|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 02 2018 22:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Your daily reminder that as President Trump has to power to appoint a prosecutor so if these allegations had actual merit he would be doing so.
I wonder, can you sue the President for slander?
|
So, what is he trying to distract from right now that he brings up Hillary again?
|
He’s got plenty of pre-emptive defenses/distractions from Mueller. We will see if his party goes along with any pardons or other corruption.
|
Pakistan has summoned the US ambassador in a rare public rebuke after Donald Trump lashed out at Islamabad with threats to cut aid over “lies” about militancy.
Pakistan’s foreign office summoned David Hale on Monday to explain the US president’s comments, media said. A spokesperson for the US embassy in Islamabad confirmed that the meeting took place.
In a withering attack, Trump tweeted on Monday that the United States had “foolishly” handed Pakistan more than $33bn in aid in the last 15 years and had been rewarded with “nothing but lies and deceit”.
“They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” Trump wrote on Twitter.
On Tuesday, Pakistan’s prime minister, Shahid Khaqan Abbasi, will chair a cabinet meeting that will focus on Trump’s tweet, while on Wednesday the country’s top civilian and military chiefs will meet to discuss deteriorating US ties.
Relations between the US and Pakistan have been strained for years over Islamabad’s alleged support for Haqqani network militants, who are allied with the Afghan Taliban.
Washington has signalled that it will cut aid and enact other punitive measures if Islamabad does not stop helping or turning a blind eye to the Haqqani network militants who carry out cross-border attacks in Afghanistan.
Islamabad has rejected suggestions it is not doing enough in the war against militancy, saying that since 2001 it has suffered more than the US with tens of thousands of casualties caused by Islamists.
Pakistan’s foreign minister, Khawaja Asif, dismissed Trump’s comments as a political stunt born out of frustration over US failures in Afghanistan, where the Taliban has been gaining territory and carrying out major attacks.
“He has tweeted against us [Pakistan] and Iran for his domestic consumption,” Asif told Geo TV on Monday. “He is again and again displacing his frustrations on Pakistan over failures in Afghanistan as they are trapped in a dead-end street in Afghanistan.”
He said Pakistan did not need US aid.
A US national security council official on Monday said the White House did not plan to send $255m in aid to Pakistan “at this time” and said “the administration continues to review Pakistan’s level of cooperation”. In August, the administration said it was delaying the payment.
Source
|
On January 02 2018 22:32 Doodsmack wrote:
He’s got plenty of pre-emptive defenses/distractions from Mueller. We will see if his party goes along with any pardons or other corruption.
Of course they will. I said this a long time ago, but short of a check from Trump to Putin with "this is to help me illegally steal the US election so I can make the US Russia's bitch" in the memo line, his supporters don't care.
Democrats have been blasting out every tiny detail and update always on the edge of "something big" happening, so there's no umph left. No one is surprised about meetings or lies or the rest of it. Either you think the "Russia" narrative disqualifies him, or you don't, no one (voting Trump) is just waiting for some particular detail to send everything over the edge.
So the reality is it's Trump's party now and there's not much Republican politicians can do about it. So we'll find ourselves where we were months ago, who are the 13+ Republican Senators that are willing to lose their seat to impeach Trump?
I'm just wondering how liberals are going to keep convincing themselves this isn't a joke when Trump doesn't go to prison and ends up wealthier after profiteering as President.
Like how can you think you can stop anyone if you can't stop the dumbest most brazen grifter in chief we've ever had?
|
Day 2 of 2018 and Trump is calling for the justice department to act on Comey and using the words "Deep State" unironically while president. MY president, the kleptocratic maniac who told people showering prevented AIDS, looks grounded in reality and like he has the country's best interests at heart compared to this.
