00 in fines, plus after prison they'll have to pay restitution and for their Parole Officer's time; nobody can get out from under that and stay legit; most will roll over. Felony Riot is a violent crime, they'll end up in a Federal Max Security Prison, not some country club. Soros bet on the wrong horse, now her has the Russians breathing down his neck on one side and the Trump administration on the other; Magic eight-ball says "It sucks to be Soros right now."

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re: Does BeauHD mean Beau - Head Damage? by ArmoredDragon · 2017-02-07 01:47 · Score: 1

Or better yet, the English should stop destroying their language:

http://www.pbs.org/speak/ahead...

Re: So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 01:47 · Score: 1

I'm waiting with bated breath for the new administration to follow the money back to Soros (busting people all the way along the trail) and find enough evidence to bust him as the kingpin of a criminal conspiracy. Wouldn't THAT cause consternation.

Oh, they're raising that flag now. Too bad for them that it just opens up accusations against the groups that funded the so-called Tea-Party movement.

I'm sure they can fabricate some evidence, but really, what's the point? A more likely explanation would be that somebody opposed to the protesters arranged for disruptive provacteurs to be involved.

COINTELPRO is real.

Yeah, a few hundred low-life rabble were conscripted into a conspiracy to riot and pin the blame on leftists. Everyone of them has stayed quiet about this conspiracy, and not one bit of evidence has come up - even though the riots took place in Democrat-controlled DC.

And you wonder where "progtard" comes from?

Re: So now under Trump... by Kielistic · 2017-02-07 01:55 · Score: 1

You seem confused- allow me to explain. In proper legal systems evidence is gathered to show guilt. Investigations are performed to find guilty people involved in crimes.

Another reason by JustAnotherOldGuy · 2017-02-07 02:10 · Score: 1

One of the individuals who was arrested received an email from Facebook's "Law Enforcement Response Team,"

Which seems like another good reason not to have a Facebook account. That's assuming that Facebook actually has a "Law Enforcement Response Team" and that this isn't just a phishing attempt...

--
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...

Re:So now under Trump... by parkinglot777 · 2017-02-07 02:24 · Score: 1

And you guys accuse the Right of engaging in conspiracy theories...

To me, GP is NOT accusing but rather giving an opinion of a conspiracy theory. Accusing to me is too strong word in the sense...

If you consider yourself right or left, then you are actually a part of the problem... Why? Because some issues are best to be solved with one side's solution and some other issues are best to be solved with the other side's solution. However, both sides (especially those who are extreme) can't see it because their mind is blocked by their own bias favoring their own side's solution... How sad...

Re:So now under Trump... by budgenator · 2017-02-07 02:59 · Score: 2

Yup, you are absolutely right that you usually don't see Conservatives doing this. Instead, you just all pile into your little places of worship and pray that hell-fire and brimstone will fall from the sky, kill all the vile evil non-believers and sinners who have either actively or passively decided to follow Satan and damn them to hell for all eternity until time itself stops.

The vast majority of Theist I know would denounce the sinfull actions, while praying for the immortal souls of the sinners to find salvation and avoid the coming hell-fire and brimstone and damnation to hell for all eternity.
The truth is once you separate out the rabid noisy radical elements, both Theist and Atheists tend to be moderate and excepting people.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:So now under Trump... by meta-monkey · 2017-02-07 03:07 · Score: 1

But if all you need is some to start rioting to get rid of the problem...

But you'll notice all they did was arrest the 200 or so people who were actually rioting and causing property damage. They torched a muslim immigrant's limo he rented out, they beat the shit out of a trash bin and set it on fire (I'm assuming it was Adolf Binler, the most evil and racist trash bin of all time), etc. Those people got arrested. The hundreds of thousands or millions of other people peacefully waving signs and chanting were unmolested. So, no problem then, right? Arrest people who torch cars, leave people who wave signs? All good?

--
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.

Re:Beg the question by Flea+of+Pain · 2017-02-07 03:24 · Score: 2

I agree. It begs the question, "Where was the original post?"

--
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-07 03:32 · Score: 1

It reminds me of the argument that gun owners are some sort of threat to the general public. We've got more than 300 million guns and several trillion rounds of ammunition. Trust us, if we were a threat, you'd know it by now.

"As of December 23 12,942 people had been killed in the United States in 2015 in a gun homicide, unintentional shooting, or murder/suicide".*

Yes, you are a threat. We know it. We are trying to do something about it. Have a nice day.

AC

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/...

Re: So now under Trump... by Opportunist · 2017-02-07 03:56 · Score: 1

Sadly, more and more it has turned into finding stuff about people who you want behind bars to make them look guilty.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:So now under Trump... by Opportunist · 2017-02-07 03:57 · Score: 1

If this is what happened, then yes, I'm surprised, but pleasantly so.

