Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/president-trump-may-be-trouble-for-atttime-warner-merger-and-comcast/
149 comments
Either that, or he'll just break his promise and let it go through.
Bingo. Promises, for Trump, are fulfilled upon announcement, and then forgotten. The examples are legion.
I think, despite political affiliation, it's our obligation to hold him to the promises we believe in and galvanize his fired-up base to do so as well.
I voted for Clinton and volunteered for the campaign, but I'll gladly push him to keep his word on this promise and the others that I believe will benefit our country.
I voted for Clinton and volunteered for the campaign, but I'll gladly push him to keep his word on this promise and the others that I believe will benefit our country.
If you visit r/the_donald today, you'll see a lot of this sentiment. I think it's been easy to forget that regardless of political identity, most of us agree on a lot of things.
Like anyone in power, he should be held to account, and held to his promises. At least we can look forward to the media actually challenging the powers that be in the years ahead.
Like anyone in power, he should be held to account, and held to his promises. At least we can look forward to the media actually challenging the powers that be in the years ahead.
I went there and the first link called President Obama a 'Pussy'. I'm down for discourse and all, but how can anyone take all this machismo name calling?
Well, I didn't say it was all wine and roses :)
I'd also like to point out I've seen a lot of people calling Trump voters racist, sexist, homophobic, fascists. Let's not pretend like there's something uniquely toxic about that place.
I'd also like to point out I've seen a lot of people calling Trump voters racist, sexist, homophobic, fascists. Let's not pretend like there's something uniquely toxic about that place.
I dont understand. I've never seen any other political forum so filled with bullying and hate. No one is discussing anything. It is alarming because it IS uniquely toxic.
(disclaimer: I dont spend much time in any political forums. Can you link some if I'm wrong?)
(disclaimer: I dont spend much time in any political forums. Can you link some if I'm wrong?)
Yeah, maybe I just got lucky? Maybe I have a higher tolerance? Maybe we have different political affiliations that make you more sensitive to it than me?
I couldn't find the specific comment I was referring to, I think they've had a ton of traffic from their users this week, for obvious reasons. I skimmed through and grabbed some posts that I thought are a decent selection of what I'm talking about. I don't necessarily endorse any of the views in the comments, but just want to point out that there's a lot of solid commentary in there too, not just memes. The point is, these aren't just a bunch of uneducated racist assholes, despite what the narrative would tell you.
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cafd5/need_a_p...
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8xej/presiden...
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8xej/presiden...
[3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7uk2/game_ove...
[4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7tq2/we_won_t...
[5]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[6]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[7]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[8]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[9]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[0]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5cafd5/need_a_p...
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8xej/presiden...
[2]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c8xej/presiden...
[3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7uk2/game_ove...
[4]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7tq2/we_won_t...
[5]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[6]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[7]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[8]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
[9]: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5c7ic6/1_trendi...
Concur wholeheartedly. Just not very optimistic. But who knows?
If he doesn't keep his word we'll have ammo to oust him in 4 years, perhaps impeach him sooner, perhaps revise congress in 2 years. Otherwise, we get the change we want.
I have serious doubts. I think the one thing that this election has proven is that fact-checking is dead. PolitiFact rated 70% of Trump's reviewed statements as at least "mostly false" and there were basically zero consequences.
The next election cycle is going to be brutal.
The next election cycle is going to be brutal.
Politifact is blatantly biased. Bernie and Trump made the same claim about african american youth unemployment, and they rated Trump a liar and Bernie honest [0][1].
[0]: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... [1]: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do...
[0]: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/... [1]: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2016/jun/20/do...
The primary difference there appears to be that the Sanders campaign answered a request for where their numbers came from with references, and the Trump campaign did not respond, leaving the (different) author to attempt to research the topic themself.
The Sanders article they published dates almost a year before the Trump one... They should have found their own article if they attempted serious research
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Fact checking" was never more than a partisan exercise. The people going to PoliFact for fact checking are the people who wouldn't vote for Trump anyway.
Lol. 'Facts' are partisan. Lol... God help us all.
You missed the quotation marks in his comment.
So-called "fact checkers" are almost never non-partisan in practice, pronouncing half-truths or outright lies as facts and truth or almost correct information as (in PolitiFact terms) "Pants on fire" lies.
So-called "fact checkers" are almost never non-partisan in practice, pronouncing half-truths or outright lies as facts and truth or almost correct information as (in PolitiFact terms) "Pants on fire" lies.
> there were basically zero consequences
50%+ of the country voted against him. It's up to us hold his feet to the fire and wake up the other 50%.
50%+ of the country voted against him. It's up to us hold his feet to the fire and wake up the other 50%.
Word to the wise, less people voted for Trump than they did for Mitt Romney in 2012 (although they are still counting), and Romney lost. Next time, put someone up who could be voted for, not just point to someone to vote against.
Just for the sake of completeness: And less people voted for Clinton than they did for Mitt Romney in 2012.
Right, 6 million less people voted this year.
If Trump won, he won in the margins and due to lack of enthusiasm on Clinton's side. That is my entire point.
If Trump won, he won in the margins and due to lack of enthusiasm on Clinton's side. That is my entire point.
Well that's not quite accurate, because 45% of the country just didn't vote.
Or maybe just another 2%
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Be careful what you wish for. I can't stand Trump and don't support him at all. But he's got a damn good insurance policy against impeachment in the form of Pence. Pence is a religious nutbag and would be a million times worse than Trump, if you can comprehend a level of bad that awful.
I think he knows that his voters don't care about privacy, telco mergers and stuff like that.
Where he needs to deliver is: the wall ( not literally though) making us more powerful in military and maybe a bit protectionism for US firms. And remove obamacare.
Thats it.
For the rest not done he will blame the other ( parties) not patriotic enough.
He would make America great again!
But you know! Those damn commies!
Where he needs to deliver is: the wall ( not literally though) making us more powerful in military and maybe a bit protectionism for US firms. And remove obamacare.
Thats it.
