Great, so they have a plugin to support the old behavior. How about an option to have tabs show up in the task list separately in Android, the way it used to work?
Poorly. Verizon used to give us pseudo-ANIs so they could bill for calls coming out of our telephony switches. They were "pseudo" in that there was no actual subscriber line that matched that ANI. Except there often was. Some poor SOB would end up with a bill for all our call traffic that used that pseudo-ANI that month, refuse to pay, then Verizon would kill the ANI and our switch would basically fall over dead since it couldn't send traffic out anymore. The best part is that we were providing carrier services for Verizon. It just kept happening over and over again. I saw variations of this with most of the major US regional-Bells. If you're running the right kind of equipment, you can supply whatever ANI you want.
No it won't, unless they're using seriously old equipment. Nobody does call-progress detection over the voice channel anymore because it's more expensive than reading the out-of-band signalling.
It absolutely was a matter of support. He was fed to the social justice wolves. He could absolutely do the job. Mozilla is one of the organizations that should regard a free and open Internet as a priority, but instead let their leader burn for donating to a cause that the majority supported at the time (including Obama). What about standing up for free speech? That circus had nothing to do with his performance as CEO, it was the social justice crowd sensing that they could take someone prominent down. I'd say him stepping down was actually harmful for Mozilla because many now feel that their products can't be trusted. Do you want a browser that's run by vindictive people that would do anything to destroy someone for the opinions they have? Your browser knows everything about you.
As for at-will, sure those things can happen. I doubt the business would stay in business for very long. It's not easy to recruit people, it'd be insane to go out of your way as an employer to make it even more difficult to find talent. Even in an at-will state, there are anti-stalker laws. If that type of thing started happening regularly there would be a push for better privacy rights. I think that would likely be done outside of the at-will laws since they could apply to more than just employer-employee relationships.
What, like the ex-CEO of Mozilla? Not too many people here seemed to care that he got fired (forced to resign, same thing really) for something he supported outside of the workplace.
For the grunts, I doubt most employers have the time or the motivation to monitor what their individual workers are doing when they're not at work. If anyone could ever connect those dots, there'd be good cause to go after them for stalking.
I think they use the super bright lights because it interferes with people's cameras who might be trying to record what they're doing. Actually, it works with the naked eye too. Go ahead citizen, record away.
It doesn't matter if I'm okay with it. What matters is that if something bad happens because those radios don't work and investigators discover that this guy intentionally set the place up to block radio signals. He'll probably have a liability problem in court. What if there's a fire and the firemen inside can't hear the order to evacuate? Well, you know.. I wanted people off their phones while they drank and you know, some buildings have metal roofs and stuff. Not a great defense if someone has been seriously injured or even killed. Makes me wonder too if the insurer knows about it.
What about the radios that the cops, firemen, and EMTs carry? Seems like those could be blocked as well. It may not be illegal, I don't know, but it could be seen as a foreseeable problem and thus introduce some liability.
Yea, hurry up and get the free forced updates, free advertising in your start menu and in the notification center, free removal of policy options, free violation of the hosts file for Microsoft/NSA privacy invading domains, etc. You could get all that and more and pay absolutely nothing! I liked Win10 when it was still pre-release. I despise what Microsoft is doing with it now. I regret updating my personal machines to it. My work machine may become Linux just because of the forced updates with reboots. It's one thing if it keeps me from gaming for a bit, it's another if it prevents me from getting work done. Yea, fine.. Enterprise may be safe from a lot of that for now, emphasis on "for now". They switched Lync over to Skype for Business and what a pile of crap that is.
"Then figure out a way to present yourself in a respectable manner."
Go fuck yourself.
How's that?
You haven't bothered to address my points directly, instead you complain about the GOP or dismiss things out of hand. Your point about interstate commerce is probably the only halfway legit point you made, except that it's logically flawed. In our mobile society, that would make everything the domain of the feds. If I see a doctor in my state using a plan that's only offered in my state, there's no federal interest, and thus interstate commerce cannot apply.