|
On January 02 2018 06:29 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2018 04:24 thePunGun wrote:He also missed the thread's existence before Trump-Clinton (where leftists and liberals were more inclined to be more generous). The sad thing is that neither conservatives nor liberals are smart enough to see through the bullshit that is US politics nowadays. I guess that's what living in an echo chamber does to you... To me it seems the only goal of the US government is to destroy the middle class and keep the poor and uneducated divided so the rich can remain in charge until this whole system collapses. Because no economy can survive without a middle class and with net neutrality gone I fear for the worst to be honest. Now the media will feed their propaganda unchallenged by small independent news outlets. The only thing, that will remain of the free voice of the internet will be to quote Simon and Garfunkle: the sound of silence.... I don't agree with the root of what you're saying, even though I agree that the rich and well-connected enjoy too much power and influence in society. Not every business can afford to have lobbyists reigning in the regulatory state (and crafting favorable regulations) in DC. I'm still typing in a free and open internet. I will be watching closely to see if internet providers behave as monopolies to critically throttle access to sites, rather than provide faster pipelines for a premium. I think there's value in some facets summed up in "net neutrality," but I'm also tired of this stupid backlash that act like tyranny is inevitable now. Some transparency in reporting backroom deals is merited. I hope my representatives draft and present legislation to that effect soon. If Netflix pays $13bil to Verizon to give faster data transfer speeds to their service, I'd like Verizon customers and the public at large to know about it. I have wariness that's not quite up to fear. In all, I don't trust the government to be fair and honest arbitrators of internet provider abuse. I want the letter of the law to spell out what is and isn't abuse. That ship has already sailed. American internet is slow and expensive.
I'm kind of with Danglars on this one about no major changes, though I'd say this is one of those scenarios where it's better to have protections in place. Better to have guardrails and never use them instead of putting them on after some hiker has fallen off the mountain trail.
|
|
|
On January 02 2018 23:29 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2018 06:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 02 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2018 04:24 thePunGun wrote:He also missed the thread's existence before Trump-Clinton (where leftists and liberals were more inclined to be more generous). The sad thing is that neither conservatives nor liberals are smart enough to see through the bullshit that is US politics nowadays. I guess that's what living in an echo chamber does to you... To me it seems the only goal of the US government is to destroy the middle class and keep the poor and uneducated divided so the rich can remain in charge until this whole system collapses. Because no economy can survive without a middle class and with net neutrality gone I fear for the worst to be honest. Now the media will feed their propaganda unchallenged by small independent news outlets. The only thing, that will remain of the free voice of the internet will be to quote Simon and Garfunkle: the sound of silence.... I don't agree with the root of what you're saying, even though I agree that the rich and well-connected enjoy too much power and influence in society. Not every business can afford to have lobbyists reigning in the regulatory state (and crafting favorable regulations) in DC. I'm still typing in a free and open internet. I will be watching closely to see if internet providers behave as monopolies to critically throttle access to sites, rather than provide faster pipelines for a premium. I think there's value in some facets summed up in "net neutrality," but I'm also tired of this stupid backlash that act like tyranny is inevitable now. Some transparency in reporting backroom deals is merited. I hope my representatives draft and present legislation to that effect soon. If Netflix pays $13bil to Verizon to give faster data transfer speeds to their service, I'd like Verizon customers and the public at large to know about it. I have wariness that's not quite up to fear. In all, I don't trust the government to be fair and honest arbitrators of internet provider abuse. I want the letter of the law to spell out what is and isn't abuse. That ship has already sailed. American internet is slow and expensive. I'm kind of with Danglars on this one about no major changes, though I'd say this is one of those scenarios where it's better to have protections in place. Better to have guardrails and never use them instead of putting them on after some hiker has fallen off the mountain trail.
I seem to remember Comcast illegally throttling users already, which would now be perfectly legal?
Sooo yeahhh...
|
On January 02 2018 23:29 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2018 06:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 02 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2018 04:24 thePunGun wrote:He also missed the thread's existence before Trump-Clinton (where leftists and liberals were more inclined to be more generous). The sad thing is that neither conservatives nor liberals are smart enough to see through the bullshit that is US politics nowadays. I guess that's what living in an echo chamber does to you... To me it seems the only goal of the US government is to destroy the middle class and keep the poor and uneducated divided so the rich can remain in charge until this whole system collapses. Because no economy can survive without a middle class and with net neutrality gone I fear for the worst to be honest. Now the media will feed their propaganda unchallenged by small independent news outlets. The only thing, that will remain of the free voice of the internet will be to quote Simon and Garfunkle: the sound of silence.... I don't agree with the root of what you're saying, even though I agree that the rich and well-connected enjoy too much power and influence in society. Not every business can afford to have lobbyists reigning in the regulatory state (and crafting favorable regulations) in DC. I'm still typing in a free and open internet. I will be watching closely to see if internet providers behave as monopolies to critically throttle access to sites, rather than provide faster pipelines for a premium. I think there's value in some facets summed up in "net neutrality," but I'm also tired of this stupid backlash that act like tyranny is inevitable now. Some transparency in reporting backroom deals is merited. I hope my representatives draft and present legislation to that effect soon. If Netflix pays $13bil to Verizon to give faster data transfer speeds to their service, I'd like Verizon customers and the public at large to know about it. I have wariness that's not quite up to fear. In all, I don't trust the government to be fair and honest arbitrators of internet provider abuse. I want the letter of the law to spell out what is and isn't abuse. That ship has already sailed. American internet is slow and expensive. I'm kind of with Danglars on this one about no major changes, though I'd say this is one of those scenarios where it's better to have protections in place. Better to have guardrails and never use them instead of putting them on after some hiker has fallen off the mountain trail.
