The problem for the Alt-right and similar-minded groups outside the US is that services like Facebook and Twitter have very wide distribution, which means their fake news stories can go viral very quickly, for maximum effect. If they're stuck on 4chan, Breitbart and whatever other Internet sewers they usually frequent, about the only thing they're going to be doing is hate-mongering circle jerks. If Facebook is no longer available for them to invent stories about Democrat pedophilia rings, then they're fucked. Thus they protest this a great deal.
And once again, Facebook isn't a country or a government. It is a private website on the Internet,no different than, say, a messaging forum, and such organizations have every right to monitor the content on their sites. Go set up your own site if you wish to send out fake news, don't rely on Facebook to do it.
I think you alt-right types are just going to have to get used to the idea that the larger online services are not going to be allowing you to use them as a means of spreading your propaganda.
So you're saying that a privately-run website should be required to allow you to post, rather than you simply finding some other private website to publish your posts? Come on, mate. It's one thing to demand a telco not censor your phone calls, quite another to demand that a private answering service at the other end of a phone number propagate your messages to all their mailboxes.
And once again, Facebook is a private organization, and has the right to remove any content they want to. Don't like it, go use some other social networking platform.
Of course, that does mean the fake news purveyors are likely to start losing the large audience they had relied on, but is that such a bad thing? There's always Breitbart and Stormfront!
And to give you an example of how Roosevelt secretly crossed the line into open hostility, there is the "Undeclared Naval War" that his administration initiated in the summer of 1941, five months before the declaration of war on Germany.
His "inner" inner circle is his family and the likes of Bannon, so while they aren't sycophants, they're hardly the kind of people who are likely to take a tact that opposed to Trump's. A lot of it depends on whether you espouse the theory that Trump is going to be a "president" (in other words, Pence and his cabinet will do a lot of the heavy lifting, much as how GWB's administration functioned) or a "President", as in a more "imperialist" notion.
I don't think it oversimplifies at all. The Articles of Confederation created an impotent federal government. The Constitution was created to create a more expansive one.
As to your national prosperity, that was by and large built by a government that was, even by Jefferson's presidency, going far beyond the purest view you take. The US's greatest growth, and its growth into the pre-eminent superpower, happened under what could best be described as a Lincolnian-Rooseveltian model of expansive executive.
The US already tried a weak federal government with little power to influence, well, anything, and in short order they had to write a new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution as it stands affords the Federal Government fairly significant potential powers of economic management. As with all things, governing is a balancing act. If assuring industrial and agricultural capacity is of a national interest, then it is clear that the national government has a role in these sectors.
The sad fact is that his children actually seem to be reasonably intelligent individuals. Honestly, I'd rather have Pence and Trump's children running the show than Trump, and I expect that's how it's always been. Trump is a brand name, its his inner circle that actually runs the business. He's one big photo op.
Well, he's already surprising the Chinese, who are becoming deeply concerned that the detente that has ruled Sino-American affairs for over forty years is being thrown out the window. Not that I'm necessarily against giving China a few well-earned kicks in the nuts, and really, Obama had already started doing that with frequent sail-bys and fly-overs by the US Navy of that artificial island in the South China Sea. One could almost see Trump's phone call to the Taiwanese president as merely a more overt display of support for Taiwan, because, after all, even though the US normalized relations with the PRC in the 1970s, it has consistently worked to assure Taiwain's defense, to the point where the island of Formosa is one of the most heavily defended chunks of earth that has ever existed.
It's so hard to tell where Trump will go, but I have a feeling he'll work for a few quick wins, and then the reality of the office and the weight of decades of US foreign policy will drag him inevitably on the same course as his predecessors. He has to support Israel, so that's going to mean working within the power dynamics of the region, so no big innovations there. About the most I see in that regard is no more interventions, but we'll see, everyone assumed the same of Obama, and then the Arab Spring came along. The biggest foreign policy innovation, IF IT HOLDS, is thawing of relations with Russia, but here Trump has a serious problem in that he has a Congress that is clearly unconvinced that there is a new relationship to be had, or if there is, that it is worth pursuing. There seems a lot of bipartisan support for Congressional investigations of Russian influence on the US election, which tells you that Senate Republicans aren't just going to be Trump's lapdogs, and they're not going to shy away from making determinations that might prove embarrassing for him.
