They didn't vote for Trump but they didn't vote against him either thus they were willing to accept him as President if he was elected.
You can't make that conclusion for all of the eligible voters who did not vote. There is a very likely chance that a substantial portion of the electorate disliked and felt like they were not represented by any and every candidate. It is not a correct conclusion to assume that every one of those people was just fine with any particular person getting elected.
If someone doesn't feel like any candidate represents them, they are less likely to vote. This doesn't mean they're fine with any other arbitrary candidate being elected, it means that they didn't feel like they had a good choice to make. They were unable to determine which was the lesser evil, or they don't buy into that bullshit line at all.
Actually closer to 70 million people voted against Hillary (little-known fact: the people who voted for Trump were not the only people who did not want Hillary to win). I was one of them. Thanks for interjecting with the random non-sequitur though, if any more random thoughts pop into your head make sure to write them down and publish them.
I would have thought those statements were infamous by now.
They might be on certain websites not frequented by me.
They were by the dirty FBI agents who plotted to overturn the result of a democratic election.
I missed that story. I heard about some FBI agents who didn't want Trump to win, but I never heard about some actual plot. A plot that was so powerful and nefarious that it apparently failed.
Anyway, when you were talking about "the deep state," I assumed you were talking about some large shadow government organization that you think exists, who hates all Americans. I didn't realize you were referring to 2 FBI agents in an affair with each other trading texts who had the same reaction to Trump's election as a large chunk of the general population. My mistake. Got it, the deep state is a pair of former FBI agents who were dismayed that Trump won, like a lot of people, but who ultimately did not affect the election in any meaningful way.
See, it's important to define your terms so that we're all talking about the same things. We aren't on infowars.com, we haven't all read the same glossary and talking points that you have.
A globalist is one who believes there should be a world government.
What, a body like the UN or some actual governing body which will assert sovereignty over all other countries, who will apparently all just roll over and give up their sovereignty?
The USA has the power so it's going to be the one to do get it done.
The US is going to convince other countries that the US or some body controlled by the US has sovereign authority over them? You really believe this stuff, don't you?
They'll take our money which should be spent on ourselves and spend it on wars instead.
Great, let's go for actual tax reform then. What Trump did on taxes is a joke, let's actually reform the system so that we can fill out our taxes on a single card instead of all of the various credits and whatever else that the wealthy use to stay wealthy.
Imagine us spending that money on nice things instead, like health care and free college.
I 100% believe that we should, which is why I'm not really finding any candidates to support among the Democratic or Republican parties. I think the best way to real change is to break the stranglehold that the 2 parties currently hold over the presidential debate process and bring in multiple other parties. Each of the major parties could even break in half, pretending like every conservative or every liberal is represented by the Republican or Democratic parties is absurd.
Globalists aren't American patriots.
And I don't think they actually exist, either. At least not yet.
Now, the logical conclusion of the idea of government in general is in fact to have a single planetary government, the same way that the US has a federal government and also state, county, and city governments. But to assume that we're anywhere near being able to achieve that and actually unite the world while wars are being waged all across the world is completely unrealistic. It's an ideal that requires an extreme amount of peace and cooperation, and so far we have not shown ourselves capable of that. We're a series of small tribes fighting against each other and only looking out for ourselves. Occasionally someone comes along who tries to push for peace and cooperation, but it doesn't get very far before our worst instincts of only looking out for #1 take over.
They don't believe in the idea of nations.
That's like suggesting that a proponent of a strong federal government doesn't believe that cities should also have a government. If there actually was a global government it would be absolutely necessary to have a series of smaller districts that are each governed locally, all
The 25th Amendment requires a vote by the cabinet. It doesn't have anything to do with the VP except in that the VP is normally the person who takes over.
Are you reading the same Section 4 of the amendment that I am? I'm not sure you are.
The VP cannot unilaterally invoke it.
