Trump
Comments
-
If it's on breitbart, infowars, redflag, zerohedge, etc etc then it has to be trueGern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
0 -
Politifact. Psh. We all know facts have a well known reputation for siding with liberals. Give me Breitbart!0
-
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.
0 -
BS44325 said:
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Does this mean I won't be able to play Pokemon go without paying Vlad the Impaler?BS44325 said:
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Pokemon Go will probably be the only thing you'll be allowed.Halifax2TheMax said:
Does this mean I won't be able to play Pokemon go without paying Vlad the Impaler?BS44325 said:
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.0 -
Well obviously you are not an "issues" person. Your two responses to this are a politifact link and a tinfoil hat picture.Gern Blansten said:BS44325 said:
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.0 -
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.I'm like an opening band for your mom.0 -
I think the question "what do you have to lose?" says a lot about the kind of person he is. he simply doesn't give a shit about you. he has never cared about anything but his own wealth. I'm not sure why people all of a sudden think he cares about if america succeeds. he has succeeded regardless of that over the past 3 decades. suddenly he's a patriotic philathropist? I don't buy it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.
I can't say that HC's motives are any more pure than that, but I just think he will be incredibly reckless with foreign relations. She knows how to be a politician. All he knows is how to be a shithead. I don't know how much domestic damage he'll do, but internationally it will be a nightmare, which could/most certainly will eventually affect the country domestically.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
I think he does care if America succeeds.HughFreakingDillon said:
I think the question "what do you have to lose?" says a lot about the kind of person he is. he simply doesn't give a shit about you. he has never cared about anything but his own wealth. I'm not sure why people all of a sudden think he cares about if america succeeds. he has succeeded regardless of that over the past 3 decades. suddenly he's a patriotic philathropist? I don't buy it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.
I can't say that HC's motives are any more pure than that, but I just think he will be incredibly reckless with foreign relations. She knows how to be a politician. All he knows is how to be a shithead. I don't know how much domestic damage he'll do, but internationally it will be a nightmare, which could/most certainly will eventually affect the country domestically.0 -
why?BS44325 said:
I think he does care if America succeeds.HughFreakingDillon said:
I think the question "what do you have to lose?" says a lot about the kind of person he is. he simply doesn't give a shit about you. he has never cared about anything but his own wealth. I'm not sure why people all of a sudden think he cares about if america succeeds. he has succeeded regardless of that over the past 3 decades. suddenly he's a patriotic philathropist? I don't buy it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.
I can't say that HC's motives are any more pure than that, but I just think he will be incredibly reckless with foreign relations. She knows how to be a politician. All he knows is how to be a shithead. I don't know how much domestic damage he'll do, but internationally it will be a nightmare, which could/most certainly will eventually affect the country domestically.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
He just strikes me as a very pro-American patriot in the classic sense of the term. If anything he is overly nationalistic. That doesn't mean he didn't put his business first his whole life. It also doesn't mean the policies he would put in place would necessarily be effective but I think he comes by the America First/Make America Great Again stance honestly.HughFreakingDillon said:
why?BS44325 said:
I think he does care if America succeeds.HughFreakingDillon said:
I think the question "what do you have to lose?" says a lot about the kind of person he is. he simply doesn't give a shit about you. he has never cared about anything but his own wealth. I'm not sure why people all of a sudden think he cares about if america succeeds. he has succeeded regardless of that over the past 3 decades. suddenly he's a patriotic philathropist? I don't buy it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.
I can't say that HC's motives are any more pure than that, but I just think he will be incredibly reckless with foreign relations. She knows how to be a politician. All he knows is how to be a shithead. I don't know how much domestic damage he'll do, but internationally it will be a nightmare, which could/most certainly will eventually affect the country domestically.0 -
I don't discuss issues with breitbartBS44325 said:
Well obviously you are not an "issues" person. Your two responses to this are a politifact link and a tinfoil hat picture.Gern Blansten said:BS44325 said:
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
I think he is more pro-capitalist than pro-american. if he gave a shit about middle class america why didn't he employ them himself instead of illegals that he now wants deported?BS44325 said:
He just strikes me as a very pro-American patriot in the classic sense of the term. If anything he is overly nationalistic. That doesn't mean he didn't put his business first his whole life. It also doesn't mean the policies he would put in place would necessarily be effective but I think he comes by the America First/Make America Great Again stance honestly.HughFreakingDillon said:
why?BS44325 said:
I think he does care if America succeeds.HughFreakingDillon said:
I think the question "what do you have to lose?" says a lot about the kind of person he is. he simply doesn't give a shit about you. he has never cared about anything but his own wealth. I'm not sure why people all of a sudden think he cares about if america succeeds. he has succeeded regardless of that over the past 3 decades. suddenly he's a patriotic philathropist? I don't buy it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.
