Facebook is not the government, can not be construed to be the government and their business is their property.
Given the fact that Facebook exists today is because it has been protected by government, be it through protection of IP laws, or implicit allowing of their overly friendly security guards on their campus... it's pretty clear that Facebook only exists because the government has been sufficiently good at preventing a storming of Zuckerberg co and seizing the means of production.
Sound crazy? I've heard this same line of defense of government with regards to the right of government to regulate private business for ages... is this no longer valid?
Didn't he also say he had info that could/would lead to the downfall/arrest of Hillary Clinton? Isn't he still holding that back?
No wait, we know about the spirit cooking or the claims of a pedophilia ring at a pizza place... clearly that's what did her in... alas no arrests yet.
Except that what the CIA is stating is that Russia broke into both the DNC and RNC, but only choose to release the info from the DNC.
I seem to recall much information from the intelligence community in the run up to Iraq II which laid out the case as to what they knew... all of which now we are told was made up and part of a made up campaign to go to war... when can we count on similar information being revealed? As I've yet to see any credible evidence that whoever was successful at hacking the RNC to the same degree as the DNC.
But it's ok, keep on going with your conspiracy theory... hopefully it will keep you warm after 2018 & 2020 don't go your way.
What's funnier is how constitutional purists are all about constitutional purism... until they're not.
Once again with the name labeling without facts... it's as if you are trying to diminish whoever you are talking to with name calling, rather than facts.
At any rate, the cake baking thing has been blown out of proportion,
The cake bakers would probably disagree... as would the couples they refused service to... and the government agents which fined or threatened them.
and for the record I don't think anyone should be forced to put a message on a cake if it violates their personal conscience.
How nice of you, to defend the cake bakers after so many were sued into non-existence.
And once again, Facebook isn't a country or a government.
I'm unaware of anyone saying they are...
It is a private website on the Internet,
Shut up and bake the damn cake! Oh... or does being able to say no only apply to online cake makers?
There does come in an interesting philosophical question: Companies like Facebook today have a degree of power over communication never imagined by the founders who prevented only the government (in most cases) from infringing upon free speech.
If we were to kidnap a number of framers from the past, bring them to the modern day and explain the situation and pose the Q: "Should the right to infringe upon speech you disagree with also apply to private entities like these?"
I'm not arguing either direction, simply pointing out the difference in time.
I think you alt-right types
Funny how you have to resort to labeling other people (correctly or incorrectly) to try to justify your point.
Scott Adams recently blogged about what I'd noticed, a general calming down of the protesting which suggests a growing acceptance with the new reality: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
There is still much anger to be had on the 'progressive' side today, few realize the slump they are in or how they can get out of it.
Even if they are successful at getting a few electors to vote for someone else (the GOP pledged ones will never vote for Hillary), it would still fall to the House for selection... which will still elect Trump or someone even more GOP that the 'progressives' wouldn't want.
Now what?
They do not have the seats in the House or Senate to do much of anything, doubly so after Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for everything but SCOTUS nominees. It'd be a rotten shame if the GOP used the same rules when... Ted Cruz gets the nomination for an open seat.
Look to 2018? Good luck with that. The Dems have more seats to defend and the GOP is likely to retain the House.
Look to 2020? Ok, who are you going to run? Thanks to Obama's shrinking coat tails starting in 2010, much of the back bench of the Dems has been decimated.
Hillary isn't going to run again, Sanders won't either. Warren would be deemed to old and too fringe. The only hope is trying to find someone like Obama who has no real experience (or history) to run against, and can motivate people.
Whether they like it or not, the 'progressives' have been routed to the point of utter demotivation & depression.
All they have is rioting in the streets (which takes more time & energy than they have left) or posting their sob stories online.
I'm no Trump fan, but had I know how crabby the progressives were going to be... I might just have campaigned & voted for him.
We've been trying to warn the right this would be the result of their constant pimping, but they'll do anything to get elected, fuck the consequences.
We've been trying to warn the left that their cozying up with #BlackLivesMatter was going to result in more people being killed, including all of the cops who have needlessly lost their lives in targeted attacks... all so you could try to gain more elected seats.
As you said... and as Hillary so vividly said when bringing the mothers of attempted cop killers on stage with her... "f#%& the consequences"
Does this mean you are willing to accept responsibility on behalf of Dem propaganda for the 2010 shooting at the Family Research Council where a guy walked into a business with a gun, bag full of chick-fil-a and a list of 'hate groups' from the SPLC and shot someone?
Not at all. Colbert at least understood the role he was trying to play and came off as funny to many on both sides. Stewart was just so reflexive that he thought that he as a progressive, playing the part of an unabashed progressive would be funny to all... he wasn't.