He's right only if you ignore the fact that we know that US providers were throttling services like Netflix prior to the now thrown out Net Neutrality rules.
That was the reason we got them in the first place.
|
On January 02 2018 23:17 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
Day 2 of 2018 and Trump is calling for the justice department to act on Comey and using the words "Deep State" unironically while president. MY president, the kleptocratic maniac who told people showering prevented AIDS, looks grounded in reality and like he has the country's best interests at heart compared to this.
You’re just now getting mad at his use of deep state?
Is the next shock that he uses “fake news” unironically?
|
"Deep State Justice Department" is a new one and is probably aimed at Mueller et al.
|
On January 02 2018 23:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2018 23:29 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 02 2018 06:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 02 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2018 04:24 thePunGun wrote:He also missed the thread's existence before Trump-Clinton (where leftists and liberals were more inclined to be more generous). The sad thing is that neither conservatives nor liberals are smart enough to see through the bullshit that is US politics nowadays. I guess that's what living in an echo chamber does to you... To me it seems the only goal of the US government is to destroy the middle class and keep the poor and uneducated divided so the rich can remain in charge until this whole system collapses. Because no economy can survive without a middle class and with net neutrality gone I fear for the worst to be honest. Now the media will feed their propaganda unchallenged by small independent news outlets. The only thing, that will remain of the free voice of the internet will be to quote Simon and Garfunkle: the sound of silence.... I don't agree with the root of what you're saying, even though I agree that the rich and well-connected enjoy too much power and influence in society. Not every business can afford to have lobbyists reigning in the regulatory state (and crafting favorable regulations) in DC. I'm still typing in a free and open internet. I will be watching closely to see if internet providers behave as monopolies to critically throttle access to sites, rather than provide faster pipelines for a premium. I think there's value in some facets summed up in "net neutrality," but I'm also tired of this stupid backlash that act like tyranny is inevitable now. Some transparency in reporting backroom deals is merited. I hope my representatives draft and present legislation to that effect soon. If Netflix pays $13bil to Verizon to give faster data transfer speeds to their service, I'd like Verizon customers and the public at large to know about it. I have wariness that's not quite up to fear. In all, I don't trust the government to be fair and honest arbitrators of internet provider abuse. I want the letter of the law to spell out what is and isn't abuse. That ship has already sailed. American internet is slow and expensive. I'm kind of with Danglars on this one about no major changes, though I'd say this is one of those scenarios where it's better to have protections in place. Better to have guardrails and never use them instead of putting them on after some hiker has fallen off the mountain trail. I seem to remember Comcast illegally throttling users already, which would now be perfectly legal? Sooo yeahhh...
I remember they were doing it to Netflix.