In a perfect world, perhaps, but any nation government is going to have considerable interest in assuring, for instance, that agricultural output is stable, that energy production is able to support the economy, and that industrial capacity is maintained. A national government can deal with these issues in a number of ways; some governments have tried collectivism, some state ownership, some mixed model, but the US has tended to prefer private ownership with the government taking the "carrot and stick" approach. But one way or the other, the idea that any level of government should stay out of economics is absurd.
To some extent I think you're seeing major industries just mollifying the new guy. They'll employ a few more Americans for a bit, allowing Trump to do his victory dance, and then some time in the next couple of years they'll start reminding Trump, Pence and Congress of who holds the cards.
I'm also eagerly awaiting the poison pill Supreme Court nominee who will be all "I'm gonna toss Roe v Wade out!" but has some many other flaws that the nominee won't long survive.
"Russian tech" is just American, European and Asian tech rebranded. And whatever protections you imagine he'll negotiate, it's all irrelevant as automation takes off. In twenty or thirty years there will be a lot of Mexicans, Indians and Chinese wondering where their jobs went.
What do you mean FDR dragged his feet on US involvement in WWII? That was an isolationist Congress. FDR pushed as close to the line, and even a little across the line. He managed to push through Lend-Lease, but it was Pearl Harbor that finally gave him the political capital to get war declared on the Axis.
To be fair, Yahoo has failed in every conceivable way a Internet tech company could fail. I'm eagerly awaiting the Yahoo afterlife, as a patent-trolling zombie owned by shady lawyers working out of East Texas.
We have Windows 10. We're already handing mountains of data to MS, so what's the difference? And I've been using GMail for well over a decade and never experienced what you did.
Slashdot Mirror
That's for sure. I'm no longer losing karma when I write "AGW is a real verifiable thing". It does look like the 4chan crowd is leaving.
Concocting stories of pizzeria pedophile rings is not "other serious opinions". It's deliberately fabricated fake news.
Who is this "we"?
The problem for the Alt-right and similar-minded groups outside the US is that services like Facebook and Twitter have very wide distribution, which means their fake news stories can go viral very quickly, for maximum effect. If they're stuck on 4chan, Breitbart and whatever other Internet sewers they usually frequent, about the only thing they're going to be doing is hate-mongering circle jerks. If Facebook is no longer available for them to invent stories about Democrat pedophilia rings, then they're fucked. Thus they protest this a great deal.
Because it's the easiest way for alt-right Nazis to disseminate fake news.
And once again, Facebook isn't a country or a government. It is a private website on the Internet,no different than, say, a messaging forum, and such organizations have every right to monitor the content on their sites. Go set up your own site if you wish to send out fake news, don't rely on Facebook to do it.
I think you alt-right types are just going to have to get used to the idea that the larger online services are not going to be allowing you to use them as a means of spreading your propaganda.
And good luck with it. I suspect it will just become another 4chan, a place where the bottom dwellers come for the right wing circle jerk.
So you're saying that a privately-run website should be required to allow you to post, rather than you simply finding some other private website to publish your posts? Come on, mate. It's one thing to demand a telco not censor your phone calls, quite another to demand that a private answering service at the other end of a phone number propagate your messages to all their mailboxes.
And once again, Facebook is a private organization, and has the right to remove any content they want to. Don't like it, go use some other social networking platform.
Of course, that does mean the fake news purveyors are likely to start losing the large audience they had relied on, but is that such a bad thing? There's always Breitbart and Stormfront!
And to give you an example of how Roosevelt secretly crossed the line into open hostility, there is the "Undeclared Naval War" that his administration initiated in the summer of 1941, five months before the declaration of war on Germany.
His "inner" inner circle is his family and the likes of Bannon, so while they aren't sycophants, they're hardly the kind of people who are likely to take a tact that opposed to Trump's. A lot of it depends on whether you espouse the theory that Trump is going to be a "president" (in other words, Pence and his cabinet will do a lot of the heavy lifting, much as how GWB's administration functioned) or a "President", as in a more "imperialist" notion.
I don't think it oversimplifies at all. The Articles of Confederation created an impotent federal government. The Constitution was created to create a more expansive one.
