Actually, it seems that they are wrong. First, most child abuse obviously does not end up on film. That part they are completely ignoring. Second, even if they are not saying it loudly, there are statements by law-enforcement in different countries that there is no "industry" behind child abuse, it is mostly amateur stuff and it is mostly traded without money involved. Incidentally, follow-the-money is something law-enforcement is very, very good at, so if this really was mostly commercial, they would long since have stopped the whole thing with ease.
That might be a big reason why they do go after the downloaders.
In general, people who look at child pornography are people who have a sexual interest in children. And if you're trying to find people who are sexually abusing children then finding people with a sexual interest in children is a great way to start.
Obviously that's not the only motive, or they wouldn't charge people just for downloading. But I doubt they'd be very interested in the downloaders if they didn't have a huge overlap with abusers.
This despite the fact that it makes people who are otherwise legitimate, respectable public figures seem like raving lunatics. They seem like lunatics because this is their mindless reaction to anything they think they can associate with Trump, including things (like the Yemen raid) which were planned and prepared during the Obama administration.
It's more complicated than that:
1) The President gets final approval on the execution, he's supposed to be the one asking hard questions and making sure the operation is a good idea, not just in planning but when it's time to execute. By all accounts Trump didn't do this, his position was apparently to greenlight whatever the military wanted to do.
2) The President can be held accountable by voters in a way that generals cannot, that's why civilian oversight of the military is so important, so the public can constrain the military. Trump is throwing blame for the death of the soldier on the generals, by claiming that he's not accountable for the actions of the military it's a lot harder to hold the military to account.
For example. I just saw an article how SXSW is now facing a public backlash over an immigration-related clause in this contracts for performers. People are just skewering them, calling for boycotts, etc. They are lamenting how SXSW is part of the immigration problem and awful their support for Trump's immigration policies is. The clause has been there for four years.
There's always incidents of overreaction, but the clause is of concern now in a way it wasn't before.
In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people.[2]
Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States.[3]
Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States.
Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 3.2 million people were deported from the United States.[4]
As you read that, remember that during one of his State of the Union Addresses Clinton specifically called for greater enforcement of immigration laws, and got a bipartisan standing ovation at that comment.
Also, just a couple of years ago immigrant rights groups were calling Obama "deporter-in-chief". I wonder why that was. I seem to recall Bush being branded a racist immigrant hater and immigrants came out in droves to vote for Obama.
I don't really recall much of that criticism of Bush, but Obama never claimed to be in support of open borders.
Obama's two things were to instruct border control to prioritize criminals and to offer a path to citizenship for certain classes long-standing illegal immigrants. Trump has basically told border control they can deport whomever they want, so you're seeing people who have been law-abiding members of their communities for decades now being deported.
The that's part of the reason why the SXSW clause is of more concern now, because being an otherwise law-abiding undocumented resident is no longer a good defence against deportation.
I'm seeing lots of people on gab.ai who are completely blase' about being called racist.
Because racism is being made more socially acceptable in certain subgroups, the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc), and who nominated an attorney general who was rejected as a judge for racist statements, is a big reason.
Not 1 year ago the term "racist" meant that you believed a particular race was inferior. Nowadays you are a racist for having a particular body posture - even when you *don't* think some race is inferior.
I'm not sure what you mean about the body posture, but I think "racist" still means that you believe a race is inferior. I think a big difference in the past few years is social media. It used to be people would make racist jokes or comments and no one would call it racist because their friends had similar views, and even if they were offended it's extremely awkward to call someone racist to their face.
But now they make those racist comments on the Internet for everyone to see, and everyone feels less awkward about calling it racist in a tweet or facebook post.
Snopes is by far the most unbiased fact checking site. It is clear they attempt to be unbiased. All other fact checking sites in existence were created and are operated simply to disprove people they do not like. I am not saying massive is not correct, but it is still without bounds where it is a useful site. And they do a decent job of collecting and summarizing the data. It is just the Truthiness rating that is sometimes way off. Look at the "Hillary started the Birther movement" article. Sure, it is caped off with a False, but what follows is the single best summary of all the proof that the Hillary campaign did birth the birther movement. They did orders of magnitude better at proving that statement than Breitbart did.
The theory started with conservatives, though didn't take off. Some Clinton supporters (and possibly some people associated with the campaign) pushed it a bit during the primary battle, but again it didn't take off.
Where the conspiracy theory actually got traction, ie the start of the birther movement, was with Republicans.
Realistically the start of the birther movement was Obama running for president while being a black person who was somewhat exotic and spent some time growing up outside of the US. There's a portion of the population who will view him as not being authentically American, and they look for ways to rationalize that feeling. That demographic leans strongly Republican, and the moment the idea that he might not be American came up they jumped all over it.
What a poor move by Facebook. So basically all articles from Faux News will not say fake but will say disputed. This does almost nothing for the poor people who don't know Fox is pure conservative slanted fantasy and believe it to be fact. On top of this I see it as more ammunition for the right wingers claiming the left is trying to dispute their claims.
Fox News is not fake news.
They have a history of pushing biased narratives, often biased to the point of misleading the reader, but that doesn't make them "fake news", it just makes them a bad primary source of information.
Fake news is simpler than that, it's news that is simply made up, it talks about events that didn't occur, uses quotes that people didn't make, and it doesn't publish corrections because it was never trying to be correct in the first place.
There's a reason Trump has spent the last few weeks using "fake news" as his favourite new phrase, he's trying to move the goalposts from a simple question of obvious fabrications to a question of bias and mistaken conclusions. Gauging the reliability of a news source is a legitimate and challenging problem, but it's not the problem of fake news.
If You or your media outlet was one of the ones that defended or didn't criticize as a fatal flaw: Hillary Clinton and her most glaring case of using personal E-mail server to cause security exposures and Fail to deliver items ordered by the court, Then you already lost any right to criticize Pence, Etc, for lesser cases Of use of a personal e-mail account.
