Bear this in mind: A Democrat tried to block the FBI from hacking any computer anywhere and a Republican tried to stop it.
And yes, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has been opposing this snooping since he entered the Senate in 1996, so no, it doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump or President Obama.
Yep.
Taking $60 million from down-ballot campaigns and giving it to the Clinton campaign so she could defeat Bernie Sanders doesn't seem like such a good move now, does it?
To be more clear, I now consider Democrats to be the equivalent of the "other side" in a war - they will still oppose every and any thing your side does, they can lose a battle and still wage war, incessant and total non-compliance, they will fight to the last man, and any victory - even pyrrhic - is still a victory. Any means are justified in the pursuit of their ends.
So... in other words, the Democrats are now going to do what the Republicans have been doing for the past 8 years.
I don't recall the Republicans calling half the nation "deplorable", or rioting when Obama was elected. Or rioting when [Bill] Clinton was elected.
But please... hold your breath until you're blue in the face.
I hate pointless fear mongering articles. Best example of fake news there is right here on slashdot.
Trump isn't likely to abuse the alert system but leave it to slashdot to make an issue of it.
Trump won. Get over it already.
I'm so weary of all this one-sided bickering and sniping over Trump that I've decided that Democrats should be considered enemy combatants.
To be more clear, I now consider Democrats to be the equivalent of the "other side" in a war - they will still oppose every and any thing your side does, they can lose a battle and still wage war, incessant and total non-compliance, they will fight to the last man, and any victory - even pyrrhic - is still a victory. Any means are justified in the pursuit of their ends.
All the things an unruly child does, but forever.
In my mind the Democrats are *permanently* a party of dishonour, disgrace, and corruption. A group that simply gets no "benefit of the doubt" or "concessions of fairness" or anything like that. They are children, now and forever. We should treat them as such.
I was thinking through the recent news (last night) that Trump got Carrier to keep 1000 jobs in the US, and how I couldn't see a way to frame that in a bad light. Lo and behold! Recent comments on Slashdot manage to paint this as a bad thing. They even pulled out the Hitler comparison for good measure.
The Democrats are defeated. Leaderless and feckless, the only thing they can do is complain.
No plan, no leadership, and rife with corruption.
It's hard to see why anyone would be a part of that crowd.
Prusa is the maker of the (fairly well known) Prusa 3-d printer, and as is typical in these PayPal situations, he hasn't the first clue why it happened. They locked all his funds - he can't fulfill purchases and can't even refund his customers.
At least in the Europe case it was the police doing it. When companies do this on request of other companies it puts them in a very hard position.
I wonder how many *non fake* websites got caught up in the sweep, and how many legitimate businesses will be trashed as a result?
Assange doesn't have the funds and probably also not the influence. In any case, the whole "russians are hacking us" is mostly paranoia.
"Mostly" is being generous.
Assange took the unprecedented step to say specifically "it was not the Russians". He has stated that they never reveal their sources, so to go that far (eliminating Russia gives information about the actual source) he probably felt the fear-mongering was a prelude to a declaration of war, or at least minor hostility.
(And to be fair, it sure looked, at the time, that America was ginning up for a fight with Russia.)
And as for Clinton wanting to kill him, she specifically asked in a meeting "can't we just drone this guy", apparently was not joking, and as a result of the meeting the aides sent her a list of "legal and non-legal strategies" for dealing with assange.
But then again, this could be fake news. Hillary doesn't remember joking about Assange, and Snopes has the "drone strike" claim listed as "unproven".
(Note: The "legal and extra-legal" link is to a copy of the actual memo sent to Hillary.)
I'm in favour of recounts in general, and for this election in particular. It tells us about the reliability of the election process, and hopefully might shed light on hacking and other skulduggery. The information will be used to fix future problems.
As to Clinton, she's joining because Jill Stein can't call for a recount. In at least one of the states (probably all of them) you can't call for a recount unless you are aggrieved, which means that you think the recount would change the outcome.
Jill Stein can't reasonably say that she might have won, so she officially can't be aggrieved.
Hillary most certainly *can* make that claim, since the margins for her loss are so slim in those states.
That's why she joined the process. For the recounts to happen, she's the one to request them.
On topic: Wealth should not decide elections. I am responding to the suggestion that the relatively small number of urban counties shouldn't count as much as the many rural counties, even though they have many people and drive the economy. Our system is roughly based on population, as it should be.
Off topic: Wealth can be used to acquire or produce food, just like anything else. As a nation, we could abolish our agricultural subsidies and be better off economically.
A fair post, so I'll respond in kind.
The way I see it, the EC diminishes a large problem at the expense of introducing a small one.