As to your national prosperity, that was by and large built by a government that was, even by Jefferson's presidency, going far beyond the purest view you take. The US's greatest growth, and its growth into the pre-eminent superpower, happened under what could best be described as a Lincolnian-Rooseveltian model of expansive executive.
The US already tried a weak federal government with little power to influence, well, anything, and in short order they had to write a new constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution as it stands affords the Federal Government fairly significant potential powers of economic management. As with all things, governing is a balancing act. If assuring industrial and agricultural capacity is of a national interest, then it is clear that the national government has a role in these sectors.
The sad fact is that his children actually seem to be reasonably intelligent individuals. Honestly, I'd rather have Pence and Trump's children running the show than Trump, and I expect that's how it's always been. Trump is a brand name, its his inner circle that actually runs the business. He's one big photo op.
Well, he's already surprising the Chinese, who are becoming deeply concerned that the detente that has ruled Sino-American affairs for over forty years is being thrown out the window. Not that I'm necessarily against giving China a few well-earned kicks in the nuts, and really, Obama had already started doing that with frequent sail-bys and fly-overs by the US Navy of that artificial island in the South China Sea. One could almost see Trump's phone call to the Taiwanese president as merely a more overt display of support for Taiwan, because, after all, even though the US normalized relations with the PRC in the 1970s, it has consistently worked to assure Taiwain's defense, to the point where the island of Formosa is one of the most heavily defended chunks of earth that has ever existed.
It's so hard to tell where Trump will go, but I have a feeling he'll work for a few quick wins, and then the reality of the office and the weight of decades of US foreign policy will drag him inevitably on the same course as his predecessors. He has to support Israel, so that's going to mean working within the power dynamics of the region, so no big innovations there. About the most I see in that regard is no more interventions, but we'll see, everyone assumed the same of Obama, and then the Arab Spring came along. The biggest foreign policy innovation, IF IT HOLDS, is thawing of relations with Russia, but here Trump has a serious problem in that he has a Congress that is clearly unconvinced that there is a new relationship to be had, or if there is, that it is worth pursuing. There seems a lot of bipartisan support for Congressional investigations of Russian influence on the US election, which tells you that Senate Republicans aren't just going to be Trump's lapdogs, and they're not going to shy away from making determinations that might prove embarrassing for him.
In a perfect world, perhaps, but any nation government is going to have considerable interest in assuring, for instance, that agricultural output is stable, that energy production is able to support the economy, and that industrial capacity is maintained. A national government can deal with these issues in a number of ways; some governments have tried collectivism, some state ownership, some mixed model, but the US has tended to prefer private ownership with the government taking the "carrot and stick" approach. But one way or the other, the idea that any level of government should stay out of economics is absurd.
To some extent I think you're seeing major industries just mollifying the new guy. They'll employ a few more Americans for a bit, allowing Trump to do his victory dance, and then some time in the next couple of years they'll start reminding Trump, Pence and Congress of who holds the cards.
I'm also eagerly awaiting the poison pill Supreme Court nominee who will be all "I'm gonna toss Roe v Wade out!" but has some many other flaws that the nominee won't long survive.
"Russian tech" is just American, European and Asian tech rebranded. And whatever protections you imagine he'll negotiate, it's all irrelevant as automation takes off. In twenty or thirty years there will be a lot of Mexicans, Indians and Chinese wondering where their jobs went.
The problem with blaming Trump is that it is becoming clear he's not the next Reagan or Bush, he's the next post-stroke Woodrow Wilson.
I'd say Bush's foreign policy can be directly linked to a lot of the shit that has gone on over the last six or seven years.
What do you mean FDR dragged his feet on US involvement in WWII? That was an isolationist Congress. FDR pushed as close to the line, and even a little across the line. He managed to push through Lend-Lease, but it was Pearl Harbor that finally gave him the political capital to get war declared on the Axis.
To be fair, Yahoo has failed in every conceivable way a Internet tech company could fail. I'm eagerly awaiting the Yahoo afterlife, as a patent-trolling zombie owned by shady lawyers working out of East Texas.
They haven't caused a major oil or chemical spill, so strictly speaking they haven't failed in every conceivable way!
No it isn't. If you're not factoring the ultimate costs of, say, burning coal, and you're not pricing that in, then you're subsidizing coal.
We have Windows 10. We're already handing mountains of data to MS, so what's the difference? And I've been using GMail for well over a decade and never experienced what you did.