Hey, genius, did I say it was okay when Obama did it? No, I did not. All I said was that the Republican Party can't blame everyone else if everything goes to shit when they control all the everythings. Nowhere did I say that the constant blaming of W by Obama and the Dems was okay.
Commenters....you want to know why we writers here react with scorn when we're accused of partisanship, when we know the accusation itself is the partisanship in question? RIGHT HERE is your reason.
"If that doesn't work, then Right can always spend the next 8 years blaming his failures on Obama, just like the Left did to Bush..."
Nope, they can't. You don't get to win both houses of Congress and the White House AND get to make SCOTUS picks, likely 2-3, AND get to blame the past for any shitstorms that occur on your watch. You do NOT get to do that....
"you're essentially saying that nobody who is against X has any business setting policy for X. (Abortion and the drilling of new oil wells immediately come to mind, to drive the point home on both sides of the political spectrum.)"
Uh, no, that is NOT what's being said. What's being said is that the people in charge of a specific function, X, should not be willfully ignorant of X. To use your examples, someone making decisions on abortion should not be unaware of basic reproductive medical facts, and someone in charge of oil drilling policy should not be unaware of basic geological facts. Imagine, for instance, if someone were to be in charge of oil drilling policy show said, "I have not interest in oil at all, nor any idea of how it works. That said, here are the rules."
"Really? I'd say serial sexual assault is kind of a big deal."
It's actually kind of not on matters of public policy. It reveals a great deal about what a horrible retched piece of shit Donald Trump is, but it doesn't say much necessarily about how he would govern.
Put another way: let's way I could promise you a candidate under which the economy would thrive for American generally, the country would be at peace, and he would have a public approval rating of 90%......but while in office he did something horrible. Take your pick: rape, murder, whatever. Would you vote for him/her?
I think it's an interesting question without a clear and clean answer, given how many people he/she would help versus the few he/she would hurt. To be clear, I'm not suggesting there's a right answer here, only that it's an interesting moral dilemma....
"I disagree. It would be best for all involved if we, as a culture could get less hung up about nudity and embarassing teenage shenanigans."
I think there is a middle ground here. Note that I qualified my statement with "with reckless abandon." I'm aware that underage kids have been showing each other their genitals since time immemorial and I agree that converting that practice into digital form doesn't in and of itself make it somehow a worse activity....except we'd be silly to simply disregard the real differences in dangers in terms of distribution of the images and/or more permanent embarrassment that come along with sexting as opposed to mere show-and-tell.
As I said, I don't think we need to be prudish here, but I do think we can go stronger on educating the young of the dangers even as we understand the natural inclination of the behavior....
Sigh, please read the article again, because you missed a pretty important point. Yes, Google suppresses some negative content about Hillary Clinton, as it does about Donald Trump and pretty much all highly recognized public figures' names. The algorithm is trying to weed out vulgar or defamatory content about anyone's name.
The point isn't that Google isn't suppressing autocomplete results. It is, and it has come out and stated as much. The point is that there's no bias in this, because it's doing the exact same thing for Trump's name....
Look, it would be really easy to get frustrated about comments like these, but I'm not going to. All I will do instead is implore you to read the vast body of work produced by Techdirt generally, and myself in particular. If you do that and come away with the idea still that I am a partisan on the left, then I think you probably should indeed leave the site, because that just isn't true.
On this post in particular, I attempted to focus on the relevant facts and one candidate pitching the lie that is a conspiracy theory against those facts. Nothing about that is partisan. You may not believe that when I say so, but I'm being perfectly honest with you.
As an aside, so you understand where I'm coming from, in most political discussions I have, my friends on the left generally like to refer to me as a conservative, while my friends on the right go on and on about how liberal I am. It's a frustrating way to try to talk to people, and I would encourage you not join those folks, because that's how you STOP conversations, not start them....
"You just literally stated that it is okay for us to import potential terrorist refugees because they would only kill a small number of Americans."
What I said, had you bothered to understand it, is that the ideals America is to uphold are worth the lives of some patriots. Should you want to disagree with this, go ahead, but understand how cowardly you will appear in doing so.