I haven't given the new guy much of a shot yet, but did recently watch the Tomi Lahren interview (my first time actually seeing/hearing) her speak... where she utterly mopped the floor with him, something I think he even knew in the end.
So when an extreme left-wing nutjob gun owner went into the Family Research Council office in DC, complete with a bag of chick-fil-a and a list of 'hate groups' from the Southern Poverty Law Center and shot someone before being wrestled to the ground... he was what? Nothing to worry about?
Strange that we have certain rules which all parties knew about in advance?
Lemme guess, you probably also think it is strange that in say... Baseball or tennis, that the overall winner can have scored fewer points overall compared to the loser.
That whole "elections have consequences, I won" thing doesn't exactly garner much support from the opposition, does it?
And when later you get "I have a pen and a phone" and end up getting rebuked by SCOTUS 9-0 more than any modern President... the effectiveness of the current President quickly ends up in doubt, doubly so when so much of what he 'accomplished' is so easily undone as failures like Obamacare cannot be left to fester as is any longer.
Article II Section 4 The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
They have to be in one of those positions when the House impeaches them...
I never said they could impeach Trump on November 9th, or are you assuming my use of 'day one' refers to being president elect and not president is enough? If so, that would be rather silly.
Article I Section 3 Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...
and all you can do is remove them and prevent them from holding another position.
Correct, however that does change criminal/civil liability, the portion of that clause you happened to edit out.
But to prevent them having another position, you have to charge them while they're actually in the old one.
Except A2S4 doesn't end with "committed during the tenure of that particular term in office", nor any mention of a statute of limitations for offenses committed in or out of office which could lead to impeachment.
If what you are saying is true... a sitting vice-president who assassinates the sitting president, they would not be subject to impeachment because the crime occurred in their former office?
You can't do it from hindsight.
Says who? There are different legal theories as to the power to impeach, the meaning of 'high crimes & misdemeanors' as just one major one (ie is it required for congress to pass a law defining impeachable offenses? some say yes). It's hard to call this an ex-post facto issue, and given you forgot about:
Article I, Section V Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
You know what that means? It is fully within the power of the house to draft & vote on articles of impeachment on a random federal official every week! The reasoning it could simply be "for the fashion crime of wearing white after labor day"... even in the form of white cotton briefs.
Likely? No, but fully within their power.
"But, but, the courts!" some would say, who should then be pointed to
Article I, Section 2 The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
No court would dare touch this matter for fear of being accused of involving themselves in a matter which is rather explicitly enumerated as an exclusive power to the congress, for fear that any judge who did would be the next to be impeached.
Why is that the people most interested in shouting "Constitution!" are the same ones who don't know what it says, and will be first to argue about what it means if you call them on it?
Why is the people who copy & paste bits of the constitution to try to explain their disagreement with someone often don't fully think through their arguments? Yes, some of mine are rather outlandish & unlikely, they do at least test the theories you attempt to raise.
Not really, no. There's no compulsion to produce a *valid* ballot.
So under your version of compulsory voting... people would be required to show up... but not actually be required cast a valid vote? Why not call it "compulsary show up on election day" instead? What if someone is unable to be at their polling place during early voting or on election day?
There's no compulsion to do any particular thing, just to show up.
Which would seem to be a compulsion... under which enumerated power or court case do you believe the federal or state government has such a power?
Raising an army? Na, that's the justification of the draft.
Establishment of a post office & roads? Not quite.
Punishing of piracy? I dunno.
You mention jury duty... but fail to acknowledge that it, like elections are almost exclusively a state matter.
In order to legally push your compulsory system, you would actually have to pass such a requirement in all 50 states, as again, you are going to have a hard time justifying the compulsion of speech or action under any federal enumerated powers, some states may allow it legally, others not.
Jury duty is little different that conscription for military service (which is constitutional in the US), drafting from a wide range of people so as to attempt to secure the rights of others, and always ideally on a limited basis.
Just because I take a selfie with a ballot marked for Clinton, #SMOD2016, Trump or Baba Booey doesn't actually show a cast ballot for that name. Easy enough for online virtual signaling or paid for votes to take a ballot, mark it in the desired way, take the photo, then market it again and return to an election official for a new ballot to replace the spoiled one.
Slashdot Mirror
Given the fact that Facebook exists today is because it has been protected by government, be it through protection of IP laws, or implicit allowing of their overly friendly security guards on their campus... it's pretty clear that Facebook only exists because the government has been sufficiently good at preventing a storming of Zuckerberg co and seizing the means of production.
Sound crazy? I've heard this same line of defense of government with regards to the right of government to regulate private business for ages... is this no longer valid?