That seems to be pretty much All people and All the media outlets, by the way.
I don't agree, but For some reason we as a society decided it was all OK, At least for anything that was going on before 2016.
I think they were both wrong to use a private email server but did nothing criminal.
But I do think I have a right to criticize Pence.
1) He continued using a private email server after he knew it was no longer acceptable to do so, not criminal or even outrageous, but he definitely knew it would be frowned upon.
2) He was part of a ticket that called for his opponent to be thrown in jail while he committed those very same supposedly jail-worthy acts. It's blatant hypocrisy and is very worthy of criticism.
I'm open to the idea that Uber is an evil company, but what's with all the Uber news lately? We've had story after story this week. It isn't normal, even for a company as bad as Oracle, to have news story after news story released like this. The whole thing looks like someone is leaking to the press at an opportune time, which raises the question,
cui bono? I don't know the answer to that, but it must be somebody.
It's a combination of coincidence and blood in the water.
Uber has been a consistent source of negative stories for a long time, that a few would hit the same news cycle is hardly unexpected.
But people are also paying attention to Uber right now. If you're Google now is a good time to take a shot at Uber, when they're too distracted to fight back. And if you're a reporter your Uber story is going to get a lot more traction, so it's time to start digging.
Some of us think he should face the exact same treatment that Hillary got and that both should be prosecuted under the appropriate laws. Having separate work and personal e-mail is fine but you do need to keep them separate and not commingle things. When everyone was making a big deal about people in the Trump administration having private e-mail accounts and conducting private business with them there was nothing to see so long as things were kept separate. This however is different and there should be action taken. That said this doesn't seem as bad as the Hillary case as it should be possible to retrieve the e-mails from AOL unlike Hillary's wiped private server.
I don't think either should be prosecuted because this is extremely commonplace in government, but the wiping in Clinton's case was completely legal, and perhaps even required, when it was ordered. It was only an administrator who screwed up by first forgetting to do the wiping when it was requested, and second carrying it out after a subpoena showed up.
For me the big issue with Pence is that he spent months criticizing Clinton for using a private email server for government business... all the while he was using a private email sever for government business.
Whether or not there was classified intel on his is besides the point, Clinton never tried to put classified info on her server and possibly never knew about the info that did make it on. Pence surely couldn't know if a classified email had slipped onto his server either.
And not preserving the emails for months suggests he wasn't taking it seriously or trying to conceal that he had used an AOL account.
Again I didn't think it was a big deal with Clinton and I don't think it's a big deal now, but I think this shows that no one in government actually thought it was a big deal either. All those months of outrage were about as sincere as Donald Trump's hair.
Probably for the last sentence, which shoe-horns in MRAs and accuses them of doing...something?
I probably jumped the gun, but I think it is a legitimate concern. There's a real history of women standing up against sexism in the computer industry and becoming the target of online harassment, and with the current political situation those groups are emboldened. If I were a woman I'd be very hesitant to make myself visible, I'm certain there are already people searching the Internet for personal information to discredit her.
Right... if she's just retaining a lawyer now after posting that shows some lack of planning on her part. Regardless of the truth of her claims, she had to figure that she would be charged with defamation based on the heavy claims she's made against a aggressive company.
Why? She wasn't suing them and her claims were verifiable, the logical response from Uber was ignore or apologize. A smear campaign, if that is what's happening, would be a really stupid response on their part.
It should be noted from the article that it's not even clear that someone is going after her, or if Uber is that someone. I wouldn't be surprised if some MRAs weren't taking it upon themselves to make an example of her.
But then they don't have a lot of control over how that investment performs, Uber does. If Uber lowers the rate (as may have happened, it's unclear) you're suddenly getting a pay cut
Nobody has more control than that over how their investment performs. You see that right? Hey Warren Buffett just said people should invest in a low cost index fund.... but if I follow his advice, I might lose money. I don't control the S&P 500's performance.
You have the option to sell your stocks and re-invest, if the driver sells his car he's taking a huge loss on the asset.
You're assuming that Lyft is in his city and has similar usage.
You're also overlooking that UberBlack, the service in question, has higher rates that help compensate for the cost of the higher-end vehicles. Given the investment he made Lyft may not be sufficient to cover his investment.
The "same" thing happened when Obama was elected. Bush had significantly expanded many intelligence programs and there lots of folks in the intelligence community who feared that Obama's campaign focus on closing Guantanamo and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan along with his focus on transparency and civil liberties meant that he would gut the entire community and all of its big programs.
They were wrong. It wasn't long before morale rebounded when people figured out Obama wasn't going to drastically shake things up.
That was partly them misunderstanding Obama, he's a pragmatic realist, he really believes in civil liberties and pulling out of wars, but he's also understands the current system evolved for a reason and is/was extremely cautious about breaking it.
But that was also just worries about downsizing, they didn't find Obama morally objectionable, they just thought they might lose their jobs.
Now, I think Trump, given his personality and what he has done so far, is more likely to shake things up then Obama was, but in the end this will end up being something that we point to the next time the administration changes and there is a story about people in the intelligence community fearing changes suffer a morale slump and start thinking about leaving.
Heck, the intelligence community loses way more people to the private sector because of things like "I can keep my phone with me at my desk," "I can talk about my work in public", and "I don't have to deal with the insanity that is government bureaucracy" way more than "the president might ask me to do something I find objectionable."
I think Trump really is fundamentally different. He doesn't seem to respect a lot of the informal rules that keep democracies democratic, and he seems quite happy with hostile foreign intelligence agencies attacking the US as long as they're attacking his enemies. There's even allegations that he's actually been under the direct influence of Russia intelligence operatives, it's not proven, but the fact that the allegations aren't insane is very disturbing.