For the rest not done he will blame the other ( parties) not patriotic enough.
He would make America great again!
But you know! Those damn commies!
I'm desperately hoping he breaks 90% of his promises. A media merger is the absolute least of our concerns when he's promised to end net neutrality and force companies to give up encryption keys.
> he's promised to end net neutrality
That's bad
> force companies to give up encryption keys.
They already did that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
That's bad
> force companies to give up encryption keys.
They already did that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavabit
I guess companies means "Apple". Trump wanted them to open that iPhone for the FBI and asked for a boycott.
Honestly what else is new? I voted for Obama on pledges he'd end the war in Iraq and close down the constitutional abomination that is Guantanamo. 8 years later and here we are.
Not trying to defend the president (or anyone else), but - how else can one get elected? If voters carefully consider facts before voting then it makes sense for candidates to stick to facts and tell the truth and tell what is possible etc. But it doesn't happen, does it?
The president can't do anything if Congress opposes him.
Democrats fully controlled Congress during President Obama's first two years in office. During this time he could have easily closed Gitmo, or addressed any of his other campaign promises. Instead we got the ACA, which is currently in its death throes irrespective of Trump.
When it comes to Trump, that could be a good thing.
Republicans control the House and Senate.
And Trump isn't going to veto conservative signature pieces like repealing ObamaCare.
And Trump isn't going to veto conservative signature pieces like repealing ObamaCare.
Can someone explain why Americans hate ObamaCare? Here in the UK we have universal healthcare (the NHS) which all employed people pay for via a special tax (called National Insurance ,or NI) - isn't ObamaCare the same thing?
Proposals for a "single-payer" health care system like the NHS -- in which all citizens would pay into a single risk pool, which would cover most of their medical costs -- have been floated repeatedly in the US -- for example, as I recall, by Hillary Clinton during her husband's first term. They tend to be pretty popular with Democrats, AFAIK, but the Republicans have always bitterly opposed them.
The US actually has a single-payer health care system, called Medicare, for people 65 and older. It's wildly popular with the people who benefit from it, of both parties. It seems to be pretty well-run and to exert at least some useful downward pressure on costs. Extending it to all citizens doesn't seem like that big a leap to me. Of course it would all but obliterate the existing insurance industry, which has bought itself a lot of Congresscritters.
I think it would be a fascinating and hilarious irony if Trump came out supporting single-payer in the form of universal Medicare. I think the argument for having a single risk pool is very strong. And I don't see any other solution to the interlocking problems of containing costs (which are way out of hand here) and getting everyone insured.
Trump (whom I voted against, BTW) has shown he's not afraid to go against the Republican establishment. I think when he really looks at this problem he may come to this conclusion.
The US actually has a single-payer health care system, called Medicare, for people 65 and older. It's wildly popular with the people who benefit from it, of both parties. It seems to be pretty well-run and to exert at least some useful downward pressure on costs. Extending it to all citizens doesn't seem like that big a leap to me. Of course it would all but obliterate the existing insurance industry, which has bought itself a lot of Congresscritters.
I think it would be a fascinating and hilarious irony if Trump came out supporting single-payer in the form of universal Medicare. I think the argument for having a single risk pool is very strong. And I don't see any other solution to the interlocking problems of containing costs (which are way out of hand here) and getting everyone insured.
Trump (whom I voted against, BTW) has shown he's not afraid to go against the Republican establishment. I think when he really looks at this problem he may come to this conclusion.
[deleted]
isn't ObamaCare the same thing?
They are completely different. Obamacare has nothing do with universal healthcare in the UK sense, but is a complex system of mandates that dictates how private health insurance is bought and sold.
Very simply there are three key parts:
1) everybody (who doesn't for qualify other government programs) now has to have private health insurance that covers certain things. If they don't get this from their employer, they're responsible for buying it themselves.
2) The government sets minimum standards as to what insurance companies have to cover and regulate what premiums they can charge for this coverage. They also forbid insurance companies from denying people coverage due to pre-existing condition.
3) To make sure that people can afford these mandatory insurance policies, they offer heavy subsidies to people who earn less than a certain limit.
They are completely different. Obamacare has nothing do with universal healthcare in the UK sense, but is a complex system of mandates that dictates how private health insurance is bought and sold.
Very simply there are three key parts:
1) everybody (who doesn't for qualify other government programs) now has to have private health insurance that covers certain things. If they don't get this from their employer, they're responsible for buying it themselves.
2) The government sets minimum standards as to what insurance companies have to cover and regulate what premiums they can charge for this coverage. They also forbid insurance companies from denying people coverage due to pre-existing condition.
3) To make sure that people can afford these mandatory insurance policies, they offer heavy subsidies to people who earn less than a certain limit.
One big reason is that the popular term for the ACA contains the word "Obama".
I support the goals of the ACA, but the law as written is a horrible hack which tries to implement a national health insurance system, without actually doing so or calling it that. It weaves together multiple semi-separate existing systems, adds in significant complexity and uses the threat of an income-tax penalty to try to get people to comply. The system only works well if it has broad subscription across healthy and unhealthy individuals, but as implemented many of the insurance pools are oversubscribed with unhealthy individuals, costing much more than the income to the plans can support.
In their attempts to lock in parts of the law so that an incoming shift of government couldn't easily change or repeal it, the Democrats hardcoded idiocies like a fixed date for the launch of the healthcare.gov website and features it had to have while leaving funding and development of the site a bit up in the air.
In a nominally functioning government, the ACA would have been a broad, general law laying out specific goals, requirements and mandates for compliance, delegating implementation and enforcement to a new or existing agency. But in the "regulations are bad, laws are good" environment in DC, processes and requirements which should have been regulations (which can be drawn up and vetted by a bureacracy under legislative supervision) ended up being in the actual law, which can only be changed by Congress and the President working together, which all but stopped after the 2010 midterm elections.
Add in the the Federal government is limited (by design) in what it can mandate individual States can do and you have this mess called Obamacare.