Didn't he also say he had info that could/would lead to the downfall/arrest of Hillary Clinton? Isn't he still holding that back?
No wait, we know about the spirit cooking or the claims of a pedophilia ring at a pizza place... clearly that's what did her in... alas no arrests yet.
Most things intelligence agencies do on foreign soil is illegal... the key is not getting caught... and if it was the Russians, they haven't been yet.
At this point, all we have is fingers being pointed to the Russians based on hearsay, when can we count on you releasing some substantive info?
I seem to recall much information from the intelligence community in the run up to Iraq II which laid out the case as to what they knew... all of which now we are told was made up and part of a made up campaign to go to war... when can we count on similar information being revealed? As I've yet to see any credible evidence that whoever was successful at hacking the RNC to the same degree as the DNC.
But it's ok, keep on going with your conspiracy theory... hopefully it will keep you warm after 2018 & 2020 don't go your way.
You election deniers are quite entertaining.
At least 9-11 conspiracy 'theorists' can at least point to some kind of evidence which can be examined & considered.
Once again with the name labeling without facts... it's as if you are trying to diminish whoever you are talking to with name calling, rather than facts.
The cake bakers would probably disagree... as would the couples they refused service to... and the government agents which fined or threatened them.
How nice of you, to defend the cake bakers after so many were sued into non-existence.
Given the writing of the time and purpose of the second amendment... I'm pretty sure they'd be ok with them in civilian hands.
Except I didn't say that.
I'm unaware of anyone saying they are...
Shut up and bake the damn cake! Oh... or does being able to say no only apply to online cake makers?
There does come in an interesting philosophical question: Companies like Facebook today have a degree of power over communication never imagined by the founders who prevented only the government (in most cases) from infringing upon free speech.
If we were to kidnap a number of framers from the past, bring them to the modern day and explain the situation and pose the Q: "Should the right to infringe upon speech you disagree with also apply to private entities like these?"
I'm not arguing either direction, simply pointing out the difference in time.
Funny how you have to resort to labeling other people (correctly or incorrectly) to try to justify your point.
Agreed for the moment... in part.
Scott Adams recently blogged about what I'd noticed, a general calming down of the protesting which suggests a growing acceptance with the new reality: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
There is still much anger to be had on the 'progressive' side today, few realize the slump they are in or how they can get out of it.
Even if they are successful at getting a few electors to vote for someone else (the GOP pledged ones will never vote for Hillary), it would still fall to the House for selection... which will still elect Trump or someone even more GOP that the 'progressives' wouldn't want.
Now what?
They do not have the seats in the House or Senate to do much of anything, doubly so after Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for everything but SCOTUS nominees. It'd be a rotten shame if the GOP used the same rules when... Ted Cruz gets the nomination for an open seat.
Look to 2018? Good luck with that. The Dems have more seats to defend and the GOP is likely to retain the House.
Look to 2020? Ok, who are you going to run? Thanks to Obama's shrinking coat tails starting in 2010, much of the back bench of the Dems has been decimated.
Hillary isn't going to run again, Sanders won't either. Warren would be deemed to old and too fringe. The only hope is trying to find someone like Obama who has no real experience (or history) to run against, and can motivate people.
Whether they like it or not, the 'progressives' have been routed to the point of utter demotivation & depression.
All they have is rioting in the streets (which takes more time & energy than they have left) or posting their sob stories online.
I'm no Trump fan, but had I know how crabby the progressives were going to be... I might just have campaigned & voted for him.
We've been trying to warn the left that their cozying up with #BlackLivesMatter was going to result in more people being killed, including all of the cops who have needlessly lost their lives in targeted attacks... all so you could try to gain more elected seats.
As you said... and as Hillary so vividly said when bringing the mothers of attempted cop killers on stage with her... "f#%& the consequences"
Does this mean you are willing to accept responsibility on behalf of Dem propaganda for the 2010 shooting at the Family Research Council where a guy walked into a business with a gun, bag full of chick-fil-a and a list of 'hate groups' from the SPLC and shot someone?
No?
You must have missed the Bush years when the Dems did much the same.
I wonder then where the GOP got the idea from... or filibustering supreme court nominees. No, not a Dem idea at all.
Now thanks to Reid largely getting rid of the filibuster, the GOP is poised to teach a lesson to the dems which will resonate for a generation.
I'm no Trump fan, but the tears from the left over the last few weeks have been delicious... so it must be asked: how do you like them apples?
Not at all. Colbert at least understood the role he was trying to play and came off as funny to many on both sides. Stewart was just so reflexive that he thought that he as a progressive, playing the part of an unabashed progressive would be funny to all... he wasn't.