"Having some form of [auto] insurance, or an alternative, is mandated across the civilized world."
Not in New Hampshire, the last state that still tries to let its residents live free. Our state trusts that its residents will behave responsibly. It works.
"If you wanted that, you should have called your Congressman and told them to train another few thousand doctors and nurses."
Congressman don't typically teach medicine.
"What, you think I believe for a second that if Trump wanted to do something, that he'd let a mere technicality like the Constitution stop him?"
You're confusing the two parties. Obama tried to do things with executive orders that the courts struck down. They even cited his own speeches where he had said such orders wouldn't be legal.
"Give us a plan."
Repeal.
"Look, you can blather on and on about this threat to your liberty all you want, it'll just be tiresome."
Yes, the Constitution is a real problem, isn't it?
"That's untrue, in fact, being able to effect a new government is part of why we have elections and revolutions."
Right.. a violent revolt is just like changing insurers. You should download the updates to your talking points. Or not, I don't really care.
I'm not a republican, first off. Second, I point at the dems because this legislation was passed by the dems exclusively. Understand that. This only looks partisan because the dems had a hard time getting enough of their own people to vote for it, let alone anyone else.
"Why? Are you so adamantly opposed that you dictate to others that they must leave the country at your behest, rather than let them advocate their own interests?"
You clearly don't understand the role of government in the US. The Constitution defines a limited set of powers that the federal government has and leaves everything else to state and local governments. There is no power to regulate health insurance, to operate an exchange, or to punish people for not having health insurance. The feds exploited the right to levy an income tax, perverting it into a punishment for not having health insurance. The supreme court made a mockery of our laws by letting that happen. This is how our federal government bypasses all the restrictions it's supposed to be limited by. The take from the taxpayers and the states, and then only give some of it back if we capitulate. It's evil and corrupt.
I know that HSAs predate the AHA. It just amazes me that we were sold a monstrous piece of legislation that was supposed to improve access to health care and for so many that already had great coverage, they're now seeing their access disappear. Hopefully you're healthy and you don't have to experience it yourself, because it's a nightmare. It's a cruel thing to be managing your health and then have that ripped away by laws that were meant to make things better.
"Maybe instead of a corrupt oligarchy where citizens are deceived and mistreated by a bunch of con artists, we have a well-designed health care system that delivers care rather than wasting money on landscaping and lobby fountains."
Corporations and government are indistinguishable on this point, other than the exception I mentioned earlier.. you can choose to do business with other companies, you can't choose a new government.
"they've been deficient in providing alternatives"
Because that's not the role of government! Health care is between me and my doctor, and my insurer if I choose to have have one. Or at least that's how it should be. I'm not even required to have auto insurance, and that can potentially impact others. Do you not realize how this can be abused? Someone like Trump could mandate that all Americans must have a firearm. The supreme court has already allowed the use of income tax as a penalty, and has already allowed the feds to force us to buy things that we may not want. With most politicians owned by corporations, that's going to be abused eventually.
If "you can keep your plan" wasn't in the cards, than the President shouldn't have said it. This was a major selling point of the whole debacle, which he emphasized by ending it with "period". The legislation was so lengthy and so difficult to understand that people latched onto this as a major selling point and it failed to deliver, spectacularly so. Then he lied about it. "What I actually said was..", but we can all go to the many videos where he said it.
Yea, fine "death panel" is evocative. But that is what these panels were. It was a decision on how care was to be rationed for certain illnesses given a set of variables. That's a danger with single payer. If a hospital is built far away, that's not the same thing. You can move closer to it if you want. Single payer takes away your options.
Obama wasn't going to ban private insurance, he wouldn't have to. Single payer could undercut them using the taxpayer's own money and wait them out. That's why the GOP was against it. It was obvious. The feds wanted to take complete control. That is not the role of the federal government. You need consent of the governed and it was not there. A change that massive should require amending the Constitution and it should never be forced on us by a single party. The whole way this made it into law was disgusting, as was the gyrations the supreme court had to make to legitimize it. A part of our representative democracy died when this became law.
