Politics 2020 - the gift that keeps giving

[BruceVC]

I have no issue with any large IT companies like Google, Amazon, Facebook or Twitter. These companies are  " monopolies "  in the sense they are dominant players in there specific sector but as 2133 mentioned there is nothing stopping anyone  from creating a competitive product in that specific sector and often this happens like Instagram, yes the large companies often buy these competitive smaller companies but that is the choice of the creator to sell there IP. You cannot blame the larger company for that 

And I also dont blame or have any issue with large social media companies being accused of " not doing enough to protect private information " , its not social media to blame for what people decide to make available in there profiles , sorry guys but its an oxymoron to have  a reasonable opinion that   " social media and privacy " go  together. Dont make things available on SM , even if you implement privacy setting which unfortunately can be hacked, if you dont want them possibly available to the public

I dont use Twitter and FB and I survive fine, its really okay. I dont dislike or mistrust Twitter or FB but they cannot do everything reasonably expected  I want to ensure either acceptable decorum when people  make  points and I am not comfortable with the security they can offer. But I still appreciate what they offer and would happily utilize them if I had to, due to marketing for example , but not at the moment  as its simply not worth the unlikely case of my account being hacked 

Edited September 4, 2020 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

can't be certain that were a serious response. point out there is even worse stuff, (heck is worse stuff trump has done in the last couple years) is a rebuttal?

every terrible thing trump has done as President, individually, is not gonna be in even top 10 most shameful American acts, though thank goodness the muslim ban was a promise by an idiot candidate to his ignorant base and so is perhaps not complete fair to blame America. the watered down version actual implemented is still kinda despicable, but nope, not top 10. genocide? enslaving multitudes? using minority soldiers as guinea pigs? etc. there is indeed much worse.

*chuckle*

but yeah, recognizing both the utter meaninglessness o' the admission and the embarrassment skarp_one should feel for seizing on the inane, the muslim ban were not the mostest shameful American act. congrats?

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

[BruceVC]

27 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

can't be certain that were a serious response. point out there is even worse stuff, (heck is worse stuff trump has done in the last couple years) is a rebuttal?

every terrible thing trump has done as President, individually, is not gonna be in even top 10 most shameful American acts, though thank goodness the muslim ban was a promise by an idiot candidate to his ignorant base and so is perhaps not complete fair to blame America. the watered down version actual implemented is still kinda despicable, but nope, not top 10. genocide? enslaving multitudes? using minority soldiers as guinea pigs? etc. there is indeed much worse.

*chuckle*

but yeah, recognizing both the utter meaninglessness o' the admission and the embarrassment skarp_one should feel for seizing on the inane, the muslim ban were not the mostest shameful American act. congrats?

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Skarpen can confirm what his real point was but IMO he is being sarcastic because there is a  perception based on what several members, like you and Hurlshot, have said that you are surprised or cannot understand why " anyone would vote for Trump because of the Muslim Ban "

So irrespective if this perception has been misunderstood and or embellished it still exists ...so its easy to understand how little the Muslim Ban ( which is still not a proper Muslim Ban ) would not be a  reason many people who are Trump supporters would not still vote for Trump or more importantly this is not a reason for them not to vote for Trump as they support Trump for other reasons. So basically the Muslin Ban is raised by the likes of Fox as " another  unfair attack by socialists and the media on the president with no real substance like the impeachment and Russian interference  "  arguments. As usual I think these points are true in some ways but not directly linked to Trump but they will get dismissed automatically  by Trump supporters 

I can understand this view, so that is why Skarpens comment could easily be justifiable sarcasm and not meant to be taken seriously ?

[ComradeYellow]

I'd say the idea of a Muslim ban is very shameful for modern America yes.  Not only is it inhumane, it reeks of Zionism and Israel (Zionists have been perpetuating Islamophobia for quite some time, and Trump has very close ties to Israel and not Russia, despite what CIA/Corporate/Deep State media will try to have you believe).

[BruceVC]

20 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

I'd say the idea of a Muslim ban is very shameful for modern America yes.  Not only is it inhumane, it reeks of Zionism and Israel (Zionists have been perpetuating Islamophobia for quite some time, and Trump has very close ties to Israel and not Russia, despite what CIA/Corporate/Deep State media will try to have you believe).