We're seeing the small problem manifest more in modern times because of effective universal communication, forcing both candidates to a central position. It's like two ice cream vendors serving a beach - people will gravitate to the vendor closest to them, so each vendor maximizes it's custom by being in the exact middle of the boardwalk. (In this simile the "middle" is any political position, and the voters will vote for the person who is "closest" to their personal beliefs.)
Looking at the responses here, it's clear that the EC is doing its job. If it were abolished, it's clear even from the replies to this article that the middle states would revolt (meaning: secede from the union) rather than be ruled by the most populous states.
One reason to *not* put Clinton into office is that it would result in nation-wide rioting at a level that might bring down the government.
Roughly half the population approves of Trump(*). The Clinton protests were small because fundamentally most people realize that Trump won fairly and there's no cause for grievance.
Make Clinton president and you've suddenly got a whole lot of people who have a legitimate excuse to protest, and a fair portion of Clinton supporters would probably agree - some would join in, a sizeable proportion would probably silently agree, and almost all of them wouldn't oppose the protests.
It sucks that Clinton lost, but please consider the situation.
Beyond any political leanings people have, people fundamentally believe themselves to be fair and honest.
Switching the election would violate that feeling in a whole lot of people, more than just the ones who supported Trump.
And as further info, note that 26 states rejected Obama's executive orders on refugees. That's very close to the 33 needed to force a constitutional crisis. It seems *highly likely* that putting Clinton in the president's chair would trigger such a crisis.
Obama backed down and essentially said "let the next president deal with it", and I think the states also held off because they knew they'd have a chance to vote in someone else. But put Clinton in that chair and we're threatening the extinction of our country.
Once again, it sucks that Clinton lost, but please consider the situation.
(*) You can extend the vote results to cover the entire country because it's a large enough sample.
And those cities generate most of America's wealth. It would be a terrible idea to decide elections by the number of counties won. If you think the election should be decided by poor people who live in the middle of nowhere, then you're wrong.
And the breadbasket states generate most of America's food.
Which is worth more - food or wealth?
Are you saying wealth should be the deciding factor in elections?
What's wrong with fake news? Most people don't vote anyways.
Fake news will be the reason to implement all the "fake news" site blockers that the major players have been wanting.
They spent two weeks bringing the term "fake news" into the public consciousness, now they need to convince everyone that it's a real problem.
Soon we'll start seeing mitigation attempts. Google will delist certain sites, ad companies will drop certain sites (which has apparently already happened), some sites will lose their domains, some will get hit with trademark violations of their names, etc etc.
You have to convince the people that there's a need for change.
That's why it's important right now.
(They don't want a repeat of this year's election.)
I think we're seeing the groundwork laid for an attack on news reporting on the net.
Phase 1 was identifying a problem and giving it a name: "fake news".
This has been going on for about a week, it's in the minds of the people, and we're now ready for phase 2.
Phase 2 is proving that Russia swayed the election using an army of internet trolls, botnets, and malware (such as DDS attacks). It's important because it's an attack on Democracy.
Once that's complete, we'll start to see a selection of possible changes that could fix the problem. Such as individual companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter) implementing strategies to identify and weaken the effects of "fake news".
Then we'll see a lot of complaints from lesser-known news sites who lose their advertizing, or domain name, or twitter feed, or facebook feed, and whatnot. Maybe a popup from Google similar to "possible malware site" saying "Breitbart might be a fake news site".
Note that during the election reddit had an algorithm that automatically suppressed the "r/The_Donald" subreddit from appearing on the front page "hot topics" list. This became notable in October when the algorithm failed to work properly for a short time, allowing r/TheDonald to take over the front page "hot topics" list.
I've just now created a mantra we can use to help the process along: "The truth can't survive on it's own".
We need to give truth a little boost if it's to survive online.
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.
What we do run is a newspaper in a part of the world that is already feeling the effects of climate change, with direct and tangible economic and social impacts. So when a top climate denier says that he intends to cut the legs out from under an integral part of the climate science community, and claims to be acting to stop political interference with climate science.... That gets a big headline. We're running it tomorrow.
And yes, editors do sometimes talk like that. In jest, but mostly because if you can't maintain your gallows humour, you won't be an editor for long.
Hey, go for it!
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.
What we do run is a newspaper
...
Nope.
I don't know what you're running, but it most definitely isn't a newspaper.
Firstly, this is an advisor making suggestions to Trump, not Trump himself.
Secondly, the person making the suggestion is an outside advisor, not a member of the transition team.
Thirdly, the recommendation is to let NASA deal with space-going issues and have other parts of government do climate research. It's not advocating just dumping the research.
And finally, other members of the government have suggested this move in the past, including Ted Cruz.