I read linked article, and nothing in the transcript there stands out as wrong. You buy a $100K car to run Uber?! Take responsibility for your actions if it doesn't work out.
Yes, Uber shits on everyone. Yes, Uber isn't socially responsible company. No, in this case CEO wasn't wrong in pointing out that it was driver, and not Uber that f-up.
That defence works for most scams as well, so what if it's a bad deal? You shoulda seen it, Buyer beware.
The problem here is Uber's business model, and UberBlack really exacerbates it.
Since the driver has to supply the vehicle (and for UberBlack they probably have to buy or lease one) it means they're taking a huge investment upon themselves.
But then they don't have a lot of control over how that investment performs, Uber does. If Uber lowers the rate (as may have happened, it's unclear) you're suddenly getting a pay cut, or even if Uber has another PR disaster that drives away customers it's going to eat into your pay, and you don't have a lot of options other than abandoning your investment entirely.
That's the whole problem with this concept of Uber drivers and contractors. Sure they have flexible hours, but they don't have the job mobility of other contractors. The driver wasn't mad at Kalanick because Uber dropped their fares, he was mad at Kalanick because Uber told him it would be a great idea to buy a luxury car and be an UberBlack driver, but then Uber didn't deliver the business he needed to recover his investment. But he's still stuck being an UberBlack driver because he bought a really expensive luxury car and there's nothing else he can do to try and recover the investment.
Now, do Trump supporters show more racial biases than other people? Yes. Whether you call them "racist" is just a question of where you draw the line on using that particular label.
I think you desperately wish that to be true. Didn't the democrats have "the taco bowl"
No idea what you're talking about.
and didn't Clinton show up to meetings "on black people time"?
So Clinton is racist because SNL wrote a bad joke?
I have seen so many racist anti-Trump statements, supporters and actions than I have ever seen of Trump supporters.
I seriously don't even know what you're talking about.
"The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers."
Monopoly cities are by definition cities in which it's illegal to compete with taxi companies that have been granted status. Therefore no local startups, but if a major company like Uber can become well-liked by both customers and drivers elsewhere, voters in monopoly cities will demand change.
By that definition many of the cities in which Uber is currently deployed are "monopoly cities". It doesn't mean they can't operate, it means that they're vulnerable to fines, their drivers are sometimes ticketed, and they might even get court orders against them. But they often still find ways to operate.
Uber's problem is the regulator is more likely to look the other way for the local start-up, or they're going to make a hole in the regulations that allows the local company to compete but bans Uber. These kind of actions might be challenged in court, but to do that Uber needs to go into those markets and fight them.
I'm not saying that's the only valid strategy, they certainly could try to be the nice guy and only go where they could play completely by the rules, but I'm not sure that's the optimal strategy for their business model. And given their rep as a company I'm not sure they can ever really clean up their image.
If I were running Uber, I would have had it concentrate on an assortment of US cities that are friendly to open-market taxi service, rather than blowing its budget fighting City Hall in every monopoly city in the world. By being profitable and having the capital to treat its drivers well in the short term while getting ready for self-driving cars in the long term, it would eventually expand into monopoly cities because the customers would demand it.
The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers.
If you don't have a presence in that market users are going to flock to the local start-up and one of those start-ups might take off and become your main competitor. Uber has a bit of a paper empire, all they really have is their network and mind-share, and ride-sharing apps are a natural monopoly in the same sense as social networks. They're trying to establish their monopoly so they become the Facebook and not the Myspace.
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.
Yeah, the self-driving car focus is odd, I'm sure there's opportunities for some cool AI managing the Uber fleet, but they've never distinguished themselves as an elite R&D company. They'd be a big consumer of self-driving cars but I don't see them as a manufacturer.
I really think they're in a situation where they have too much VC money and don't know what to do with it. Their fundamental issue is how to turn their network profitable before the traditional Taxi companies are able to get their own app out there.
Perhaps this is just my perception but I've always thought the plan was to develop the technology and then license it to car manufacturers. Did anyone honestly think that some technology companies were actually going to manufacture entire cars without any experience in the field of manufacturing let alone automotive manufacturing?
I'd classify Tesla as a tech company and they're certainly giving it a go.
I think Apple might have gone for it if Steve Jobs was still around, I think he would be a lot more aggressive in entering new product categories, and car sales are fundamentally about style and marketing, Jobs' strong suit.
It would be very tough to break in but a company like Apple has enough cash to make a bet, note they wouldn't be going head-to-head in dealerships but would aim for the luxury market where margins are higher and they don't need a big footprint.
This is just plain wrong. You should read/watch the news. Land wars, the kind fought with rifles like the ones you say are useless, still make up and decide 99% of armed conflicts. You think because drones entered the scene everything is magic hollywood effects? We blast and just send in soldiers to hand out food?
Don't be so daft. You are the one that is wrong, and the numbers show it. How about you go tell ISIS how futile a rifle is, meanwhile they're about to seize a landmass a quarter the size of Europe.
Once an armed conflict starts weapons are easy to come by. ISIS is actually a great example of what I'm talking about.
Their origin in Iraq is unusual as they were part of a long-term insurgency partially made up of a former standing army, once you have a violent conflict it's always easy to get more guns into the country (and they got a lot of US military hardware Iraqi troops left behind as they fled).
But in Syria Assad did two things when the Arab spring started, first he started torturing and committing outrages to turn the protests violent, and second, he released all the extremists from his jails. He was faced with peaceful protests and he worked hard to create a violent Islamic insurgency, the reasoning being that while lots of people wanted the peaceful protester to take power no one wanted the Islamists in charge.
It's exactly what I'm talking about, authoritarians want an internal threat so they can be the lesser of two evils, so Assad created that threat.
