Perhaps you don't understand "Trade relations and negotiation between governments are a mundane and common.". Remove "trade war" from any reporting and it's just regular economic news with ups and downs with trends.
A trade war is a negotiation on relations and trade. Negotiation on relations and trade are common and somewhat expected by governments as they change over time. The Chinese would tit for tat to save face on any renegotiation that didn't have the same favorability as pre-existing deals. Common, mundane, and status quo governance.
have to allow public access to all politicians' official pages
That may not be enough because it's access and the 'reply' feature. Facebook and others may have to allow public access and public comment to all politicians' official pages if this decision and the other stand.
If those pages are protected while the rest of the site is under Facebook control; what is to stop those pages from turning into the 4chan of Facebook? Maybe before visiting one of the protected pages Facebook could give a warning; Beware! Scum and villainy of unprecedented degeneracy await you should you continue to Rep. Every Man's page. Proceed at your own risk.
Finally, a trigger warning I can support. Rep. Every Man is crazy!
That's just a weird thing to say. Never Trumpers are a Republican group. I didn't say anything about dividing the Republican party,
I was using the phrase as a general term to apply to the left as well because not everyone on the left is "never Trump".
I was talking about the whole country: his method has been to place blame for all that is wrong on Muslims, "Mexicans" (his word for Latin Americans), and Democrats. Also the Chinese.
I have seen these lines repeated in various news outlets and when I see the full context and language it is hardly as damning as portrayed. Uncouthed but not "blame all Mexicans". Maybe there is a new story which this time is as bad as portrayed.
Claas Relotius
He was CNN journalist of the year. He lied for years. How can you trust CNN when their "journalist of the year" turns out to be a serial liar? You would think they would have researched the guy and his work before giving him such an award. Yes, journalism is necessary for democracy but that doesn't mean everything they say is true nor does it protect them from criticism. When the media is biased and puts forward their bias as news and actively make the news about them, they no longer are journalists. This is what has happened. Journalists are acting as activists.
you're holding this as an example for why we shouldn't trust the media.
Oh no that is just the more recent example that came to mind. I have seen too many lies in print that stupidity is hardly a satisfactory explanation. You and others put the media on a pedestal. You and others are making it as if Trump and the distrust in the media is a new thing. That they have been acting with integrity and honor and that Trump is completely baseless to criticize the media for their reporting*. That they only report facts about Trump and it's only ignorant Trumptard bigots that ignore the wisdom and glory of fact based reporting.
* Trump deserves some blame but it isn't one sided. The media are failing to do their job because many journalists and outlets were invested in Clinton and took it personally that she lost.
Whether you agree with it or not you should have at least known about this particular gaffe/lie to understand my comment. My guess is you did know about it and understood what I was saying but wanted to be purposefully flippant.
No it's not. Just because there are such things as "Never Trumpers" doesn't mean his MO is to divide the country. When it gets to a point where it doesn't matter what he does it "divides" the country then it isn't Trump.
he real threat that Trump poses, the thing that makes him such a disaster, is that he is destroying public trust in the institutions which protect us from people like him.
Is that like campaigning to end the Electoral College because it didn't give the result you wanted and one of the first orders of business when you retake the House amidst a shutdown? Is that like stating you should "stack the court" to get the opinions you want? Is that like disparaging the Senate because the GOP held a majority? Is that like attacking the societal and legal standard of innocent until proven guilty or the right to face your accuser? Aren't those actual attacks on the public trust of our institutions more so than what Trump "poses"? "Protect us from people like him". You can't even be objective about the topic yet he is a threat in waiting?
it's the role of the media to expose corrupt politicians. They're supposed to attack people like Trump mercilessly, that is their job. That's why we have freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment: it's the only way that democracy can function.... he has managed to convince a large segment of the population that they shouldn't be doing this and so they shouldn't be trusted.