I don't support repealing it, I do support modifying it to make implementation more flexible, but that is almost certainly not going to happen under a Republican government.
In their attempts to lock in parts of the law so that an incoming shift of government couldn't easily change or repeal it, the Democrats hardcoded idiocies like a fixed date for the launch of the healthcare.gov website and features it had to have while leaving funding and development of the site a bit up in the air.
In a nominally functioning government, the ACA would have been a broad, general law laying out specific goals, requirements and mandates for compliance, delegating implementation and enforcement to a new or existing agency. But in the "regulations are bad, laws are good" environment in DC, processes and requirements which should have been regulations (which can be drawn up and vetted by a bureacracy under legislative supervision) ended up being in the actual law, which can only be changed by Congress and the President working together, which all but stopped after the 2010 midterm elections.
Add in the the Federal government is limited (by design) in what it can mandate individual States can do and you have this mess called Obamacare.
I don't support repealing it, I do support modifying it to make implementation more flexible, but that is almost certainly not going to happen under a Republican government.
It's extremely different - in the UK, private healthcare exists at the margins and most is done through the NHS. Whereas in the US system it's all private: ObamaCare doesn't actually provide any care for people. There are no ObamaCare federal hospitals. At best I think it spends some federal money on subsidising some kinds of insurance?
It also includes mandatory purchasing of health insurance, which (while necessary to make a fully private system work) is philosophically objectionable to most people.
(The NHS is a fully state owned system that nonetheless has an internal market, which some commentators have called "playing at shops".)
It also includes mandatory purchasing of health insurance, which (while necessary to make a fully private system work) is philosophically objectionable to most people.
(The NHS is a fully state owned system that nonetheless has an internal market, which some commentators have called "playing at shops".)
" ObamaCare doesn't actually provide any care for people"
This is not true. Obamacare included a very large expansion of 'medicaid' which is more like single payer healthcare, i.e. 'government paid for / free healthcare'.
This is not true. Obamacare included a very large expansion of 'medicaid' which is more like single payer healthcare, i.e. 'government paid for / free healthcare'.
Not at all. ObamaCare requires every citizen to enroll in an insurance plan. If your employer doesn't offer one, then you're stuck with going through your state's exchange. Here in California, the available plans either have outrageous monthly costs or outrageous deductibles.
There's an income tax penalty for each month you're uninsured, which eats into your tax returns. Last I checked, this penalty is still cheaper than actually paying for insurance.
Congress basically looked at the healthcare systems in Canada and Europe, looked at the existing healthcare system, took all the worst parts of both, and squished them together to make ObamaCare. Conservatives hate it because it's big government in action. Liberals hate it because it does absolutely nothing to fix the undue burden on individuals to pay for their own healthcare. It's a lose-lose proposition.
There's an income tax penalty for each month you're uninsured, which eats into your tax returns. Last I checked, this penalty is still cheaper than actually paying for insurance.
Congress basically looked at the healthcare systems in Canada and Europe, looked at the existing healthcare system, took all the worst parts of both, and squished them together to make ObamaCare. Conservatives hate it because it's big government in action. Liberals hate it because it does absolutely nothing to fix the undue burden on individuals to pay for their own healthcare. It's a lose-lose proposition.
This. There's no actual incentive to cover yourself if you didn't like any of the options in the "marketplace", it's just that now you're taxed heavily for making that decision (and still not covered). While it may have helped force insurance companies to accept patients they wouldn't have otherwise, it also regressively taxed Americans who were already underserved by the market. "Too poor for health insurance? Here, have a kick in the teeth. You'll forget all about that back pain."
Wow... and here's me thinking my own government (UK) was useless.
So basically, the US government system doesn't care about its populous at all, regardless who sits in the big chair?
So basically, the US government system doesn't care about its populous at all, regardless who sits in the big chair?
Obamacare also lets people under 26 stay on their parents health insurance longer, prevents insurance companies from dropping people from coverage or denying them coverage in the first case because of illness (yes, this used to be a thing in america, if you got cancer or some other disease that takes years of very expensive treatment to deal with your insurance company could just say "nah we're not paying for that" and drop you like a rock) and made health insurance affordable for millions of people who previously could not get it.
the affordable care act is far from perfect, but it's also not useless in any sense, and it needs to be modified not repealed. And yes I'm partially saying that because I and my brother will both lose and not be able to afford health insurance if it is repealed. I'm also saying that because I strongly belief in the benefits that have come out of the bill, even at the cost of some major downsides.
the affordable care act is far from perfect, but it's also not useless in any sense, and it needs to be modified not repealed. And yes I'm partially saying that because I and my brother will both lose and not be able to afford health insurance if it is repealed. I'm also saying that because I strongly belief in the benefits that have come out of the bill, even at the cost of some major downsides.
Now you're getting it.
Republican != favorable to Trump.
That said, repealing ObamaCare is one of the things upon which Trump and most Republicans agree.
That said, repealing ObamaCare is one of the things upon which Trump and most Republicans agree.
Democrats controlled the house and senate Obama's first term.
The first half of the first term. Republicans have controlled the House for the past 6 years.
Interesting, isn't it? Presidents aren't autocrats. The Republicans play obstructionist politics, the people get pissed off at a government that's not doing anything, and then blame the wrong party. The do-nothing government that the people have just voted against? It's the government they've just voted for...
Interesting, isn't it? Presidents aren't autocrats. The Republicans play obstructionist politics, the people get pissed off at a government that's not doing anything, and then blame the wrong party. The do-nothing government that the people have just voted against? It's the government they've just voted for...
" I voted for Obama on pledges he'd end the war in Iraq and close down the constitutional abomination that is Guantanamo. 8 years later and here we are."
Obama earnestly tried to close Guantanimo.
He's a lawyer, and should have known better.
Guantanimo is a geostrategic issue - that only 'looks like' a Constitutional problem.
The problem is there are some very, very bad people in Guantanimo - and putting them through the American justice system would not work. Obama figured this out.
