Twitter Cut Out of Trump Tech Meeting Over Failed Emoji Deal, Says Report (politico.com) 551
According to Politico, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was "bounced" from Wednesday's meeting between tech executives and President-elect Donald Trump in retribution for refusing during the campaign to allow an emoji version of the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Trump's adviser Sean Spicer denied the report, saying "the conference table was only so big." Politico reports: Twitter was one of the few major U.S. tech companies not represented at Wednesday afternoon's Trump Tower meeting attended by, among others, Apple's Tim Cook, Amazon's Jeff Bezos, Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg, and Tesla's Elon Musk -- an omission all the more striking because of Trump's heavy dependence on the Twitter platform. Trump's campaign also made a $5 million deal with Twitter before the election, in which the campaign committed "to spending a certain amount on advertising and in exchange receive discounts, perks, and custom solutions," the campaign's director of digital advertising and fund raising, Gary Coby, wrote in a Medium post last month. So the campaign objected when the company refused to allow the anti-Clinton emoji. Coby wrote that Dorsey personally intervened to block the Trump operation from deploying the emoji, which would have shown, in various renderings, small bags of money being given away or stolen. That emoji would have been offered to users as a replacement for the hashtag #CrookedHillary, a preferred Trump insult for his Democratic opponent. Spicer also objected to the company's refusal, telling the Washington Examiner in October that "while Twitter claims to be a venue that promotes the free exchange of ideas, it's clear that it's leadership's left wing ideology literally trumps that." POLITICO's source said Spicer, who's also the Republican National Committee spokesman, was the one who made the call to refuse an invitation to Dorsey or other Twitter executives to Wednesday's meeting.
Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, with all these goddamn meetings happening in goddamn Trump Tower, am I the only one thinking that it's like a goddamn prolog to a bad cyberpunk-dystopia novel?
"I remember the rise of the megacorps... when all the govs and corps started funneling through the Trumps. If you were anyone, if you wanted anything, you went through those doors, up that golden elevator, and would plead your case to the Trump himself..."
I don't have anything of substance to this particular conversation, but Jesus Harold CHRIST, am I the only one who gets creeped the hell out by constanly reading about the future of our country marching through the goddamn Trump Tower?
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
President elect has meetings at his home and you feel what? What location would you prefer, Disneyland?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many say he wears a wig, meaning he's bald. He just got elected Prez.
Who does that remind me of?
He's Lex Luthor, and his new "cabinet" reads like the next Legion of Doom
Super-villain lair CONFIRMED!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd prefer the President not line up the CEO of every large company in the land to come by and personally kiss his ass. It looks too much like thinly veiled coercion.
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes you are correct. It's frightening. Silence equals consent.
Key thing for me was the instant flip on views towards russia by "conservatives".
We have a huge block of pro-authoritarian voters. I think they want a "human god on earth" and it's literally "ukase rex" .. i.e. whatever he says is good by definition. So if he says to fire people in violation of federal law, it's good. If he says to kill people, it's good.
But it's not good- it's actually 1938 germany damn scary...
We studied WHY the "good " germans went along with hitler and it's the same thing. They wanted a strong leader and were willing to go along with anything he wanted as long as he was a strong leader. Many of Trumps supporters show the same reason for liking trump. He's strong. Not that he tells the truth. Not that he follows the law.
http://www.christianpost.com/n... [christianpost.com]
"In a recent column for Politico, MacWilliams reported that in December he did a national poll of 1,800 voters to explain the support for Trump.
"Running a standard statistical analysis, I found that education, income, gender, age, ideology, and religiosity [b]had no significant bearing[/b] on a Republican voter's preferred candidate," wrote MacWilliams.
"Only two of the variables I looked at were statistically significant: [b]authoritarianism, followed by fear of terrorism,[/b] though the former was far more significant than the latter."
Mark Leary, professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University, told The Christian Post that traits which define authoritarian personality include "rigid adherence to traditional values; the tendency to condemn, reject, and punish people who violate those values; and having a submissive, uncritical attitude toward powerful authorities who support and defend one's values and views."
[b]
A Certain Set of Characteristics[/b]
[b]Authoritarian Personality Theory came from a project to better understand how the Nazis came to power during the 1930s and were able to commit mass atrocity.[/b]
Theodore Adorno et. al. published the first major work in 1950, titled The Authoritarian Personality, and championed the survey known as the California F-Scale, the letter f standing for Fascist.
The F-Scale was a series of questions that determined how authoritarian a person's thinking was, with an interviewee answering how much they agreed or disagreed with certain value statements.
According to one online version of the test*, statements posed to interviewees included, "Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn", "If people would talk less and work more, everybody would be better off", "Every person should have complete faith in some supernatural power whose decisions he obeys without question", and "An insult to our honor should always be punished."
Thousands of peer-reviewed articles and studies on the Authoritarian Personality have been published over the past six decades.