Trump has not said or done anything on this yet, he's only vaguely and tangentially involved, and it's not even clear that the adviser has even made his case to Trump yet.
It took me all of 1 minute to dig down and find the actual story, and summarize it truthfully. I've done what any good editor should do, and what you didn't do. Report fairly and accurately.
And yet you want to put 4 inch headlines saying how insane he is. Oh, excuse me, that was in jest. You want to say he is a buffoon.
You think you're a newspaper, but you're one of the "fake news" problems we keep hearing about.
Let me be specific: You are in no way running an actual newspaper, you're simply a troll publication like National Enquirer.
(I expect you'll next be telling me "Bat Boy Lives!!!")
Totally agree. The Trump administration is "poised" to eliminate climate science, quote from campaign advisers, and concerned scientists make up this article. Come back when you have something to report.
The advisor designated to oversea future planning related to NASA says, 'we're going to cut a $2+ billion NASA program that not coincidentally provides critical baseline data to climate scientists because politicians shouldn't meddle with client scientists.'
May I offer my professional opinion, as someone who runs a newspaper: That is something to report.
That's not just any old thing to report. That's something that you report in the World News section. Above the fold. With a 4 inch headline. And an entire editorial department asking the reporter, 'Really he said that? Because no sane person would say that. He's that fucking dense? Yeah? He did? Okay, fine. Zane, drop a hundred words from the second item. We're just going to print WTF fifty times below this article.'
Seriously, if you think this is a reasonable, unremarkable pronouncement from a member of the presidential transition team, you are not entirely sound in the head. I mean that in all sincerity. Get checked. Because you're not thinking rationally.
Hey, go for it!
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
As your lead story, front page, above the fold, with a 4 inch headline.
That's the way to get readership. Eyes on articles comes from shocking surprise in headlines causing disgust, indignation, or offence.
And you'll be just like all the other MSM newspapers. One of the club! In the big leagues now, I betcha!
Tell people what to think!
That's how you run a newspaper nowadays.
(Of course, the real story is that Earth science will become the purview of NOAA, freeing up NASA to do what it does best: explore space. NASA will get the satellites to space, but other departments will conduct Earth studies.)
Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...
This election is the first time in my life I've taken the trouble to dig down past the news reporting into the facts that were reported.
...and it's fascinating. From a psychology point of view, if you can figure out the forces and rationalizations involved it's an interesting exercise in crowd manipulation and competition for readership.
This almost looks orchestrated.
Right now we're seeing the first rumblings of a landslide change in the way news is reported. We're starting by building up a problem in the minds of the readership, being "fake news sites". (Note that it's fake *sites*, not fake *stories*.)
This will go on for awhile until most of the readership simply accepts that "fake news sites" is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Then we'll see sites rolling out their "fixes" to the problems.
Google is pulling ad revenue from sites deemed to be "fake news", under the rule that they are not "advertiser friendly". Expect many ambiguous rules and discretionary enforcement to be implemented. For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.
I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.
Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.
The difference is between *what* gets reported, versus the *style* of reporting. Sites can be left-leaning or right-leaning, but the text shouldn't be obviously dismissive, judgemental, opinionated drivel. Readers shouldn't be told what to think - they should make up their own minds.
So look to the future, where *sites* (not articles) can't be found in search engines, can't get ad revenue, and have to live in the shadows,
Also note that the "fake news" scare originally started from a professor creating a list of "fake news" websites was itself fake!. The list has since been taken down, but the term "fake news site" that it coined will be with us for awhile.
The “fake news” freakout: The story about a professor creating an authoritative list of “fake news” websites, as widely reported across the mainstream media, was itself a fake news story. The creator of the list was a madcap left-wing activist who compiled it on a whim, not through any sort of rigorously-vetted academic process. When the list of fake news sites came under sustained criticism, it was removed from the Internet, long after generating a raft of stories on top news websites and TV shows.
As with many of the other stories above, the fake-news-site list received huge MSM coverage because it dovetailed with a Democrat political initiative – President Obama is personally involved – and it flattered both the ideological preferences and business interests of Big Media.
I have to say it, folks. Looking across the pond and seeing what's going on in the US right now is so patently absurd, words fail me. I'm seriously worried.
Here's a cheat sheet that might help:
1) Trump is not a monster 2) It's premature to judge before he takes office 3) Clinton would arguably be as bad or worse. (Or better, or completely different, no one knows.) 4) He won fair and square 5) Nothing so far warrants armed revolt
And as a followup to #5 above, nothing warrants your characterization of "absurd".
I know that this doesn't track with the MSM narrative, but they were wrong about a lot of things.
Let's not pass judgement on things that haven't happened.
Are you referring to Trump's 100+ civil suits currently pending?