Paradox:
1) US Servicement are subject to a different legal system than Americans - harsher in many ways - but Dems wanted to put terrorist on US soil, subjecting them to regular courts - it would have been a farce.
2) US Soldiers are not the FBI. They don't do fingerprints. The kinds of evidence/investigation required to convict someone in US courts (meant for citizens) ... the defense attorneys could have easily kicked out the cases against the terrorists.
3) Many of these terrorists were caught on the battlefield. They could have been killed there - and none would have been the wiser. A young Canadian, was caught attacking US servicemen - and killed a medic. He was shot in combat, and was dying. US Special Forces arrived and medivaced and then applied super USA field medical technology to save this 'terrorist'. Then he was held at Guantanimo - in a really odd legal situation.
He was just a kid, but many of these guys are really, really bad characters, caught on the battlefield.
They don't belong in the US justice system.
So they go to Guantanimo and stay in limbo.
If you ask me - many of them deserve it.
As for the 'regular combatants' - that's too bad - I wish where were some way to reintegrate them, I think it happened with some.
Anyhow - the realities of the situation hit Obama - and the above issues are far to explain to Dems in a populist manner.
Obama orders people to die in drones strikes. Not so 'peace and love eh'? He does it because he has to, and he knows it.
Obama's 1st term was pretty good.
2cnd term, he didn't accomplish much, that said, he did not have the power.
Obama earnestly tried to close Guantanimo.
He's a lawyer, and should have known better.
Guantanimo is a geostrategic issue - that only 'looks like' a Constitutional problem.
The problem is there are some very, very bad people in Guantanimo - and putting them through the American justice system would not work. Obama figured this out.
Paradox:
1) US Servicement are subject to a different legal system than Americans - harsher in many ways - but Dems wanted to put terrorist on US soil, subjecting them to regular courts - it would have been a farce.
2) US Soldiers are not the FBI. They don't do fingerprints. The kinds of evidence/investigation required to convict someone in US courts (meant for citizens) ... the defense attorneys could have easily kicked out the cases against the terrorists.
3) Many of these terrorists were caught on the battlefield. They could have been killed there - and none would have been the wiser. A young Canadian, was caught attacking US servicemen - and killed a medic. He was shot in combat, and was dying. US Special Forces arrived and medivaced and then applied super USA field medical technology to save this 'terrorist'. Then he was held at Guantanimo - in a really odd legal situation.
He was just a kid, but many of these guys are really, really bad characters, caught on the battlefield.
They don't belong in the US justice system.
So they go to Guantanimo and stay in limbo.
If you ask me - many of them deserve it.
As for the 'regular combatants' - that's too bad - I wish where were some way to reintegrate them, I think it happened with some.
Anyhow - the realities of the situation hit Obama - and the above issues are far to explain to Dems in a populist manner.
Obama orders people to die in drones strikes. Not so 'peace and love eh'? He does it because he has to, and he knows it.
Obama's 1st term was pretty good.
2cnd term, he didn't accomplish much, that said, he did not have the power.
To be more succinct:
You can't feasibly try enemy combatants in a civilian court of law - and that creates a legal limbo situation.
Obama was the most 'legally educated' President in 100 years and if he couldn't solve the problem, I'm not sure anyone will.
It will take some time to figure that one out.
You can't feasibly try enemy combatants in a civilian court of law - and that creates a legal limbo situation.
Obama was the most 'legally educated' President in 100 years and if he couldn't solve the problem, I'm not sure anyone will.
It will take some time to figure that one out.
He also promised to protect whistleblowers. Got a good excuse for that as well?
> If you ask me - many of them deserve it.
The point of justice is to avoid further crimes by rendering the criminal harmless, and by making an example out of them to scare away other potential criminals. What does 'deserving it' have to do with this, and how is it applicable? Do you think prisons exist out of resentment toward people?
The point of justice is to avoid further crimes by rendering the criminal harmless, and by making an example out of them to scare away other potential criminals. What does 'deserving it' have to do with this, and how is it applicable? Do you think prisons exist out of resentment toward people?
"The point of justice is to avoid further crimes by rendering the criminal harmless,"
No. Or rather - 'criminal justice' as we understand it in the civil sense, does not apply here.
" What does 'deserving it' have to do with this, and how is it applicable? Do you think prisons exist out of resentment toward people?"
Some of the people in Guantanimo are terrorists of the worst kind. The people that planned 9/11. The kinds of people that chop off heads, who commit genocidal massacres, who grab little girls from families, rape them, and sell them into slavery.
Suppose one of these mass murdering criminals could be 're-integrated' into society, without much fuss, i.e. he sees the error of his ways, admits he was 'caught up in false jihad'. And we felt he could go back to a more stable part of Iraq and roughly go about his business? And we let him do that, and he pretty much behaved.
Would that be justice?
No.
99% of ex-Nazi SS-officers, after WW2, then one's that 'escaped' - went on to live relatively normal lives in hiding. They were 'reformed' essentially, and posed no threat to anyone. Their murderous activity was really in the context of WW2. Does that mean we let people who put people in the gas chamber go free?
No - some people deserve to die - and sometimes worse.
There are some kinds of 'bad people' that are either 'not reformable' or who have committed such grievous crimes such that 'true justice' is probably impossible.
I'm not advocating anything other than saying I have absolutely no sympathy for some of the people in Guantanimo.
Now - there are definitely some people there who were just 'villagers with guns, fighting for their village/community' whatever - and are not totalitarian, ideological, terrorists etc. - and sometimes that's a fine line, but clearly they don't belong there.
The 'injustice' is not the existence of Guantanimo, but simply our failure to apply 'actual justice' meaning some 'partly innocent' people are tangled up in a system designed for truly the most nefarious and evil types.
When we caught high ranking Nazi SS officers after WW2, we sentenced most of them to death. I suggest many ISIS fighters are far, far worse than SS officers.
Go ahead and watch the YouTube executions of thousands of Iraqi soldiers by ISIS after they took parts of Iraq. They were executed by the river, the river was literally running red with blood. I don't think that 'reform' is an issue that enters into one's mind when thinking about how to apply justice in those scenarios.