In the US, if you hate Muslims and want to take away their rights the first thing you want to do is get as many guns as you can into their hands. Inevitably a few of them will use them and you'll have the public outrage to do whatever you want.
Trump is at least trying to slow the flood of people who would tend to kill us.
What people are these? Immigrants have lower crime rates than native born and terrorism is an extraordinarily rare way to die.
And yes, I know some were "American". They tend to be children of immigrants. Some are actual immigrants. Some are from long-established American families... but turned to jihad by immigrants
When native born Muslims turn to terrorism it's not because they were "turned by immigrants". It's typically because they're caught between cultures and are trying to find an identity, they feel rejected by the US because of all the people who call them "American" so they look for an identity by trying to reacquire their own culture as an outsider. This can lead an extremely tiny fraction to turn to terrorism.
often having been converted to Islam while in prison.
I'm not even sure what alt-right meme you're tapping into this time but I assume it's some kind of African-American Nation of Islam reference? Can you point to any Muslim terrorist who was converted to Islam in prison?
Non-Americans understand you believe that, but we also understand that you're wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's our country and this is how we have chosen to live. You don't have to come here or live here if you don't want to. What we Americans resent and oppose utterly are foreigners telling us how to live or trying to take away our rights, including our individual right to bear arms.
I wasn't presenting an opinion, I was presenting a fact. An opinion would be "you should have more gun control", when I originally wrote the comment I included that opinion, but then I decided to simply stick with the fact "guns do not protect you against tyranny". Now, you can argue that fact is wrong, but don't act like I'm just presenting some unsubstantiated opinion.
Guns might have been useful before the 20th century, but they are not a good defence against a modern government, if anything they actually enable authoritarians by giving them a reason to crack down on the civil liberties that actually do keep governments in check.
Governments behave differently when the people are armed. They are more restrained, less authoritarian and more cautious in the exercise of their powers. As for enabling authoritarianism, the first thing that authoritarians everywhere do is disarm the populace because they know perfectly well that an armed people will not stand for tyranny. For example, one of the first things that both the Soviets and the Nazis did when they gained power was to restrict gun ownership. Coincidence? I think not.
That authoritarian governments try to disarm their enemies, and that gun ownership enables authoritarian governments, are not mutually exclusive.
More more guns you have the more murders you have, and the more society-wide anxiety (since you realize that aggressive obnoxious guy at the bar might be packing). That creates a demand for a stronger more authoritative government to keep the violence at bay.
I don't think it's coincidence that gun-rights activists are generally in favour of harsher laws and more aggressive police. When you think you're in a dangerous society you want a strong government to keep control.
Everybody is racist. At least to some degree, if you think you're colour-blind or your biases are grounded in dispassionate statistics then you're delusional.
Now, do Trump supporters show more racial biases than other people? Yes. Whether you call them "racist" is just a question of where you draw the line on using that particular label.
that is yet more Fake News
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
In the face of a shooting why are you trying to make people hate others more, not less?
We're trying to wake people up to the danger posed by the rhetoric that Trump is pumping out, and he's not just creating threats on the right, if I were an Al-Queda or ISIS recruiter right now I'd be over the moon.
Are you always so understanding when seeking the root cause when a Muslim does something terroristy?
After eight years, that is on Obama - as is Obama and supporters stirring racial tension
Yeah! What was Obama thinking Presidenting while black??
and giving focus to a violent angry drunk man.
I don't think Trump drinks.
Mathews apologized to the family's in her statement, calling Purinton's actions "senseless." She said he had a drinking problem that became worse since his father passed away in October 2015, and he'd been trying to get assistance from the VA.
The families of home-grown Muslim terrorists tend to be very apologetic and horrified by the actions of their relatives, do you also bold their family's response when trying to humanize the perpetrator?
Cool. Then let's blame Obama for Orlando, San Bernardino, etc.
See how fucking stupid you are?
No, because Obama was always condemned the extremism that led to those attacks, and condemned the acts themselves after they happened.
Trump, on the other hand, was completely silent the last time a right wing terrorist killed people, and has done basically nothing to speak up against the extremists in his base. Even getting him to disavow the KKK or condemn anti-Semitism is like getting a toddler to eat vegetables.
There is absolutely no double standard in holding Trump accountable for this.
They genuinely believe that the right to bear arms is a good thing and the deaths that result, while tragic, are the price of freedom.
Here is the thing foreigners don't understand about guns in America. The reason we have an amendment to the Constitution which permits citizens to own guns is twofold:
1) The Founding Fathers, almost all of whom were British subjects, saw firsthand what happens when only the government has firearms. They can use those weapons to quell public outcry over anything, claiming the people were "rioting" or were "a threat to peace and order" because the people can't effectively fight back. If you read The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay all say the same basic thing: citizens who have weapons are more fully able to defend themselves from the government.
That may sound odd to Europeans, but if you look at your history you should be able to see the logic behind this amendment.
Non-Americans understand you believe that, but we also understand that you're wrong.
Guns might have been useful before the 20th century, but they are not a good defence against a modern government, if anything they actually enable authoritarians by giving them a reason to crack down on the civil liberties that actually do keep governments in check.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it seems that they are wrong. First, most child abuse obviously does not end up on film. That part they are completely ignoring. Second, even if they are not saying it loudly, there are statements by law-enforcement in different countries that there is no "industry" behind child abuse, it is mostly amateur stuff and it is mostly traded without money involved. Incidentally, follow-the-money is something law-enforcement is very, very good at, so if this really was mostly commercial, they would long since have stopped the whole thing with ease.
That might be a big reason why they do go after the downloaders.
In general, people who look at child pornography are people who have a sexual interest in children. And if you're trying to find people who are sexually abusing children then finding people with a sexual interest in children is a great way to start.
Obviously that's not the only motive, or they wouldn't charge people just for downloading. But I doubt they'd be very interested in the downloaders if they didn't have a huge overlap with abusers.