The problem is when the lie. The media lie like Claas Relotius. The problem is when the media become activists. The problem is when the media push narratives over facts. Trump tweeting a CNN wrestling is hardly an attack on CNN or journalists. The media created their own credibility problems. Trump didn't convince anyone that the media is biased and full of shit. Sander supporters didn't feel betrayed by the DNC because of Trump.
Because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk.
You missed part of my description. "In bed with the media". We already saw what happens when the media doesn't do it's job in accounting for a president with Obama. "Zero scandal president." Pfff. Trump is being watched like a Hawk and I doubt that Clinton would have even remotely been given a tenth of the same scrutiny. If "being watch liked a hawk" is your guard against bad leadership then Trump is better because the media will actually report on the crap he does. The problem is because they are so blinded by their hate they produce garbage narrative that gets ignored.
Even the Rs don't like the way DJT is pulling out of Syria. And several erstwhile cabinet-members who are generals didn't like it either.
What makes you think I agree with it or that I ignored the R's? I even liked Mattis. I don't even know if it's a good decision but the point is that the "pro peace" dems have warhawk rhetoric now. The same rhetoric as McCain in 2008. "Stay in Afghanistan for 100 years.".
Same reason democrats weren't infuriated when they couldn't keep their doctor or insurance plan?
When you have promises "improved health care" and "keep your doctor". If you get the former the later isn't as important.*
When you have a promises "border wall" and "Mexico pays for it". If you get the former the later isn't as important.
*Not making a quantitative judgment on the ACA but rather the perception of what it means to an average Democrat.
You can keep bringing up the fact that Mexico is indeed not going to pay for the wall and that makes Trump a poopy head. But you're only preaching to the choir that already hate Trump.
It's very easy to understand someones position. Listen to them instead of pretending you know their thoughts. It's understood by many that the "Mexico will pay for the wall" to mean that we will get a better trade deal that will save us billions. Disagree. Agree, I don't care but "Can't possibly imagine"? Yikes.
This cannot be understated. Politics has been almost like a comedy show than anything these last 2-3 years. Makes me want to vote for the guy in 2020 just to keep the entertainment alive.
My personal favorites:
Warren 1/2020th. Women clawing at SCOTUS doors. To Canadian PM: Didn't you guys burn down the WH? CNN wrestling meme tweet. People walking on a highway at night to protest election results. (Spoiler, someone got hit)
There are plenty of sad indictments of our country. Trump beating Hilary isn't one of them.
He was the lesser evil because of his inexperience and lack of connections. So far, the last 2 years (besides the hyperbolic press) have been mundane status quo governance. The most contentious things are undoing bad actions from the previous administration.
He may be a buffoon but we have always known this and that was on the table during the election. A dumb buffoon is better than a smart well established crook that is in bed with the media.
As you say, smart people can still be affected by tribal mentality. How tribal is it to have a policy of "anything against Trump". I mean, the whole Syria pull out is a prime example. Dems are now sounding like the warhawks.
I didn't they are slaves. I said they were the modern equivalent of slave labor.
Because "we want cheap stuff" or as you state "Border states depend on immigrant labour. Don't fuck with that economy." because those places cannot fathom paying their workers a decent wage with proper benefits and protections.
We created laws saying you have to treat workers a certain way but you are saying "no no ignore that. I want cheap crap. Treat workers like shit and pay them crap wages. Do harm to Mexico because I want to exploit her people.". That is way more immoral than a fucking wall.
Southern states used to depend on slave labor. Would you say "don't fuck with that economy" before 1864?
Illegal immigration is the modern equivalent of slave labor. I would rather pay more and have those areas of the country protect their workers and hire citizens then rely and reward illegal behavior.