"
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to draining the swamp? He is picking nothing but industy crooks and established Republicans.
Re: Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Funny)
Trump: "I never said anything about draining a swamp!"
Everyone: "Whaaaaa... ?"
Trump: "I know more about draining swamps than anyone, and you can bet I'd turn it into the Sahara if I was going to do that! Nice place, the Sahara; you can get a real tan there, not like these New York City tans. And those Arabs... I'll tell you, nobody can deal with those Arabs like me!
blah....
blather...
blah.... ... and I'm telling you, we're going to drain that swamp!"
Everyone: ".... ffffffuuuuuuuccccckkkkkk..."
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is responsible.
Umm, somehow. I just haven't figured it out yet. But Putin or soerng.
Re: Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Show me a left-winger running for high office who denies god exists. Who actually has a chance of winning.
Pretty much all left-wingers in my country (that had 20% of theists in the last census of 2011, down from 32% of theists ten years before that).
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Funny)
I'm getting to really like this guy Trump. Every time he opens his mouth, the progtards start waving their hankies and screaming, "Faaaaacist!!".
I am compelled to point out that you misspelled "Faaaaascist".
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Despite that trend it's worth considering that when some people say Fascist they mean something other than Germans with skulls on their hats. Here's a well written bit on what to watch out for:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/
Donald Trump looks like he may be going down that road some time soon and it's scarin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported."
The best part of all of this is you guys on the right still, after 75 years, think this is something that's possible with millions of people.
Re:He's literally not (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you a billionaire ? No? than you have lost.
Re: He's literally not (Score:3, Insightful)
In short, blame all your problems on immigration, and blindly hope that removing immigration will fix all your problems.
When this inevitably fails to produce the desired result, more extreme, cruel and equally inefficient measures will be taken. This pattern has been repeated many times and it always ends up as a big steaming pile of shit for everyone.
Re:He's literally not (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I normally like to stay out of these discussions so I can moderate instead, but this is ridiculous.
1. First, unless you want to start a mercantilism-esque trade war, "make Mexico pay for it" isn't really feasible. Second, more people are going to Mexico from the US than are coming to the US from Mexico. Building a wall would be a rather pointless waste of resources. See http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... [pewresearch.org]
2. Catch-and-release was used because it costs a great deal of money to imprison, house, try, and deport illegal immigrants. You need to do due process to avoid violating the constitution. In America, you're innocent until proven guilty - and that applies to people suspected of being in the country illegally. You cannot strip the rights of somebody because you *think* they don't have them, otherwise those rights are meaningless. If you want to end catch-and-release entirely, be prepared to spend a lot more money on law enforcement and the INS.
3. There are constitutional reasons why you can't compel the state law enforcement to do things. Also, DACA/DAPA (which is what I assume you mean when you refer to "Obama's deadly policies") didn't allow criminals to stay; if you had any serious convictions (any felony, any serious misdemeanor, or 3 misdemeanors of any kind) you weren't eligible.
4. Again: Constitutional issue. We preserve the right of law enforcement agencies to enforce laws as they see fit; "sanctuary city" is simply an extension of that. Sanctuary cities aren't "safe havens" for illegal immigrants. They're simply cities where the *local* law enforcement will not assist with matters that consist only of immigration status violations. The federal government is welcome to conduct their own operations, as is its right.
5. Sure, you can revoke DACA/DAPA - but be specific, it wasn't amnesty, it was an executive order to provide a temporary stay of enforcement. Amnesty is a different word that has a very different meaning.
6. We... already do? Visas aren't issued blindly, and their requirements are based on nation of origin. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
7. This is a concern only with a few nations (mostly in the middle east) and I actually agree.
8. This would cost tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to set up and operate. We're not Israel; we don't have a single major point of air entry and a few heavily controlled land entry points. It would also not be terribly useful, because unless you're willing to track people once inside the country (and that opens up a whoooole different can of worms) it's not going to do a whole lot. You know person with X biometric data entered the country, great. Now what? They've moved and dropped off the radar. Good luck catching them.
9. The only way to make it not attractive to work here is to lower how much American companies pay, and I for one do not approve of dragging our standard of living down into the mud in order to accomplish that. You can punish companies more harshly for using illegal immigrants as labor, but making it objectively less attractive to work here isn't really feasible.
10. Which historic norms? Immigration's been pretty steady for the last twenty five years, give or take, so immigration as a function of population size has actually *dropped.*
America's problems (well, most of them) aren't because of immigrants. The real issues facing American workers stem from the ruination of unions in the 90s, the increased automation of the last 50+ years, and the willingness of other countries to not offer high standards of living for workers. The problem isn't going away, and blaming immigrants for it isn't going to fix the issue - especially when we have a ticking time bomb in the form of driverless trucking no more than a decade away.