But Comrade please believe me when I say the ME has changed and so have the new ideological alliances. So yes in the past you could argue its a " Zionist "  plot but not anymore because the new conflicts in the ME include both Israelis on the left and right aligned with the Gulf States and the common enemy is Iran...if anything its " selective "  Islamophobia but you dont get such a thing as " selective " bigotry towards a particular group ....not really 

So I wouldnt want you to honestly feel ashamed about being American due to an interpretation  discussion and debate around semantics....it seems unfair ?

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by BruceVC

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

can't be certain that were a serious response

I was quoting a line from Dave Chapelle SNL sketch Election Night as a joke.

[BruceVC]

https://www.ibtimes.com/court-rules-nsa-surveillance-operation-exposed-edward-snowden-be-unlawful-3039833

 

Guys this is  quite a big story, I always respect the rulings that any courts make in any legitimate Democracy. It doesnt mean I agree with them and I also believe in the principle of legally taking rulings to higher courts where applicable 

So in the case of Snowden IMO he is still a traitor because he broke the important contractual obligation he made to the NSA to not reveal state secrets,  this ruling just supports the view that Snowden could have followed the legal path  to raise attention to Prism and concerns around surveillance but he sold out to Mother Russia and turned it into a global spectacle ...pure theater and unnecessary antics instead of following the normal, expected  route that a whistle blower can follow 

Edited September 4, 2020 by BruceVC

[ComradeYellow]

35 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But Comrade please believe me when I say the ME has changed and so have the new ideological alliances. So yes in the past you could argue its a " Zionist "  plot but not anymore because the new conflicts in the ME include both Israelis on the left and right aligned with the Gulf States and the common enemy is Iran...if anything its " selective "  Islamophobia but you dont get such a thing as " selective " bigotry towards a particular group ....not really 

So I wouldnt want you to honestly feel ashamed about being American due to an interpretation  discussion and debate around semantics....it seems unfair ?

 

 

I don't think the U.S. should meddle in the Middle East at all, I'm not a fan of the Iranian government but I'm largely in agreement with their staunch anti-American Imperialist stance, and the Iranians I've talked with on social media have made it clear that they do not hate Americans they just hate our foreign policy.

From a purely American Apple Pie standpoint, our meddling in affairs that don't concern us is Unconstitutional.

[Darkpriest]

I feel, that people telling "there is nothing blocking someone from creating a competing service" forget about entry barriers and costs associated with launching something on a market. Sure, legally there is nothing blocking you, but i dare you to try and see how things work and what it takes to be even a blip on that market. 

 

Social Media is nothing like traditional media i.e. TV, Radio, Newspaper

 

It's a communication stream. You do not just ingest info available there. You expose yourslef, share information, interact, become visible on a market, publish and consume. 

 

You cannot run in today's age a high paid, high profile career without access to social media. You cannot run a succesful business without social media exposure. Otherwise your growth is limited. If you do not exist online, you are anonymus and you migh as well not exists in certain branches of economy. 

 

Artists, Athletes, Business specialsts, tech specialiats, academic teachers, teachers, law experts, politicians, medical experts, mechanics experts, enginwering experts, etc. (the list can go on and on) 

 

I personaly hate SM, but i have to use even something basic as LinkedIn or some blog hosted on SM, etc. 

 

If now, you can't voice your personal opinion, just because someone doesn't like it, and you know you need that service to stay relevant on the broadly defined market, then there is something wrong with that. That's why I'm leaning towards stating that those SM services should be considered a public utility. If your action is not criminal, you should not be cut off, silenced and basically deleted from existence. (exaggarating the delete part on purpose). So what, that someone is an ****? Now the whole world can see it and decide if they want to interact with that person.

 

 And for social interactions, how often do you use in daily life phone services vs SM services including messangers and msg boards to run you daily social life? 

[BruceVC]

24 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

I don't think the U.S. should meddle in the Middle East at all, I'm not a fan of the Iranian government but I'm largely in agreement with their staunch anti-American Imperialist stance, and the Iranians I've talked with on social media have made it clear that they do not hate Americans they just hate our foreign policy.