Again, it seems that you are saying that Netflix can dictate the business of an ISP to be favorable to Netflix hidden behind the "customers either care enough to demand that the ISP improve its bandwidth or they don't.". As I have asked below:
How many other streaming services/information service providers does the ISP have to accommodate with free rack-space and electricity? Netflix is colluding with an ISP for better market dominance. If a competitor to Netflix requested the same thing, does the ISP have to agree? Is the ISP liable for damages if they refuse? At what point is an ISP just free rack space and electricity for information service providers because you view it as "trivial cost". It is up for an ISP to decide what will reduce their costs and not an outside company demanding free rack space and electricity.
I should clarify. I made 2 statements one supported by evidence and one my opinion that I should have mentioned was my opinion based on personal observation.
Neighboring western states are having the housing markets dramatically impacted by CA migration which is what the NYTimes link is supporting. Because CA has a messed up housing market, people leave and it is causing housing market problems in other cities outside of CA. I don't fault people for this. Whether those places handle those problems the same way CA did only time will tell.
The second, "bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left", is my opinion based on my own personal interaction with CA migrants. This isn't restricted to housing per say and a good example is gun control. I don't like it when CA migrant come to a gun friendly state and push for CA politics on the issue. Or flood elections with cash to support a very liberal candidate/policy. Yes, all those smaller states have a little CA in them as you put it but many are now facing a complete change in the state culture and body politic because of those migrants bringing CA with them. I don't like that.
No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.
The entire government apparatus that makes people leave CA wasn't put forward by a single vote. People do vote for high taxes and regulations. Some are proud of being "civilized" to have such government services. It's a choice and they are free to make it just as other people are free to leave that state because of those costs.
It is accurate to say that people, particularly poor families, are leaving CA to places like TX because of taxes and regulation that make it too expensive for them to live there. There is evidence and data to support that statement.
What bothers me the most about CA migration is that the people leaving CA bring CA with them. They are increasing housing costs and in many instances (that I have seen personally) bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left.
Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes.
Would those agreements still be made if streaming services, like Netflix, didn't exist? If so then it is a moot point. But that is hardly the entire issue. How many other streaming/information services does the ISP have to house? Why is Netflix able to dictate the business of a different company? A couple here a couple there add up quickly. Besides, just because it is cost effective doesn't mean that an ISP has to do whatever Netflix demands.
How is it "favorable treatment" on the ISP's side to reduce the ISP's costs? The ISP didn't initiate it, and the ISP isn't the one making the offer, Netflix is.
Doesn't matter who made the offer. Netflix is colluding with an ISP for better market dominance. If another competitor requested the same thing, does the ISP have to agree? Is the ISP liable for damages if they refuse? It is up for an ISP to decide what will reduce their costs and not an outside company demanding free rack space and electricity.
because it's a threat to their legacy business model
Netflix isn't innocent in this. They throttled their own customers and blamed it on ISPs.
Which require rack-space and electricity. Do those costs offset the bandwidth savings? If an ISP gives such favorable treatment to Netflix do they have to give the same treatment to any streaming service/information service provider? Is the ISP liable for colluding with Netflix against a Netflix competitor if they don't offer the same "free" services?
Holy Shit Balls are symmetrical not lopsided! You are just demonstrating your asymmetricism and asymmetrical world view. I would call you an "insensitive clod" but "clod" is a problematic microaggressive word for the asymmetricarchy.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you don't understand "Trade relations and negotiation between governments are a mundane and common.". Remove "trade war" from any reporting and it's just regular economic news with ups and downs with trends.
A trade war is a negotiation on relations and trade. Negotiation on relations and trade are common and somewhat expected by governments as they change over time. The Chinese would tit for tat to save face on any renegotiation that didn't have the same favorability as pre-existing deals. Common, mundane, and status quo governance.
have to allow public access to all politicians' official pages
That may not be enough because it's access and the 'reply' feature. Facebook and others may have to allow public access and public comment to all politicians' official pages if this decision and the other stand.
If those pages are protected while the rest of the site is under Facebook control; what is to stop those pages from turning into the 4chan of Facebook? Maybe before visiting one of the protected pages Facebook could give a warning; Beware! Scum and villainy of unprecedented degeneracy await you should you continue to Rep. Every Man's page. Proceed at your own risk.