|
On January 03 2018 00:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2018 23:29 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 02 2018 06:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 02 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2018 04:24 thePunGun wrote:He also missed the thread's existence before Trump-Clinton (where leftists and liberals were more inclined to be more generous). The sad thing is that neither conservatives nor liberals are smart enough to see through the bullshit that is US politics nowadays. I guess that's what living in an echo chamber does to you... To me it seems the only goal of the US government is to destroy the middle class and keep the poor and uneducated divided so the rich can remain in charge until this whole system collapses. Because no economy can survive without a middle class and with net neutrality gone I fear for the worst to be honest. Now the media will feed their propaganda unchallenged by small independent news outlets. The only thing, that will remain of the free voice of the internet will be to quote Simon and Garfunkle: the sound of silence.... I don't agree with the root of what you're saying, even though I agree that the rich and well-connected enjoy too much power and influence in society. Not every business can afford to have lobbyists reigning in the regulatory state (and crafting favorable regulations) in DC. I'm still typing in a free and open internet. I will be watching closely to see if internet providers behave as monopolies to critically throttle access to sites, rather than provide faster pipelines for a premium. I think there's value in some facets summed up in "net neutrality," but I'm also tired of this stupid backlash that act like tyranny is inevitable now. Some transparency in reporting backroom deals is merited. I hope my representatives draft and present legislation to that effect soon. If Netflix pays $13bil to Verizon to give faster data transfer speeds to their service, I'd like Verizon customers and the public at large to know about it. I have wariness that's not quite up to fear. In all, I don't trust the government to be fair and honest arbitrators of internet provider abuse. I want the letter of the law to spell out what is and isn't abuse. That ship has already sailed. American internet is slow and expensive. I'm kind of with Danglars on this one about no major changes, though I'd say this is one of those scenarios where it's better to have protections in place. Better to have guardrails and never use them instead of putting them on after some hiker has fallen off the mountain trail. He's right only if you ignore the fact that we know that US providers were throttling services like Netflix prior to the now thrown out Net Neutrality rules. That was the reason we got them in the first place.
My point is, regardless of Comcast sucking a bag of dicks in the past, is that Danglars is probably right that ISP's are unlikely to make any major changes in the next few years. Though they shouldn't be trusted by any means, which is why I differ with him on the need for net neutrality regulations.
Most of the ISP's are vertically integrating - think NBC Comcast, ATT Time Warner, etc. so they deliver content in addition to providing network connection. The threat that could come is if they start trying to stiff 'independent' content providers like Netflix, Youtube/Google, Amazon/Twitch, or even social media like Facebook, etc. However, I think that's pretty clear cut anti competitive practice which would get them smacked.
|
On January 03 2018 00:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 00:09 Gorsameth wrote:On January 02 2018 23:29 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 02 2018 06:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 02 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2018 04:24 thePunGun wrote:He also missed the thread's existence before Trump-Clinton (where leftists and liberals were more inclined to be more generous). The sad thing is that neither conservatives nor liberals are smart enough to see through the bullshit that is US politics nowadays. I guess that's what living in an echo chamber does to you... To me it seems the only goal of the US government is to destroy the middle class and keep the poor and uneducated divided so the rich can remain in charge until this whole system collapses. Because no economy can survive without a middle class and with net neutrality gone I fear for the worst to be honest. Now the media will feed their propaganda unchallenged by small independent news outlets. The only thing, that will remain of the free voice of the internet will be to quote Simon and Garfunkle: the sound of silence.... I don't agree with the root of what you're saying, even though I agree that the rich and well-connected enjoy too much power and influence in society. Not every business can afford to have lobbyists reigning in the regulatory state (and crafting favorable regulations) in DC. I'm still typing in a free and open internet. I will be watching closely to see if internet providers behave as monopolies to critically throttle access to sites, rather than provide faster pipelines for a premium. I think there's value in some facets summed up in "net neutrality," but I'm also tired of this stupid backlash that act like tyranny is inevitable now. Some transparency in reporting backroom deals is merited. I hope my representatives draft and present legislation to that effect soon. If Netflix pays $13bil to Verizon to give faster data transfer speeds to their service, I'd like Verizon customers and the public at large to know about it. I have wariness that's not quite up to fear. In all, I don't trust the government to be fair and honest arbitrators of internet provider abuse. I want the letter of the law to spell out what is and isn't abuse. That ship has already sailed. American internet is slow and expensive. I'm kind of with Danglars on this one about no major changes, though I'd say this is one of those scenarios where it's better to have protections in place. Better to have guardrails and never use them instead of putting them on after some hiker has fallen off the mountain trail. He's right only if you ignore the fact that we know that US providers were throttling services like Netflix prior to the now thrown out Net Neutrality rules. That was the reason we got them in the first place. My point is, regardless of Comcast sucking a bag of dicks in the past, is that Danglars is probably right that ISP's are unlikely to make any major changes in the next few years. Though they shouldn't be trusted by any means, which is why I differ with him on the need for net neutrality regulations. Most of the ISP's are vertically integrating - think NBC Comcast, ATT Time Warner, etc. so they deliver content in addition to providing network connection. The threat that could come is if they start trying to stiff 'independent' content providers like Netflix, Youtube/Google, Amazon/Twitch, or even social media like Facebook, etc. However, I think that's pretty clear cut anti competitive practice which would get them smacked.