Trucking employs about 1.8 million people, and contributes about
Re: (Score:3)
Bleh, linked the wrong article for the visa bit. This is the tab I meant to link: https://travel.state.gov/conte... [state.gov]
Re:He's literally not (Score:5, Insightful)
From my perspective growing up in a farming area in Calilfornia, the biggest employers of undocumented workers are also very conservative and Republican. These farmers wanting cheap workers are not elitist liberals by any means. They just want cheap labor. Unions who are typically branded as liberal these days are the ones who want to get rid of undocumented workers who drive down wages. For some bizarre reason this turned into a left vs right issue, but that's how everything works in the US because we're not smart enough to understand anything more nuanced than two political stances. There are jobs that American citizens and green card holders really don't want to take if they have a choice. If you want to get rid of undocumented workers I think the smart approach would be to reduce welfare subsidies for able bodied workers.
Re:He's literally not (Score:5, Insightful)
For some bizarre reason this turned into a left vs right issue, but that's how everything works in the US because we're not smart enough to understand anything more nuanced than two political stances.
The important thing to remember about parties in the US system is that they don't actually represent consistent ideological positions; that's largely a convenient fiction. Ideology tends to divide people along fine distinctions [youtube.com], which works in a parliamentary system because a small party can join a governing coalition. In fact small parties often play kingmaker and wield a great deal of power. In the American system being a small party like the Greens means you get nothing. Ever.
In the US we have to build our cross-ideological coalition within the parties, which requires a lot of creative rationalization and, to put it bluntly, emotional manipulation. That's why the Democrats have trade unionists and minorities on one hand, and the Republicans have evangelicals and the Log Cabin Republicans on the other. These groups have little intrinsic motivation to support each other, except that's the only way to get a share of power.
This means that to understand a party you cant just go by the pictures they paint of themselves (never a good idea with any group); you need to look at their history. And that explains those Republican ranchers and their undocumented workers. From Reconstruction until the 1960s the Republican party was regional party that represented Northern and later Western business interests. The in 1964 Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. That very year arch-segregationist Strom Thurmond switched parties from Democrat to Republican, and the Republicans for the first time ever gained a foothold in the South and a nation-wide scope that has allowed them to dominate the House of Representatives since the early 90s.
A Democratic hyperpartisan will tell you the post-Nixon Republicans embraced racism, but really what they did was smarter: they embraced nativism. Nativism had considerable appeal to racists while being more acceptable to traditional Republicans. However this also conflicted with business interests (especially agricultural ones), so the Republican party adopted a regime of hard rhetoric and and harsh but deliberately ineffective measures. If you don't believe me, check out this graph [washingtonpost.com] of undocumented Mexicans in the US and note the transition from the Bush era to the Obama era. Obama actually stepped up deportations pretty much from the get go, particularly of criminals [google.com].
At the same time the adoption of nativism by the Republicans makes the Democrats' job easier. While from a strict trade-unionist position undocumented workers are a bad thing, in practical terms the impacts aren't in jobs where there is a strong union, because the union prevents employers from paying low wages to non-union workers.
Re:He's literally not (Score:4, Interesting)
Great post. I just have to disagree with one point:
9. The only way to make it not attractive to work here is to lower how much American companies pay, and I for one do not approve of dragging our standard of living down into the mud in order to accomplish that. You can punish companies more harshly for using illegal immigrants as labor, but making it objectively less attractive to work here isn't really feasible.
There's a very easy way to make it objectively less attractive to work here, without touching wages or standard of living (well, the cost of goods produced with cheap illegal immigrant labor will go up). All you have to do is ensure that no Americans will hire illegals because the risk of doing so is too high. First step: attach criminal penalties, including non-trivial jail time, to knowingly hiring undocumented workers, and impose heavy fines on those who hired them without doing their due diligence. Second step: offer a green card to any illegal immigrant who rats out his or her employer. Done. No one can hide the fact of the illegal employment from the employee, and the illegal employee's motives for being in the country will be best served by blowing the whistle and getting legal status.
Oddly enough, whenever I propose this strategy to those who are up in arms about illegal immigration, they don't like it. They don't have any coherent response to it, but they don't like it. The reason they don't like it, of course, is that there's a strong undercurrent of racism in their position, and my proposal would punish Americans and reward illegals, at least at first. Even if it's clear that it would work in the long run, it's emotionally unsatisfying to them because they want to punish the illegals for daring to come here. In practice, I don't think very many green cards would be issued because American employers would start being very careful about who they employ, but that still doesn't make the illegal immigration alarmists happy because it merely makes illegals unemployable, rather than punishing them.
Re:He's literally not (Score:5, Insightful)
Donald J. Trump’s 10 Point Plan to Put America First
1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.
"Fixed fortifications are monuments to the stupidity of man" -- General George S. Patton.
2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.
Good plan that; retaining illegals until they can be sent to any other country. Like Canada. The one with the impenetrable wall.
3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.