Finally, a trigger warning I can support. Rep. Every Man is crazy!
Trade relations and negotiation between governments are mundane and common.
There was/is a growing population who feel that many of the trade deals we have are unfavorable for a variety of reasons. Sanders comes to mind.
That's just a weird thing to say. Never Trumpers are a Republican group. I didn't say anything about dividing the Republican party,
I was using the phrase as a general term to apply to the left as well because not everyone on the left is "never Trump".
I was talking about the whole country: his method has been to place blame for all that is wrong on Muslims, "Mexicans" (his word for Latin Americans), and Democrats. Also the Chinese.
I have seen these lines repeated in various news outlets and when I see the full context and language it is hardly as damning as portrayed. Uncouthed but not "blame all Mexicans". Maybe there is a new story which this time is as bad as portrayed.
Claas Relotius
He was CNN journalist of the year. He lied for years. How can you trust CNN when their "journalist of the year" turns out to be a serial liar? You would think they would have researched the guy and his work before giving him such an award. Yes, journalism is necessary for democracy but that doesn't mean everything they say is true nor does it protect them from criticism. When the media is biased and puts forward their bias as news and actively make the news about them, they no longer are journalists. This is what has happened. Journalists are acting as activists.
you're holding this as an example for why we shouldn't trust the media.
Oh no that is just the more recent example that came to mind. I have seen too many lies in print that stupidity is hardly a satisfactory explanation. You and others put the media on a pedestal. You and others are making it as if Trump and the distrust in the media is a new thing. That they have been acting with integrity and honor and that Trump is completely baseless to criticize the media for their reporting*. That they only report facts about Trump and it's only ignorant Trumptard bigots that ignore the wisdom and glory of fact based reporting.
* Trump deserves some blame but it isn't one sided. The media are failing to do their job because many journalists and outlets were invested in Clinton and took it personally that she lost.
It was lie of the year. Hardly a right wing source.
Whether you agree with it or not you should have at least known about this particular gaffe/lie to understand my comment. My guess is you did know about it and understood what I was saying but wanted to be purposefully flippant.
Don't worry scro. Many tards live some kick ass lives.
his whole MO is about dividing the country,
No it's not. Just because there are such things as "Never Trumpers" doesn't mean his MO is to divide the country. When it gets to a point where it doesn't matter what he does it "divides" the country then it isn't Trump.
he real threat that Trump poses, the thing that makes him such a disaster, is that he is destroying public trust in the institutions which protect us from people like him.
Is that like campaigning to end the Electoral College because it didn't give the result you wanted and one of the first orders of business when you retake the House amidst a shutdown? Is that like stating you should "stack the court" to get the opinions you want? Is that like disparaging the Senate because the GOP held a majority? Is that like attacking the societal and legal standard of innocent until proven guilty or the right to face your accuser? Aren't those actual attacks on the public trust of our institutions more so than what Trump "poses"? "Protect us from people like him". You can't even be objective about the topic yet he is a threat in waiting?
it's the role of the media to expose corrupt politicians. They're supposed to attack people like Trump mercilessly, that is their job. That's why we have freedom of the press enshrined in the first amendment: it's the only way that democracy can function. ... he has managed to convince a large segment of the population that they shouldn't be doing this and so they shouldn't be trusted.
The problem is when the lie. The media lie like Claas Relotius. The problem is when the media become activists. The problem is when the media push narratives over facts. Trump tweeting a CNN wrestling is hardly an attack on CNN or journalists. The media created their own credibility problems. Trump didn't convince anyone that the media is biased and full of shit. Sander supporters didn't feel betrayed by the DNC because of Trump.
Because the knave is competent. But watch the knave like a hawk.