I did not suggest it was unilateral. I did suggest it required the VP to participate.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making, or what you think you're addressing, but you're not correct or posting anything pertaining to the discussion.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Go ahead, cite Section 4 and explain how the 25th can be invoked without the support and action of the VP. I'll save you the trouble:
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
That requires (Vice President) + (majority of cabinet members OR other body approved by Congress). So, if there is no VP support, is the 25th an option? Let me know, I'm eager to hear an expert's opinion since I'm not posting anything pertaining to the discussion.
I mean, surely this isn't the first time you've read the actual text, right? You just forgot what it said, right?
If, as the NYT writer says, the entire Whitehouse is conspiring against the President, they should have enough votes within the cabinet to 25th him.
Doesn't mean anything if the VP doesn't kick off the process, though, does it? Right?
It requires more than the cabinet. It requires the VP plus either a majority of the 15 cabinet members, or another body approved by Congress.
OK, tell me again how I'm wrong. I'm waiting with anticipation.
You really believe that, don't you? It's sad that you let people convince you of things which are obviously not true.
He was a globalist.
You're going to need to define exactly what you mean by that. Because if you're accusing McCain of being "a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world," then yeah, he's like the vast majority of everyone else on the planet who thinks beyond their own neighborhood.
He calls for them to go forth and be enforcers for the corporatist state.
You're full of the bullshit lines. If you believe that the US that McCain believes in is a "corporatist state", then sure you can draw that conclusion. But I don't think that's how he saw America, and when he was telling people to defend America and freedom and democracy, I don't think he was talking about some "corporatist state" that exists somewhere in your mind. But, if you really want to reference that speech, here's a nice quote:
We have to fight against propaganda and crackpot conspiracy theories. We have to fight isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. We have to defeat those who would worsen our divisions. We have to remind our sons and daughters that we became the most powerful nation on earth by tearing down walls, not building them.
Yeah, wow, what a major asshole, right? Sorry, but you look like a fool.
Remember when he ran for President and the same people worshipping him today were calling him a Nazi?
No. I don't see people "worshipping" him today at all, actually. Just using him and his words as an example of what we should aspire to, instead of all of the propaganda and division and petty hate. I also remember being proud that my Senator which I respect was running, but disappointed in his choice of VP to the point that I couldn't vote for him.
""Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. l could SMELL the Trump support."
"Yup. Out to lunch with -------- We both hate everyone and everything."
Right on man, I can also put quotation marks around random statements.
"Finally, and related to nothing, but I just saw my first Bernie Sanders bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car." [magaimg.net]
What the hell is that? Am I looking at some sort of redacted text message log, with no names or numbers, which someone scanned into a computer and then couldn't figure out how to rotate, and are you really trying to suggest that this is some sort of evidence of a conspiracy theory that the US is run by people who, all of them, I mean 100% of them, absolutely hate any and every American? Really, why are you posting this?
Remember that one time when we were in a cold war with a communist country? A lot of people here got real scared about godless communists and decided to fix this by putting things like "in God we trust" on our money. It made them feel better.
For anyone who is not currently the Vice President, the 25th amendment is not an option for them.
What you don't fucking do is pretend everything's OK and then steal papers from his desk because you're worried he might sign them.
As far as we know that's a different issue, and it's obviously dangerous. It may be that the person who did that is also the person who wrote the editorial, but it doesn't sound like it.
The 25th and impeachment are both cases where Democratic agencies can hold those responsible for the actions to account.
In theory, sure. In practice, if Congress takes any action at all on virtually anything it would shock the country.
Remember, they were spying on Carter Page and everyone within two hops of him with a counter-intelligence FISA warrant for the entire campaign, so if you claim they had no idea about Russia, you're clearly wrong.
Now, hold on a second. First, Carter Page had been under surveillance since 2014 because of things like this:
In August 2013, Page wrote, "Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda."
Naturally, it would make sense that we have people with direct links to hostile governments under surveillance. I mean, we have entire counter-espionage groups focused on people just like him:
Also in 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and one described him as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an "idiot".