In 8 years Dubya deported 2 million. In 7 years (so far) the "Deporter In Chief" has sent 2.5 million illegals packing.
4. End sanctuary cities.
Any details on this? Publically humiliating the mayors via tweets? Air strikes? Threatening to build (or not build) a Trump property?
5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced – we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.
Obama got carried away. DACA and DAPA were/are a bad call. A lawyer should have know better.
I can't wait until Americans get a shot at the 18 million jobs [cairco.org] that those 5 million jobs illegals will leave behind. I just can't wait to see Joe Plumber in the fields at 4 am picking cabbage for $3/hour, then off to hang drywall or put on roofs in 110 degree heat for $4.50/hr. Let's make American heart attacks great again! All kidding aside, do you have any idea of the kinds of jobs that illegals hold, what they get paid and their working conditions? They are basically hostages working for sub-minimal wages under daily threat of deportation from employers.
6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.
I'ld like to see it at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Trump's squeeze this week (Melanija Knavs) is a foreign national. Citizenship is not transferable by relation (see item # 5 above).
7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.
"Hello, Mexico? We got some cooks and roofers up here. Come get these guys. Wadda mean there's an impenetrable wall? Who's goddam idea was that? Hello? Hello??"
8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.
"Biometric data processed. Re-entry into the United States is refused. Your records indicate a defect in the APOE4 gene associated with Mild Cognitive Impariment. We apologize for the inconvenience Mr. Trump, Donald"
9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.
"Mr Trump, here's the latest revision of the Ten Point Plan. As requested, all items are just re-wordings of the same idea. As you said, our supporters won't be able to figure that out."
10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.
Interesting. All those millions of illegals slipping into the country up until now become "the historic norm".
Re:He's literally not (Score:5, Insightful)
As an innocent bystander (not republic/democrat/conservative/liberal), it's weird to hear people accuse others of being liberals merely because they're pointing out that they don't like Trump and his unrealistic stance. Every single person I know who voted for Trump does NOT like Trump, they just treated him as the slightly more tolerable candidate. So when I see someone pointing to Trump as the greatest candidate ever and that person is smart enough to use a computer, I can only imagine that they just keep repeating that as a mantra in order to keep from going into a deep depression.
The Republican leadership does NOT like Trump either, are they all liberal stooges? Yes some might claim that but if they believe it then they're in serious need of some vacation time with round the clock care. Everyone on the left or right is pandering to Trump as the next President, that does not mean they like him or agree with him, it's just basic common sense.
I agree that Trump is being much more toned down after the election. However the people he's listening to are not necessarily doing this. For a man claiming to be of the people he's nominating a cabinet full of the elitist of elites, and that's certainly due to the people whispering in his ear. So I don't think he'll flake on this as he seems to be nominating everyone his handlers tell him to. His fanbase don't seem to think this, they start off bashing the elites but then seem happy that these same elites are being nominated. My guess is that the people pulling the strings are going to be surprised when they let their guard down and he starts moving on his own. I honestly think Trump never planned on winning at all and he's winging it with the help of a lot of whispers in his ear. While Trump does seem to be backing down from campaign rhetoric I don't think he's showing that with his cabinet picks. He seems more like acting like a prominent CEO and letting others do the work of running things while he gets the publicity.
In other words, there's a whole lot of unpredictability going on. Will he just do what he's told or will he occasionally exert some free will? Too hard to predict. That's why there's a stream of people visiting his throne in Trump Tower, they need to pander to the unpredictable. People who are convinced with certainty about what Trump will do in office are deluding themselves.
Re:He's literally not (Score:5, Insightful)
it's weird to hear people accuse others of being liberals
That's how it works in all extreme ideologies. You are either with us or against us. Part of the system or an enemy of it. Everything is black and white.
Re: (Score:3)
You *know* I'm right about those things
Don't make assumptions. Propaganda works.
Re:He's literally not (Score:4, Interesting)
Get some perspective. Christ almighty you lefties are so full of hatred and anger that you can't even see straight.
Wait. Are you trying to be funny or ironic? Because there's been a LOT of hate and anger expressed this election cycle and it's been coming from Trump and his followers.
You haven't seen any of the violence against Trump supporters on the news? You haven't seen any of the protests in the streets after the election? Trump supporters, of which I was not one, were not the violent ones. Angry, yes, but they channeled that to the ballot box. Trump haters channeled it to the streets.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Between Trump and Clinton, Clinton is closer to fascism ideologically than Trump.
It is abundantly clear that you don't know what fascism is. Maybe this will help. [wikipedia.org]
Fascism is perhaps too strong a word to describe Trump's ideology. But authoritarianism sure does seem to fit. [vox.com]
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is abundantly clear that you don't know what fascism is. Maybe this will help. [wikipedia.org]
Fascism is perhaps too strong a word to describe Trump's ideology. But authoritarianism sure does seem to fit. [vox.com]
Perhaps it's you that doesn't understand Fascisim. I suggest a well written and researched book [amazon.com] instead of Wikipedia.