I appreciate that by enlarge, criminal justice should be focused on 'reform' but especially in these kinds of situations, it's really quite another reality.
I was in the (Canadian) Army a long time ago, and it was a difficult moral issue, but death is part of the equation. Think of this paradox: someone who has a gun and running from police, shooting back occasionally - will probably get a 'death sentence' on the street and that we generally accept. To think that mass murdering, genocidal people get more than that is a little disturbing.
Anyhow - I hope that we get better at separating the 'villagers with guns' from the 'genocidal terrorists'.
No. Or rather - 'criminal justice' as we understand it in the civil sense, does not apply here.
" What does 'deserving it' have to do with this, and how is it applicable? Do you think prisons exist out of resentment toward people?"
Some of the people in Guantanimo are terrorists of the worst kind. The people that planned 9/11. The kinds of people that chop off heads, who commit genocidal massacres, who grab little girls from families, rape them, and sell them into slavery.
Suppose one of these mass murdering criminals could be 're-integrated' into society, without much fuss, i.e. he sees the error of his ways, admits he was 'caught up in false jihad'. And we felt he could go back to a more stable part of Iraq and roughly go about his business? And we let him do that, and he pretty much behaved.
Would that be justice?
No.
99% of ex-Nazi SS-officers, after WW2, then one's that 'escaped' - went on to live relatively normal lives in hiding. They were 'reformed' essentially, and posed no threat to anyone. Their murderous activity was really in the context of WW2. Does that mean we let people who put people in the gas chamber go free?
No - some people deserve to die - and sometimes worse.
There are some kinds of 'bad people' that are either 'not reformable' or who have committed such grievous crimes such that 'true justice' is probably impossible.
I'm not advocating anything other than saying I have absolutely no sympathy for some of the people in Guantanimo.
Now - there are definitely some people there who were just 'villagers with guns, fighting for their village/community' whatever - and are not totalitarian, ideological, terrorists etc. - and sometimes that's a fine line, but clearly they don't belong there.
The 'injustice' is not the existence of Guantanimo, but simply our failure to apply 'actual justice' meaning some 'partly innocent' people are tangled up in a system designed for truly the most nefarious and evil types.
When we caught high ranking Nazi SS officers after WW2, we sentenced most of them to death. I suggest many ISIS fighters are far, far worse than SS officers.
Go ahead and watch the YouTube executions of thousands of Iraqi soldiers by ISIS after they took parts of Iraq. They were executed by the river, the river was literally running red with blood. I don't think that 'reform' is an issue that enters into one's mind when thinking about how to apply justice in those scenarios.
I appreciate that by enlarge, criminal justice should be focused on 'reform' but especially in these kinds of situations, it's really quite another reality.
I was in the (Canadian) Army a long time ago, and it was a difficult moral issue, but death is part of the equation. Think of this paradox: someone who has a gun and running from police, shooting back occasionally - will probably get a 'death sentence' on the street and that we generally accept. To think that mass murdering, genocidal people get more than that is a little disturbing.
Anyhow - I hope that we get better at separating the 'villagers with guns' from the 'genocidal terrorists'.
Many of those terrorists where farmers, who got sold out for a quick buck by neighbouring villages. And then met the chain of irresponsibility. Nobody wants to be responsible if the bad guy gets out, so the taxpayer pays for a cheap hotel the rest of their lives.
"Many of those terrorists where farmers, who got sold out for a quick buck by neighbouring villages."
I agree that is a great injustice of Guantanimo.
I agree that is a great injustice of Guantanimo.
He was also supposed to repeal the "PATRIOT" Act...
So, he is already a real politician.
Any different to Obama promising to close Guantanamo bay?
And I say this as an Obama supporter.
Any different to Obama promising to close Guantanamo bay?
And I say this as an Obama supporter.
For one, Obama has actually made progress towards accomplishing that, despite the Congress's efforts to block it.
I agree that not all promises can be filled but I do credit Obama with having taken a run an most of his other promises. Trump made a lot and they are kinda all over the board so I'll be curious to see what he does
You nailed it; I never take campaign promises from anybody that serious. I think Bernie had enough integrity that he would have at least tried, and then given excuses as to why not.
Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama, Trump, all the same.
Bush, Bill Clinton, Obama, Trump, all the same.
So you're saying he's like every politician that has ever made a promise
Which contradicts what many of his supporters claim is his main allure, that he's real and "tells it like it is."
Charles De Gaulle once said: "Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word."
Just like every politician before him and after.
just like every politician there ever was?
Yeah, most billionaires have no idea what they're talking about. All luck. Yup.
/s
/s
[deleted]
Donald Trump would have more money now if he put his inheritance in an index fund.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
I continue to be mystified by this take. The S&P 500 index is usually the benchmark cited here. But the S&P 500 is tremendously diversified over sectors, factors, you name it. Trump managed to create actual wealth in our economic system at a rate slightly less than the S&P 500. If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders on the economic engine that Trump is part of (full disclosure: I use index funds without exception for my investments)
Another thing bothers me: you're supposed to look at risk/return, not simply return, in evaluating investment strategy.
Another thing bothers me: you're supposed to look at risk/return, not simply return, in evaluating investment strategy.
If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders
No. How much wealth could those individuals create if they couldn't sell the companies on the market and invest that money, and had instead to accumulate dividends? The relationship is symbiotic.
Yes, Trump created wealth, but the point is that his peers would have created even more if he hadn't used that money himself. To make an analogy, I can swim a few laps, but you wouldn't want to have me replace Michael Phelps on your team.
No. How much wealth could those individuals create if they couldn't sell the companies on the market and invest that money, and had instead to accumulate dividends? The relationship is symbiotic.
Yes, Trump created wealth, but the point is that his peers would have created even more if he hadn't used that money himself. To make an analogy, I can swim a few laps, but you wouldn't want to have me replace Michael Phelps on your team.