They're trying to figure out if he was a spy. Of course he was under surveillance.
Secondly, what about this:
After news reports began to appear describing Page's links to Russia and Putin's government, Page stepped down from his role in the Trump campaign. Upon his departure, Trump campaign communications director Jason Miller said of Page, "He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period."
There you go, the Trump campaign communications directory explicitly said that Page was never part of the campaign. So, why does it matter so much to you that he was under surveillance? Are you suggesting that the Trump campaign was lying about Page's role there?
Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.
Don't make it out to be something it's not. If you pardon the round numbers, about 63 million people voted for Trump. There were an estimated 250 million eligible voters for 2016, with about 325 million total population. So, the people who voted for Trump make up about 25% of eligible voters, and less than 20% of the total population. He won the election, but don't make it out like he has some sort of super-mandate from the general public. The vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of eligible voters (75%) did not vote for him.
Anyway, if you want to talk about whether or not Americans think that people in the government should help steer Trump in the right direction, instead of just leaving any and every decision up to him, consider the fact that his approval rating is in the high 30s. A majority of Americans do not approve of the job he is doing, right now.
If this person REALLY cared about the American People, they would resign and publicly speak out against Donald Trump and openly disclose "Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses."
Which would accomplish exactly nothing other than a stream of insults on Trump's twitter feed. This person chose to avoid that shit show and instead actively work for what they believe is best for the country.
Deep state operatives tell you they're working for the American people, but in fact, they think we're scum.
Whoever sold you that line needs to pat themselves on the back.
Seriously, the idea that there are people working behind the scenes to keep the country running on a relatively straight course, and that these people actually hate the public, is absurd. It's flat-out absurd.
Like Biden was saying at McCain's service in Phoenix, if you want to argue against someone's position, fine. But don't question their motivation, don't act like they don't love the country or they aren't a good American or they aren't a patriot or whatever else. They might have a different position, and if you want to argue the position that's fine, but that doesn't mean they love the country any less than you do.
Sitting there acting like you're some victim of this vast conspiracy full of people secretly running the country who hate America and hate Americans just makes you sound like a child.
I don't know if you've been following what the FCC has been doing, but the internet is explicitly not regulated the same way telephone service is. That was a specific decision made by Ajit Pai's FCC, I don't know if you were paying attention but it was kind of a big deal. ISPs are not defined as common carriers. And, even if they were, Youtube is not an ISP, it is a website, and a website is most definitely not a common carrier. Youtube is a subsidiary of Google LLC, which is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc, a corporation. Since we live in a Federal Republic and not a Communist state, that means that this corporation is not owned by the general public, it is a public holding company owned by shareholders. And, as we all know, in the United States, corporations are people. Therefore, it very much IS a private entity and not whatever "shared public space" you're trying to come up with as a definition for something that doesn't otherwise exist.
So yeah, it's the same thing. But, you're not here to have an intelligent discussion, you're just an ideologue pushing a personal agenda.
Let's face it, you just want to have your cake and eat it too.
Haha, well PHP CVEs certainly don't impact my sleep schedule. For example, I've never needed to use com_print_typeinfo, and it's not used in the framework that our application uses, and even if it did it probably wouldn't take user-supplied data as an argument, and even if it did our servers do not run Windows. So I don't need to worry about arbitrary code execution using this.
This is what I'm talking about. Yes, that vulnerability exists. But the vulnerability is not "run PHP and you're vulnerable to this." It is
1. Run PHP earlier than 5.4.3 2. Do it on Windows 3. Use com_print_typeinfo 4. Allow user-supplied data as a parameter
It's just not as simple as "if you're running PHP, you're vulnerable to this." Slashdot is full of stories of various MacOS vulnerabilities or whatever which require physical access or some other constraint that attackers normally cannot take advantage of. This is the same thing. Yes, there are vulnerabilities, but the requirements for those vulnerabilities mean that the vast, vast majority of servers and sites are not actually vulnerable to them.