And are those 100+ civil suits against him personally, or against various companies?
Is he innocent until proven guilty? Or are we just assuming here...
Are civil suits the same as felonies? I seem to remember another candidate playing hopscotch with several felonies.
Are civil suits of the same order as rape? I seem to remember another candidate...
Eleven states sued Barak Obama over a single action, 25 states sued him over another, almost triggering a constitutional convention. There's a long line of civil and federal suits as well, not to mention the numerous lawsuits filed against Hillary Clinton, for example from Benghazi family members.
Oh hell, of course. Now I see.
Everything about him is awful in every possible way, but one of the Clintons was never indicted.
With Trump's planned EPA appointment, by the time they get to trial it will be officially stated there to no such thing as Global Warming, giving them no standing to sue.
Do you have a link for that?
I'm only asking because no one knows who that will be, or what they will do, and any guesses on the matter are partisan bullshit.
He hired Myron Ebell to head the transition, but as yet no one knows who will be appointed to the actual EPA. (There's a difference between heading the transition team and heading the EPA.)
And on that point, Obama didn't really do much of anything to help the environment. We haven't reduced carbon output very much, and the amount we did reduce was mostly due to economics and not any particular vision or plan from the president.
And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations and not the industrialized ones.
So even if Trump does nothing to help the environment there would be no appreciable change from what the current administration did.
If we're really going to fix the environment, we first have to fix all our other problems. If we can get our economy back on track, fix some of the infrastructure, and get a bit more efficiency in government by reducing corruption, then maybe we will have the time, effort, money, and incentive to fix issues in other countries.
On other words, don't force sick patients to go to the gym. Cure their sickness first, and worry about the gym later.
Clinton lost by a whisker. Clinton is Obama's friend. Wikileaks spread dirt on Clinton. Now you want Obama to give you a warm handshake and a kiss on the cheek?
Trump won over Clinton 290 to 228, which is most definitely *not* a whisker.
If you want to complain that Clinton would have won by different rules, you also have to allow that Trump would have campaigned differently under the different rules.
For example, with full popular voting Trump would have campaigned more vigorously in California and New York, to garner more of the proportional popular vote in those states.
He would have had a different campaign, and won under the different rules as well.
Fuck his crony capitalism that shit belongs in 1816 not 2016. Trump will see the break up of the US in ways the Southern Confederates could only dream about. Now the opposite ideology has the real economic strength to secede and take a third of the US states with it. Then Trump can fume and have tantrums all day.
Ease off man, chill.
Take some time off, catch up on your sleep, read a good book.
Everything will seem fine in about a week or so.
You don't have to carry the world on your shoulders all the time.
We can handle the world for a few days - go ahead and relax for a week or so.
Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election has prompted President Barack Obama to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.
According to the Journal, the White House had hoped to push the deal forward in the lame-duck session of Congress, assuming Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had won the election. Her loss has already changed the political landscape:
Also of note since Trump won: Canada has said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, stock market has hit new highs, money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found, and two of Trumps scandals (the underage rape, and the muslim hajib thing) were found out as complete fabrications.
I'm waiting to hear the liberals on Slashdot spin the death of TPP as a bad thing because it was due to Trump.
I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.
I'd take the good with the bad. There's a cop I'd like to take to court for violating my rights - can I get someone to pay for my lawsuit too?
Slashdot Mirror
Bear this in mind: A Democrat tried to block the FBI from hacking any computer anywhere and a Republican tried to stop it.
And yes, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden has been opposing this snooping since he entered the Senate in 1996, so no, it doesn't have anything to do with Donald Trump or President Obama.
Yep.
Taking $60 million from down-ballot campaigns and giving it to the Clinton campaign so she could defeat Bernie Sanders doesn't seem like such a good move now, does it?
So... in other words, the Democrats are now going to do what the Republicans have been doing for the past 8 years.
I don't recall the Republicans calling half the nation "deplorable", or rioting when Obama was elected. Or rioting when [Bill] Clinton was elected.
But please... hold your breath until you're blue in the face.
You're so cute when you do that.
I hate pointless fear mongering articles. Best example of fake news there is right here on slashdot.
Trump isn't likely to abuse the alert system but leave it to slashdot to make an issue of it.
Trump won. Get over it already.
I'm so weary of all this one-sided bickering and sniping over Trump that I've decided that Democrats should be considered enemy combatants.
To be more clear, I now consider Democrats to be the equivalent of the "other side" in a war - they will still oppose every and any thing your side does, they can lose a battle and still wage war, incessant and total non-compliance, they will fight to the last man, and any victory - even pyrrhic - is still a victory. Any means are justified in the pursuit of their ends.
All the things an unruly child does, but forever.