Unfortunately I had the questionable honor to see it happen very differently, too.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re: So now under Trump... by Opportunist · 2017-02-07 03:59 · Score: 1

Sorry, sorry, you're right, that makes a HUGE difference here!

In some way... or else you wouldn't bother posting something like this, right?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Why not UC Berkeley "protesters" ? by walterbyrd · 2017-02-07 04:21 · Score: 1

I have protesters quoted because they would more accurately be described as rioters, or terrorists.

If you think "terrorist" is too harsh, please see Title 22 of the US Code Section 2656f(d).

Terrorism defined: by walterbyrd · 2017-02-07 04:24 · Score: 1

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx

Are you advocating terrorism? by walterbyrd · 2017-02-07 04:27 · Score: 2

Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx

Leftist are terrorists by walterbyrd · 2017-02-07 04:35 · Score: 1, Insightful

Tolerant liberals, by the thousands, have threatened to assassinate the president. I am not sure if imminent threats of violence protected by the first amendment.

Not only is there a flood of threats against Trump himself, but there have also been threats to rape Trump's wife. There have also been a flood of insults against Barron Trump – a ten year old child.

Gotta love Madonna's threats to bomb the white house.

The hate speech and violence advocacy is not just a few bad apples, it is entirely mainstream. Thousands of tolerant liberals have threatened murder (certainly on twitter). The hate speech and violence advocacy is strongly encouraged by mainstream media, such as the Guardian. The Guardian clearly feels that violence is an acceptable form of political advocacy, as long as it comes from the left.

Here is a statement by peaceful liberal Godfrey Elfwick, of the Guardian:

> I'd rather punch 300 innocent people and 1 genuine Nazi, than punch no Nazi at all.
--- Gedfrey Elfwick of The Guardian

Nasrine Malik, also from The Guardian, argues that physical violence against Trump supporters should be condoned because his voters are bigots.

FYI: physical violence, intimidation, and destruction, to advance a political goal is also known as “terrorism.”

> Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.” [1]
> The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/Pages/welcome.aspx

“When they go low, going high is not enough,” argues Malik, adding, “When Richard Spencer was punched in the street, it was a cathartic moment for many.”

Malik goes on to assert that “reasoned debate” is no longer sufficient when confronting “racists and misogynists”

Here is the video from The Guardian:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu3OPaNl3jU

Certainly the Guardian would find nothing wrong with this. It serves her right for having a political opinion that a leftist does not agree with:

https://twitter.com/abc7newsbayarea/status/827039436596670464

The hypocrisy of the left is palpable. Although the tolerant liberals are responsible for the actual violence, the left claim that anybody who dares to express a opinion that the left does not approve of is somehow committing violence.

Yvette Felarca is one of the ring leaders of Berkeley riots. She claimed that Milo exercising his right to free to speech was “raping” and “killing” her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNGtI3Ezdvo

The Mayor of Berkeley, Jesse Arreguin, clearly condones the violence. He uses the usual liberal tactic of calling any differing opinion "hate speech."

> "Using speech to silence marginalized communities and promote bigotry is unacceptable. Hate speech isn't welcome in our community."
--- Jesse Arreguin

Peaceful liberals were violently attacking Milo's fans, but Milo is the "extremist".

In 2016, the left was screaming and crying about violence from Trump supporters. Clearly, the left does not condone violence to advance a political objective – unless the violence is coming from the left. Turns out, the violence at the Trump rallies was from thugs hired by the democrats.

The left booed and hissed at Trump when Trump suggested he might not accept election results. Hillary made some speech about how accepting elections was the cornerstone of our democracy, and everybody cheered. Until Hillary lost the election, then the Hillary supporters went out and violently r

Re:So now under Trump... by BundesSheep · 2017-02-07 04:46 · Score: 1

The media is forcing you to set that trashcan on fire and break that window? Take some responsibilities for your actions.

When are you guys going to STOP using facebook? by Maxo-Texas · 2017-02-07 04:48 · Score: 1

Jeez.

How invasive of your privacy do they have to get before you stop using them?

I saw this issue and stopped using facebook years ago when they required my real mobile phone to continue using the account.

My advice is to never start using Facebook in the first place.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

Re:So now under Trump... by Citizen+of+Earth · 2017-02-07 04:50 · Score: 1

So, it's simply inconceivable to you that leftists have devolved into violent lunatics. Thankfully, with new videos of these riots every day and the left shackling itself to Muslim refugees as bastions of tolerance, peace, and female empowerment, more and more former leftists are being red-pilled every day. Maybe some day, the left will figure out why it keeps losing elections. Truth is the new counter-culture.

Re:So now under Trump... by Citizen+of+Earth · 2017-02-07 04:54 · Score: 1

The cops need to start mass-arresting these shitheads for felony rioting. Between the 10-year prison sentences and $250k fines, either they will eventually get the message to stop or they will all be broke and in prison. Either way, it will end.