Now, SOMEONE was vulnerable to that, and they became aware of that fact apparently in May 2012. But a successful exploit requires several things to happen. In this case, it is enough if someone runs PHP 5.4 on Windows and allows unauthorized people to upload and run PHP files. That's not a vulnerability though, that's stupidity. Sadly, there is no patch for stupidity.
Is that a Yes, you want to force Youtube to host anyone you want them to host, or a No, they can kick off anyone they don't want to serve as long as they're following all relevant state and federal laws?
It's a pretty direct question. I understand you're trying to avoid it, but it's pretty simple.
If you want to shift the goalposts and talk about people claiming religious freedom to discriminate based on ideas they believe are part of their religion but actually aren't, we can do that after you answer the question you keep dodging.
I realize those are out there and known. I'm not talking about things that I don't personally know about, I'm talking about things that no one knows about.
What I am saying is that there is a lack of attacks against PHP itself. Just having PHP installed is not a security threat. Proof of this is the complete lack of attacks against any arbitrary server running the world's most popular server-side language by number of servers, as far as I'm aware. The CVEs I have looked at all require scripts using specific functions or features, there are no attacks against the server itself just having the language installed. Again, if there were, they would be actively exploited constantly.
you're likely vulnerable to many of these.
Potentially vulnerable, if all of the conditions are met, not actually vulnerable just by virtue of the language being installed.
I'm just suggesting it is not an actual danger. If there is no way to actually exploit it, and therefore no attacks, then it's not a danger. Conversely, if there was a vulnerability that allowed remote code execution in any web server running PHP 5.2, you can bet your ass it would be actively exploited (for the previous 12 years, no less). The lack of ongoing attacks of that nature would suggest that such a vulnerability does not exist, or at the minimum is not known.
Why does Google have any role in this at all? Their role is to develop Android and run their own store. Why are they policing independent developers not using the Google store? Isn't it only Epic's responsibility to communicate with their own customers?
But kicking them off the contemporary equivalent of the phone system because they are not egalitarians, that's OK.
That is not what is happening, and you know it. Youtube is a private business, not a public utility. Are you going to dictate how a private business needs to operate?
No one is telling Alex Jones that he can't access the internet any more. The internet is a system that was designed to be as open and free as possible. He is perfectly capable of taking those millions of dollars from his useless supplements, buying a server, renting space in a rack somewhere, and buying internet service to his server, and anyone getting internet service through an uncensored connection can access his site and his videos. That's what I do. If that's not egalitarian, I don't know what is.
If you're trying to dictate how any private business runs itself because you think people should be able to smear whatever shit they want on any and every website, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.
If you think that Youtube has some obligation to host any arbitrary video just because they host any other arbitrary video, that's crap.
People have to figure out what is real, and what is not, without censorship!
Huge chunks of the US have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of determining what is real and what is not. Evidence of this is the fact that people believe Trump. More evidence is the fact that Snopes needs a page for this.
It's a good thing then that people don't get kicked off the major platforms just for having conservative or liberal views. There are clearly many, many conservatives and liberals using every major social platform.
Fantastic, then until political affiliation becomes a protected class people need to understand that it's perfectly fine to be removed from a platform if their political views are seen as very extreme to the point of being offensive by most other people.
Slashdot Mirror
They didn't vote for Trump but they didn't vote against him either thus they were willing to accept him as President if he was elected.
You can't make that conclusion for all of the eligible voters who did not vote. There is a very likely chance that a substantial portion of the electorate disliked and felt like they were not represented by any and every candidate. It is not a correct conclusion to assume that every one of those people was just fine with any particular person getting elected.
If someone doesn't feel like any candidate represents them, they are less likely to vote. This doesn't mean they're fine with any other arbitrary candidate being elected, it means that they didn't feel like they had a good choice to make. They were unable to determine which was the lesser evil, or they don't buy into that bullshit line at all.