Subsidies? It's called corporate welfare. I thought you lefties were against it? The legislation was supposed to lower the cost of insurance, which hasn't materialized for most except for those getting subsidies. But subsidies don't lower the cost, it passes it on to someone else. I remember the White House press corp laughing at the press secretary when he said the whole thing would be revenue neutral. Even the press wasn't buying it.
If you want a public health system, move to Canada or the UK. We had the best system in the world, the best doctors, the best hospitals. A competitive system is far superior to a government run bureaucratic mess. As evil as people say the insurers are, I don't see it. Under what we had before, I could get the care and medicine needed to remain a functional member of the workforce. Now, I'm being pressured to make choices that would knock me out of the work force. Part of that being that a disaster plan and an empty health savings account won't accommodate the needs of people like me. I've paid into insurance for decades and now that I need it, the Democrats have ruined it. This was a free country where we were empowered to make our own choices, good or bad.
Death panels were never a literal thing. The government did have panels whose goal was to decide on what adequate levels of care would be for various illnesses. That would have tied into single payer if that had made it into law. It wasn't a death panel that would decide on each individual's future, but the decisions they made would certainly be form of deciding who lives and who dies. Remember Obama on the campaign trail stating that maybe the lady asking the question would get a pain pill to live with a condition rather than surgery to resolve it. That already existed to some extent with private insurers, but at least with them you could go with a different insurer or just pay out of pocket. You can't easily choose a new government.
We also don't know the full effect of the Affordable Healthcare Act. The dems have postponed many of the provisions time and time again because they would make it too difficult for dem candidates to win elections. That alone is quite damning. Next year is going to be eye opening. There are very large employers that are switching to disaster plans with health savings accounts which is great for young and healthy people but will be disastrous for people with preexisting conditions. Health funds work if you pay in when your healthy. If you're older and requiring continuing care your income is effectively cut by whatever the max annual out of pocket is for the disaster plan. This is all perfectly legal and it's disgraceful. The whole point was to improve our access to health care.
It's easier to sell in a region where the people don't already have a house full of shiny gadgets. America is a more difficult market. It's a business play, not a power shift.
How is Apple any better? They produce jobs in China. I think they started the whole "designed in America" thing so that people could somehow feel like they give a shit about the country they're headquartered in. If you think any global corporation cares about the little people, you're sorely mistaken.
Ironically, if Trump wins, we'll probably see more of this. If you can't import cheap labor, you can export the jobs.
There's not much I can say if you truly believe that the support for Trump is based on neo-Nazi principles. You've clearly lost touch with reality. This association you make between law and order and racism is ridiculous. The voters want our borders protected and our immigration laws enforced. To say that is somehow racist is to call our system of laws racist. We have people wait listed to immigrate here legally meanwhile we continuously have debates over but another amnesty for those that came here illegally. Hardly anyone talks about the people overseas that are waiting for permission to come here. It's disgraceful and it's prejudiced against immigrants who don't have a land connection to use to sneak in to the country. If the populace is unhappy with our immigration laws, let's talk about improving them, but the majority won't support using amnesty as a carrot to get to those talks. That's been down multiple times before and it leaves us in the exact same situation. A similar issue was a significant part of the Brexit that just happened in the EU. Even the Brits want control of their borders.
As for Iraq, he wasn't commending the Hussein regime, he was commending Hussein's approach on dealing with terrorists. Did you miss the part we he said Hussein was a bad guy? Even bad people get things right once in a while.
Dailykos and Aljazeera? You've confirmed my earlier point about being biased against Trump due to misrepresentations of an agenda driven media. You've picked two of the worst offenders.
Then you end calling Trump a con artist. What about Hillary? She just got a free pass for mishandling top secret information, violating FOIA, and lying to investigators. Any one of us would at the very least lose any security clearance we had. Yet for the entitled elite, she gets a free pass. The FBI even said there were serious violations (paraphrasing), yet no "serious" official would bring up a high level politician on charges. That's the FBI pointing our that there is a ruling class in the US which is absolutely forbidden by law. Our fore-fathers fought a revolution to escape that type of system.
