The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
12-01-2017, 04:59 PM
#9941
Moderator
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 20,672
Total Cats: 3,015
Flynn was fired from the Obama administration in 2014. He joined the Trump campaign in 2016 and became a key figure there. Post-election, the Obama administration warned Trump's transition team not to employ him in their administration and that he was potentially blackmailable/compromised. Presenting him as a carryover from the Obama adminstration or a low-key figure is either an ill-informed opinion or an outright attempt to misinform.
You should care about this investigation because it is quite clear that a foreign government attempted, and debatably succeeded in, influencing an American election. They ran political ads, ran online troll farms seeking to stoke divisive rhetoric on both sides, hacked political party servers, and even were able to hack into voter registration rolls. But conservatives by and large do not care because in this case it happened to fall in line with their political goals, so **** it, MAGA.
You should care about this investigation because it is quite clear that a foreign government attempted, and debatably succeeded in, influencing an American election. They ran political ads, ran online troll farms seeking to stoke divisive rhetoric on both sides, hacked political party servers, and even were able to hack into voter registration rolls. But conservatives by and large do not care because in this case it happened to fall in line with their political goals, so **** it, MAGA.
So tell me why Obama did it?
US funds aided 2015 campaign to oust Netanyahu, Senate probe finds
The US government supported a group that tried to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year to the tune of nearly $350,000, or NIS 1.3 million, a Senate inquiry published Tuesday found, though it cleared the State Department of any wrongdoing...
The US government supported a group that tried to unseat Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last year to the tune of nearly $350,000, or NIS 1.3 million, a Senate inquiry published Tuesday found, though it cleared the State Department of any wrongdoing...
Reply
0
0
12-01-2017, 05:28 PM
#9942
Nice story ...
You forgot to mention there was nothing illegal I.E. no US laws were broken after
US funds aided 2015 campaign to oust Netanyahu, Senate probe finds
Senate report: State Dept. grant also aided campaign to unseat Netanyahu
Reply
0
0
12-02-2017, 12:27 PM
#9948
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,060
Total Cats: 6,619
Not sure if this is a serious question, or trolling...
It's because a couple of years ago, an FCC rule was enacted to grant the Federal government control over access to, and content on, the internet, as well as to ensure that everyone would have to pay an equally high price for data access, regardless of whether or not they cared about premium services.
The sheep on Facebook, under the guidance of certain politicians, latched onto this as a major victory.
Then, it was revealed that the internet managed to function perfectly well for several decades prior to Federal regulation. And so pressure was applied to remove this young regulation. The pre-programmed sheep, having forgotten about reality prior to November of 2016, cried out that this was an attempt by a corrupt Presidential administration to take away the protections which ensued that they would always have access to the latest Game of Thrones release on their 5.8" screen, despite this fear having no basis in reality.
Does that clear things up for you?
It's because a couple of years ago, an FCC rule was enacted to grant the Federal government control over access to, and content on, the internet, as well as to ensure that everyone would have to pay an equally high price for data access, regardless of whether or not they cared about premium services.
The sheep on Facebook, under the guidance of certain politicians, latched onto this as a major victory.
Then, it was revealed that the internet managed to function perfectly well for several decades prior to Federal regulation. And so pressure was applied to remove this young regulation. The pre-programmed sheep, having forgotten about reality prior to November of 2016, cried out that this was an attempt by a corrupt Presidential administration to take away the protections which ensued that they would always have access to the latest Game of Thrones release on their 5.8" screen, despite this fear having no basis in reality.
Does that clear things up for you?
Reply
0
0
12-03-2017, 09:09 AM
#9949
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,504
Total Cats: 4,079
Here's someone who cares about Flynn:
From Fox News: “ABC News announced Saturday that Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross would be suspended for four weeks without pay over a botched ‘exclusive’ about former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
“During a live ‘special report’ Friday morning, Ross reported that Flynn would testify that Donald Trump had ordered him to make contact with Russians about foreign policy while he was still a candidate. The report raised the specter of Trump's impeachment and sent the stock market plummeting.
“Later in the day, ABC issued a ‘clarification’ to Ross's report, saying that Trump's alleged directive came after he'd been elected president. Ross himself appeared on ‘World News Tonight,’ several hours after the initial report, to clarify his error.
“In a statement, ABC News said Ross' report ‘had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.’
"’It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience,’ ABC's statement added. ‘These are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.’”
“During a live ‘special report’ Friday morning, Ross reported that Flynn would testify that Donald Trump had ordered him to make contact with Russians about foreign policy while he was still a candidate. The report raised the specter of Trump's impeachment and sent the stock market plummeting.
“Later in the day, ABC issued a ‘clarification’ to Ross's report, saying that Trump's alleged directive came after he'd been elected president. Ross himself appeared on ‘World News Tonight,’ several hours after the initial report, to clarify his error.