Actually closer to 70 million people voted against Hillary (little-known fact: the people who voted for Trump were not the only people who did not want Hillary to win). I was one of them. Thanks for interjecting with the random non-sequitur though, if any more random thoughts pop into your head make sure to write them down and publish them.
I would have thought those statements were infamous by now.
They might be on certain websites not frequented by me.
They were by the dirty FBI agents who plotted to overturn the result of a democratic election.
I missed that story. I heard about some FBI agents who didn't want Trump to win, but I never heard about some actual plot. A plot that was so powerful and nefarious that it apparently failed.
Anyway, when you were talking about "the deep state," I assumed you were talking about some large shadow government organization that you think exists, who hates all Americans. I didn't realize you were referring to 2 FBI agents in an affair with each other trading texts who had the same reaction to Trump's election as a large chunk of the general population. My mistake. Got it, the deep state is a pair of former FBI agents who were dismayed that Trump won, like a lot of people, but who ultimately did not affect the election in any meaningful way.
See, it's important to define your terms so that we're all talking about the same things. We aren't on infowars.com, we haven't all read the same glossary and talking points that you have.
A globalist is one who believes there should be a world government.
What, a body like the UN or some actual governing body which will assert sovereignty over all other countries, who will apparently all just roll over and give up their sovereignty?
The USA has the power so it's going to be the one to do get it done.
The US is going to convince other countries that the US or some body controlled by the US has sovereign authority over them? You really believe this stuff, don't you?
They'll take our money which should be spent on ourselves and spend it on wars instead.
Great, let's go for actual tax reform then. What Trump did on taxes is a joke, let's actually reform the system so that we can fill out our taxes on a single card instead of all of the various credits and whatever else that the wealthy use to stay wealthy.
Imagine us spending that money on nice things instead, like health care and free college.
I 100% believe that we should, which is why I'm not really finding any candidates to support among the Democratic or Republican parties. I think the best way to real change is to break the stranglehold that the 2 parties currently hold over the presidential debate process and bring in multiple other parties. Each of the major parties could even break in half, pretending like every conservative or every liberal is represented by the Republican or Democratic parties is absurd.
Globalists aren't American patriots.
And I don't think they actually exist, either. At least not yet.
Now, the logical conclusion of the idea of government in general is in fact to have a single planetary government, the same way that the US has a federal government and also state, county, and city governments. But to assume that we're anywhere near being able to achieve that and actually unite the world while wars are being waged all across the world is completely unrealistic. It's an ideal that requires an extreme amount of peace and cooperation, and so far we have not shown ourselves capable of that. We're a series of small tribes fighting against each other and only looking out for ourselves. Occasionally someone comes along who tries to push for peace and cooperation, but it doesn't get very far before our worst instincts of only looking out for #1 take over.
They don't believe in the idea of nations.
That's like suggesting that a proponent of a strong federal government doesn't believe that cities should also have a government. If there actually was a global government it would be absolutely necessary to have a series of smaller districts that are each governed locally, all
The 25th Amendment requires a vote by the cabinet. It doesn't have anything to do with the VP except in that the VP is normally the person who takes over.
Are you reading the same Section 4 of the amendment that I am? I'm not sure you are.
The VP cannot unilaterally invoke it.
I did not suggest it was unilateral. I did suggest it required the VP to participate.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making, or what you think you're addressing, but you're not correct or posting anything pertaining to the discussion.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Go ahead, cite Section 4 and explain how the 25th can be invoked without the support and action of the VP. I'll save you the trouble:
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
That requires (Vice President) + (majority of cabinet members OR other body approved by Congress). So, if there is no VP support, is the 25th an option? Let me know, I'm eager to hear an expert's opinion since I'm not posting anything pertaining to the discussion.
I mean, surely this isn't the first time you've read the actual text, right? You just forgot what it said, right?
If, as the NYT writer says, the entire Whitehouse is conspiring against the President, they should have enough votes within the cabinet to 25th him.