I can't say that HC's motives are any more pure than that, but I just think he will be incredibly reckless with foreign relations. She knows how to be a politician. All he knows is how to be a shithead. I don't know how much domestic damage he'll do, but internationally it will be a nightmare, which could/most certainly will eventually affect the country domestically.By The Time They Figure Out What Went Wrong, We'll Be Sitting On A Beach, Earning Twenty Percent.0 -
Shouldn't we be discussing with all positions on the spectrum? What's a debate if all parties are in agreement? The key points that BS posted here seem like fairly reasonable points, and are not in opposition to the transfer to ICANN - just in favour of applying due diligence in creating checks and balances to prevent abuse where possible.Gern Blansten said:
I don't discuss issues with breitbartBS44325 said:
Well obviously you are not an "issues" person. Your two responses to this are a politifact link and a tinfoil hat picture.Gern Blansten said:BS44325 said:
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
i don't consider someone who was running casino's and had to declare bankruptcy multiple times a shrewd businessman. he literally took a no lose situation and lost. hell not only did he have to declare bankruptcy he didn't pay vendors who worked to help build those casinos. i'll give you that he is a shrewd marketer of himself but that's about it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.0 -
So have at it my friendbenjs said:
Shouldn't we be discussing with all positions on the spectrum? What's a debate if all parties are in agreement? The key points that BS posted here seem like fairly reasonable points, and are not in opposition to the transfer to ICANN - just in favour of applying due diligence in creating checks and balances to prevent abuse where possible.Gern Blansten said:
I don't discuss issues with breitbartBS44325 said:
Well obviously you are not an "issues" person. Your two responses to this are a politifact link and a tinfoil hat picture.Gern Blansten said:BS44325 said:
The politifact article actually confirms my suspicions. It will move to a system with the potential for zero US public oversight. The unelected stakeholder committee will be accountable to nobody and could be easily corrupted by repressive regimes looking to stifle speech and/or large corporations looking to stifle upstart competition. With no official US role in governance there is also the possibility of being unable to challenge decisions made by this "world body" on US constitutional grounds. It will become impossible to assert first amendment rights when decisions do not involve the US in any official capacity. You may think this is all a pipe dream but we already see large tech companies bowing to Chinese and Russian demands in exchange for market access.Gern Blansten said:
do you seriously believe that?BS44325 said:I'm totally on board with this...
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-opposes-president-obama-plan-to-surrender-american-internet
I would hope that even the Trump haters on here will recognize the importance of keeping the internet under American control.
wait....I see it on Breitbart....of course you believe it
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2016/sep/14/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-incorrect-about-obama-giving-control-inte/
All of this is outlined in the White Paper linked to in the politifact article: http://docs.techfreedom.org/TF_White_Paper_IANA_Transition.pdf This should be read in it's entirety before passing judgement. Here are the major concerns listed:
1. Whatever happens with the Transition, there’s no reason whatsoever to think authoritarian countries like Russia and China won’t try to exert greater control over the Internet and the long-term impact of the Transition on positions of other governments vis-à-vis U.N. governance of the Internet are unknown.
2. It is unclear at best whether the multi-stakeholder community has the cohesion and resolve necessary to serve as an effective check on the ICANN Board post-Transition.
3. Governments will have more power post-Transition than they do currently, and it is unclear how this will affect ICANN.
4. Recent events revealed that ICANN has serious transparency and governance problems, which could make it vulnerable to corruption and abuse.
5. The U.S. government’s role is a major reason why the ICANN Board has been willing to accept accountability measures, because the Transition is dependent on their adoption. But a number of important additional reforms will not be completed until after the Transition, and. failing to extend the contract may jeopardize their implementation.
6. Substantial questions on ICANN’s jurisdiction, including where ICANN will be headquartered and incorporated and to which laws ICANN will be subject, remain unanswered.
7. The U.S. failed to secure legal ownership and control of the .MIL and .GOV domains, which could create national security concerns in the future.
8. The new ICANN bylaws may not be in line with California law, which could lead to legal and political challenges.
9. If the Transition involves a transfer of property, ending the contract without congressional authorization would violate the Constitution.
10. NTIA may have violated a funding prohibition if it fails to extend the contract.
11. It is unclear that U.S. antitrust law will actually be an effective remedy (or deterrent) against
anti-competitive behavior by ICANN, even the Transition doesn’t change its legal status. Yet foreign antitrust laws could be used strategically to portray ICANN as a cartel, and thus make the case for a shift to U.N. control.