From a purely American Apple Pie standpoint, our meddling in affairs that don't concern us is Unconstitutional.

You are correct, many Iranians in the diaspora and living in Iran are not anti-USA at all. They just want  a normal relationship with the global community that includes the USA 

But the hardliners who truly run Iran , there supporters and Shia "extremists"  like Hezbollah and the Iranian  Quds special forces are blatantly and vociferously anti-Western and anti-USA and they represent the militant aspect of Iran that continues to destabilize the region in different ways 

[Darkpriest]

By the way, just a snippet of information, but in regards to privacy, US is considered unsafe in terms of data protection and privacy protection. 

There is a reason why comapnies, that run very detailed data gathering, which is used in bckground checks of individuals and entities, have their data storages held in Ireland or Singap. 

[BruceVC]

24 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

By the way, just a snippet of information, but in regards to privacy, US is considered unsafe in terms of data protection and privacy protection. 

There is a reason why comapnies, that run very detailed data gathering, which is used in bckground checks of individuals and entities, have their data storages held in Ireland or Singap. 

Could you provide links that support the view " the USA is considered unsafe in terms of data protection " 

I would find that very hard to believe as the mostly financial software I work with that does things like eDiscovery and auditing  all comes from the USA and is designed to offer   data protection that is  globally accepted and used by the majority of global banks and many of them are not US banks and they use the same software?

And then the 3 main global Cloud IT  service providers ( Microsoft, Google and Amazon )are also USA based and is used by many international companies as these US clouds are as secure any other cloud provider can reasonably be in any other country

Companies use Ireland for tax purposes not because its safer than the USA from a software security perspective 

Edited September 4, 2020 by BruceVC

[Darkpriest]

16 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Could you provide links that support the view " the USA is considered unsafe in terms of data protection " 

I would find that very hard to believe as the mostly financial software I work with that does things like eDiscovery and auditing  all comes from the USA and is designed to offer   data protection that is  globally accepted and used by the majority of global banks and many of them are not US banks and they use the same software?

And then the 3 main global Cloud IT  service providers ( Microsoft, Google and Amazon )are also USA based and is used by many international companies as these US clouds are as secure any other cloud provider can reasonably be in any other country

 

This is something a bit sensitive, but I can assure you, that those companies have their sensitive data storages in non US locations and stream data from those locations and run those elements so called "stateless" 

 

I cannot really tell more. But you can compare legislation and guess why it is that way.  

Tip. Examine for example amazon services and see where they have their data centers in the world to run cloud services. 

https://aws.amazon.com/products/storage/

https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/

It's also imoprtant to understand and know which legal entity is responsible for a given storage and what legal authority binds that entity. 

There are mutlitude of reasons why corporations are clusters of various legal entities located in different jurisdictions for various reasons. 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Darkpriest

[BruceVC]

3 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

This is something a bit sensitive, but I can assure you, that those companies have their sensitive data storages in non US locations and stream data from those locations and run those elements so called "stateless" 

I cannot really tell more. But you can compare legislation and guess why it is that way. 

I completely understand not being able share certain information on this or any forum, I am bound ethically and contractually to some things I can never provide valid links to  or provide convincing data to. Its a few things but they real

Anyway I am just saying I agree with the reasons you cant provide accurate information supporting your point 

[Pidesco]

From a Washington Post news article:

 

[BruceVC]

23 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

From a Washington Post news article:

 

Yes, this has been extensively covered this afternoon on CNN but basically there is this accusation that Trump has disrespected the military through several comments he made

Im not sure if its true, I hope its not true because Trump has been very supportive of the military generally and this will upset groups of Americans if what he said was true 

 

[Malcador]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I hope its not true because Trump has been very supportive of the military generally and this will upset groups of Americans if what he said was true 

What an odd reason to hope it's not.  Don't really see his support for the military as being more standout or different than previous Presidents - basically all talk and no show

[HoonDing]

I like soldiers that don't get killed

[Darkpriest]

Something from @Gromnir specialty - legal

https://www.lawofficer.com/california-legislation-reduces-penalties-for-adults-that-have-sex-with-a-consenting-minor/

[Gromnir]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Skarpen can confirm what his real point was but IMO he is being sarcastic because there is a  perception based on what several members, like you and Hurlshot, have said that you are surprised or cannot understand why " anyone would vote for Trump because of the Muslim Ban "