In my mind the Democrats are *permanently* a party of dishonour, disgrace, and corruption. A group that simply gets no "benefit of the doubt" or "concessions of fairness" or anything like that. They are children, now and forever. We should treat them as such.
I was thinking through the recent news (last night) that Trump got Carrier to keep 1000 jobs in the US, and how I couldn't see a way to frame that in a bad light. Lo and behold! Recent comments on Slashdot manage to paint this as a bad thing. They even pulled out the Hitler comparison for good measure.
The Democrats are defeated. Leaderless and feckless, the only thing they can do is complain.
No plan, no leadership, and rife with corruption.
It's hard to see why anyone would be a part of that crowd.
In other news, Josef Prusa has his PayPal account locked the day before black Friday.
Prusa is the maker of the (fairly well known) Prusa 3-d printer, and as is typical in these PayPal situations, he hasn't the first clue why it happened. They locked all his funds - he can't fulfill purchases and can't even refund his customers.
At least in the Europe case it was the police doing it. When companies do this on request of other companies it puts them in a very hard position.
I wonder how many *non fake* websites got caught up in the sweep, and how many legitimate businesses will be trashed as a result?
RT? That's what you're using as a source? The state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia? The "news" organization who only says what Putin tells them?
I'd take the Fox tabloid over RT any day. At least Fox puts out something truthful once in a while.
I notice that you don't say the claim is wrong.
Was that on purpose?
Assange doesn't have the funds and probably also not the influence.
In any case, the whole "russians are hacking us" is mostly paranoia.
"Mostly" is being generous.
Assange took the unprecedented step to say specifically "it was not the Russians". He has stated that they never reveal their sources, so to go that far (eliminating Russia gives information about the actual source) he probably felt the fear-mongering was a prelude to a declaration of war, or at least minor hostility.
(And to be fair, it sure looked, at the time, that America was ginning up for a fight with Russia.)
And as for Clinton wanting to kill him, she specifically asked in a meeting "can't we just drone this guy", apparently was not joking, and as a result of the meeting the aides sent her a list of "legal and non-legal strategies" for dealing with assange.
But then again, this could be fake news. Hillary doesn't remember joking about Assange, and Snopes has the "drone strike" claim listed as "unproven".
(Note: The "legal and extra-legal" link is to a copy of the actual memo sent to Hillary.)
The Clinton campaign announced today they're joining the recount process: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11...
I'm in favour of recounts in general, and for this election in particular. It tells us about the reliability of the election process, and hopefully might shed light on hacking and other skulduggery. The information will be used to fix future problems.
As to Clinton, she's joining because Jill Stein can't call for a recount. In at least one of the states (probably all of them) you can't call for a recount unless you are aggrieved, which means that you think the recount would change the outcome.
Jill Stein can't reasonably say that she might have won, so she officially can't be aggrieved.
Hillary most certainly *can* make that claim, since the margins for her loss are so slim in those states.
That's why she joined the process. For the recounts to happen, she's the one to request them.
On topic: Wealth should not decide elections. I am responding to the suggestion that the relatively small number of urban counties shouldn't count as much as the many rural counties, even though they have many people and drive the economy. Our system is roughly based on population, as it should be.
Off topic: Wealth can be used to acquire or produce food, just like anything else. As a nation, we could abolish our agricultural subsidies and be better off economically.
A fair post, so I'll respond in kind.
The way I see it, the EC diminishes a large problem at the expense of introducing a small one.
We're seeing the small problem manifest more in modern times because of effective universal communication, forcing both candidates to a central position. It's like two ice cream vendors serving a beach - people will gravitate to the vendor closest to them, so each vendor maximizes it's custom by being in the exact middle of the boardwalk. (In this simile the "middle" is any political position, and the voters will vote for the person who is "closest" to their personal beliefs.)
Looking at the responses here, it's clear that the EC is doing its job. If it were abolished, it's clear even from the replies to this article that the middle states would revolt (meaning: secede from the union) rather than be ruled by the most populous states.
One reason to *not* put Clinton into office is that it would result in nation-wide rioting at a level that might bring down the government.
Roughly half the population approves of Trump(*). The Clinton protests were small because fundamentally most people realize that Trump won fairly and there's no cause for grievance.
Make Clinton president and you've suddenly got a whole lot of people who have a legitimate excuse to protest, and a fair portion of Clinton supporters would probably agree - some would join in, a sizeable proportion would probably silently agree, and almost all of them wouldn't oppose the protests.
It sucks that Clinton lost, but please consider the situation.
Beyond any political leanings people have, people fundamentally believe themselves to be fair and honest.
Switching the election would violate that feeling in a whole lot of people, more than just the ones who supported Trump.