You could have said the same thing about the primaries. Success on the GOP side was inversely proportional to money spent. Trump even blew off one of the big debates and it had no impact on the final result. Polling showed there was no way Trump could win the nomination, yet he did. We're seeing something different with this election. The voters are pissed. Having an outsider get the nomination from one of the two parties is huge. This isn't a conventional contest. He faces a battle for sure, but I wouldn't call it until the end.
America has used torture during interrogations for a long time, perhaps back to the days of the colonies. It continued even under our current President. That's why we have black sites in foreign lands. It's an ugly side of reality that most people don't want to know about. We have doctors that swore an oath to do no harm that assisted instances of torture which shows that even our most educated citizens consider it either useful or necessary. I don't want to live in a world where torture happens but I also want to live. Trump could make the same promises that Obama failed to deliver on, but what's the point?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with suppression of the media. I know he had a conflict with one of Fox's talking heads at one point, but last I heard they're on speaking terms again.
I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for. Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane. They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.
I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.
He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.
Slashdot Mirror
Great, so they have a plugin to support the old behavior. How about an option to have tabs show up in the task list separately in Android, the way it used to work?
Poorly. Verizon used to give us pseudo-ANIs so they could bill for calls coming out of our telephony switches. They were "pseudo" in that there was no actual subscriber line that matched that ANI. Except there often was. Some poor SOB would end up with a bill for all our call traffic that used that pseudo-ANI that month, refuse to pay, then Verizon would kill the ANI and our switch would basically fall over dead since it couldn't send traffic out anymore. The best part is that we were providing carrier services for Verizon. It just kept happening over and over again. I saw variations of this with most of the major US regional-Bells. If you're running the right kind of equipment, you can supply whatever ANI you want.
No it won't, unless they're using seriously old equipment. Nobody does call-progress detection over the voice channel anymore because it's more expensive than reading the out-of-band signalling.
Everything is made in China. If people didn't want Chinese crap, Walmart wouldn't still be in business.
Hillary is the one with an actual head count.
Phone companies can't do that. Your ISP probably can't. Where do you draw the line?
It absolutely was a matter of support. He was fed to the social justice wolves. He could absolutely do the job. Mozilla is one of the organizations that should regard a free and open Internet as a priority, but instead let their leader burn for donating to a cause that the majority supported at the time (including Obama). What about standing up for free speech? That circus had nothing to do with his performance as CEO, it was the social justice crowd sensing that they could take someone prominent down. I'd say him stepping down was actually harmful for Mozilla because many now feel that their products can't be trusted. Do you want a browser that's run by vindictive people that would do anything to destroy someone for the opinions they have? Your browser knows everything about you.
As for at-will, sure those things can happen. I doubt the business would stay in business for very long. It's not easy to recruit people, it'd be insane to go out of your way as an employer to make it even more difficult to find talent. Even in an at-will state, there are anti-stalker laws. If that type of thing started happening regularly there would be a push for better privacy rights. I think that would likely be done outside of the at-will laws since they could apply to more than just employer-employee relationships.
What, like the ex-CEO of Mozilla? Not too many people here seemed to care that he got fired (forced to resign, same thing really) for something he supported outside of the workplace.
For the grunts, I doubt most employers have the time or the motivation to monitor what their individual workers are doing when they're not at work. If anyone could ever connect those dots, there'd be good cause to go after them for stalking.
If your protest includes torching buildings and hurling rocks at police, then violent repercussions are appropriate.
I think they use the super bright lights because it interferes with people's cameras who might be trying to record what they're doing. Actually, it works with the naked eye too. Go ahead citizen, record away.