You missed part of my description. "In bed with the media". We already saw what happens when the media doesn't do it's job in accounting for a president with Obama. "Zero scandal president." Pfff. Trump is being watched like a Hawk and I doubt that Clinton would have even remotely been given a tenth of the same scrutiny. If "being watch liked a hawk" is your guard against bad leadership then Trump is better because the media will actually report on the crap he does. The problem is because they are so blinded by their hate they produce garbage narrative that gets ignored.
Even the Rs don't like the way DJT is pulling out of Syria. And several erstwhile cabinet-members who are generals didn't like it either.
What makes you think I agree with it or that I ignored the R's? I even liked Mattis. I don't even know if it's a good decision but the point is that the "pro peace" dems have warhawk rhetoric now. The same rhetoric as McCain in 2008. "Stay in Afghanistan for 100 years.".
Same reason democrats weren't infuriated when they couldn't keep their doctor or insurance plan?
When you have promises "improved health care" and "keep your doctor". If you get the former the later isn't as important.*
When you have a promises "border wall" and "Mexico pays for it". If you get the former the later isn't as important.
*Not making a quantitative judgment on the ACA but rather the perception of what it means to an average Democrat.
You can keep bringing up the fact that Mexico is indeed not going to pay for the wall and that makes Trump a poopy head. But you're only preaching to the choir that already hate Trump.
It's very easy to understand someones position. Listen to them instead of pretending you know their thoughts. It's understood by many that the "Mexico will pay for the wall" to mean that we will get a better trade deal that will save us billions. Disagree. Agree, I don't care but "Can't possibly imagine"? Yikes.
I don't subscribe to the "Listen and Believe" model of journalism perpetuated by media and many on the left.
I think for myself. Scary I know especially for a NPC.
the high entertainment value.
This cannot be understated. Politics has been almost like a comedy show than anything these last 2-3 years. Makes me want to vote for the guy in 2020 just to keep the entertainment alive.
My personal favorites:
Warren 1/2020th.
Women clawing at SCOTUS doors.
To Canadian PM: Didn't you guys burn down the WH?
CNN wrestling meme tweet.
People walking on a highway at night to protest election results. (Spoiler, someone got hit)
There are plenty of sad indictments of our country. Trump beating Hilary isn't one of them.
He was the lesser evil because of his inexperience and lack of connections. So far, the last 2 years (besides the hyperbolic press) have been mundane status quo governance. The most contentious things are undoing bad actions from the previous administration.
He may be a buffoon but we have always known this and that was on the table during the election. A dumb buffoon is better than a smart well established crook that is in bed with the media.
As you say, smart people can still be affected by tribal mentality. How tribal is it to have a policy of "anything against Trump". I mean, the whole Syria pull out is a prime example. Dems are now sounding like the warhawks.
I understand abstracts might be difficult for you. Good luck.
And don't bring Hitler up. That is offensive. My grandfather died in a concentration camp during WW2. He fell out of the guard tower.
I didn't they are slaves. I said they were the modern equivalent of slave labor.
Because "we want cheap stuff" or as you state "Border states depend on immigrant labour. Don't fuck with that economy." because those places cannot fathom paying their workers a decent wage with proper benefits and protections.
We created laws saying you have to treat workers a certain way but you are saying "no no ignore that. I want cheap crap. Treat workers like shit and pay them crap wages. Do harm to Mexico because I want to exploit her people.". That is way more immoral than a fucking wall.
Border states depend on immigrant labour. Don't fuck with that economy.
Bah, this was the quote.
Southern states used to depend on slave labor. Would you say "don't fuck with that economy" before 1864?