Trump has created wealth, but he also destroyed wealth in his multiple bankruptcies and the contractors he stiffed. One could argue that casinos (even if they are profitable) are a net destructor of wealth. It is very hard to get a clear picture of exactly how much net wealth he created since there is no reliable information. Tax returns would have been a good start...
His father, Fred Trump, built a real estate empire of 27.000 apartments in Brooklyn and Queens. Just sitting on those and maintaining and expanding it would have resulted in a fortune many times bigger than he has today.
His father, Fred Trump, built a real estate empire of 27.000 apartments in Brooklyn and Queens. Just sitting on those and maintaining and expanding it would have resulted in a fortune many times bigger than he has today.
I may have been a bit hyperbolic about freeloaders.
The bigger point I want to make is that the standard deviation on returns of a single venture like Trump's is so large that you cannot meaningfully compare it to a highly-diversified basket of stocks.
To use your analogy, it'd be like evaluating the effectiveness of a coach in a swimming event by picking a single one of their swimmers and comparing them to the average times of the U.S. Olympic team. Does this necessarily imply anything at all about the skill of the coach?
The bigger point I want to make is that the standard deviation on returns of a single venture like Trump's is so large that you cannot meaningfully compare it to a highly-diversified basket of stocks.
To use your analogy, it'd be like evaluating the effectiveness of a coach in a swimming event by picking a single one of their swimmers and comparing them to the average times of the U.S. Olympic team. Does this necessarily imply anything at all about the skill of the coach?
I feel like you're making an argument against your thesis instead of for it (?). With higher risk, you expect higher return... so isn't that another tick against Trump's "success"? His ventures were way riskier than an index fund (see bankruptcies and losses), yet they had a markedly lower return. That means they were not good investments.
Well there are two possibilities: 1) Trump's businesses are lower risk and so the lower realized return is as expected 2) there is significant idiosyncratic risk in a single company which can diversified away with the S&P500 while maintaining the same expected return.
I disbelieve (1) because of his multiple high-profile bankruptcies.
I disbelieve (1) because of his multiple high-profile bankruptcies.
It does not, but it is a useful benchmark to evaluate the claims of a swimmer with below average times who insists they become team captain.
Investing in the S&P 500 delegates the "actual wealth creation" to others by providing them with the means.
And they, on average, would have done a little better than Trump did.
And they, on average, would have done a little better than Trump did.
In running his businesses, he also delegated "actual wealth creation" to others. E.g. the waiter serving drinks is the one creating wealth as much or more so than the owner of the business...
No, it really does not. The S&P 500 inclusion criteria[1] states:
> Treatment of IPOs. Initial public offerings should be seasoned for six to 12 months before being considered for addition to an index.
So if the S&P 500 explicitly excludes equities to IPO into the index, then how is it that an investor in an S&P 500 index is delegating wealth creation? They're just trading the returns with other investors. And to be clear, this is totally great for the investor! But it shouldn't be confused with actual business.
[1]: https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology...
> Treatment of IPOs. Initial public offerings should be seasoned for six to 12 months before being considered for addition to an index.
So if the S&P 500 explicitly excludes equities to IPO into the index, then how is it that an investor in an S&P 500 index is delegating wealth creation? They're just trading the returns with other investors. And to be clear, this is totally great for the investor! But it shouldn't be confused with actual business.
[1]: https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology...
Are you simply pointing out that the wealth creation is delegated to mature companies?
Because that doesn't change the point. They could delegate further if appropriate.
But one way or another, those mature companies create wealth. (If they did not, the S&P 500 index would not rise.)
Because that doesn't change the point. They could delegate further if appropriate.
But one way or another, those mature companies create wealth. (If they did not, the S&P 500 index would not rise.)
You can't ignore the indirect influence. The same way people care about resale value of their car or house, the investors that purchase at an IPO know that index funds will buy their shares and can therefore make more and bolder investments.
Of course I can ignore the indirect influence; if the company had no actual value at IPO its share price would plummet. Also, by definition the S&P 500 only includes companies which have had 4 consecutive quarters of positive GAAP earnings, so the shares would have value on the public markets. Specifically, they'd have to have enough value to be among the 500-or-so largest positive-earnings companies by market capitalization. Hardly value that can be attributable to indirect influence of an index fund.
You're looking at it too statically, and ignoring the full ecosystem.
If I'm an investor that buys at IPO time, how many companies am I willing and able to invest in if I have to wait for the profits to come in through yearly dividends? And so, if I'm a VC, how many companies am I willing and able to invest in if the IPO market is much smaller? And so, if I'm an entrepreneur, how many companies can I found and create value from if I have very little chance of selling them off?
The index funds are the terrain that sustain the "wealth creators".
If I'm an investor that buys at IPO time, how many companies am I willing and able to invest in if I have to wait for the profits to come in through yearly dividends? And so, if I'm a VC, how many companies am I willing and able to invest in if the IPO market is much smaller? And so, if I'm an entrepreneur, how many companies can I found and create value from if I have very little chance of selling them off?
The index funds are the terrain that sustain the "wealth creators".
[deleted]
Wouldn't that be true of ~50% of companies by definition?
After all an index fund is basically just the average of all of the investments inside it.
After all an index fund is basically just the average of all of the investments inside it.
That's assuming he spent nothing at all, which I find to be a ridiculous assumption.
I don't think calling someone a liar is the same as saying they don't know what they're talking about
Billionaires that received millions in loans from their daddy? Not so much.
Great respect to all who went out and built something great. Trump is not one of them; he would be penniless if his dad hadn't rushed in and saved him on at least two separate occasions.
Great respect to all who went out and built something great. Trump is not one of them; he would be penniless if his dad hadn't rushed in and saved him on at least two separate occasions.
Bull. There aren't examples and for you to say hat, speaks falsely to honesty and openness. Check your lies at the door.
A few forgotten promises from the campaign trail:
"I will release my tax returns when Obama releases his birth certificate." - http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04/donald-trump-intervi...