Doesn't mean anything if the VP doesn't kick off the process, though, does it? Right?
It requires more than the cabinet. It requires the VP plus either a majority of the 15 cabinet members, or another body approved by Congress.
OK, tell me again how I'm wrong. I'm waiting with anticipation.
McCain wasn't an American patriot.
You really believe that, don't you? It's sad that you let people convince you of things which are obviously not true.
He was a globalist.
You're going to need to define exactly what you mean by that. Because if you're accusing McCain of being "a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world," then yeah, he's like the vast majority of everyone else on the planet who thinks beyond their own neighborhood.
He calls for them to go forth and be enforcers for the corporatist state.
You're full of the bullshit lines. If you believe that the US that McCain believes in is a "corporatist state", then sure you can draw that conclusion. But I don't think that's how he saw America, and when he was telling people to defend America and freedom and democracy, I don't think he was talking about some "corporatist state" that exists somewhere in your mind. But, if you really want to reference that speech, here's a nice quote:
We have to fight against propaganda and crackpot conspiracy theories. We have to fight isolationism, protectionism, and nativism. We have to defeat those who would worsen our divisions. We have to remind our sons and daughters that we became the most powerful nation on earth by tearing down walls, not building them.
Yeah, wow, what a major asshole, right? Sorry, but you look like a fool.
Remember when he ran for President and the same people worshipping him today were calling him a Nazi?
No. I don't see people "worshipping" him today at all, actually. Just using him and his words as an example of what we should aspire to, instead of all of the propaganda and division and petty hate. I also remember being proud that my Senator which I respect was running, but disappointed in his choice of VP to the point that I couldn't vote for him.
""Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. l could SMELL the Trump support."
"Yup. Out to lunch with -------- We both hate everyone and everything."
Right on man, I can also put quotation marks around random statements.
"Finally, and related to nothing, but I just saw my first Bernie Sanders bumper sticker. Made me want to key the car." [magaimg.net]
What the hell is that? Am I looking at some sort of redacted text message log, with no names or numbers, which someone scanned into a computer and then couldn't figure out how to rotate, and are you really trying to suggest that this is some sort of evidence of a conspiracy theory that the US is run by people who, all of them, I mean 100% of them, absolutely hate any and every American? Really, why are you posting this?
Remember that one time when we were in a cold war with a communist country? A lot of people here got real scared about godless communists and decided to fix this by putting things like "in God we trust" on our money. It made them feel better.
25th Amendment
For anyone who is not currently the Vice President, the 25th amendment is not an option for them.
What you don't fucking do is pretend everything's OK and then steal papers from his desk because you're worried he might sign them.
As far as we know that's a different issue, and it's obviously dangerous. It may be that the person who did that is also the person who wrote the editorial, but it doesn't sound like it.
The 25th and impeachment are both cases where Democratic agencies can hold those responsible for the actions to account.
In theory, sure. In practice, if Congress takes any action at all on virtually anything it would shock the country.
Remember, they were spying on Carter Page and everyone within two hops of him with a counter-intelligence FISA warrant for the entire campaign, so if you claim they had no idea about Russia, you're clearly wrong.
Now, hold on a second. First, Carter Page had been under surveillance since 2014 because of things like this:
In August 2013, Page wrote, "Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin in preparation for their Presidency of the G-20 Summit next month, where energy issues will be a prominent point on the agenda."
Naturally, it would make sense that we have people with direct links to hostile governments under surveillance. I mean, we have entire counter-espionage groups focused on people just like him:
Also in 2013, Russian intelligence operatives attempted to recruit Page, and one described him as enthusiastic about business opportunities in Russia but an "idiot".
They're trying to figure out if he was a spy. Of course he was under surveillance.
Secondly, what about this:
After news reports began to appear describing Page's links to Russia and Putin's government, Page stepped down from his role in the Trump campaign. Upon his departure, Trump campaign communications director Jason Miller said of Page, "He’s never been a part of our campaign. Period."
