So, let me get this straight. American workers aren't able to compete with foreign workers. They demand that the government step in to regulate the private sector, forcing companies to hire American workers, regardless of the costs involved. In order to effect those demands, these people vote for the party which espouses laissez faire capitalism, and to which the very idea of regulations is anathema.
Look, I get the US first mindset. I do. There are plenty of real problems here at home, and it can be frustrating to see so much time, effort, and money spent towards problems that don't even affect us. The US should not be acting as world police (and, indeed, doing so for the most part just pisses other nations off).
With that said, it's doubly important to think about chained effects. Shit like this is dangerously short-sighted. Like it or not, we live in a global community. When we do shit like this, it sends a message that it's "us against the world", and that's a very dangerous message to send. Look at what Obama did after the Snowden leaks, he pulled back on intrusive surveillance of allied nations. Was this because he cares one whit about privacy? Obviously not, given what he sanctioned within our own nation. No, he curtailed some of the more egregious programs because our allies were pissed off about it, and he wisely avoided a major diplomatic incident. This is something Trump desperately needs to learn. Shit like this tends to escalate. It won't be long before our allies, let alone the rest of the world, takes this a step further in response.
Fuck, say what you will about Hillary, (she would have been fairly terrible on domestic issues, in my opinion), but at least she understands international politics.
Not sure what you're talking about. Which corporation won anything? The law firm? 'cause Paramount/CBS are only losing free revenue, marketing, and good will, thanks to this "settlement". This is a classic example of a company shooting themselves in the foot due to copyright tunnel vision.
I know you're being facetious, but, no, I'm not surprised. Trump only cares about Trump. He's all for redefining libel when it enables him to sue news outlets, but he once he realized that he can be sued for some of his behavior under the new libel definition, he put the brakes on immediately.
Much of the piracy that game publishers want to prevent is during the initial release. Piracy is less of a concern during the long tail. As such, publishers are starting to make initial releases with restrictive DRM to maximize on the initial burst of interest, then remove the DRM after the buzz has died down. That lets them generate more interest for being consumer friendly, reduces support costs, and additionally opens up new markets. They're getting the benefits of DRM while sidestepping the costs.
Techdirt doesn't hold comments for moderation based on content, and doesn't try to silence people. The site does, however, try to promote honest discourse, and one of the things it tries to prevent is sock-puppet posting. Making multiple posts in the same thread with different email addresses will usually trigger manual review, which can take some time. Using proxies to attempt to get around that certainly wouldn't help. Just be patient, and eventually someone will get around to reviewing the posts, and in most cases they'll be approved.
Note, though, that the techdirt community has an unfortunate tendency to abuse the report comment feature to hide comments they disagree with. That's unrelated to the site staff, though, and is entirely done by the users.
People 35+ don't really need ID to buy alcohol/tobacco, not a whole lot of people actually own guns, there are plenty of people without bank accounts, you don't need an ID to file taxes, and school-age individuals can't vote...
Several people behind some of the state voter ID laws have themselves admitted that the reason they were pursuing those laws was to suppress likely Democratic voters. If you really think these politicians care one whit for "protecting society", I've got a bridge to sell you.
Those behind the various pushes for voter ID laws are not racist. (Well, probably. At least, there's no correlation there.) They are, however, purposefully attempting to make it harder for minorities to vote. This has been well documented. Now, they're not doing so because they hate said minorities and want to silence them, they're doing so because those groups tend to vote Democrat. This is politics, pure and simple.
It really is. What he reads into other people says more about how he views the world than anything else. "Your leadership", "you followers"... Particular amusing given that I'm an independent that dislikes the very idea of political parties.
Keep living in your fantasy world. Going out in a blaze of glory doesn't help anyone. Rational people know when to compromise, even if it means swallowing your pride. If the democratic party had split over Bernie/Hillary, Trump would have waltzed into the presidency without breaking a sweat. And, before you start on about Trump winning regardless, well, hindsight is 20/20, and it was a close race, as indicated by the popular vote. Trump won several key states by a hair. Bernie made the best choice he could have made at the time.
Trump appealed to those dissatisfied with our government, and that's a large group of people. Bernie also appealed to that segment, while Hillary represented everything they hated. I'm not saying Bernie would have pulled that segment entirely from Trump, given the manufactured fear attached to "socialism" (despite the fact that if Bernie wanted to get anything done he'd need to lean moderate, so worrying about him turning America into a socialist republic was completely unwarranted.) He would have pulled some of that segment away from Trump, though, and for the most part the other voting blocks would have voted as they did, which might have made all the difference.
Still, there's no use worrying about what might have been. We'll just have to deal with Trump. He won't be as bad as the fearmongering would have us believe, but he'll move in the wrong direction on several topics I care about, including this one.
I get that, but it's still disrespectful to the troops. They didn't choose to get involved in the messes in Afghanistan/Iraq. They serve as directed, and it's not their fault how they were directed. Even many vets feel that Iraq, in particular, was bungled mess, but that's no reason to be dismissive of their personal sacrifices.
Following orders under a failure of leadership is one of the hardest things that can be asked of soldiers, but it is important. We can't have the entire military deserting because they disagree with the leadership.
Like I said, if you want to criticize the civilian leaders involved, please, be my guest. Just don't belittle the sacrifices made by those who bore more consequences from those decisions than anyone else in this country.
What are you talking about? He's a vet with PTSD. You don't get PTSD without trauma (hint: it's in the name), and trauma implies danger. Doesn't fucking matter whether we were at war at the time, or whether or not military action was the ideal course of action. He was serving his country, and his country ordered him into danger. Ergo, he risked his life for his country.
If you want to criticize the elected officials involved in the "war on terror", I'm right there with you, but don't be dismissive of his or other vets' sacrifices. It's just disrespectful.