“In a statement, ABC News said Ross' report ‘had not been fully vetted through our editorial standards process.’
"’It is vital we get the story right and retain the trust we have built with our audience,’ ABC's statement added. ‘These are our core principles. We fell far short of that yesterday.’”
Jeez, I wonder why the liberals care so much? fake news? no, that's fox.
#sorryfortheblueballs
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 08:26 AM
#9952
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,504
Total Cats: 4,079
Not sure if this is a serious question, or trolling...
It's because a couple of years ago, an FCC rule was enacted to grant the Federal government control over access to, and content on, the internet, as well as to ensure that everyone would have to pay an equally high price for data access, regardless of whether or not they cared about premium services.
The sheep on Facebook, under the guidance of certain politicians, latched onto this as a major victory.
Then, it was revealed that the internet managed to function perfectly well for several decades prior to Federal regulation. And so pressure was applied to remove this young regulation. The pre-programmed sheep, having forgotten about reality prior to November of 2016, cried out that this was an attempt by a corrupt Presidential administration to take away the protections which ensued that they would always have access to the latest Game of Thrones release on their 5.8" screen, despite this fear having no basis in reality.
Does that clear things up for you?
It's because a couple of years ago, an FCC rule was enacted to grant the Federal government control over access to, and content on, the internet, as well as to ensure that everyone would have to pay an equally high price for data access, regardless of whether or not they cared about premium services.
The sheep on Facebook, under the guidance of certain politicians, latched onto this as a major victory.
Then, it was revealed that the internet managed to function perfectly well for several decades prior to Federal regulation. And so pressure was applied to remove this young regulation. The pre-programmed sheep, having forgotten about reality prior to November of 2016, cried out that this was an attempt by a corrupt Presidential administration to take away the protections which ensued that they would always have access to the latest Game of Thrones release on their 5.8" screen, despite this fear having no basis in reality.
Does that clear things up for you?
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 08:54 AM
#9953
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,504
Total Cats: 4,079
This guy cares about Flynn:
"By hiding from Congress, and from the American people, documented political bias by a key FBI head investigator for both the Russia collusion probe and the Clinton email investigation, the FBI and DOJ engaged in a willful attempt to thwart Congress' constitutional oversight responsibility," Nunes said in a statement Saturday afternoon.
For nearly four months, Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s office, the Justice Department and the FBI have kept secret the fact that the FBI agent who oversaw the Russia investigation exchanged anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton text messages with an FBI attorney who was also his mistress.
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 11:35 AM
#9954
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
I don't really get net neutrality. As early as I can remember the internet the beauty is that anyone with a phone line can post, or read, anything to anyone anywhere. That's it, end. That would be the golden rule I think, the concept of freedom of information. Now if they want to market to the masses that the new iPhone will only have an app for FB where you need to scan your face before you use it and pay $5.99 per media stream that they have loaded up for you, I think I'm going to pass on that and start checking out #IRC rooms instead. I'm not sure how much of this is true or just a wild guess, but legislators in their 60s trying to extract profit from a machine largely run by kids will be indirect/circuitous by nature.
What don't you get?
Big corporations fill the reelection coffers of those in gov't, so the gov't will allow the big corporations to make more money.
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 12:02 PM
#9955
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,060
Total Cats: 6,619
I don't really get net neutrality. As early as I can remember the internet the beauty is that anyone with a phone line can post, or read, anything to anyone anywhere. That's it, end. That would be the golden rule I think, the concept of freedom of information. Now if they want to market to the masses that the new iPhone will only have an app for FB where you need to scan your face before you use it and pay $5.99 per media stream that they have loaded up for you, I think I'm going to pass on that and start checking out #IRC rooms instead. I'm not sure how much of this is true or just a wild guess, but legislators in their 60s trying to extract profit from a machine largely run by kids will be indirect/circuitous by nature.
Do you remember how the internet was working just fine, and none of this scary **** was even being proposed back in 2015, before the US Federal Government decided "Hmm, we need a way to extend our regulatory authority to this new internet thing. Let's come up with a bunch of doomsday scenarios to scare everyone into happily granting us power over it?"
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 12:17 PM
#9956
Serious question:
Do you remember how the internet was working just fine, and none of this scary **** was even being proposed back in 2015, before the US Federal Government decided "Hmm, we need a way to extend our regulatory authority to this new internet thing. Let's come up with a bunch of doomsday scenarios to scare everyone into happily granting us power over it?"
Do you remember how the internet was working just fine, and none of this scary **** was even being proposed back in 2015, before the US Federal Government decided "Hmm, we need a way to extend our regulatory authority to this new internet thing. Let's come up with a bunch of doomsday scenarios to scare everyone into happily granting us power over it?"