And as further info, note that 26 states rejected Obama's executive orders on refugees. That's very close to the 33 needed to force a constitutional crisis. It seems *highly likely* that putting Clinton in the president's chair would trigger such a crisis.
Obama backed down and essentially said "let the next president deal with it", and I think the states also held off because they knew they'd have a chance to vote in someone else. But put Clinton in that chair and we're threatening the extinction of our country.
Once again, it sucks that Clinton lost, but please consider the situation.
(*) You can extend the vote results to cover the entire country because it's a large enough sample.
And those cities generate most of America's wealth. It would be a terrible idea to decide elections by the number of counties won. If you think the election should be decided by poor people who live in the middle of nowhere, then you're wrong.
And the breadbasket states generate most of America's food.
Which is worth more - food or wealth?
Are you saying wealth should be the deciding factor in elections?
The problem with Wikileaks is the line between editor and submitter is extremely blurred...
OK, that's definitely a problem with wikileaks. The line between editor and submitter is blurred.
The advantage of Wikileaks is that we find out about corruption.
Is one of these aspects of overwhelming importance?
What's wrong with fake news? Most people don't vote anyways.
Fake news will be the reason to implement all the "fake news" site blockers that the major players have been wanting.
They spent two weeks bringing the term "fake news" into the public consciousness, now they need to convince everyone that it's a real problem.
Soon we'll start seeing mitigation attempts. Google will delist certain sites, ad companies will drop certain sites (which has apparently already happened), some sites will lose their domains, some will get hit with trademark violations of their names, etc etc.
You have to convince the people that there's a need for change.
That's why it's important right now.
(They don't want a repeat of this year's election.)
I think we're seeing the groundwork laid for an attack on news reporting on the net.
Phase 1 was identifying a problem and giving it a name: "fake news".
This has been going on for about a week, it's in the minds of the people, and we're now ready for phase 2.
Phase 2 is proving that Russia swayed the election using an army of internet trolls, botnets, and malware (such as DDS attacks). It's important because it's an attack on Democracy.
Once that's complete, we'll start to see a selection of possible changes that could fix the problem. Such as individual companies (Google, Facebook, Twitter) implementing strategies to identify and weaken the effects of "fake news".
Then we'll see a lot of complaints from lesser-known news sites who lose their advertizing, or domain name, or twitter feed, or facebook feed, and whatnot. Maybe a popup from Google similar to "possible malware site" saying "Breitbart might be a fake news site".
Note that during the election reddit had an algorithm that automatically suppressed the "r/The_Donald" subreddit from appearing on the front page "hot topics" list. This became notable in October when the algorithm failed to work properly for a short time, allowing r/TheDonald to take over the front page "hot topics" list.
I've just now created a mantra we can use to help the process along: "The truth can't survive on it's own".
We need to give truth a little boost if it's to survive online.
Hey, go for it!
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.
What we do run is a newspaper in a part of the world that is already feeling the effects of climate change, with direct and tangible economic and social impacts. So when a top climate denier says that he intends to cut the legs out from under an integral part of the climate science community, and claims to be acting to stop political interference with climate science.... That gets a big headline. We're running it tomorrow.
And yes, editors do sometimes talk like that. In jest, but mostly because if you can't maintain your gallows humour, you won't be an editor for long.
Hey, go for it!
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
Because he's not insane. He's a buffoon, and so pathologically needy that he will say virtually anything to anyone, but that's not news. We don't run a celebrity gossip site. And this particular story is about his advisor, not Trump himself. You see, we report actual news. Which was my original point.
What we do run is a newspaper
...
Nope.
I don't know what you're running, but it most definitely isn't a newspaper.
Firstly, this is an advisor making suggestions to Trump, not Trump himself.
Secondly, the person making the suggestion is an outside advisor, not a member of the transition team.
Thirdly, the recommendation is to let NASA deal with space-going issues and have other parts of government do climate research. It's not advocating just dumping the research.
And finally, other members of the government have suggested this move in the past, including Ted Cruz.
(source)
Trump has not said or done anything on this yet, he's only vaguely and tangentially involved, and it's not even clear that the adviser has even made his case to Trump yet.
It took me all of 1 minute to dig down and find the actual story, and summarize it truthfully. I've done what any good editor should do, and what you didn't do. Report fairly and accurately.
And yet you want to put 4 inch headlines saying how insane he is. Oh, excuse me, that was in jest. You want to say he is a buffoon.
You think you're a newspaper, but you're one of the "fake news" problems we keep hearing about.
Let me be specific: You are in no way running an actual newspaper, you're simply a troll publication like National Enquirer.
(I expect you'll next be telling me "Bat Boy Lives!!!")