It doesn't matter if I'm okay with it. What matters is that if something bad happens because those radios don't work and investigators discover that this guy intentionally set the place up to block radio signals. He'll probably have a liability problem in court. What if there's a fire and the firemen inside can't hear the order to evacuate? Well, you know.. I wanted people off their phones while they drank and you know, some buildings have metal roofs and stuff. Not a great defense if someone has been seriously injured or even killed. Makes me wonder too if the insurer knows about it.
Are you aware that in the story we're discussing the business is installing this to intentionally block radio signals?
What about the radios that the cops, firemen, and EMTs carry? Seems like those could be blocked as well. It may not be illegal, I don't know, but it could be seen as a foreseeable problem and thus introduce some liability.
You want to hand all the browser control to corporate conglomerates?
Social justice zealots aren't any better, IMO.
Yea, hurry up and get the free forced updates, free advertising in your start menu and in the notification center, free removal of policy options, free violation of the hosts file for Microsoft/NSA privacy invading domains, etc. You could get all that and more and pay absolutely nothing! I liked Win10 when it was still pre-release. I despise what Microsoft is doing with it now. I regret updating my personal machines to it. My work machine may become Linux just because of the forced updates with reboots. It's one thing if it keeps me from gaming for a bit, it's another if it prevents me from getting work done. Yea, fine.. Enterprise may be safe from a lot of that for now, emphasis on "for now". They switched Lync over to Skype for Business and what a pile of crap that is.
"Then figure out a way to present yourself in a respectable manner."
Go fuck yourself.
How's that?
You haven't bothered to address my points directly, instead you complain about the GOP or dismiss things out of hand. Your point about interstate commerce is probably the only halfway legit point you made, except that it's logically flawed. In our mobile society, that would make everything the domain of the feds. If I see a doctor in my state using a plan that's only offered in my state, there's no federal interest, and thus interstate commerce cannot apply.
"Having some form of [auto] insurance, or an alternative, is mandated across the civilized world."
Not in New Hampshire, the last state that still tries to let its residents live free. Our state trusts that its residents will behave responsibly. It works.
"If you wanted that, you should have called your Congressman and told them to train another few thousand doctors and nurses."
Congressman don't typically teach medicine.
"What, you think I believe for a second that if Trump wanted to do something, that he'd let a mere technicality like the Constitution stop him?"
You're confusing the two parties. Obama tried to do things with executive orders that the courts struck down. They even cited his own speeches where he had said such orders wouldn't be legal.
"Give us a plan."
Repeal.
"Look, you can blather on and on about this threat to your liberty all you want, it'll just be tiresome."
Yes, the Constitution is a real problem, isn't it?
"That's untrue, in fact, being able to effect a new government is part of why we have elections and revolutions."
Right.. a violent revolt is just like changing insurers. You should download the updates to your talking points. Or not, I don't really care.
I'm not a republican, first off. Second, I point at the dems because this legislation was passed by the dems exclusively. Understand that. This only looks partisan because the dems had a hard time getting enough of their own people to vote for it, let alone anyone else.
"Why? Are you so adamantly opposed that you dictate to others that they must leave the country at your behest, rather than let them advocate their own interests?"
You clearly don't understand the role of government in the US. The Constitution defines a limited set of powers that the federal government has and leaves everything else to state and local governments. There is no power to regulate health insurance, to operate an exchange, or to punish people for not having health insurance. The feds exploited the right to levy an income tax, perverting it into a punishment for not having health insurance. The supreme court made a mockery of our laws by letting that happen. This is how our federal government bypasses all the restrictions it's supposed to be limited by. The take from the taxpayers and the states, and then only give some of it back if we capitulate. It's evil and corrupt.
I know that HSAs predate the AHA. It just amazes me that we were sold a monstrous piece of legislation that was supposed to improve access to health care and for so many that already had great coverage, they're now seeing their access disappear. Hopefully you're healthy and you don't have to experience it yourself, because it's a nightmare. It's a cruel thing to be managing your health and then have that ripped away by laws that were meant to make things better.
"Maybe instead of a corrupt oligarchy where citizens are deceived and mistreated by a bunch of con artists, we have a well-designed health care system that delivers care rather than wasting money on landscaping and lobby fountains."