Re:Might want to hold off on the Trump stickers by budgenator · 2017-02-07 05:08 · Score: 1

I suggest getting a Trump/Pence bumper sticker just to be safe.

You may want to hold off on those Trump stickers, liberals become irrationally violent at the sight of Trump's very name.

Var from being safe, you and your property would be in quite real danger.

If you scoff, I dare you to we are a bright red MAGA hat to any rally against Trump. If you are lucky you will just be egged, and not sucker punched/maced.

That's why I still have my "Ben Carson" bumper sticker on the bumper and a Hillary in prison stripes bobblehead on the dash.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:Agent provocateurs by wyHunter · 2017-02-07 05:19 · Score: 1

Actually it says that the folks who were NOT at the inauguration had jobs and lives and weren't paid professional protesters. Do note that the women's march happened at a weekend. And, oh yes, it was filled with upper middle class white women!

Re:DC protesters by Bratch · 2017-02-07 05:44 · Score: 1

Because they prefer Marvel comics.

--
Beware of the Redittor who loans you a Sharpie.

This is why you use burner phones by WillAffleckUW · 2017-02-07 06:05 · Score: 1

This is why you use burner phones that you keep under the porch of a friend's neighbor, until you need them.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Re:So now under Trump... by strikethree · 2017-02-07 06:58 · Score: 1

Right, As much as I hate seeing people get hurt I am hopeful this how the left with its us against them identity politics it always engages in finally burns itself out.

George W. Bush was on the left side of the spectrum? "You are either with us or against us" to paraphrase some words from a little over a decade ago.

Methinks you are missing the forest for the trees. Divide and conquer. Some are better at it than others, but "both" sides (there are not really only two sides) will use it. Even discussing this presupposes divide and conquer. How delightful.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

Re:So now under Trump... by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · 2017-02-07 06:59 · Score: 1

To be sure, there's different amount of media coverage of Obama's and Trump's policies; it's not all partisanship, but in my experience (YMMV) a good chunk of it is.

And, far more importantly, hating this use in no way implies supporting its passage.

True, but I'm hearing a lot of "silence is consent" stuff from people who say if you aren't protesting Trump (or racist police, etc.) then you're on the side of the oppressor. Those people specifically are massive hypocrites; that's not to say all who oppose Trump are, but there certainly is a large group that is acting hypocritically.

--
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.

Re:So now under Trump... by strikethree · 2017-02-07 07:00 · Score: 1

I do not identify with your politics but +6 insightful.

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 07:55 · Score: 1

Exactly. The irony is that these idiots decide that because their person did not win, they are going to break windows, assault people, and burn cars in a town where 92.3% voted for THEIR candidate. They might as well have stabbed themselves in the eyeball with a fork if they just wanted to punish Hillary supporters.

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 08:36 · Score: 1

intolerant? You mean intolerant like the recent riot and arson by students at UC Berkeley because someone with a different opinion was threatening to use WORDS at a public speech?

Or do you mean intolerant like when a trump supporter was knocked unconscious and beaten at an airport in Portland?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Or do you mean intolerant like when a gay guy in texas was minding his own business and beaten unconscious? his only crime, having a lighter with donald trumps picture on it
http://www.thegatewaypundit.co...

Or do you mean intolerant when a hispanic trump supporter was beaten on inaugration day?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Or do you mean intolerant like during the campaign thousands of Hillary supporters violently attacked and destroyed property belonging to trump supporters?
http://cbs12.com/news/local/wo...
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
http://wtnh.com/2016/11/12/pd-...
http://www.dailywire.com/news/...

Do yourself a favor and read up on the history of the rise of the S.S. you seem to like to throw the word Nazi and fascist around. The SS or SchutzStaffel were 'bodyguards' who went around attacking other candidates and their supporters of opposing political parties. I only see violent protests showing up repeatedly in the news coming from the Hillary group, and this predated even the run-up to the election. To violently attack, condone violent attacks, or looking the other was of said violent attacks, merely because you disagree with the opinions or WORDS that another person says is the same thing the SS did. Perhaps you are calling people Nazis and Intolerant because you suffer the psychological condition called PROJECTION.

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 08:43 · Score: 1

You do know that the NDAA bill that Obummer tried to ram through congress was going to give the government EXACTLY that power. Under mere accusation of terrorism they can black bag you and hold you indefinitely without access to a judge thereby violating your 5th and 6th amendment rights. Be thankful a bunch of libertarians fought like hell to kill that. FWIW the rhino's like McCain and sHillary were all for this bill.

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 08:45 · Score: 1

why do the poor have to go to planned parenthood? I thought your prophet Obummer gave everyone universal healthcare to see any doctor they wanted??