Totally agree. The Trump administration is "poised" to eliminate climate science, quote from campaign advisers, and concerned scientists make up this article. Come back when you have something to report.
The advisor designated to oversea future planning related to NASA says, 'we're going to cut a $2+ billion NASA program that not coincidentally provides critical baseline data to climate scientists because politicians shouldn't meddle with client scientists.'
May I offer my professional opinion, as someone who runs a newspaper: That is something to report.
That's not just any old thing to report. That's something that you report in the World News section. Above the fold. With a 4 inch headline. And an entire editorial department asking the reporter, 'Really he said that? Because no sane person would say that. He's that fucking dense? Yeah? He did? Okay, fine. Zane, drop a hundred words from the second item. We're just going to print WTF fifty times below this article.'
Seriously, if you think this is a reasonable, unremarkable pronouncement from a member of the presidential transition team, you are not entirely sound in the head. I mean that in all sincerity. Get checked. Because you're not thinking rationally.
Hey, go for it!
In fact, why not eliminate the middle bits and just cut to the chase. In your next issue, just put:
"TRUMP IS INSANE"
As your lead story, front page, above the fold, with a 4 inch headline.
That's the way to get readership. Eyes on articles comes from shocking surprise in headlines causing disgust, indignation, or offence.
And you'll be just like all the other MSM newspapers. One of the club! In the big leagues now, I betcha!
Tell people what to think!
That's how you run a newspaper nowadays.
(Of course, the real story is that Earth science will become the purview of NOAA, freeing up NASA to do what it does best: explore space. NASA will get the satellites to space, but other departments will conduct Earth studies.)
He just said whatever he thought would win him the election.
What he said has pretty much no attachment to what he will do.
He's a fast learner at becoming a typical lying establishment politician, after having been briefed on the actual facts of the nation and the world.
Of course the role dictates what you have to do in it, anyway. It's all part of the machine.
Enjoy the ride, suckers.
You realize he isn't president yet, and hasn't actually done anything yet - yes?
What you said amounts to wild-ass speculation from a sore loser.
If you weren't so focused on "winning all the time every time using every means possible" you might consider contributing.
You know - with political discourse and debate? Maybe with a little insight and logic thrown in?
Lemmings. I, by default, trust nothing. Not a way to live really but is imposed on us. So sad...
This election is the first time in my life I've taken the trouble to dig down past the news reporting into the facts that were reported.
This almost looks orchestrated.
Right now we're seeing the first rumblings of a landslide change in the way news is reported. We're starting by building up a problem in the minds of the readership, being "fake news sites". (Note that it's fake *sites*, not fake *stories*.)
This will go on for awhile until most of the readership simply accepts that "fake news sites" is a real problem that needs to be addressed. Then we'll see sites rolling out their "fixes" to the problems.
Google is pulling ad revenue from sites deemed to be "fake news", under the rule that they are not "advertiser friendly". Expect many ambiguous rules and discretionary enforcement to be implemented. For example, Scott Adams being shadow banned from twitter for having insightful views on the election.
I never knew about Breitbart news until this election, and after following them for the last 3 months I think they're probably the best example of actual news reporting on the net. The site is right-wing slanted, but the actual reporting appears to be high quality and accurate.
Compare with, for example, Huffington Post which had at the bottom of each article about Trump, the statement: "Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims—1.6 billion members of an entire religion—from entering the U.S." A direct quote, and I personally saw this at the bottom of several HuffPo articles.
The difference is between *what* gets reported, versus the *style* of reporting. Sites can be left-leaning or right-leaning, but the text shouldn't be obviously dismissive, judgemental, opinionated drivel. Readers shouldn't be told what to think - they should make up their own minds.
So look to the future, where *sites* (not articles) can't be found in search engines, can't get ad revenue, and have to live in the shadows,
Oh, and here's a list of famous fake news articles published by the MSM in recent years.
Also note that the "fake news" scare originally started from a professor creating a list of "fake news" websites was itself fake!. The list has since been taken down, but the term "fake news site" that it coined will be with us for awhile.
The “fake news” freakout: The story about a professor creating an authoritative list of “fake news” websites, as widely reported across the mainstream media, was itself a fake news story. The creator of the list was a madcap left-wing activist who compiled it on a whim, not through any sort of rigorously-vetted academic process. When the list of fake news sites came under sustained criticism, it was removed from the Internet, long after generating a raft of stories on top news websites and TV shows.
As with many of the other stories above, the fake-news-site list received huge MSM coverage because it dovetailed with a Democrat political initiative – President Obama is personally involved – and it flattered both the ideological preferences and business interests of Big Media.
I have to say it, folks. Looking across the pond and seeing what's going on in the US right now is so patently absurd, words fail me. I'm seriously worried.