This despite the fact that it makes people who are otherwise legitimate, respectable public figures seem like raving lunatics. They seem like lunatics because this is their mindless reaction to anything they think they can associate with Trump, including things (like the Yemen raid) which were planned and prepared during the Obama administration.
It's more complicated than that:
1) The President gets final approval on the execution, he's supposed to be the one asking hard questions and making sure the operation is a good idea, not just in planning but when it's time to execute. By all accounts Trump didn't do this, his position was apparently to greenlight whatever the military wanted to do.
2) The President can be held accountable by voters in a way that generals cannot, that's why civilian oversight of the military is so important, so the public can constrain the military. Trump is throwing blame for the death of the soldier on the generals, by claiming that he's not accountable for the actions of the military it's a lot harder to hold the military to account.
For example. I just saw an article how SXSW is now facing a public backlash over an immigration-related clause in this contracts for performers. People are just skewering them, calling for boycotts, etc. They are lamenting how SXSW is part of the immigration problem and awful their support for Trump's immigration policies is. The clause has been there for four years.
Here is some more from the Wikipedia article on Deportation and removal from the United States:
There's always incidents of overreaction, but the clause is of concern now in a way it wasn't before.
In the 105 years between 1892 and 1997, the United States deported 2.1 million people.[2]
Between 1997 and 2001, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton, about 870,000 people were deported from the United States.[3]
Between 2001 and 2008, during the Presidency of George W. Bush, about 2 million people were deported from the United States.
Between 2009 and 2016, during the Presidency of Barack Obama, about 3.2 million people were deported from the United States.[4]
As you read that, remember that during one of his State of the Union Addresses Clinton specifically called for greater enforcement of immigration laws, and got a bipartisan standing ovation at that comment.
Also, just a couple of years ago immigrant rights groups were calling Obama "deporter-in-chief". I wonder why that was. I seem to recall Bush being branded a racist immigrant hater and immigrants came out in droves to vote for Obama.
I don't really recall much of that criticism of Bush, but Obama never claimed to be in support of open borders.
Obama's two things were to instruct border control to prioritize criminals and to offer a path to citizenship for certain classes long-standing illegal immigrants. Trump has basically told border control they can deport whomever they want, so you're seeing people who have been law-abiding members of their communities for decades now being deported.
The that's part of the reason why the SXSW clause is of more concern now, because being an otherwise law-abiding undocumented resident is no longer a good defence against deportation.
I'm seeing lots of people on gab.ai who are completely blase' about being called racist.
Because racism is being made more socially acceptable in certain subgroups, the election of a man who is extremely reluctant to criticize actual racists (the KKK, anti-Semites, etc), and who nominated an attorney general who was rejected as a judge for racist statements, is a big reason.
Not 1 year ago the term "racist" meant that you believed a particular race was inferior. Nowadays you are a racist for having a particular body posture - even when you *don't* think some race is inferior.
I'm not sure what you mean about the body posture, but I think "racist" still means that you believe a race is inferior. I think a big difference in the past few years is social media. It used to be people would make racist jokes or comments and no one would call it racist because their friends had similar views, and even if they were offended it's extremely awkward to call someone racist to their face.
But now they make those racist comments on the Internet for everyone to see, and everyone feels less awkward about calling it racist in a tweet or facebook post.
Snopes is by far the most unbiased fact checking site. It is clear they attempt to be unbiased. All other fact checking sites in existence were created and are operated simply to disprove people they do not like. I am not saying massive is not correct, but it is still without bounds where it is a useful site. And they do a decent job of collecting and summarizing the data. It is just the Truthiness rating that is sometimes way off. Look at the "Hillary started the Birther movement" article. Sure, it is caped off with a False, but what follows is the single best summary of all the proof that the Hillary campaign did birth the birther movement. They did orders of magnitude better at proving that statement than Breitbart did.
Not quite.
The theory started with conservatives, though didn't take off. Some Clinton supporters (and possibly some people associated with the campaign) pushed it a bit during the primary battle, but again it didn't take off.
Where the conspiracy theory actually got traction, ie the start of the birther movement, was with Republicans.
Realistically the start of the birther movement was Obama running for president while being a black person who was somewhat exotic and spent some time growing up outside of the US. There's a portion of the population who will view him as not being authentically American, and they look for ways to rationalize that feeling. That demographic leans strongly Republican, and the moment the idea that he might not be American came up they jumped all over it.
What a poor move by Facebook. So basically all articles from Faux News will not say fake but will say disputed. This does almost nothing for the poor people who don't know Fox is pure conservative slanted fantasy and believe it to be fact. On top of this I see it as more ammunition for the right wingers claiming the left is trying to dispute their claims.
Fox News is not fake news.
They have a history of pushing biased narratives, often biased to the point of misleading the reader, but that doesn't make them "fake news", it just makes them a bad primary source of information.
Fake news is simpler than that, it's news that is simply made up, it talks about events that didn't occur, uses quotes that people didn't make, and it doesn't publish corrections because it was never trying to be correct in the first place.
There's a reason Trump has spent the last few weeks using "fake news" as his favourite new phrase, he's trying to move the goalposts from a simple question of obvious fabrications to a question of bias and mistaken conclusions. Gauging the reliability of a news source is a legitimate and challenging problem, but it's not the problem of fake news.
If You or your media outlet was one of the ones that defended or didn't criticize as a fatal flaw: Hillary Clinton and her most glaring case of using personal E-mail server to cause security exposures and Fail to deliver items ordered by the court,
Then you already lost any right to criticize Pence, Etc, for lesser cases Of use of a personal e-mail account.
That seems to be pretty much All people and All the media outlets, by the way.
I don't agree, but For some reason we as a society decided it was all OK, At least for anything that was going on before 2016.