"If I run for office I will absolutely release my tax returns." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg-5KEt1Abg
"Melania will hold a press conference on questions about her immigration." - https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/763158326653882368
"I will pay the legal fees of the man who punched a black guy at my rally." - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-march-13-20...
"I will self fund my campaign." and other related promises - http://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/485699964/every-position-donal...
I'm not very familiar with his life before the campaign, but I'm sure there are more examples.
"I will release my tax returns when Obama releases his birth certificate." - http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/04/donald-trump-intervi...
"If I run for office I will absolutely release my tax returns." - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg-5KEt1Abg
"Melania will hold a press conference on questions about her immigration." - https://twitter.com/JDiamond1/status/763158326653882368
"I will pay the legal fees of the man who punched a black guy at my rally." - http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-march-13-20...
"I will self fund my campaign." and other related promises - http://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/485699964/every-position-donal...
I'm not very familiar with his life before the campaign, but I'm sure there are more examples.
Trump University? How he stuck contractors he hired and managed to get out of paying them their due? Trump is a huckster and given his track record, I cannot believe he is going to sober up and be fair and honest here.
That first tax returns quote is wrong (or the source is wrong). He said he might do it, not that he would do it.
I'm sorry, I paraphrased.
> We’ll look at that. Maybe I’m going to do the tax returns when Obama does his birth certificate. I may tie my tax returns. I’d love to give my tax returns. I may tie my tax returns into Obama’s birth certificate.
This is how Trump talks. For the entire campaign he talked about what he "might" do and backtracked if people didn't like it, so this is what we have to work with.
> We’ll look at that. Maybe I’m going to do the tax returns when Obama does his birth certificate. I may tie my tax returns. I’d love to give my tax returns. I may tie my tax returns into Obama’s birth certificate.
This is how Trump talks. For the entire campaign he talked about what he "might" do and backtracked if people didn't like it, so this is what we have to work with.
> But Trump's promise to block the merger won't necessarily be fulfilled.
Cop-out in the subtitle followed by thirty paragraphs of navel gazing.
Cop-out in the subtitle followed by thirty paragraphs of navel gazing.
My wife and I were discussing issues like this tonight. We spoke about the fact that when most politicians make promises, you can point to specific votes or speeches during non campaign times to say "Yes, it seems like he/she is really against this." With Trump though, we have no comparison, he's never served any office before. The only thing we have is campaign promises and they mean so little. So journalists probably have a hard time deciding whether something he said is true or not.
Maybe, and this is a radical thought, journalists (as opposed to pundits) should wait for actual facts to emerge before branding somebody one way or another?
I understand what you're saying. There is an aspect of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" here, though, I think. In waiting, they're open to accusations of not reporting or paying attention to a candidate, whether or not the accusation is fair.
It is perfectly possible to report on what Trump proposes and says and does without becoming a mind reader and fortune teller. You can - and actually very much should! - still report on his lies by giving facts disproving him, or mention e.g. scientific consensus or lack thereof questioning or substantiating his claims, or contrast the opinions Trump holds by also reporting on the opinions his opponents hold.
You can write opt-ed pieces and be a pundit for a while if you think your own opinion might interest your readers too.
But mixing reporting with fact-free punditry and a heap of general virtue signaling in the same article is just detrimental to ones journalistic reputation and will immediately alienate everybody outside of your own echo chamber.
You researched facts why Trump's immigration policies are bad? People stopped reading after the initial "Trump is such a racist!" paragraph.
You researched facts why Clinton's Libya policies backfired? People stopped reading after the initial "Hillary is so crooked!" paragraph.
You can write opt-ed pieces and be a pundit for a while if you think your own opinion might interest your readers too.
But mixing reporting with fact-free punditry and a heap of general virtue signaling in the same article is just detrimental to ones journalistic reputation and will immediately alienate everybody outside of your own echo chamber.
You researched facts why Trump's immigration policies are bad? People stopped reading after the initial "Trump is such a racist!" paragraph.
You researched facts why Clinton's Libya policies backfired? People stopped reading after the initial "Hillary is so crooked!" paragraph.
Agreed.
I'm fairly certain this is a phrase we'll be seeing a lot of.
> But Trump's promise to ...... won't necessarily be fulfilled.
> But Trump's promise to ...... won't necessarily be fulfilled.
He's all about removing regulations, and then wants to regulate this?
Assume he's a populist and it makes sense. Regulations, in general, are unpopular with much of the electorate. But in this case, with the once-dismantled AT&T becoming big again, people may see the merger as hostile to their interests. If reddit is any indication it's fairly unpopular.
People probably feel like regulations only apply to the little guy because the big players just weasel out of them. So reducing regulation in general while blocking a deal like this isn't inconsistent with a populist viewpoint.
Did you understand that he will literally never add any regulations? Why on earth would you assume that?
Could you explain your thoughts on how those two ideas are necessarily inconsistent with each other?
Well, one is removing a thing, and the other is adding the same thing.
QED _inconsistent_.
Same class of thing, sure. But definitely not the same thing...
You'll first have to prove your premise that he is all about removing regulations (no matter what regulations), because that assertion is hardly an axiom.
He said that if any new regulations are passed, 2 must be removed.
That's not counter to regulation - add a regulation about large company mergers, remove regulations on CO2 and NOx producers. Done.
Doesn't the decision base on the context ? It's not a black or white world.
I haven't followed this deal that closely - but I believe it had significant antitrust headwinds before Trump said anything. Generally, if ATT wants to buy anything thats large - I would be concerned about a decrease in competition.
He... promised to do a lot of things.
Clinton didn't promise much, she didn't say much at all. She wouldn't have this problem.
I don't care about yet another stupid merger, its the net neutrality weakening that should concern everyone. In the end whether AT&Time is your ISP matters little if you only have one choice for ISP and they charge you to access Google special.
Remember that the world is not black and white, and that there is always a silver lining.
Haha, our.