Here's a cheat sheet that might help:
1) Trump is not a monster
2) It's premature to judge before he takes office
3) Clinton would arguably be as bad or worse. (Or better, or completely different, no one knows.)
4) He won fair and square
5) Nothing so far warrants armed revolt
And as a followup to #5 above, nothing warrants your characterization of "absurd".
I know that this doesn't track with the MSM narrative, but they were wrong about a lot of things.
Let's not pass judgement on things that haven't happened.
Are you referring to Trump's 100+ civil suits currently pending?
And are those 100+ civil suits against him personally, or against various companies?
Is he innocent until proven guilty? Or are we just assuming here...
Are civil suits the same as felonies? I seem to remember another candidate playing hopscotch with several felonies.
Are civil suits of the same order as rape? I seem to remember another candidate...
Eleven states sued Barak Obama over a single action, 25 states sued him over another, almost triggering a constitutional convention. There's a long line of civil and federal suits as well, not to mention the numerous lawsuits filed against Hillary Clinton, for example from Benghazi family members.
Oh hell, of course. Now I see.
Everything about him is awful in every possible way, but one of the Clintons was never indicted.
With Trump's planned EPA appointment, by the time they get to trial it will be officially stated there to no such thing as Global Warming, giving them no standing to sue.
Do you have a link for that?
I'm only asking because no one knows who that will be, or what they will do, and any guesses on the matter are partisan bullshit.
He hired Myron Ebell to head the transition, but as yet no one knows who will be appointed to the actual EPA. (There's a difference between heading the transition team and heading the EPA.)
And on that point, Obama didn't really do much of anything to help the environment. We haven't reduced carbon output very much, and the amount we did reduce was mostly due to economics and not any particular vision or plan from the president.
And furthermore, the problem stems mostly with developing nations and not the industrialized ones.
So even if Trump does nothing to help the environment there would be no appreciable change from what the current administration did.
If we're really going to fix the environment, we first have to fix all our other problems. If we can get our economy back on track, fix some of the infrastructure, and get a bit more efficiency in government by reducing corruption, then maybe we will have the time, effort, money, and incentive to fix issues in other countries.
On other words, don't force sick patients to go to the gym. Cure their sickness first, and worry about the gym later.
The wikileaks twitter feed has this item:
Remember how you let Obama "legalize":
It's all Trump's in 69 days
This gives me a lot of hope for our future.
Something we really didn't have under Obama (despite it being his tagline).
Clinton lost by a whisker. Clinton is Obama's friend. Wikileaks spread dirt on Clinton. Now you want Obama to give you a warm handshake and a kiss on the cheek?
Trump won over Clinton 290 to 228, which is most definitely *not* a whisker.
If you want to complain that Clinton would have won by different rules, you also have to allow that Trump would have campaigned differently under the different rules.
For example, with full popular voting Trump would have campaigned more vigorously in California and New York, to garner more of the proportional popular vote in those states.
He would have had a different campaign, and won under the different rules as well.
Fuck his crony capitalism that shit belongs in 1816 not 2016. Trump will see the break up of the US in ways the Southern Confederates could only dream about. Now the opposite ideology has the real economic strength to secede and take a third of the US states with it. Then Trump can fume and have tantrums all day.
Ease off man, chill.
Take some time off, catch up on your sleep, read a good book.
Everything will seem fine in about a week or so.
You don't have to carry the world on your shoulders all the time.
We can handle the world for a few days - go ahead and relax for a week or so.
I've heard that TPP and TTIP are already going through their death throes thanks to Trump.
You are incorrect.
TPP is dead.
Donald Trump’s victory in Tuesday’s presidential election has prompted President Barack Obama to abandon the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement, the Wall Street Journal reported late Friday.
According to the Journal, the White House had hoped to push the deal forward in the lame-duck session of Congress, assuming Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton had won the election. Her loss has already changed the political landscape:
Also of note since Trump won: Canada has said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, Mexico said it's willing to renegotiate NAFTA, stock market has hit new highs, money previously allocated by the government for the purpose of building the wall has been found, and two of Trumps scandals (the underage rape, and the muslim hajib thing) were found out as complete fabrications.
I'm waiting to hear the liberals on Slashdot spin the death of TPP as a bad thing because it was due to Trump.
you are a fucking idiot
There there, it's all right.
Go to sleep now, it'll all be better in the morning, about a week and a half from now.
I'm sure you'd be OK with someone offering to pay any lawsuits naming you as a defendant, and that this wouldn't result in lots of people suing you hoping to make a buck.
I'd take the good with the bad. There's a cop I'd like to take to court for violating my rights - can I get someone to pay for my lawsuit too?