I think they were both wrong to use a private email server but did nothing criminal.
But I do think I have a right to criticize Pence.
1) He continued using a private email server after he knew it was no longer acceptable to do so, not criminal or even outrageous, but he definitely knew it would be frowned upon.
2) He was part of a ticket that called for his opponent to be thrown in jail while he committed those very same supposedly jail-worthy acts. It's blatant hypocrisy and is very worthy of criticism.
I'm open to the idea that Uber is an evil company, but what's with all the Uber news lately? We've had story after story this week. It isn't normal, even for a company as bad as Oracle, to have news story after news story released like this. The whole thing looks like someone is leaking to the press at an opportune time, which raises the question,
cui bono? I don't know the answer to that, but it must be somebody.
It's a combination of coincidence and blood in the water.
Uber has been a consistent source of negative stories for a long time, that a few would hit the same news cycle is hardly unexpected.
But people are also paying attention to Uber right now. If you're Google now is a good time to take a shot at Uber, when they're too distracted to fight back. And if you're a reporter your Uber story is going to get a lot more traction, so it's time to start digging.
Some of us think he should face the exact same treatment that Hillary got and that both should be prosecuted under the appropriate laws. Having separate work and personal e-mail is fine but you do need to keep them separate and not commingle things. When everyone was making a big deal about people in the Trump administration having private e-mail accounts and conducting private business with them there was nothing to see so long as things were kept separate. This however is different and there should be action taken. That said this doesn't seem as bad as the Hillary case as it should be possible to retrieve the e-mails from AOL unlike Hillary's wiped private server.
I don't think either should be prosecuted because this is extremely commonplace in government, but the wiping in Clinton's case was completely legal, and perhaps even required, when it was ordered. It was only an administrator who screwed up by first forgetting to do the wiping when it was requested, and second carrying it out after a subpoena showed up.
For me the big issue with Pence is that he spent months criticizing Clinton for using a private email server for government business... all the while he was using a private email sever for government business.
Whether or not there was classified intel on his is besides the point, Clinton never tried to put classified info on her server and possibly never knew about the info that did make it on. Pence surely couldn't know if a classified email had slipped onto his server either.
And not preserving the emails for months suggests he wasn't taking it seriously or trying to conceal that he had used an AOL account.
Again I didn't think it was a big deal with Clinton and I don't think it's a big deal now, but I think this shows that no one in government actually thought it was a big deal either. All those months of outrage were about as sincere as Donald Trump's hair.
Probably for the last sentence, which shoe-horns in MRAs and accuses them of doing...something?
I probably jumped the gun, but I think it is a legitimate concern. There's a real history of women standing up against sexism in the computer industry and becoming the target of online harassment, and with the current political situation those groups are emboldened. If I were a woman I'd be very hesitant to make myself visible, I'm certain there are already people searching the Internet for personal information to discredit her.
Right... if she's just retaining a lawyer now after posting that shows some lack of planning on her part. Regardless of the truth of her claims, she had to figure that she would be charged with defamation based on the heavy claims she's made against a aggressive company.
Why? She wasn't suing them and her claims were verifiable, the logical response from Uber was ignore or apologize. A smear campaign, if that is what's happening, would be a really stupid response on their part.
It should be noted from the article that it's not even clear that someone is going after her, or if Uber is that someone. I wouldn't be surprised if some MRAs weren't taking it upon themselves to make an example of her.
That works out to around 0.009% urine content.
I can live with that.
Captcha: "manure"
Thank you for calculating that.
I've see the figures a bunch of time and for some reason kept reading it as 75K litres.
Needless to say, I wasn't planning on ever swimming again.
But then they don't have a lot of control over how that investment performs, Uber does. If Uber lowers the rate (as may have happened, it's unclear) you're suddenly getting a pay cut
Nobody has more control than that over how their investment performs. You see that right? Hey Warren Buffett just said people should invest in a low cost index fund.... but if I follow his advice, I might lose money. I don't control the S&P 500's performance.
You have the option to sell your stocks and re-invest, if the driver sells his car he's taking a huge loss on the asset.
Furthermore, why do you think the driver is fully reliant on Uber? I did a quick search and found http://therideshareguy.com/how...
You're assuming that Lyft is in his city and has similar usage.
You're also overlooking that UberBlack, the service in question, has higher rates that help compensate for the cost of the higher-end vehicles. Given the investment he made Lyft may not be sufficient to cover his investment.
The "same" thing happened when Obama was elected. Bush had significantly expanded many intelligence programs and there lots of folks in the intelligence community who feared that Obama's campaign focus on closing Guantanamo and pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan along with his focus on transparency and civil liberties meant that he would gut the entire community and all of its big programs.
They were wrong. It wasn't long before morale rebounded when people figured out Obama wasn't going to drastically shake things up.
That was partly them misunderstanding Obama, he's a pragmatic realist, he really believes in civil liberties and pulling out of wars, but he's also understands the current system evolved for a reason and is/was extremely cautious about breaking it.
But that was also just worries about downsizing, they didn't find Obama morally objectionable, they just thought they might lose their jobs.
Now, I think Trump, given his personality and what he has done so far, is more likely to shake things up then Obama was, but in the end this will end up being something that we point to the next time the administration changes and there is a story about people in the intelligence community fearing changes suffer a morale slump and start thinking about leaving.
Heck, the intelligence community loses way more people to the private sector because of things like "I can keep my phone with me at my desk," "I can talk about my work in public", and "I don't have to deal with the insanity that is government bureaucracy" way more than "the president might ask me to do something I find objectionable."
I think Trump really is fundamentally different. He doesn't seem to respect a lot of the informal rules that keep democracies democratic, and he seems quite happy with hostile foreign intelligence agencies attacking the US as long as they're attacking his enemies. There's even allegations that he's actually been under the direct influence of Russia intelligence operatives, it's not proven, but the fact that the allegations aren't insane is very disturbing.