12. NTIA may have violated administrative law by failing to adequately consider public comments on the Transition directly, and instead relying on ICANN to do so on its behalf.Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana; 2025: Pitt1, Pitt20 -
Sure perhaps you're right, but in the business world bankruptcy is part of the game. It wouldn't exist as an option otherwise. I know severalpjhawks said:
i don't consider someone who was running casino's and had to declare bankruptcy multiple times a shrewd businessman. he literally took a no lose situation and lost. hell not only did he have to declare bankruptcy he didn't pay vendors who worked to help build those casinos. i'll give you that he is a shrewd marketer of himself but that's about it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.
folks personally who have had to declare bankruptcy because their business attempts failed, I don't see them as failures. I see them
as commendable for trying something that's very difficult to do. Shit, I personally would have had to declare it a few months ago if a lawsuit I eventually won had gone the other way. There's no shame in it, there's only shame in not taking the risk you took. Trump has dozens of not hundreds of business or something insane, and 4 failed? I consider it a huge success. Well, actually a yuge success, I guess.I'm like an opening band for your mom.0 -
-
what do you think the over 1000 vendors he screwed out of payments would call it?RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
Sure perhaps you're right, but in the business world bankruptcy is part of the game. It wouldn't exist as an option otherwise. I know severalpjhawks said:
i don't consider someone who was running casino's and had to declare bankruptcy multiple times a shrewd businessman. he literally took a no lose situation and lost. hell not only did he have to declare bankruptcy he didn't pay vendors who worked to help build those casinos. i'll give you that he is a shrewd marketer of himself but that's about it.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I hear you. I see the guy as a shrewd businessman though. He gets shit done. Sucks that he produced his goods overseas, but if that's the way to lower your margins so you increase profit for your business, I don't see it as a shock, he was running a business. I buy cheap and sell high everyday in my restaurants, I would be silly not to. I believe that he'll be trying to improve lives of the middle working class. I LIKE the fact that he fully took advantage of the establishment as you said because he will do whatever is necessary to win, and that's what qualities a leader needs. Because he's so cutthroat and able to step on people to get ahead I think if he was prez he'd do the same to help his country. I completely agree with him saying "what do you have to lose?" It's not like the last 8 years of hope and change have helped anyone- look at the shit that goes on every day in this country now. We had the worst prez ever in that asshat GWB but we didn't have riots and looting and unrest every weekend. I love my country, I don't hate it like a lot on here seem to do. I just think Washington needs a big change and Clinton is anything but a change. If we keep going the way we are, we're fucked.PJ_Soul said:
You are voting for Trump, but want a government that doesn't represent the 1% and represents the people? Do you seriously not understand how delusional that seems? Do you not see that voting for a guy who has FULLY taken advantage of the establishment and played their game for years and years to make himself rich while stomping on regular people is a pretty insane thing to do if you care about what you claim to care about? Trump is not actually anti-establishment at all. He just pretends to be so he can trick people like you into voting for him. The only thing Trump really is is self-serving. He will do whatever it takes to get his way and to get richer. Period. He has no real values. If working for and with the establishment gets him ahead, he'll go with that. If speaking against the establishment gets him somewhere at that moment, he'll go with that. Nothing he says means anything.RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
I would! For me it really isn't Trump, it's the Not-establishment, he just happens to be the person in that role. Id love to watch as Washington starts to represent the people of this nation instead of the clintons and bush's and all the Washington scum. It's all a part of this rat race we run, and we just gobble it up and stay complacent. Maybe I'm just a madman but I always thought we were supposed to have a govt that represented the people, not the top 1%. Sanders was my guy but the system fucked him as they will continue to do all of us, so I'm all for the anti establishment now. I obviously pissed all ya'll off with my post last night, but you do kinda all sound scared! Embrace it, if we're ever going to be truly free we have to stop lining the govt pocket!PJ_Soul said:
Yep. Trump supporters won't care. Pretty sure Trump supporters wouldn't care if he were the prime suspect in a child murder investigation, let alone being accused of fraud. Hell, even if he were charged with murdering a child in cold blood and released on bail, Trump supporters would still probably stand behind him.Gern Blansten said:
You know that Trump doesn't pay those who he owes, that he commits fraud through his charitable foundation, that he has his own products overseas to be manufactured, that he knowingly employed illegal immigrants and lied about it, that he is caught in a lie every day, literally, and that Trump has based his whole campaign on fear. And then you say what you just said? Sorry, but you are not using your reasoning skills at all. And honestly, if none of those things would dissuade you from voting for Trump, then I have no reason to believe that you would change your mind about voting for him if he committed murder.
I appreciate a response like you gave, at least you have a discussion. It's ok to disagree about things. It's funny how most people who disagree with something dismiss the opposing viewpoint and fling insults instead of understanding not everyone is going to believe in the things that they do. I'm not on here to sway anyone's opinion, it's a personal decision who to vote for.
folks personally who have had to declare bankruptcy because their business attempts failed, I don't see them as failures. I see them
as commendable for trying something that's very difficult to do. Shit, I personally would have had to declare it a few months ago if a lawsuit I eventually won had gone the other way. There's no shame in it, there's only shame in not taking the risk you took. Trump has dozens of not hundreds of business or something insane, and 4 failed? I consider it a huge success. Well, actually a yuge success, I guess.0
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KYV7KWQ-fY4This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help