"Stronger together!" is classic Fascism. "I'm with her!" is classic cult of personality associated with Fascism.
Re: (Score:3)
I suggest you actually read that article.
It is. Neither Clinton nor Trump are "Nationalist" or "Totalitarian". The most important point after that is "Economy" and "Action", both of which describe Clinton's progressive and activist ideas much better than Trump's capitalism. That's why I was saying "Between Trump and Clinton, Clinton is closer to fascism ideologic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the primary ideological idea of fascism is a rejection of capitalism and unearned income, and demands for a "fair" redistribution of wealth
Where the hell are you getting that shit from? The core concept of fascism is state capitalism: the collusion of the state and business capital, with the state picking winners and propping up monolithic leaders of different industries, eliminating fair competition, etc, in the process, all "for the good" of the nation as some top-down unified whole, but with equality no part of the equation -- there are big winners and big losers, but the state picks who is who. Mussolini, who coined the term, said himself that it might better have been called corporatism.
The rejection of unearned income (which, not free markets, is the defining characteristic of capitalism), and the aim of a fairer distribution of wealth, is not fascism but socialism (which, mind you, need not be statist; there is such a thing as libertarian socialism, or free market socialism). It sounds to me like you just think those words mean the same thing, because in your mind socialism = statism and statism = fascism, when in reality statism vs libertarianism and capitalism vs socialism are orthogonal issues, and fascism is the corner of the resultant grid where statism meets capitalism, the worst of both worlds. Neither state socialism nor libertarian capitalism are its opposite; libertarian socialism is.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you think the statist socialist places weren't doing socialism hard enough, or will you make a 'no true Scottsman' argument and claim they weren't doing it right?
In the case of the USSR, they started by doing it far too much and then gave up really doing it at all. Immediately devolving control to the soviets when they had absolutely no idea how to run the industries and agriculture suddenly under their control was a disaster. It wasn't even an unexpected one: even Marx pointed out that you need to have a gradual change to get to that end goal. A couple of African countries have made a similar mistake, taking land from white farmers and giving it to black people
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you've mistaken me for someone who is defending statism of any form. Statism in any form is bad.
But statism explicitly entrenching inequalities, as in fascism, is bad on top of bad, when contrasted with a state actually working toward equality. Not that it often actually does, because authority breeds inequality just as much as inequality breeds authority. Statism tends toward state capitalism, not socialism; capitalism tends toward state capitalism, not libertarianism. The general tendency is always toward authority and inequality. Fascism, or feudalism in its preindustrial form, is the lowest ground that we continually fall toward when we lose the fight for liberty and equality, which must be fought for together because a deficit in either will lead to a deficit in the other.
Also, for what it's worth, Stalinism and its derivatives were generally considered, sometimes by themselves and usually by other contemporary socialists and communists, to be forms of state capitalism ostensibly as a transitional form on the way to state socialism and then later communism, i.e. basically openly operating "temporarily" as fascists, in the name of (i.e. to further the cause of) communism. So all those things were done by fascists, just "instrumental" fascists rather than "ideological" ones.
Whom (fascists), you'll note, I agree are the worst.
Wrong Fallacy: Correlation != Causation (Score:4, Insightful)
Do the deaths of little people not matter as long as the great leap forward is achieved? Do you think the statist socialist places weren't doing socialism hard enough, or will you make a 'no true Scottsman' argument and claim they weren't doing it right? It's just that every single time... every. time... every. single. time... it ends in rivers of blood. The useful idealists are liquidated the moment they object.
I'm not going to make a "no true Scotsman" argument, because it's irrelevant whether what they were trying to achieve was "true" socialism.
Socialism, communism, capitalism—none of those have anything particular to do with mass state-sponsored murder. If you think socialism—things like Medicare, Social Security, and the Earned Income Tax Credit—can in any meaningful causative way lead to millions dead, then you're the one who's deluded.
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, Disneyland has Goofy, Pluto, Mickey and a host of other stupid characters, Trump Tower just has an Oompa Loompa with tiny tiny hands.
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not in the White House yet, and Trump Tower is his home and center of operations. Where else would you like him to meet with people?
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:5, Insightful)
As noted in the link, examples of his conflicts of interest include:
1. His daughter Ivanka was present in a meeting with Shinzo Abe. She is looking to close a deal with a Japanese clothing giant whose largest shareholder is the state-owned Development Bank of Japan.
2. He accepted a phone call from the President of Taiwan. It turns out he is planning to build a luxury hotel in Taiwan. Is his position on Taiwan and the One China Policy influenced by his financial stake in this deal?