I stopped reading Ars Technica when they gave Trump an F on technology issues and Clinton an overall B+, including a B- on "privacy and security". I mean, how much more partisan can you get than that? The woman was under investigation for leaking classified emails and using an unprotected email server for fucks sake.
When a media outlet does something like that, I just can't take anything else they report on seriously.
here's the article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/when-graded-on-te...
When a media outlet does something like that, I just can't take anything else they report on seriously.
here's the article: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/when-graded-on-te...
0) That wasn't Ars' analysis, that was their reporting. [0] was the one that did the analysis.
1) The analysis/grading was based on policy positions.
2) You're just wasting your keypresses if you honestly can't tell the difference between reporting someone else's work and their own analysis.
3) The actual report card for those interested [1].
[0] http://www.engine.is
[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571681753c44d835a440c...
1) The analysis/grading was based on policy positions.
2) You're just wasting your keypresses if you honestly can't tell the difference between reporting someone else's work and their own analysis.
3) The actual report card for those interested [1].
[0] http://www.engine.is
[1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/571681753c44d835a440c...
>> The analysis/grading was based on policy positions.
This doesn't sound like policy positions to me:
Candidates were ranked on "privacy and security" based on whether they understood the importance of strong encryption and supported reforming privacy and surveillance laws.
This doesn't sound like policy positions to me:
Candidates were ranked on "privacy and security" based on whether they understood the importance of strong encryption and supported reforming privacy and surveillance laws.
Did you read the pdf I linked? Read the parts where they explain the grades they assigned?
What came of the investigation?
Republican fanatics keep missing the part that comes next, or claiming that the lack of conviction is due to the system being rigged.
And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.
Republican fanatics keep missing the part that comes next, or claiming that the lack of conviction is due to the system being rigged.
And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.
If they wanted to push that issue, there's a nice long email from Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton detailing exactly how to dodge the Presidential Records Act.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
Use the "view original PDF" link.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324
Use the "view original PDF" link.
>> And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.
This actually gave me a good laugh thank you. Invoking Bush close to a decade after he left office while simultaneously giving his own candidate a pass for using an unsecured email server.
The funny thing is all you see and hear on hacker news is stories about companies getting hacked all the SV techies calling them stupid and morons. Then you have their candidate doing the same thing and suddenly its ok??
I never understood that logic.
This actually gave me a good laugh thank you. Invoking Bush close to a decade after he left office while simultaneously giving his own candidate a pass for using an unsecured email server.
The funny thing is all you see and hear on hacker news is stories about companies getting hacked all the SV techies calling them stupid and morons. Then you have their candidate doing the same thing and suddenly its ok??
I never understood that logic.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I believe you misunderstood the parent post. They were pointing out the hypocrisy of caring about unprotected email servers now while not caring when it was done by a member of the same party. I don't believe the parent comment was saying that unprotected email servers are a-okay, just voicing frustration at the hypocrisy of the Republican party on that particular issue. It's possible that it is not hypocrisy, that an entirely different set of people were Republicans during Bush than those who are upset at Clinton's email controversy now; however, I don't believe that is the case.
What is definitely the case is that hypocrisy is one of the "deadly sins" trump just demonstrated is mostly made of hot air.
In my opinion, hypocrisy is like cherry-picking data. It exists to validate your potentially false claims or misguide those viewing your results. Sometimes it's intentional and other times it is innocent. Sure, the results of the election shows that perhaps hypocrisy, at least the kind shown about the email servers, wasn't a deciding factor this time; however, should the hypocrisy turn into distinct lies and reveal any intended misguidance, I do hope it regains importance.
Anything not-pro-clinton gets downvoted without explanation on any social media platform I've seen, including HN (which is supposed to be less biased, more objective, and superior to the other networks).
Oh come on, do you still need to pretend to be a victim? Aren't those days over now?
I'm not even pro trump, it's just an observation of overt bias.
speaking of observations of overt bias, i've noticed that any time i question what i see as overt male chauvinism here i get downvoted without any explanation. i even got hellbanned once about it. this is only something i run into here, but the only other place i really comment is jezebel.
I've felt the same thing about the comments here. It has led me to stop trying to discuss any issues related to gender and avoid HN more on the whole.
Slashdot is worse, I stopped reading it for the same reason. :(
the polls are rigged! he actually won by more!
Well if you look at the behaviour and intellectual rigour amongst some Trump supporters i.e. http://reddit.com/r/the_donald then it's hard not to see why it would not be a good fit for HN. And many of the conspiracy theories that ended up on Fox News originated there so it's not without basis that this sub is representative of a significant number of Trump supporters.
Personally I have not noticed any particular bias here except for at backing up assertions with some facts.
Personally I have not noticed any particular bias here except for at backing up assertions with some facts.
There's a number of factors involved:
* Both parties have worked hard to polarize the population and make this election the most divisive ever.
* In the case of HN, your audience is from a most progressive or libertarian background, who have no love for most of the conservative agenda
* In the case of Facebook and Reddit, the Clinton campaign is paying people to bury any criticism of her. (Correct The Record)
* Both parties have worked hard to polarize the population and make this election the most divisive ever.
* In the case of HN, your audience is from a most progressive or libertarian background, who have no love for most of the conservative agenda
* In the case of Facebook and Reddit, the Clinton campaign is paying people to bury any criticism of her. (Correct The Record)
Hackers news is just white people news, the influential type, which are all hardline progressive and will vote you down for anything non-progressive.
what would the email server have to do with policy on technology like net neutrality and infrastructure and a lot more? how come trump supporters reasoning for anything doesn't go to past the word 'emails'? It's her versus mister 'cyber'. perhaps he'll appoint baron as head of 'the security aspect of cyber'.
My prognostication is that when they "look at" stopping it (if they do) they will find what everyone who has worked in the world he's entering found out long ago: it's only possible through strong regulation. Fine, he'll think: I'll just embolden the regulators. This, I think, will be when the people who elected him will start to realize how business is done and that, just like in their private lives, they've bought into yet another CEO's fanciful promises that once again turned out to be self-serving in their entirety.