So irrespective if this perception has been misunderstood and or embellished it still exists ...so its easy to understand how little the Muslim Ban ( which is still not a proper Muslim Ban ) would not be a  reason many people who are Trump supporters would not still vote for Trump or more importantly this is not a reason for them not to vote for Trump as they support Trump for other reasons. So basically the Muslin Ban is raised by the likes of Fox as " another  unfair attack by socialists and the media on the president with no real substance like the impeachment and Russian interference  "  arguments. As usual I think these points are true in some ways but not directly linked to Trump but they will get dismissed automatically  by Trump supporters 

I can understand this view, so that is why Skarpens comment could easily be justifiable sarcasm and not meant to be taken seriously ?

of course it were sarcastic. 

...

the fact you don't understand the issue is disappointing. is a problem with not understanding history or is it your fear o' the middle east terrorist which makes you incapable o' recognizing naked and unapologetic  bigotry?

every US school kid, whether they like it or not, gets taught the pilgrims and plymouth rock story/myth-- kids is educated to know how the many who came to the new american wilderness were fleeing religious persecution. is why we have a first Amendment. the belief the US is different and should always remain a place o' refuge for those who seek religious freedom, if not acceptance, is why the Founders made certain religion were prominent mentioned in The Bill of Rights.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

is the poem immortalized on the statue o' liberty. written in 1883 (?) by emma lazarus, a poet and activist inspired in no small part by the flood of jewish refugees fleeing persecution in russia and elsewhere in europe. quakers and other christians in the 1700s. jews in the 1800s.  and when the US failed to live up to the ideals espoused in the first amendment we did indeed fail miserable (e.g. 1920 nativism) in the 2000s? another century and more refugees fleeing religious persecution. as often as not it were christians and moderate muslims fleeing persecution from fundamentalist islamic regimes, refugees daring beyond hope that the US would be different.

the poem is aspirational. is s'posed what America stands for and if there were some kinda real American exceptionalism, it would be 'cause o' fact so many for so long believed those words in bronze and the sentiment behind the first amendment to the Constitution. 

and of course the muslim ban promise as an undeniable condemnation o' trump is ignored by trump supporters (and bruce?) trump supporters voted for trump. even if they didn't support the muslim ban, trump voters knew he had promised a muslim ban. bruce keeps trying to ignore how voters chose to elect trump knowing he were advocating a muslim ban and the naked bigotry it represented. 

so go ahead and tell us 'bout trump voters or that the muslim ban executive orders do not mention muslims.  go ahead and explain to us how such overt bigotry is not as bad as it seems 'cause rust belters bought into fear which made it ok to not only exclude suspected terrorists, but anybody who happened to share the same faith as those terrorists you fear.

shameful. were shameful o' trump voters, which is why the moderate trump voters never defend the muslim ban. they ignore. they marginalize. they convince self that the fear were legitimate. 'stead we get oro and skarp_one defending. and bruce?

do a search on US internment of the Japanese during ww2. is one o' those examples o' shameful American behaviours and is representative o' how easy it is for us to abandon our lofty ideals when fear is the motivation. 

Scalia: Korematsu was wrong, but 'you are kidding yourself' if you think it won't happen again

“Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong,” Scalia said. “And I think we have repudiated it in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again.”

At the time, Scalia said, there was “panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That’s what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It’s no justification but it is the reality.”

took one freaking year for scalia's warning to become more than conjecture. 

oh, and trump's support o' the military is more bs. trump knows the military is popular with his base.

mcmaster

kelley

mattis

In Union There Is Strength

I have watched this week's unfolding events, angry and appalled. The words "Equal Justice Under Law" are carved in the pediment of the United States Supreme Court. This is precisely what protesters are rightly demanding. It is a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers. The protests are defined by tens of thousands of people of conscience who are insisting that we live up to our values—our values as people and our values as a nation.

When I joined the military, some 50 years ago, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside.

We must reject any thinking of our cities as a "battlespace" that our uniformed military is called upon to "dominate." At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors. Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, D.C., sets up a conflict—a false conflict— between the military and civilian society. It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part.

