*"NO-ONE absolutely no-one is going to turn this country around in 30 days, hell 360 days."*
And nobody except Trump apologists is claiming that's what was expected. While the speed of his awfulness is surprising, it's *what* he's doing that is upsetting so many people, not *when* he's doing it. He's setting in motion changes that will likely have calamitous long-term effects if not challenged. Why the hell should people wait for the damage to become obvious and undeniable before acting?
*"But doing the same old thing and relying on the same only shit (both sides of the political isle) isn't working. At least this is different."*
A few times I've tried to fix something wrong with my car, but it didn't work. So I looked for a *better* solution. I did not set my car on fire and then say "Well that's different." It's stupid and simplistic to think that because something is different it must be better. If you wanted a better president than Clinton then you should've voted her in and had another go in four years.
*"Whether its good or bad is yet to be determined, I'm just not going to be so quick jump on the "we're fucked" bandwagon yet, at least not until we actually are."*
Then I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you might not be very smart, or at least very ignorant of history. Trump is not some amazing innovator, all the terrible things he's doing have been done by someone at some time around the world (some still are) and so it's not hard to use rational thought to predict likely outcomes. It's not rocket science.
*"A quote that is VERY unfriendly with the pro regulation zealots that infest this place!"*
You either have a very selective memory or your implied claim of being a regular reader is somewhat exaggerated... Whenever abuse of copyright is discussed, Techdirt writers and regular commenters are inevitably labeled 'pirates' with no respect for the law. Whenever the disruptive nature of Uber is discussed, we again are a bunch of scofflaws for believing taxis regs should not apply to ride sharing. That does not square with your claim. There are hundreds of stories here criticizing the harm caused by both excessive regulation in some areas and insufficient protection by the law in others. The fact that you refer to (paraphrasing) an 'infestation of pro-regulation zealots' is far more suggestive of zealotry on your part. Most people here are far more broad-minded on the topic of regulation than you clearly are.
"My city is fighting against cooperating on the deportation of criminal illegal aliens. Not just illegals who came across the border illegally, but who committed other crimes once they got here-- gang crime, robbery, rape, even murder."
Not even sure how you can make such a dumb claim without realizing how dumb it is. Nobody is fighting against deporting people who have committed robbery, rape, murder or other serious crimes. I can't believe that has to be explained.
Re: Re: Re: To me it is 1st. a math problem, 2. what's in it for the USA?
"Have you visited a Social security office lately? Wall to wall immigrants looking for a handout, with a very few pensioners mixed in."
From what you've written you don't sound at all like someone who spends enough time hanging out at Social Security offices to be able to make that judgement with any degree of accuracy. So either you've missed sharing some vital info with us that would make your claim a lot more believable, or you're making shit up to strengthen your utterly amoral argument. Feel free to clarify.
Personally I think the taxi strike was a terrible idea. Showing support for a worthy cause is admirable, but inconveniencing hundreds (thousands?) of travelers while having zero impact on the people you're protesting is counter-productive, especially when another company cops undeserved backlash.
That's news to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to cite the relevant laws and supporting caselaw. I mean they've been doing this for years so there must have been some law suits by now right?
"Thiel was clear, he hit the bully where it hurts: pocket."
So you're quite ok with very rich people being able to use the legal system as a weapon while the rest of us can't afford to do that? You're good with any media outlet being at financial risk this way, even the ones you agree with? The harm this causes to society is far greater than whatever harm Theil might have (but probably didn't) suffer because of Gawker.
"It's fun to watch liberal snowflakes getting all upset because the socialist decisions of the FCC are likely to get overturned."
By 'socialist decisions' you mean consumer protection rules that attempt to prevent big corporations from ripping off the public, stop anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior and protect your privacy, and which have broad non-partisan support from the public? What the hell kind of sociopath are you that you would celebrate overturning that? Or are you just another paid shill or someone who'd benefit directly from this at the public's expense?
'I have members of family that served, but I do not respect someone 'just because' they served.'
Respect is a scale, not a yes or no thing. I can respect someone a little or a lot. Serving in the military earns you some respect. Acting like a fuckwad loses you some respect. Bad actions can absolutely cancel out any respect that might be deserved for serving, e.g. McCain.
"...part of civil disobedience and protest is standing up and taking responsibility for your actions."
Can you show us where exactly in the rule book is says that? And besides, he has taken responsibility for it, he said he did it.
"Protesting an unjust law is all well and good, but doing it and then running away doesn't make you a hero."
Sacrificing your life in the country of your birth, not being able to see family and friends, and not being able to work in your field of expertise, all for the benefit of the everyone else, seems pretty heroic to me. Why do you have to be throw in jail be be called a hero?
"Yes, Snowden likely would have gotten the book thrown at him, and his life would be substantially worse if he'd stuck around, but that willingness to suffer is part of what makes us respect those who stand up against unjust laws."
That's your opinion only, many others don't require such an extreme level of personal sacrifice to award someone respect.
"...when he chose to flee the country rather than stand up and make his case here, he separated himself from Manning, and ceded at least part of the moral high ground civil disobedience stands on."
Well he was clearly smarter than Manning, because he knew exactly what would happen if he stuck around. Choosing to impale yourself on a manifestly unjust legal system doesn't give you any more moral high ground.
I don't think it's nebulous or ambiguous at all. The term fake news was originally applied quite literally; it was an item of news that was completely made up with little to no truthful substance. It's been highjacked by dishonest assholes who try to discredit factual stories or opinion pieces they don't like the content of. The definition only changes if you decide those people abusing it for their own dishonest purposes can get away with it. Saying the definition is nebulous or ambiguous is letting them win at the expense of the truth.