A cynical observer might say he is using the presidency as a vehicle to advance his business empire, and out of the other proferred explanation this one best matches his seemingly bizarre behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
It speaks to just how poor is moral character is. The guy is set to be the most powerful individual in the world by most reckonings, but can't give up his money making schemes for just four years to do the job. He can't even resist not blatantly, openly using it to enrich himself and his family and his friends.
Of course, we knew this before he was elected. His presidency is the biggest con-trick ever pulled in the history of the world.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Neither of your citations appear to even mention the 'emoluments clause' of the Constitution, which makes them, at best, incomplete ('worthless' is also a possible description).
Try looking for something newer - there was very little reporting on the emoluments clause until after the election.
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Interesting)
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
Which is in Article I, section 9. The actual emoluments clause is in Article I, section 6, and covers a somewhat different situation:
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
That's why, for example, when a congressional member is appointed to a position in either the executive or judicial branch, they have to resign their seat in order to accept the new position.
Re: (Score:3)
The president is not exempt from emoluments clause though. But I will agree that it's a very unusual clause in the constitution and not easy to tie down what it exactly means in the modern age. The upshot is that the president, or any high official, should not profit from foreign governments. People actually pointed to this with Hillary Clinton because the charitable Clinton Foundation was accepting money from foreign governments while she was secretary of state. The president can accept personal gifts
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Am I in a goddamn cyberpunk novel? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck twitter. (Score:3, Insightful)
Twitter is a chat program. And they keep censoring things. Stupid things. In crazy hypocritical ways.
They're not DESERVING of being included in jack shit when it comes to america.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a chat program.
For the record, Twitter is not a fucking "chat program". First, nobody except my Aunt Josephine calls anything a "program" any more, and when Aunty J says it she's talking about Lawrence Welk. Second, Twitter is a platform to broadcast every idiotic thought that anyone has to the fucking world, simultaneously. Which means it's a fucking blog. And a microblog at that.
Fuck me. It's like slashdot now lets complete technical retrogrades post here. No wonder this place is overrun by douchebags who think burning
Re: Fuck twitter. (Score:3)
Wow, and just think... (Score:5, Funny)
Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.
Whew, sure glad to see that's not the case!
Re:Wow, and just think... (Score:5, Insightful)
The roster of suck-ups at the meeting is somehwat harrowing. The photos of the expressions on their faces are priceless.
And to those that didn't make it there-- your integrity is intact. No slime, no foul, no tainted deals that will drain your legal dept dry in four years.
Who was missing at the table? People. Labor. The schmucks that do the actual work, like you and I. Larry Ellison? Gates? Zuck? Kravitz? Nope, not there either.
There is the 0.5%, the next 0.5% (some present at the meeting, especially those with outer space plans), and the 99% (us) were, um, kinda missing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, does it, mein fuhrer?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Flamebait? C'mon, that was funny, even for Republicans.
Anyhow, maybe when Twitter actually earns a significant profit (last quarter was their first, I believe?) they can sit at the big boys' table. They're an important company more in stature / mindshare than in their bottom line. I'm pretty sure Trump knows how to read an earnings report.
And some of us... (Score:2)
Some of us were worried that Trump was going to be petty, and seek revenge against those who he felt wronged him in the past, especially during the campaign.
And some of us thought the liberals were going to be petty and seek revenge.
This is small potatoes (Score:2, Interesting)
What facts do they base that on? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?
So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to. And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite. Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof? Or prosecute someone? Maybe more of those banking restrictions they place on particular individuals? Oh, right.
So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true, but the anonymous people with rumors are going to say our allies gossiped about this? And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that. We already discussed just yesterday how Podesta fell for a simple phishing scam [slashdot.org], but presumably here they're talking about the DNC leaks, which Wikileaks says came from a DNC insider. You can read all about the bad jouranlism [craigmurray.org.uk] behind this conclusion if you wish. They're simply laundering anonymous rumors with no factual basis and referencing each other's stories that have no factual basis. The emperor has no clothes.
You know it's bad when my own Slashdot comments scooped the NYT on that Podesta email story by weeks and given that I provided more actual, verifiable sources than their article. Seriously, if you can't even beat Slashdot comments by some random guy on the internet, maybe it's time to give it up, guys? You don't even bother to link to the actual sources lest someone do a real investigation, what a pathetic joke.
Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them [dni.gov]? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees), specifically it was the: "Joint Statement from the Department of Homeland Security and Office of the Director of National Intelligence on Election Security "
I love how they don't bother to link to the actual statement [dni.gov] lest someone actually read what it said. It's not based on anything of substance as anyone can read. They essentially say this is totally something Russia would like to do. Also, we've seen random probes from Russia. Which everyone who has a network has seen all the time (same for China, incidentally), making it utterly meaningless. Everyone with an SSH server has seen this kind of crap and Slashdot has reported many such stories in the past, like this one [slashdot.org]. A nice quote from the comments in that story sums it up: "If you truly expect no traffic from those places, dropping China, Brasil and Russia from ever reaching your ssh port is a great idea."