Re:So now under Trump... by Zak3056 · 2017-02-07 09:20 · Score: 1

While I agree with you that the guy you're responding to is just splitting hairs, you picked a particularly bad example for your retort (hint: "Continental Congress.")

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

Re:So now under Trump... by Hognoxious · 2017-02-07 09:35 · Score: 1

They weren't a government. They may have claimed to be, but me and the lads down the pub can do that.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Re: Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyho by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 09:55 · Score: 1

No shit! like 7 out of the 10 'top deadliest creatures' list always come from Australia.

Re:So now under Trump... by Zak3056 · 2017-02-07 10:01 · Score: 1

They weren't a government.

[citation needed]

Now you're just splitting hairs. There's no virtue in being an asshole just for the sake of being an asshole.

--
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?

Re: Why link your name to Armenian genocide anyhow by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:04 · Score: 1

this seems speculatory at best. All we know is what someone claimed they voted. Voting is still anonymous. I could be latino and claim to vote for hillary, all the while voting for trump in hopes he stops the import of more people competing in my field of work. If that were true I sure as hell would not tell anyone.

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:07 · Score: 1

Im Xenophobic, those damn Greys and Reptilian can go the fuck back to their own planets and stop abducting our citizens! And don't even get me started on the Venusians.

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:10 · Score: 1

This is because for the last 10 years our schools have been setting an example of appeasement. We taught these snowflakes that if they whine and bitch they will _always_ get their way. Too bad they didn't have parents who felt it important to give them a hard dose of reality. Instead mommy and daddy just bought their way out of trouble.

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:14 · Score: 1

I doubt Russia is taking Soros that seriously. Its not like the guy has a full detail of secret service. If russia wanted Soros out of the picture, there would be some Polonium tea waiting for him at the next restaurant.

Re:Agent provocateurs by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:20 · Score: 1

Ignore that idiot, he's always posting AC because hes a coward, just like the title claims. He obviously isn't old enough to have actually lived through the cold war. Why the obummer administration was trying to start a new one up was beyond me. This shit we're fighting now.... all the damn jihadi's... where does he think they came from? The CIA started that shit in Afghanistan back in the 70s. The CIA trained Osama Bin Laden to be a 'freedom fighter'. All the guerrilla tactics we face now all boil down to the mistake of arming terrorist to overthrow a regime. So we do it again in Syria and Libya and what do we get? ISIS. Its time to stop arming and training people that will probably stab us in the back.

Re:Preparations for the Purge? by e3m4n · 2017-02-07 10:41 · Score: 1

and you were where the last 16 years? When all this power and control was being accumulated? Did you not take notice that Facebook and Google got more oval office visits to the whitehouse by not a margin, but an EXPONENTIAL one? Where were you then complaining of all this potential abuse of power? I tried to warn everyone. I still do. NOBODY, not the Dems, not the Reps, NOBODY should be allowed to wield this power. But every single time the tables turn and the other party gets back in, they set out to acquire MORE power instead of using their power to dismantle it forever. If you think this shit is bad, wait till the dems eventually get back in again. They STILL wont dismantle it or undue any power grab. They will continue to use, expand, and suppress.

Re:So now under Trump... by budgenator · 2017-02-08 01:39 · Score: 1

I'm sure he has enough personal security to make any attack much more challenging than the average schmoe. Getting polonium across the border has gotten more difficult as well.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds

Re:So now under Trump... by e3m4n · 2017-02-08 01:47 · Score: 1

seems like as much as Soros lobbies to keeps our southern border wide open, they could just walk it right across :-)

Monkeys vs. apes in Russian by mi · 2017-02-08 15:43 · Score: 1

For crying out loud - gibbons, orangutans, and chips are APES, not monkeys! Monkeys have tails, apes do not.

Interestingly enough, in Russian there is no distinction — both "ape" and "monkey" translate into the same word "obezyana".

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re: So now under Trump... by mi · 2017-02-08 15:54 · Score: 1

Oh, was that [washingtonpost.com] what [thedailybeast.com] you wanted?

Yes, something like that, except targeting not a particular person (like Obama), but "all the vile evil non-believers and sinners who have either actively or passively decided to follow Satan".

Because wishing ill to a particular person — including President of the US — is really old shtick.

while deliberately failing to consider that the prayers in question were for the misery and suffering of others.

The distinction you are trying to make is without difference. They are still merely prayers. Words. Not actions. Not even calls for actions, which is what the Illiberals are doing.

Whish is worse — praying for suffering of political opponents (if indeed such praying takes place at all), or causing the suffering of political opponents?

You need to sit back

OMG, a wanna-be anonymous troll teaches me, how to troll properly?..

--
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.

Re:Agent provocateurs by wyHunter · 2017-02-09 09:26 · Score: 1

Hear, hear!

Slashdot Mirror

DC Inauguration Protestors Are Being Hit With Facebook Data Searches (citylab.com)

193 of 341 comments (clear)