I haven't given the new guy much of a shot yet, but did recently watch the Tomi Lahren interview (my first time actually seeing/hearing) her speak... where she utterly mopped the floor with him, something I think he even knew in the end.
If he is not an intelligent man... how did he reach the top of his field as he did?
Repeated affirmative action hire/promotion? I don't know about that.
So when an extreme left-wing nutjob gun owner went into the Family Research Council office in DC, complete with a bag of chick-fil-a and a list of 'hate groups' from the Southern Poverty Law Center and shot someone before being wrestled to the ground... he was what? Nothing to worry about?
Neither. Like Obama & Hillary on the subject of same-sex marriage... he 'evolved' on the issue ;)
Ask that once we have a final answer as to why 'dissent is patriotic' 2001-2008, racist from 2009-11/8/16, then back to patriotic come 11/9/16?
Strange that we have certain rules which all parties knew about in advance?
Lemme guess, you probably also think it is strange that in say... Baseball or tennis, that the overall winner can have scored fewer points overall compared to the loser.
He might just know about the power of a "pen and a phone" which his predecessor has been fond of using.
Going to have to be a pretty high orbit to avoid all traces of atmosphere.
You also have the issue of launching materials into orbit, which likely involves atmospheric interactions.
Who said VS can't be built by MS to be 64 bit on Windows? For the time being they have simply made the choice not to.
It will be interesting to see how much code charging there is between Windows and Mac versions.
That whole "elections have consequences, I won" thing doesn't exactly garner much support from the opposition, does it?
And when later you get "I have a pen and a phone" and end up getting rebuked by SCOTUS 9-0 more than any modern President... the effectiveness of the current President quickly ends up in doubt, doubly so when so much of what he 'accomplished' is so easily undone as failures like Obamacare cannot be left to fester as is any longer.
I never said they could impeach Trump on November 9th, or are you assuming my use of 'day one' refers to being president elect and not president is enough? If so, that would be rather silly.
Correct, however that does change criminal/civil liability, the portion of that clause you happened to edit out.
Except A2S4 doesn't end with "committed during the tenure of that particular term in office", nor any mention of a statute of limitations for offenses committed in or out of office which could lead to impeachment.
If what you are saying is true... a sitting vice-president who assassinates the sitting president, they would not be subject to impeachment because the crime occurred in their former office?
Says who? There are different legal theories as to the power to impeach, the meaning of 'high crimes & misdemeanors' as just one major one (ie is it required for congress to pass a law defining impeachable offenses? some say yes). It's hard to call this an ex-post facto issue, and given you forgot about:
You know what that means? It is fully within the power of the house to draft & vote on articles of impeachment on a random federal official every week! The reasoning it could simply be "for the fashion crime of wearing white after labor day"... even in the form of white cotton briefs.
Likely? No, but fully within their power.
"But, but, the courts!" some would say, who should then be pointed to
No court would dare touch this matter for fear of being accused of involving themselves in a matter which is rather explicitly enumerated as an exclusive power to the congress, for fear that any judge who did would be the next to be impeached.
Why is the people who copy & paste bits of the constitution to try to explain their disagreement with someone often don't fully think through their arguments? Yes, some of mine are rather outlandish & unlikely, they do at least test the theories you attempt to raise.
Where in the constitution does it limit the use of impeachment for things which occurred during the current stretch in the current office?
It doesn't, which is exactly why Trump could be impeached on day one without having done anything.
No impeachment is happening anytime soon though, as it;s unlikely the Senate would have enough votes to remove.
So under your version of compulsory voting... people would be required to show up... but not actually be required cast a valid vote? Why not call it "compulsary show up on election day" instead? What if someone is unable to be at their polling place during early voting or on election day?
Which would seem to be a compulsion... under which enumerated power or court case do you believe the federal or state government has such a power?
Raising an army? Na, that's the justification of the draft.
Establishment of a post office & roads? Not quite.
Punishing of piracy? I dunno.
You mention jury duty... but fail to acknowledge that it, like elections are almost exclusively a state matter.
In order to legally push your compulsory system, you would actually have to pass such a requirement in all 50 states, as again, you are going to have a hard time justifying the compulsion of speech or action under any federal enumerated powers, some states may allow it legally, others not.
Jury duty is little different that conscription for military service (which is constitutional in the US), drafting from a wide range of people so as to attempt to secure the rights of others, and always ideally on a limited basis.
Just because I take a selfie with a ballot marked for Clinton, #SMOD2016, Trump or Baba Booey doesn't actually show a cast ballot for that name. Easy enough for online virtual signaling or paid for votes to take a ballot, mark it in the desired way, take the photo, then market it again and return to an election official for a new ballot to replace the spoiled one.