Let's also not forget that the DHS was
Re:What facts do they base that on? (Score:4, Insightful)
So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to. And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite.
Sounds a lot like Donald Trump to me. "Lots of folks are saying" Hillary is about to die from pneumonia, "some tremendous experts are saying" climate change is a conspiracy by the Chinese, "people are talking about" Obama himself unloading 100 trillion dollars from an airplane in Iran while snorting coke off a hooker's ass, etc. Always anonymously attributed to some nebulous "people," and often when making a statement that nobody was talking about until he brought it up. It's a great way to start a meme.
Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof?
Indeed, I'd love it if Trump's Twitter rants were required to be accompanied by citations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't remember anyone saying she was in danger of immanent death, but Hillary did get chucked into a van [youtube.com] by her staff and her health was reported as being just fine... until that very public collapse. The foreign press was far less kind [youtube.com] when they made a little re-enactment. I haven't even heard the other ones, so feel free to link me to the Tweets.
But yes, I'd be happy to have more people posting verifiable facts rather than ill-informed speculation, no matter who they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Spooks don't like being named especially if they say something that people in politics will not like. That's why we see so many articles like that instead of "CIA Analyst Fredrick Fishmeister says ..."
Is it true? Spooks spend so much time crying wolf or other lies that it's hard to say.
Re:What facts do they base that on? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a fascinating article, actually. Why don't we look at the evidence they present to support their claims?
So... they have anonymous people who are reporting rumors that they won't attach their names to.
AKA anonymous leakers, a basic reporting tool.
The leakers don't publicize their names because they're not supposed to be leaking the information, but the reporter can vouch for the fact that they are senior officials with access to the information.
And there are other insiders saying the complete opposite.
No there aren't, at least not in this article.
Lovely. Why don't they put out some actual, hard proof?
Because a lot of the evidence comes from confidential sources like CIA spies.
Or prosecute someone?
Who? Vladimir Putin?
So the FBI is willing to put their name on this saying it's not true
I'm not sure how you read that sentence and came up with that interpretation.
The FBI did not say it was false that Russia was trying to elect Trump. The FBI, and every other agency that investigated it, said they agree that Russia was trying to hurt Clinton, but they don't know if the intent was merely to destabilize the US or to actually have Trump win the election.
And NBC simply labels this as a "Russian operation" despite failing to present any evidence of that.
Because that's been well established for months.
You can read all about the bad jouranlism [craigmurray.org.uk] behind this conclusion if you wish.
And have a good laugh at the "analysis" within. He simply dismissed all of the evidence of the hacking group intruding to the DNC network. Has Assange even disclosed how he knows that the "leaker" is a DNC insider and not some Russian operative claiming to be one?
Back on topic, let's not forget that they brought up the 17 intelligence agencies again. Would it kill you guys to actually name them [dni.gov]? It's also misleading, because it comes from the directors (political appointees)
Who else is going to endorse the statement except the director? And you really think that not only did 17 directors all endorse a false statement, but that no one in any of their agencies leaked evidence to the contrary?
No. They essentially say these hacks fit the profile of other attacks that have been tied to Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet Obama said himself in this interview with Trevor Noah two days ago that the hacked emails were "frankly not very interesting", with "nothing explosive" and just "fairly routine stuff". @3:30-4:00 and @5:20
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/... [cc.com]
So Obama makes a public announcement that a "deep dive" secret, covert operation is about to begin, and then one day later the Obama appointed CIA officials conclude that the operation is complete and they know Putin's intent, that he wanted to help Trump get electe
It was a tech meeting (Score:4, Insightful)
Twitter isn't a tech company. It's a 140 character message board. Were Slashdot and Reddit invited?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It was a tech meeting (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, for Pete's sake. Twitter doesn't sell technology; no social media company does. They sell you. That doesn't mean they're not involved in developing new technology, you just don't see it unless you're a developer who uses the open source projects or standards they contribute to.
LCD (Score:2)
Wait, what? (Score:2)
Twitter is a "major tech company." Since when??
It's a website that can receive SMS. There's nothing tech about it. And they can't really even be a "major company," as they have no product. All they have are eyeballs into which ads can be jammed, and those are fickle beasts.
Re: (Score:2)
I presume that you're not a programmer, at least not on anything big. Believe it or not, it takes a lot of engineering to build a system that can scale to the number of users that Twitter has, and provide them with more features than you give them credit for.
Should (Score:2)
suspend his twitter account. Just to enjoy the schadenfreude.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably should. Twitter would at last have a buyer. And one that could afford to keep their sorry asses afloat just for the entertainment value, at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this. I wonder if he'd be able to figure out any other apps...hahahah
Trump should be pleased (Score:4, Interesting)
As the only politician with his own emoji, he should be stoked. Although, to be fair, :poop: lacks a certain panache.