I read linked article, and nothing in the transcript there stands out as wrong. You buy a $100K car to run Uber?! Take responsibility for your actions if it doesn't work out.
Yes, Uber shits on everyone. Yes, Uber isn't socially responsible company. No, in this case CEO wasn't wrong in pointing out that it was driver, and not Uber that f-up.
That defence works for most scams as well, so what if it's a bad deal? You shoulda seen it, Buyer beware.
The problem here is Uber's business model, and UberBlack really exacerbates it.
Since the driver has to supply the vehicle (and for UberBlack they probably have to buy or lease one) it means they're taking a huge investment upon themselves.
But then they don't have a lot of control over how that investment performs, Uber does. If Uber lowers the rate (as may have happened, it's unclear) you're suddenly getting a pay cut, or even if Uber has another PR disaster that drives away customers it's going to eat into your pay, and you don't have a lot of options other than abandoning your investment entirely.
That's the whole problem with this concept of Uber drivers and contractors. Sure they have flexible hours, but they don't have the job mobility of other contractors. The driver wasn't mad at Kalanick because Uber dropped their fares, he was mad at Kalanick because Uber told him it would be a great idea to buy a luxury car and be an UberBlack driver, but then Uber didn't deliver the business he needed to recover his investment. But he's still stuck being an UberBlack driver because he bought a really expensive luxury car and there's nothing else he can do to try and recover the investment.
Now, do Trump supporters show more racial biases than other people? Yes. Whether you call them "racist" is just a question of where you draw the line on using that particular label.
I think you desperately wish that to be true. Didn't the democrats have "the taco bowl"
No idea what you're talking about.
and didn't Clinton show up to meetings "on black people time"?
So Clinton is racist because SNL wrote a bad joke?
I have seen so many racist anti-Trump statements, supporters and actions than I have ever seen of Trump supporters.
I seriously don't even know what you're talking about.
"The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers."
Monopoly cities are by definition cities in which it's illegal to compete with taxi companies that have been granted status. Therefore no local startups, but if a major company like Uber can become well-liked by both customers and drivers elsewhere, voters in monopoly cities will demand change.
By that definition many of the cities in which Uber is currently deployed are "monopoly cities". It doesn't mean they can't operate, it means that they're vulnerable to fines, their drivers are sometimes ticketed, and they might even get court orders against them. But they often still find ways to operate.
Uber's problem is the regulator is more likely to look the other way for the local start-up, or they're going to make a hole in the regulations that allows the local company to compete but bans Uber. These kind of actions might be challenged in court, but to do that Uber needs to go into those markets and fight them.
I'm not saying that's the only valid strategy, they certainly could try to be the nice guy and only go where they could play completely by the rules, but I'm not sure that's the optimal strategy for their business model. And given their rep as a company I'm not sure they can ever really clean up their image.
If I were running Uber, I would have had it concentrate on an assortment of US cities that are friendly to open-market taxi service, rather than blowing its budget fighting City Hall in every monopoly city in the world. By being profitable and having the capital to treat its drivers well in the short term while getting ready for self-driving cars in the long term, it would eventually expand into monopoly cities because the customers would demand it.
The risk with that strategy is every city you ignore is going to start its own Uber clones, clones that are going to get favourable treatment from local regulators and be the favourites of local consumers.
If you don't have a presence in that market users are going to flock to the local start-up and one of those start-ups might take off and become your main competitor. Uber has a bit of a paper empire, all they really have is their network and mind-share, and ride-sharing apps are a natural monopoly in the same sense as social networks. They're trying to establish their monopoly so they become the Facebook and not the Myspace.
Uber is a taxi company, it made a name and got support by creating jobs and employing people. Their push to automatic cars destroys the very thing that made them popular to begin with. Uber isn't a car manufacturer, and not an automotive tech company. Any beating they get is well deserved at this point, because they put social engineering above society. The CEO should, but of course won't, be thrown out on their behind.
Yeah, the self-driving car focus is odd, I'm sure there's opportunities for some cool AI managing the Uber fleet, but they've never distinguished themselves as an elite R&D company. They'd be a big consumer of self-driving cars but I don't see them as a manufacturer.
I really think they're in a situation where they have too much VC money and don't know what to do with it. Their fundamental issue is how to turn their network profitable before the traditional Taxi companies are able to get their own app out there.
Perhaps this is just my perception but I've always thought the plan was to develop the technology and then license it to car manufacturers. Did anyone honestly think that some technology companies were actually going to manufacture entire cars without any experience in the field of manufacturing let alone automotive manufacturing?
I'd classify Tesla as a tech company and they're certainly giving it a go.
I think Apple might have gone for it if Steve Jobs was still around, I think he would be a lot more aggressive in entering new product categories, and car sales are fundamentally about style and marketing, Jobs' strong suit.
It would be very tough to break in but a company like Apple has enough cash to make a bet, note they wouldn't be going head-to-head in dealerships but would aim for the luxury market where margins are higher and they don't need a big footprint.
This is just plain wrong. You should read/watch the news. Land wars, the kind fought with rifles like the ones you say are useless, still make up and decide 99% of armed conflicts. You think because drones entered the scene everything is magic hollywood effects? We blast and just send in soldiers to hand out food?
Don't be so daft. You are the one that is wrong, and the numbers show it.
How about you go tell ISIS how futile a rifle is, meanwhile they're about to seize a landmass a quarter the size of Europe.
Once an armed conflict starts weapons are easy to come by. ISIS is actually a great example of what I'm talking about.
Their origin in Iraq is unusual as they were part of a long-term insurgency partially made up of a former standing army, once you have a violent conflict it's always easy to get more guns into the country (and they got a lot of US military hardware Iraqi troops left behind as they fled).