They worked to get these rules thrown out, no one else wanted them gone, to then assume they didn't do so in order to engage in "anti-competitive practices" is, imo, incredibly naive.
They did it to Netflix in 2014-15 prior to the NN rules and their 'ransom' got payed by Netflix because they had no choice.
|
On January 03 2018 01:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2018 00:50 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 03 2018 00:09 Gorsameth wrote:On January 02 2018 23:29 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 02 2018 06:29 Gahlo wrote:On January 02 2018 06:26 Danglars wrote:On January 02 2018 04:24 thePunGun wrote:He also missed the thread's existence before Trump-Clinton (where leftists and liberals were more inclined to be more generous). The sad thing is that neither conservatives nor liberals are smart enough to see through the bullshit that is US politics nowadays. I guess that's what living in an echo chamber does to you... To me it seems the only goal of the US government is to destroy the middle class and keep the poor and uneducated divided so the rich can remain in charge until this whole system collapses. Because no economy can survive without a middle class and with net neutrality gone I fear for the worst to be honest. Now the media will feed their propaganda unchallenged by small independent news outlets. The only thing, that will remain of the free voice of the internet will be to quote Simon and Garfunkle: the sound of silence.... I don't agree with the root of what you're saying, even though I agree that the rich and well-connected enjoy too much power and influence in society. Not every business can afford to have lobbyists reigning in the regulatory state (and crafting favorable regulations) in DC. I'm still typing in a free and open internet. I will be watching closely to see if internet providers behave as monopolies to critically throttle access to sites, rather than provide faster pipelines for a premium. I think there's value in some facets summed up in "net neutrality," but I'm also tired of this stupid backlash that act like tyranny is inevitable now. Some transparency in reporting backroom deals is merited. I hope my representatives draft and present legislation to that effect soon. If Netflix pays $13bil to Verizon to give faster data transfer speeds to their service, I'd like Verizon customers and the public at large to know about it. I have wariness that's not quite up to fear. In all, I don't trust the government to be fair and honest arbitrators of internet provider abuse. I want the letter of the law to spell out what is and isn't abuse. That ship has already sailed. American internet is slow and expensive. I'm kind of with Danglars on this one about no major changes, though I'd say this is one of those scenarios where it's better to have protections in place. Better to have guardrails and never use them instead of putting them on after some hiker has fallen off the mountain trail. He's right only if you ignore the fact that we know that US providers were throttling services like Netflix prior to the now thrown out Net Neutrality rules. That was the reason we got them in the first place. My point is, regardless of Comcast sucking a bag of dicks in the past, is that Danglars is probably right that ISP's are unlikely to make any major changes in the next few years. Though they shouldn't be trusted by any means, which is why I differ with him on the need for net neutrality regulations. Most of the ISP's are vertically integrating - think NBC Comcast, ATT Time Warner, etc. so they deliver content in addition to providing network connection. The threat that could come is if they start trying to stiff 'independent' content providers like Netflix, Youtube/Google, Amazon/Twitch, or even social media like Facebook, etc. However, I think that's pretty clear cut anti competitive practice which would get them smacked. They worked to get these rules thrown out, no one else wanted them gone, to then assume they didn't do so in order to engage in "anti-competitive practices" is, imo, incredibly naive. They did it to Netflix in 2014-15 prior to the NN rules and their 'ransom' got payed by Netflix because they had no choice.
I think you're misreading what I'm saying. I said that it's unlikely things will change, thought regardless of that ISP's should be regulated because they can't be trusted. Hence the guardrails analogy.
I also expect over the next few years before the ISP's can muck things Democrats will codify net neutrality in some more durable form rather by executive fiat, which is reversible.
|
|
|
On January 02 2018 22:10 Gorsameth wrote:Your daily reminder that as President Trump has to power to appoint a prosecutor so if these allegations had actual merit he would be doing so. I wonder, can you sue the President for slander?
yes you can. but it's going to be very VERY hard to win. basically no chance. in general slander suits over political matters have no chance.
|
what has he done to be strict on air travel?
|
nothing, he's just claiming credit for stuff.
(theoretically he might nominally have done something, but it certainly wouldn't have been actually due to him)
trump is not a policy wonk at all, he doesn't do actual policy, or even have a half-basic knowledge on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
