Trump Opposes Plan For US To Hand Over Internet Oversight To a Global Governance (reuters.com) 527
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump opposes a long-planned transition of oversight of the internet's technical management from the U.S. government to a global community of stakeholders, his campaign said in a statement on Wednesday. Congress should block the handover, scheduled to occur on Oct. 1, "or internet freedom will be lost for good, since there will be no way to make it great again once it is lost," Stephen Miller, national policy director for the Trump campaign, said in a statement. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a former presidential primary foe of Trump's who has refused to endorse the real estate developer, has led a movement in Congress to block the transition, arguing it could cede control of the internet itself to authoritarian regimes like Russia and China and threaten online freedom. Technical experts have said those claims are baseless, and that a delay will backfire by undermining U.S. credibility in future international negotiations over internet standards and security. Publicly proposed in March 2014, the transfer of oversight of the nonprofit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, is expected to go forward unless Congress votes to block the move. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports the Obama administration's planned transition to a global community of technologists, civil society groups and internet users, according to policy positions available on her campaign website.
The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
Indeed. Nowhere else in the world has the robust guarantees of free speech that America has. The Brits have their libel laws, the French have their "religious symbols" bans. Many EU countries outlaw holocaust denial and/or hate speech.
I finally agree with Donald on something. Has Hillary taken an official stance on this issue.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Her campaign [hillaryclinton.com] says she "supports the Department of Commerce’s plans to formally transition its oversight role in the management of the Domain Name System to the global community of stakeholders".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just one of the many reasons she's going to lose--along with her open door immigration policy, her support for more H1B visas, her slavish support for the corporatacracy, and a million other ways she wants to sell out America and its citizens. Like the anti-Brexit crowd in Britain, she and her supporters are going to be left shaking her heads in wonderment that most people actually don't like being fucked-over repeatedly by some assholes telling them it's somehow in their best interests to continue to get f
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?
what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in
but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?
what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in
Considering that the US started the whole fucking mess and that Germany and Turkey had to take in MILLIONS upon millions of refugees despite being significantly smaller in size and despite not being the ones to initiate the conflict, yes, taking in 6,000,000 refugees (you seem to have misplaced the comma) would be a decent START.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about just fixing where they live?
It's a lot cheaper and don't have the whole awful cultural clash.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about just fixing where they live?
A good first start would be for America to stop sabotaging every attempt to end the conflict. America has consistently insisted that Assad has to go as a precondition to even talking about ending the war. Of course, Assad controls the most powerful army in Syria, has no reason whatsoever to agree to that, and America has no willpower to get engaged enough to force him out. So the war goes on, and on, and on.
If you want to get something (in this case, peace), you have to give something up (Assad stays on in at least the Alawi Shia rump of Syria). That is the way negotiations work. You can't just demand everything you want, up-front, as a precondition to talking.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Umm... money?
War is only profitable if you can ensure that it's waged abroad, against an enemy that can't really hold a candle to your forces and preferably you have the means to keep it going infinitely.
Mission accomplished, I'd say.
Re: (Score:3)
How can we justify the risk of troops' lives if we can't even figure out which side we're on.
Because war is good for business. Who cares about the piddly details like sides and who started what?
Re: (Score:2)
How about they fix their own goddam house?
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about they fix their own goddam house?
Because the people with power don't want the war to end.
Who wants the war to end:
The refugees (obviously), but they have no power.
The EU, but they are too politically impotent to do anything.
Who wants the war to continue:
The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos.
America, because an end to the war would mean politically unpopular compromise.
The Turks, because they can use it as leverage to get what they want from the EU.
The Kurds, because they can keep their autonomy while the war sputters on.
ISIS, because the war is their only reason for existing.
Israel, because it divides and weakens the Arabs.
Iran, because the war gives them influence.
Assad, because he is winning.
I would bet on the war continuing for a long time.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is bullshit.
The Russians, because they benefit from the chaos.
Wrong. Russia wants the war to end. They value regional stability, and Syria is their ally and has a strategically-located port that they use.
Assad, because he is winning.
This one is just plain stupid. Assad was losing until the Russians came in to prop him up. Assad wants the war over because if he loses it, he's dead. Assad wants stability and peace in his country (with him in charge of course) just like Russia does.
The rest I'm not sure about, but I really fail to see how the Turks really want to have a war raging next door, terrorist attacks, and millions of refugees to deal with.
Re: (Score:2)
Problems with that idea:
1) It's probably not possible, and definitely not before many of these people suffer for (more) years in horrible living conditions
2) We get a lot smaller field to recruit future America-friendly arabic-passable intelligence assets from.
3) The "culture clash" is actually healthy and makes our society more robust long-term
4) We will have much less influence over the region due to having citizens with influence/interest in the region.
5) It's actually more expensive than adding taxpayin
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about just fixing where they live?
Because the law of unintended consequences is nowhere stronger, more visible or more impactful than it is in foreign relations.