Keeping public order rests with civilian state and local leaders who best understand their communities and are answerable to them. James Madison wrote in Federalist 14 that "America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat." We do not need to militarize our response to protests. We need to unite around a common purpose. And it starts by guaranteeing that all of us are equal before the law.

Instructions given by the military departments to our troops before the Normandy invasion reminded soldiers that "The Nazi slogan for destroying us...was 'Divide and Conquer.' Our American answer is 'In Union there is Strength.'" We must summon that unity to surmount this crisis—confident that we are better than our politics.

Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us. We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership. We can unite without him, drawing on the strengths inherent in our civil society. This will not be easy, as the past few days have shown, but we owe it to our fellow citizens; to past generations that bled to defend our promise; and to our children.

We can come through this trying time stronger, and with a renewed sense of purpose and respect for one another. The pandemic has shown us that it is not only our troops who are willing to offer the ultimate sacrifice for the safety of the community. Americans in hospitals, grocery stores, post offices, and elsewhere have put their lives on the line in order to serve their fellow citizens and their country. We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square. We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution. At the same time, we must remember Lincoln's "better angels," and listen to them, as we work to unite.

Only by adopting a new path—which means, in truth, returning to the original path of our founding ideals—will we again be a country admired and respected at home and abroad.
James Mattis

both mattis and trump swore to defend the Constitution. 

corporal bone spurs is a fraud.

oh, and muslim ban.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

17 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

Something from @Gromnir specialty - legal

https://www.lawofficer.com/california-legislation-reduces-penalties-for-adults-that-have-sex-with-a-consenting-minor/

*sigh*

never link us something which original came from breitbart and expect we won't deride or criticize.

the legislation don't lower penalties for convictions. what the law does is it provides more judicial discretion... although the list o' exceptions where a judge may not decide is so voluminous as to severe undercut the perceived goal o' the legislation.

pre legislation: nineteen year old and a seventeen year old engage in a consensual sexual act. might not even reach statutory rape level as were no penetration. nevertheless, if found guilty, the nineteen year old is having to register, for at least a decade, as a sex offender.

post legislation: above facts same and judge has discretion to, for first time offenders who aren't mental patients (and a few dozen other qualifiers), waive or reduce the period o' reporting.

HA! Good Fun! 

[Darkpriest]

3 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

*sigh*

never link us something which original came from breitbart and expect we won't deride or criticize.

the legislation don't lower penalties for convictions. what the law does is it provides more judicial discretion... although the list o' exceptions where a judge may not decide is so voluminous as to severe undercut the perceived goal o' the legislation.

pre legislation: nineteen year old and a seventeen year old engage in a consensual sexual act. might not even reach statutory rape level as were no penetration. nevertheless, if found guilty, the nineteen year old is having to register, for at least a decade, as a sex offender.

post legislation: above facts same and judge has discretion to, for first time offenders who aren't mental patients (and a few dozen other qualifiers), waive or reduce the period o' reporting.

HA! Good Fun! 

Thanks for explanation! 

[Orogun01]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

What an odd reason to hope it's not.  Don't really see his support for the military as being more standout or different than previous Presidents - basically all talk and no show

First president in 16 years to have ended the meaningless wars in the middle east. Save for some short term operations we haven't had any major conflict, I'd say that's more than talking.

[Hurlshort]

26 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

First president in 16 years to have ended the meaningless wars in the middle east. Save for some short term operations we haven't had any major conflict, I'd say that's more than talking.

We aren't in Iraq anymore? That's news to me.

Killing that Iranian general didn't exactly seem like a peace in the middle east strategy.

I'd say these wars are naturally petering out in a excruciatingly slow manner, and I'm not sure any President deserves credit for that. He certainly isn't cutting military spending either, quite the opposite.

[Guard Dog]

I suspect the comments reported in the Atlantic are not exactly true. Not that Trump does not think that way. I could certainly see him thinking that. However while he is a lot of bad things, stupid is not one of them. It seems to me he would have more sense than to vocalize something like that.

It doesn’t matter to me. My opinion of him is not going to get any lower. But here’s the thing. No matter how despicable Donald Trump is that does not make Joe Biden better. The truth is neither of them deserve our vote. And neither of them is getting mine.