Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

He goes from smiling and ready to relax to glancing around trying to figure out what's happening, then Trump starts babbling and you can see his smile go from real to faked since his eyes drop out of it. There ain't much I'm good at picking out about body language but the cues that say "fake smile" are ones which I learned about and spent a long time learning how to eliminate to avoid scaring people because I had a really natural "I'm going to eat you" smile apparently.

I also heard that there were 3 white house staffers being singled out currently in the investigation as leakers and apparently the president wants to fire them when he gets back, but I don't know if the president can fire himself because I'm pretty sure he's one of the 3 leakers, isn't he?

Well, I'm visually impaired, so, it's a bit harder to catch it, plus the camera was going all over the place. If it had stayed on his face, I'd probably catch it better.

I haven't heard anything about three leakers in the staff being confirmed and Trump wanting to fire them when he gets back. Just more palace intrigue until Trump actually acts on it. Link, if available, would be good

[Frumple]

Closest thing to a link I can find in under two minutes while working with a powerful and rising hunger for food is this, apparently coming out of a white house correspondent for OANN, whatever the hell the one america news network is. Couple whatever they are from the top, at the mo'. Near as I can tell it's the sole and single source at this point in time.

[smjjames]

Sounds like the usual palace intrigue at this point. It would be quite a bit of a shakeup if it's true and Trump acted on it.

[Max™]

Didn't catch that the OANN is not the best of sources: http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/05/22/scoop-on-trump-preparing-to-fire-multiple-staffers-identified-as-leakers-undergoes-some-patching/ is a bit better explanation on what's going on there.

Full admission: I've got a board I used to frequent for a video game years ago which has a couple of folks who work on the hill at this point so when I am checking out news I hit there first and pass it along if it's interesting and not up over here yet. Sometimes stuff pops up and surprises them so that catches my notice, but sometimes it's also just some guy overblowing shit, hard to tell in the era of Trump.

[Culise]

Found one meme for it already:
http://i.imgur.com/pwL9Fgg.mp4

Unfortunately, since it's an MP4, I can't post it directly on the forums as a gif.

There's a trick with Imgur.  Change the file extension, and it should...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Neonivek]

Well I hope you guys like having no more Net Neutrality and higher Netflix prices!

[wierd]

Ajit PaimtotallyinbedwithTrump was going to do this no matter what the popular feedback from the commentary period was. His own commentary on the matter makes this abundantly clear.

Little dictator got his orders, and he gets to exercise his power boner by following them as officiously as possible.  Dont worry, the resulting cluster fuck will be so horrible, that after the Trump administration leaves power in 4 years, that the incoming admin will have 4 years of very clear data showing how the ISP's wet dream of how the internet should be run is in fact, a horrible clusterfuck-- and Net Neutrality will be reinstated, and damn near untouchable afterward.

[Neonivek]

But the internet was so much better in the Bill Clinton Era in the 90s... and that the only reason that was the case is because there was no net neutrality laws.

Can't they just argue that?

[wierd]

No, the internet OPERATED as if title II was in effect, because just a short time prior, MaBell had her fat ghetto ass handed to her, and the newly starting ISPs decided to play it safe in that landscape.

So, while no NN rules were in effect, they operated as if Title II was in full force.

It is only NOW, that the ISPs have replaced the fat whore of MaBell, that they want to be rid of that "dread spectre" so badly.  When they become just as bloatedly corpulent, obstinate about only putting service where it makes them assloads of money (and fuck everyone else!), and it becomes painfully obvious that yes-- Acting like Title II is in effect is REQUIRED for open innovation in the internet-- WILL FINALLY SINK IN.  There will be evidence both before and after institution and repeal of enforced title II-- more than enough to show how marked the effect of the repeal was, and how essential the regulation is.

[SalmonGod]

Except voters don't give a shit about evidence, and the people they elect don't care about the potential benefits or intended purposes of things.

[Reelya]

the 1990s had ISP walled gardens where they expected you to use their apps and onlines games which were bought and were exclusive to your ISP (AOL, Compuserve). So much for 1990's Net Neutrality.

If anything any "Net Neutrality" which existed in the early days was purely accidental. You needed to have subscription/ad revenue and high bandwidth requirements (realtime content / streaming) before it's worth bribing ISPs for more bandwidth.

[Neonivek]

Except voters don't give a shit about evidence, and the people they elect don't care about the potential benefits or intended purposes of things.

Actually what is funny is they MADE UP evidence in support of removing Net Neutrality (no really) and shut down opposition.

That BS I said earlier? I didn't make it up! it was the major argument to remove Net Neutrality (That and "Obama is corrupt!")

[EnigmaticHat]

Its worth pointing out that a LOT of voters in the US are low information voters.  Huge segments of the population are uneducated.  Many people are disengaged from the voting process.  Racial minorities often feel that neither side represents their views, or that their vote doesn't count for anything.  Voter suppression often prevents them from voting, and gerrymandering often means that their vote almost literally does count for nothing.  Meanwhile conservative elites have intentionally poisoned small town America to any perspectives other than its own (there's something bizarre about a world where rank and file conservatives refuse to watch CNN).  In both cases the results are the same: they vote based on stupid shit like how tall a candidate is or how much money they have or something.

Its dumb but its hard to blame them.  To understand why voting matters you have to get your way every now and again.  American politics seesaws between two parties, but for a majority of Americans neither party will do what they want.  *I* agree with the Democratic party on most issues but I doubt even a third of the country truly thinks that way, ditto for Republicans.  So the majority of the country simply has to choose between two platforms that aren't theirs; our majority-wins system has resulted in a government that never has anywhere near majority support.

(note: just because both parties are supported by a slim minority of the country does not mean that they are equally popular or equally good)

[Neonivek]

Actually 97% of voters support keeping Net Neutrality... if you get rid of the fake support.

The reason for the removal of Net Neutrality is likely outright corruption (For example the current head of the FCC benefits from Net Neutrality removal)

[SalmonGod]

Actually 97% of voters support keeping Net Neutrality... if you get rid of the fake support.

The reason for the removal of Net Neutrality is likely outright corruption (For example the current head of the FCC benefits from Net Neutrality removal)

But for how many of them is it actually a priority?  It don't think it's sunk in yet for most people.

Like, people get that the world is drastically changing.  But only on the cynical surface level, where they snark about how much kids stare at their phones and how their personal routines have changed.  Not enough people think of it in terms of, say, analogous to the printing press and the renaissance.  The potential to uproot power structures, offer us completely new paradigms of social organization, and transform society.  The potential to free or imprison minds on unprecedented scale.

The evidence is there.  But they don't really give a shit, because there are narratives out there more attractive to their imaginations.  Like baby murder and Mexican job thieves.

Just like voters don't give a shit about the evidence for climate change.  I bet you could say that a huge majority of voters are in favor of stopping climate change, too.  But I think the true scope of the problem is just too much to aggregate with their immediate life priorities like gas prices and coal jobs.  So fuck the evidence for all that far-flung intellectual shit.  It's all well and good, but we've got things ass-pulling our amygdala to worry about, right?

Its worth pointing out that a LOT of voters in the US are low information voters.

I guess what I'm saying is low maturity is just as much a problem as low information.  The former creates the latter.  And our politicians on both sides knowingly milk that for all its worth.