Are you implying that just because something has been working for a long time that there will never be environmental forces which may alter the status quo? The internet is basically a utility or piece of critical infrastructure like a highway. We regulate those fairly heavily as well because if you don't you end up with rolling brown outs in California because Enron figured out how to make a lot of money from it.
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 12:24 PM
#9957
Elite Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: OKC, OK
Posts: 3,693
Total Cats: 222
Serious question:
Do you remember how the internet was working just fine, and none of this scary **** was even being proposed back in 2015, before the US Federal Government decided "Hmm, we need a way to extend our regulatory authority to this new internet thing. Let's come up with a bunch of doomsday scenarios to scare everyone into happily granting us power over it?"
Do you remember how the internet was working just fine, and none of this scary **** was even being proposed back in 2015, before the US Federal Government decided "Hmm, we need a way to extend our regulatory authority to this new internet thing. Let's come up with a bunch of doomsday scenarios to scare everyone into happily granting us power over it?"
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 01:14 PM
#9958
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,504
Total Cats: 4,079
Didn't this whole thing come up because large ISPs (who often also provide cable and phone services) were looking for new streams of revenue to replace the lost revenue from lost cable subscriptions and the idea of throttling different services was put on the table. This was first in the public light when Netflix and Comcast were going at it about all of the bandwidth Netflix users use.
that's the "theory".
he's an old video:
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 01:59 PM
#9959
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 419
Total Cats: 45
It has happened before. It's not theory.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/1...s-to-interfere -- comcast blocks P2P traffic
Group asks FCC to probe iPhone Skype restrictions | Fortune -- ATT blocks skype (VOIP) because it competes with their phone plans
Verizon blocks Google Wallet - Dec. 6, 2011 -- Verizon blocked Google Wallet to force customers into their version
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-you-no-shame/ -- att blocked facetime unless you pay for their mobile share plan
comcast-netflix-deal | Time -- Comcast artificially slows access to Netflix until Netflix pays an arbitrary fee
There are more. But of course, nothing to see here, right? What big corporation would possibly take advantage of its consumers when they could easily leave for a competitor?!
Oh wait. Out of 118 million US households, more than 10.6 million have no access to wired Internet service with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, and an additional 46.1 million households live in areas with just one provider offering those speeds. Half of all households having zero or one option for high-speed internet is not competition.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...d-competition/
But please, tell me more about how preventing this sort of thing is somehow strangling competition and drowning poor ISP's in burdensome government regulation.
Reply
0
0
12-04-2017, 02:05 PM
#9960
Problems with this video and everyone else who says this is fear mongering over what may happen...
It has happened before. It's not theory.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/1...s-to-interfere -- comcast blocks P2P traffic
Group asks FCC to probe iPhone Skype restrictions Fortune -- ATT blocks skype (VOIP) because it competes with their phone plans
Verizon blocks Google Wallet - Dec. 6, 2011 -- Verizon blocked Google Wallet to force customers into their version
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-you-no-shame/ -- att blocked facetime unless you pay for their mobile share plan
comcast-netflix-deal Time -- Comcast artificially slows access to Netflix until Netflix pays an arbitrary fee
There are more. But of course, nothing to see here, right? What big corporation would possibly take advantage of its consumers when they could easily leave for a competitor?!
Oh wait. Out of 118 million US households, more than 10.6 million have no access to wired Internet service with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, and an additional 46.1 million households live in areas with just one provider offering those speeds. Half of all households having zero or one option for high-speed internet is not competition.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...d-competition/
But please, tell me more about how preventing this sort of thing is somehow strangling competition and drowning poor ISP's in burdensome government regulation.
It has happened before. It's not theory.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2007/1...s-to-interfere -- comcast blocks P2P traffic
Group asks FCC to probe iPhone Skype restrictions Fortune -- ATT blocks skype (VOIP) because it competes with their phone plans
Verizon blocks Google Wallet - Dec. 6, 2011 -- Verizon blocked Google Wallet to force customers into their version
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...-you-no-shame/ -- att blocked facetime unless you pay for their mobile share plan
comcast-netflix-deal Time -- Comcast artificially slows access to Netflix until Netflix pays an arbitrary fee
There are more. But of course, nothing to see here, right? What big corporation would possibly take advantage of its consumers when they could easily leave for a competitor?!
Oh wait. Out of 118 million US households, more than 10.6 million have no access to wired Internet service with download speeds of at least 25Mbps, and an additional 46.1 million households live in areas with just one provider offering those speeds. Half of all households having zero or one option for high-speed internet is not competition.
https://arstechnica.com/information-...d-competition/
But please, tell me more about how preventing this sort of thing is somehow strangling competition and drowning poor ISP's in burdensome government regulation.
5G is going to roll out over the next few years anyway and then everyone in the entire country will have access to fast broadband at many Gbps wirelessly on whatever device they choose. All those wires are going to be so last century.
Reply
0
0