Pettiness of the Autocrat (Score:2)
How the fuck did the USA of Jefferson, Washington and all the rest end up like this?
Twitter should just cancel Trump's account. (Score:2)
It's his preferred way to communicate with the public, so it would probably hurt.
Weird behaviour by Twitter (Score:3)
First they were going to allow a custom emoji for "#CrookedHillary", then when it got too offensive/slanderous they decided "no, we won't do political emojis".
Wouldn't a better policy simply be to say "we don't do emojis that denigrate other people"?
Right out of the Chris Christie grudge playbook (Score:3)
That playbook sure seems to be a popular one, so especially knowing Trump's legendary vindictiveness we should not be surprised in the least that such a thing might be true for Twitter being penalized.
Then again if I was one of Trump's aides and needed an empty 'spin excuse' to explain why? I'd state that "Given how much Twitter's social platform is used by the president-elect every day, it would represent a conflict of interest for someone from that company to get invited to such a meeting." or something equally vacuous.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, those childish, petty liberals, trying to pin blame on Trump for a company not being invited to Trump Tower to meet with Trump.
Re:Boogyjman (Score:4, Informative)
Those liberals keep complaining about the electoral college.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266035509162303492?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266034630820507648?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
And claiming the election was rigged in polling places and the media.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/787699930718695425?lang=en
And questioning the legitimacy of the president.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/137559273394802690?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/203568571148800001?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207495823750205440?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207875027008368640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207897542971752448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/207907352412831744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/225258011894104065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/225620165138726912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/225622462770061312?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/226019096460918784?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/226317290239582208?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/227504536317734912?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240116141446537216?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240117754970132480?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240442968379629569?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/240811658786783232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/246272201710518272?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/252850650784882688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/262557984817823744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/262955491309805568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/313730158869741568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/315236584020643840?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/331898523119415296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/351505671851737089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/366514186664153089?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/370646948081975296?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/370646987227414529?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/536653754029047808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Re: (Score:2)
Fair is fair. After all, Obama was accused of all the same things (literally, figuratively, and analogously).
I think it's in the job description.
Re: (Score:2)
Not so. the election pretty much pointed out that even democrats who voted him in last time went for Trump this election.
That's a bit over broad. Clearly, not all Democrats who voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump. And Trump got less votes than Hillary, so I dare say that there were still quite a few Obama Democrats voting for Hillary.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking more a cheat with a face on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deleting those accounts as they pop up would make it kinda hard for intelligence services to keep tabs on them. It's more valuable to leave them active for awhile, see who's visiting and following, and then purge them in batches.
Re: (Score:2)
The media lost credibility because people prefer to read news that reenfieces their biases.
I'm not exactly sure what that means, but it doesn't sound sanitary.
Re:It seems like an exaggerated story (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It seems like an exaggerated story (Score:5, Insightful)
You aren't giving Trump the respect deserving of a Sgt. Bilko. From Trump's perspective, anything these companies do to increase employment in the U.S. will now be claimed by Trump as his win, and anything they do that he doesn't like he'll claim as breaking their "agreement" with him, regardless of whether there is an agreement or not. His followers will blindly believe what he tells them.
The CEOs were stupid to feed the troll, they'll now get screwed by him whenever it suits him.
Re: (Score:3)
and now that the competition has been won it doesn't matter how they did it or what they did about it.
Guess that's why WAPO was as the forefront of pushing the fake news bullshit right? Then even had to go as far as to claim well, no ... we really didn't mean they were fake news. Even though their article where they claimed all those sites were "fake news" weren't, and they had to scramble all over themselves along with the site they were pushing and started disavowing it. Notice how it's now suddenly started dropping off the radar?
But just to have some fun, you can now wait and see what happens in detr
Re: (Score:3)
Apple and Amazon are each 60X the size of Twitter (Score:5, Informative)
Twitter is worth $13 billion. Amazon $372 billion, Apple $624 billion. President-elect Trump can spend that time talking to a company that employs 3,500 people and shrinking (Twitter), 116,000 (Apple), or 230,000 and growing (Amazon).
If I were becoming president and I could spend a day talking with someone who hired 80,000 new people last year (plus 100,000 temps), I think I's focus on them for the day rather than Twitter, whose recent "major layoff" was 330 people or so. Amazon hired more people *last month* than Twitter has in it's entire history.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Consider the source (Score:4, Insightful)
According to Politico...
You can stop reading right there.
Re:It seems like an exaggerated story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It seems like an exaggerated story (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump *is* appeasing the terminally offended. They are the Trump supporters.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
7) Trump is putting people who did him favours in office. No crooked nepotism there, no sir.
8) Won't really give up his business interest, and is already using the presidency is enrich himself (e.g. basing his team out of Trump Tower).
Trump is far, far more corrupt that Clinton ever was. The guy should be in jail for the Trump University scam alone.