There you go, the Trump campaign communications directory explicitly said that Page was never part of the campaign. So, why does it matter so much to you that he was under surveillance? Are you suggesting that the Trump campaign was lying about Page's role there?
Yes, and the American people already made their minds up when they elected Trump a president.
Don't make it out to be something it's not. If you pardon the round numbers, about 63 million people voted for Trump. There were an estimated 250 million eligible voters for 2016, with about 325 million total population. So, the people who voted for Trump make up about 25% of eligible voters, and less than 20% of the total population. He won the election, but don't make it out like he has some sort of super-mandate from the general public. The vast majority of Americans and the vast majority of eligible voters (75%) did not vote for him.
Anyway, if you want to talk about whether or not Americans think that people in the government should help steer Trump in the right direction, instead of just leaving any and every decision up to him, consider the fact that his approval rating is in the high 30s. A majority of Americans do not approve of the job he is doing, right now.
If this person REALLY cared about the American People, they would resign and publicly speak out against Donald Trump and openly disclose "Mr. Trump's more misguided impulses."
Which would accomplish exactly nothing other than a stream of insults on Trump's twitter feed. This person chose to avoid that shit show and instead actively work for what they believe is best for the country.
Deep state operatives tell you they're working for the American people, but in fact, they think we're scum.
Whoever sold you that line needs to pat themselves on the back.
Seriously, the idea that there are people working behind the scenes to keep the country running on a relatively straight course, and that these people actually hate the public, is absurd. It's flat-out absurd.
Like Biden was saying at McCain's service in Phoenix, if you want to argue against someone's position, fine. But don't question their motivation, don't act like they don't love the country or they aren't a good American or they aren't a patriot or whatever else. They might have a different position, and if you want to argue the position that's fine, but that doesn't mean they love the country any less than you do.
Sitting there acting like you're some victim of this vast conspiracy full of people secretly running the country who hate America and hate Americans just makes you sound like a child.
Don't move the goalposts. You said "Have they learned nothing from Uber killing pedestrians left and right?"
That's like you losing your virginity and immediately talking about how you're sleeping with women left and right.
You're just wrong, "pedestrians" have not been killed, that's just a simple fact. "A pedestrian" has been killed.
At least get the facts right.
I don't know if you've been following what the FCC has been doing, but the internet is explicitly not regulated the same way telephone service is. That was a specific decision made by Ajit Pai's FCC, I don't know if you were paying attention but it was kind of a big deal. ISPs are not defined as common carriers. And, even if they were, Youtube is not an ISP, it is a website, and a website is most definitely not a common carrier. Youtube is a subsidiary of Google LLC, which is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc, a corporation. Since we live in a Federal Republic and not a Communist state, that means that this corporation is not owned by the general public, it is a public holding company owned by shareholders. And, as we all know, in the United States, corporations are people. Therefore, it very much IS a private entity and not whatever "shared public space" you're trying to come up with as a definition for something that doesn't otherwise exist.
So yeah, it's the same thing. But, you're not here to have an intelligent discussion, you're just an ideologue pushing a personal agenda.
Let's face it, you just want to have your cake and eat it too.
In all fairness, actual intelligence also comes nowhere close to understanding human behavior.
Have they learned nothing from Uber killing pedestrians left and right?
Hey, Chicken Little, a grand total of 1 pedestrian has been killed by an autonomous Uber vehicle. That's one. Singular, not plural.
Haha, well PHP CVEs certainly don't impact my sleep schedule. For example, I've never needed to use com_print_typeinfo, and it's not used in the framework that our application uses, and even if it did it probably wouldn't take user-supplied data as an argument, and even if it did our servers do not run Windows. So I don't need to worry about arbitrary code execution using this.