Illegal immigration is the modern equivalent of slave labor. I would rather pay more and have those areas of the country protect their workers and hire citizens then rely and reward illegal behavior.
per say per se per my god man who gives a shit
Again, it seems that you are saying that Netflix can dictate the business of an ISP to be favorable to Netflix hidden behind the "customers either care enough to demand that the ISP improve its bandwidth or they don't.". As I have asked below:
How many other streaming services/information service providers does the ISP have to accommodate with free rack-space and electricity? Netflix is colluding with an ISP for better market dominance. If a competitor to Netflix requested the same thing, does the ISP have to agree? Is the ISP liable for damages if they refuse? At what point is an ISP just free rack space and electricity for information service providers because you view it as "trivial cost". It is up for an ISP to decide what will reduce their costs and not an outside company demanding free rack space and electricity.
I should clarify. I made 2 statements one supported by evidence and one my opinion that I should have mentioned was my opinion based on personal observation.
Neighboring western states are having the housing markets dramatically impacted by CA migration which is what the NYTimes link is supporting. Because CA has a messed up housing market, people leave and it is causing housing market problems in other cities outside of CA. I don't fault people for this. Whether those places handle those problems the same way CA did only time will tell.
The second, "bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left", is my opinion based on my own personal interaction with CA migrants. This isn't restricted to housing per say and a good example is gun control. I don't like it when CA migrant come to a gun friendly state and push for CA politics on the issue. Or flood elections with cash to support a very liberal candidate/policy. Yes, all those smaller states have a little CA in them as you put it but many are now facing a complete change in the state culture and body politic because of those migrants bringing CA with them. I don't like that.
Few people move from CA to TX literally "due to high taxes and regulations"
Based on Census data, people moving out of CA are families with kids with only a high school education and lower-income are going to TX. High costs of living including housing are the chief reason people are leaving.
Those costs are, in part, because of government regulation and taxes that limit supply and increase building costs for new housing.
No one votes for "high taxes and regulations", that's just inflammatory rhetoric.
The entire government apparatus that makes people leave CA wasn't put forward by a single vote. People do vote for high taxes and regulations. Some are proud of being "civilized" to have such government services. It's a choice and they are free to make it just as other people are free to leave that state because of those costs.
It is accurate to say that people, particularly poor families, are leaving CA to places like TX because of taxes and regulation that make it too expensive for them to live there. There is evidence and data to support that statement.
What bothers me the most about CA migration is that the people leaving CA bring CA with them. They are increasing housing costs and in many instances (that I have seen personally) bring the politics and culture that created CA that they left.
I would rather drink it to run my weekend.
Can I get an "Amen!"?
Amen!
Hallelujah!
Preach it br... Errr. I think I am in the wrong building.
Yes, the lopsided peering agreements cost the ISPs far far more than the electricity costs for a couple of rack mounted boxes.
Would those agreements still be made if streaming services, like Netflix, didn't exist? If so then it is a moot point. But that is hardly the entire issue. How many other streaming/information services does the ISP have to house? Why is Netflix able to dictate the business of a different company? A couple here a couple there add up quickly. Besides, just because it is cost effective doesn't mean that an ISP has to do whatever Netflix demands.
How is it "favorable treatment" on the ISP's side to reduce the ISP's costs? The ISP didn't initiate it, and the ISP isn't the one making the offer, Netflix is.
Doesn't matter who made the offer. Netflix is colluding with an ISP for better market dominance. If another competitor requested the same thing, does the ISP have to agree? Is the ISP liable for damages if they refuse? It is up for an ISP to decide what will reduce their costs and not an outside company demanding free rack space and electricity.
because it's a threat to their legacy business model
Netflix isn't innocent in this. They throttled their own customers and blamed it on ISPs.
Netflix offered free caching servers
Which require rack-space and electricity. Do those costs offset the bandwidth savings? If an ISP gives such favorable treatment to Netflix do they have to give the same treatment to any streaming service/information service provider? Is the ISP liable for colluding with Netflix against a Netflix competitor if they don't offer the same "free" services?
Holy Shit Balls are symmetrical not lopsided! You are just demonstrating your asymmetricism and asymmetrical world view. I would call you an "insensitive clod" but "clod" is a problematic microaggressive word for the asymmetricarchy.