But in Syria Assad did two things when the Arab spring started, first he started torturing and committing outrages to turn the protests violent, and second, he released all the extremists from his jails. He was faced with peaceful protests and he worked hard to create a violent Islamic insurgency, the reasoning being that while lots of people wanted the peaceful protester to take power no one wanted the Islamists in charge.
It's exactly what I'm talking about, authoritarians want an internal threat so they can be the lesser of two evils, so Assad created that threat.
In the US, if you hate Muslims and want to take away their rights the first thing you want to do is get as many guns as you can into their hands. Inevitably a few of them will use them and you'll have the public outrage to do whatever you want.
Trump is at least trying to slow the flood of people who would tend to kill us.
What people are these? Immigrants have lower crime rates than native born and terrorism is an extraordinarily rare way to die.
And yes, I know some were "American". They tend to be children of immigrants. Some are actual immigrants. Some are from long-established American families... but turned to jihad by immigrants
When native born Muslims turn to terrorism it's not because they were "turned by immigrants". It's typically because they're caught between cultures and are trying to find an identity, they feel rejected by the US because of all the people who call them "American" so they look for an identity by trying to reacquire their own culture as an outsider. This can lead an extremely tiny fraction to turn to terrorism.
often having been converted to Islam while in prison.
I'm not even sure what alt-right meme you're tapping into this time but I assume it's some kind of African-American Nation of Islam reference? Can you point to any Muslim terrorist who was converted to Islam in prison?
Non-Americans understand you believe that, but we also understand that you're wrong.
You're entitled to your opinion, but it's our country and this is how we have chosen to live. You don't have to come here or live here if you don't want to. What we Americans resent and oppose utterly are foreigners telling us how to live or trying to take away our rights, including our individual right to bear arms.
I wasn't presenting an opinion, I was presenting a fact. An opinion would be "you should have more gun control", when I originally wrote the comment I included that opinion, but then I decided to simply stick with the fact "guns do not protect you against tyranny". Now, you can argue that fact is wrong, but don't act like I'm just presenting some unsubstantiated opinion.
Guns might have been useful before the 20th century, but they are not a good defence against a modern government, if anything they actually enable authoritarians by giving them a reason to crack down on the civil liberties that actually do keep governments in check.
Governments behave differently when the people are armed. They are more restrained, less authoritarian and more cautious in the exercise of their powers. As for enabling authoritarianism, the first thing that authoritarians everywhere do is disarm the populace because they know perfectly well that an armed people will not stand for tyranny. For example, one of the first things that both the Soviets and the Nazis did when they gained power was to restrict gun ownership. Coincidence? I think not.
That authoritarian governments try to disarm their enemies, and that gun ownership enables authoritarian governments, are not mutually exclusive.
More more guns you have the more murders you have, and the more society-wide anxiety (since you realize that aggressive obnoxious guy at the bar might be packing). That creates a demand for a stronger more authoritative government to keep the violence at bay.
I don't think it's coincidence that gun-rights activists are generally in favour of harsher laws and more aggressive police. When you think you're in a dangerous society you want a strong government to keep control.
Pretty much all Trump supporters are not racists
Everybody is racist. At least to some degree, if you think you're colour-blind or your biases are grounded in dispassionate statistics then you're delusional.
Now, do Trump supporters show more racial biases than other people? Yes. Whether you call them "racist" is just a question of where you draw the line on using that particular label.
that is yet more Fake News
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
In the face of a shooting why are you trying to make people hate others more, not less?
We're trying to wake people up to the danger posed by the rhetoric that Trump is pumping out, and he's not just creating threats on the right, if I were an Al-Queda or ISIS recruiter right now I'd be over the moon.
What triggers this shooting was a vet who couldn't get assistance from the VA.
Are you always so understanding when seeking the root cause when a Muslim does something terroristy?
After eight years, that is on Obama - as is Obama and supporters stirring racial tension
Yeah! What was Obama thinking Presidenting while black??
and giving focus to a violent angry drunk man.
I don't think Trump drinks.
Mathews apologized to the family's in her statement, calling Purinton's actions "senseless." She said he had a drinking problem that became worse since his father passed away in October 2015, and he'd been trying to get assistance from the VA.
The families of home-grown Muslim terrorists tend to be very apologetic and horrified by the actions of their relatives, do you also bold their family's response when trying to humanize the perpetrator?
Cool. Then let's blame Obama for Orlando, San Bernardino, etc.
See how fucking stupid you are?
No, because Obama was always condemned the extremism that led to those attacks, and condemned the acts themselves after they happened.
Trump, on the other hand, was completely silent the last time a right wing terrorist killed people, and has done basically nothing to speak up against the extremists in his base. Even getting him to disavow the KKK or condemn anti-Semitism is like getting a toddler to eat vegetables.
There is absolutely no double standard in holding Trump accountable for this.
They genuinely believe that the right to bear arms is a good thing and the deaths that result, while tragic, are the price of freedom.
Here is the thing foreigners don't understand about guns in America. The reason we have an amendment to the Constitution which permits citizens to own guns is twofold:
1) The Founding Fathers, almost all of whom were British subjects, saw firsthand what happens when only the government has firearms. They can use those weapons to quell public outcry over anything, claiming the people were "rioting" or were "a threat to peace and order" because the people can't effectively fight back. If you read The Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Madison and Jay all say the same basic thing: citizens who have weapons are more fully able to defend themselves from the government.
That may sound odd to Europeans, but if you look at your history you should be able to see the logic behind this amendment.
Non-Americans understand you believe that, but we also understand that you're wrong.
Guns might have been useful before the 20th century, but they are not a good defence against a modern government, if anything they actually enable authoritarians by giving them a reason to crack down on the civil liberties that actually do keep governments in check.