This is what I'm talking about. Yes, that vulnerability exists. But the vulnerability is not "run PHP and you're vulnerable to this." It is
1. Run PHP earlier than 5.4.3
2. Do it on Windows
3. Use com_print_typeinfo
4. Allow user-supplied data as a parameter
It's just not as simple as "if you're running PHP, you're vulnerable to this." Slashdot is full of stories of various MacOS vulnerabilities or whatever which require physical access or some other constraint that attackers normally cannot take advantage of. This is the same thing. Yes, there are vulnerabilities, but the requirements for those vulnerabilities mean that the vast, vast majority of servers and sites are not actually vulnerable to them.
Now, SOMEONE was vulnerable to that, and they became aware of that fact apparently in May 2012. But a successful exploit requires several things to happen. In this case, it is enough if someone runs PHP 5.4 on Windows and allows unauthorized people to upload and run PHP files. That's not a vulnerability though, that's stupidity. Sadly, there is no patch for stupidity.
Is that a Yes, you want to force Youtube to host anyone you want them to host, or a No, they can kick off anyone they don't want to serve as long as they're following all relevant state and federal laws?
It's a pretty direct question. I understand you're trying to avoid it, but it's pretty simple.
If you want to shift the goalposts and talk about people claiming religious freedom to discriminate based on ideas they believe are part of their religion but actually aren't, we can do that after you answer the question you keep dodging.
I realize those are out there and known. I'm not talking about things that I don't personally know about, I'm talking about things that no one knows about.
What I am saying is that there is a lack of attacks against PHP itself. Just having PHP installed is not a security threat. Proof of this is the complete lack of attacks against any arbitrary server running the world's most popular server-side language by number of servers, as far as I'm aware. The CVEs I have looked at all require scripts using specific functions or features, there are no attacks against the server itself just having the language installed. Again, if there were, they would be actively exploited constantly.
you're likely vulnerable to many of these.
Potentially vulnerable, if all of the conditions are met, not actually vulnerable just by virtue of the language being installed.
I'm just suggesting it is not an actual danger. If there is no way to actually exploit it, and therefore no attacks, then it's not a danger. Conversely, if there was a vulnerability that allowed remote code execution in any web server running PHP 5.2, you can bet your ass it would be actively exploited (for the previous 12 years, no less). The lack of ongoing attacks of that nature would suggest that such a vulnerability does not exist, or at the minimum is not known.
In other words, it sounds like FUD.
Why does Google have any role in this at all? Their role is to develop Android and run their own store. Why are they policing independent developers not using the Google store? Isn't it only Epic's responsibility to communicate with their own customers?
But kicking them off the contemporary equivalent of the phone system because they are not egalitarians, that's OK.
That is not what is happening, and you know it. Youtube is a private business, not a public utility. Are you going to dictate how a private business needs to operate?
No one is telling Alex Jones that he can't access the internet any more. The internet is a system that was designed to be as open and free as possible. He is perfectly capable of taking those millions of dollars from his useless supplements, buying a server, renting space in a rack somewhere, and buying internet service to his server, and anyone getting internet service through an uncensored connection can access his site and his videos. That's what I do. If that's not egalitarian, I don't know what is.
If you're trying to dictate how any private business runs itself because you think people should be able to smear whatever shit they want on any and every website, then I'm going to have to disagree with you.
If you think that Youtube has some obligation to host any arbitrary video just because they host any other arbitrary video, that's crap.
People have to figure out what is real, and what is not, without censorship!
Huge chunks of the US have repeatedly shown that they are incapable of determining what is real and what is not. Evidence of this is the fact that people believe Trump. More evidence is the fact that Snopes needs a page for this.
Cue the cloud and old man.
Do you have any citation for that claim? Is there any statement from either company as to why it's not allowed?
It's a good thing then that people don't get kicked off the major platforms just for having conservative or liberal views. There are clearly many, many conservatives and liberals using every major social platform.
So I don't see what the big problem is.
Fantastic, then until political affiliation becomes a protected class people need to understand that it's perfectly fine to be removed from a platform if their political views are seen as very extreme to the point of being offensive by most other people.