Corporations and government are indistinguishable on this point, other than the exception I mentioned earlier.. you can choose to do business with other companies, you can't choose a new government.
"they've been deficient in providing alternatives"
Because that's not the role of government! Health care is between me and my doctor, and my insurer if I choose to have have one. Or at least that's how it should be. I'm not even required to have auto insurance, and that can potentially impact others. Do you not realize how this can be abused? Someone like Trump could mandate that all Americans must have a firearm. The supreme court has already allowed the use of income tax as a penalty, and has already allowed the feds to force us to buy things that we may not want. With most politicians owned by corporations, that's going to be abused eventually.
If "you can keep your plan" wasn't in the cards, than the President shouldn't have said it. This was a major selling point of the whole debacle, which he emphasized by ending it with "period". The legislation was so lengthy and so difficult to understand that people latched onto this as a major selling point and it failed to deliver, spectacularly so. Then he lied about it. "What I actually said was..", but we can all go to the many videos where he said it.
Yea, fine "death panel" is evocative. But that is what these panels were. It was a decision on how care was to be rationed for certain illnesses given a set of variables. That's a danger with single payer. If a hospital is built far away, that's not the same thing. You can move closer to it if you want. Single payer takes away your options.
Obama wasn't going to ban private insurance, he wouldn't have to. Single payer could undercut them using the taxpayer's own money and wait them out. That's why the GOP was against it. It was obvious. The feds wanted to take complete control. That is not the role of the federal government. You need consent of the governed and it was not there. A change that massive should require amending the Constitution and it should never be forced on us by a single party. The whole way this made it into law was disgusting, as was the gyrations the supreme court had to make to legitimize it. A part of our representative democracy died when this became law.
Subsidies? It's called corporate welfare. I thought you lefties were against it? The legislation was supposed to lower the cost of insurance, which hasn't materialized for most except for those getting subsidies. But subsidies don't lower the cost, it passes it on to someone else. I remember the White House press corp laughing at the press secretary when he said the whole thing would be revenue neutral. Even the press wasn't buying it.
If you want a public health system, move to Canada or the UK. We had the best system in the world, the best doctors, the best hospitals. A competitive system is far superior to a government run bureaucratic mess. As evil as people say the insurers are, I don't see it. Under what we had before, I could get the care and medicine needed to remain a functional member of the workforce. Now, I'm being pressured to make choices that would knock me out of the work force. Part of that being that a disaster plan and an empty health savings account won't accommodate the needs of people like me. I've paid into insurance for decades and now that I need it, the Democrats have ruined it. This was a free country where we were empowered to make our own choices, good or bad.
What, like Obama's red line against Syria using chemical weapons? It's all pandering.
"If you like your plan, you can keep it. Period."
Death panels were never a literal thing. The government did have panels whose goal was to decide on what adequate levels of care would be for various illnesses. That would have tied into single payer if that had made it into law. It wasn't a death panel that would decide on each individual's future, but the decisions they made would certainly be form of deciding who lives and who dies. Remember Obama on the campaign trail stating that maybe the lady asking the question would get a pain pill to live with a condition rather than surgery to resolve it. That already existed to some extent with private insurers, but at least with them you could go with a different insurer or just pay out of pocket. You can't easily choose a new government.
We also don't know the full effect of the Affordable Healthcare Act. The dems have postponed many of the provisions time and time again because they would make it too difficult for dem candidates to win elections. That alone is quite damning. Next year is going to be eye opening. There are very large employers that are switching to disaster plans with health savings accounts which is great for young and healthy people but will be disastrous for people with preexisting conditions. Health funds work if you pay in when your healthy. If you're older and requiring continuing care your income is effectively cut by whatever the max annual out of pocket is for the disaster plan. This is all perfectly legal and it's disgraceful. The whole point was to improve our access to health care.
It's easier to sell in a region where the people don't already have a house full of shiny gadgets. America is a more difficult market. It's a business play, not a power shift.
How is Apple any better? They produce jobs in China. I think they started the whole "designed in America" thing so that people could somehow feel like they give a shit about the country they're headquartered in. If you think any global corporation cares about the little people, you're sorely mistaken.
Ironically, if Trump wins, we'll probably see more of this. If you can't import cheap labor, you can export the jobs.
There's not much I can say if you truly believe that the support for Trump is based on neo-Nazi principles. You've clearly lost touch with reality. This association you make between law and order and racism is ridiculous. The voters want our borders protected and our immigration laws enforced. To say that is somehow racist is to call our system of laws racist. We have people wait listed to immigrate here legally meanwhile we continuously have debates over but another amnesty for those that came here illegally. Hardly anyone talks about the people overseas that are waiting for permission to come here. It's disgraceful and it's prejudiced against immigrants who don't have a land connection to use to sneak in to the country. If the populace is unhappy with our immigration laws, let's talk about improving them, but the majority won't support using amnesty as a carrot to get to those talks. That's been down multiple times before and it leaves us in the exact same situation. A similar issue was a significant part of the Brexit that just happened in the EU. Even the Brits want control of their borders.
As for Iraq, he wasn't commending the Hussein regime, he was commending Hussein's approach on dealing with terrorists. Did you miss the part we he said Hussein was a bad guy? Even bad people get things right once in a while.
Dailykos and Aljazeera? You've confirmed my earlier point about being biased against Trump due to misrepresentations of an agenda driven media. You've picked two of the worst offenders.
Then you end calling Trump a con artist. What about Hillary? She just got a free pass for mishandling top secret information, violating FOIA, and lying to investigators. Any one of us would at the very least lose any security clearance we had. Yet for the entitled elite, she gets a free pass. The FBI even said there were serious violations (paraphrasing), yet no "serious" official would bring up a high level politician on charges. That's the FBI pointing our that there is a ruling class in the US which is absolutely forbidden by law. Our fore-fathers fought a revolution to escape that type of system.
You could have said the same thing about the primaries. Success on the GOP side was inversely proportional to money spent. Trump even blew off one of the big debates and it had no impact on the final result. Polling showed there was no way Trump could win the nomination, yet he did. We're seeing something different with this election. The voters are pissed. Having an outsider get the nomination from one of the two parties is huge. This isn't a conventional contest. He faces a battle for sure, but I wouldn't call it until the end.
America has used torture during interrogations for a long time, perhaps back to the days of the colonies. It continued even under our current President. That's why we have black sites in foreign lands. It's an ugly side of reality that most people don't want to know about. We have doctors that swore an oath to do no harm that assisted instances of torture which shows that even our most educated citizens consider it either useful or necessary. I don't want to live in a world where torture happens but I also want to live. Trump could make the same promises that Obama failed to deliver on, but what's the point?
I'm not sure what you're getting at with suppression of the media. I know he had a conflict with one of Fox's talking heads at one point, but last I heard they're on speaking terms again.
I don't see anything that he's said or done that comes anywhere near the level of atrocity that the Nazis were responsible for. Do you seriously think the majority of the Republican voters are neo-Nazis? That's insane. They want border control and they want our existing immigration laws enforced while we consider ways to improve on them. No bait in switch with amnesty and broken promises. Reagan and others fell for that trick. A lot of people want defending our nation to take priority over coddling terrorists. That's not an extreme position either.
I think Trump won the nomination in part because of this type of rhetoric that's used against the political right in this country. Trump says what he thinks and doesn't let political correctness or opinion polls stand in his way. The same couldn't be set of the other party candidates. I don't think most of the media understands that nor do many of those on the political left.
He got a lot of heat for his comments when he visited Belgium because he pointed out a risk they were taking with their dense pockets of immigrants, yet after the heat died down, Belgium suffered a serious terror attack from terrorists who lived among those immigrants. That doesn't make him a Nazi, it makes him a candidate. He pointed out the elephant in the room and was right when lesser politicians would have said nothing for fear of appearing politically incorrect. Lives are at stake.