I think the Obama administration's foreign policy in the Middle East has been feckless at best. But it's earnestly debatable whether that is worse than nothing at all.
Think about it - the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an attempt to "fix where they live." For some people, it made their lives better. For most others, it made it far worse. I think arguments that "how" it was done made the difference are largely specious - to quote the apocryphal Colin Powell "Pottery Barn Rule," we (the US) broke it and we bought it. We took on all the problems of a region divided by sectarian religious and ethnic divisions more than a millennium old that make the US Republican/Democrat divide look like an intramural volleyball game. There was just not going to be a happy ending there.
So we go and get involved in Libya. Did that help or hurt? Probably hurt. So we don't really get involved in Syria. Did that help or hurt? Probably hurt.
That's the thing, there is no unambiguously good or right answer to getting involved in areas where the fundamental tension is too big, too old and/or too "foreign" for you to solve. Was the Republican approach in 2003 bad? Yes. Was the Democratic approach in 2011 bad? Yes. There is no clear right approach and the end result is more dependent on luck and externalities than anything else.
And by the way, this is no endorsement of Trump - rather the opposite. I think the above is proof that anyone who thinks there are simple answers to questions that thousands of smart and informed people have struggled for decades to solve is an idiot. Easy answers sound good, but in situations like these there is simply no such thing as any easy answer. Anything you do will almost invariably have unintended consequences. Getting involved has them, as does not getting involved. Dealing with toxic areas of the world has only "least bad options" at best. "And when you sup with the devil, you should bring a long spoon."
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic let em live with Hillary in Upstate NY
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?
what's another 60,000 jihadis? Nothing bad will happen letting them in
60,000? Were you planning to set up a recruiting booth inside a Daesh training camp? Daesh might not even have 60,000 fighters world-wide.
Let in 600,000 refugees and you might get a handful who turn jihadi.
You'll get another handful who commit murder, some others who steal cars, start businesses, become political pundits, stand up comics, teachers, professors, drug addicts, you'll even get a few Trump supporters!
It's 600,000 people, you're likely to get a bit of everything, good and bad.
And frankly lets be honest, you don't actually give a crap about terrorism.
Anyone who gives it a moments thought realizes the US already has a lot of Muslims, and the easiest way to get a bunch of Muslim terrorists in the US is to elect Trump and essentially declare Muslims to be the enemy.
So no, I don't think you're that stupid, I don't think you would have the same reaction if these were western European white Christians.
Rather it's about race and culture, the US with an additional 600K Arab Muslims is a smidgen less like the US as you envision it.
And if that's your true motivation then it's the argument we should be having.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
> Rather it's about race and culture, the US with an additional 600K Arab Muslims is a smidgen less like the US as you envision it.
The US received a far higher ratio of terrorists to total harmless migrants when they let Irish people over in the latter half of the last century, they were merely fortunate that those terrorists had ambitions against the UK rather than the US.
They did however engage in vast amounts of organised crime in the US, and as part of that killed way more people than ISIS have in the US.
You're absolutely right, I see no Trump supporters making any complaints about the amount of white Irish Catholic terrorists they let in in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s who went on to murder way more Americans than ISIS ever have managed. When Trump supporters talk about this thing it's pretty obvious to anyone with even remotely any objectivity to see it's about racism on their behalf because otherwise their entire argument makes no sense as race is the only differentiating factor between what they're purportedly complaining about and many other examples of actual incidents of what they're purportedly complaining about.
I don't understand why when Trump supporters complain about over the top political correctness they're so evasive themselves at calling a spade a spade, I'd have more respect for them if they just admitted they're mostly all racist, and many show a penchant of support for the Nazi ideology. They bitch about "liberals" not allowing them to call a spade a spade, but when someone does exactly that by objectively demonstrating why their view is racist or comparable to Nazism then suddenly they're not so keen on the idea of shouting down political correctness and speaking the blunt truth. Suddenly political correctness is their best friend, and we must moderate our description of them because they find it offensive.
Boo fucking hoo, what a bunch of cowardly cry babies if they can't even stand up for what they believe in - that's why they wont give you the argument we should be having, because they wholeheartedly support political correctness, just only when it shuts down conversation and questions about their true views.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Informative)
The fact you think 10% of refugees are terrorists speaks volumes. The actual number is 0.00038%. So the chance of a terrorist coming in with refugees is three orders of magnitude lower than the chance that you'll be murdered in Chicago by an American.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact you think 10% of refugees are terrorists speaks volumes. The actual number is 0.00038%.
How can you possibly know that? I'm not saying you're wrong, just want to know your source lol.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
~785000 Refugees have entered the contry since 9/11
12 where arrested for terrorism
0 successful
12/785000*100 = 0.00152% attempted terrorist refugees
0/785000*100 = 0% successful terrorist refugees
Not the same numbers I've heard from other sources. I believe only 3 are confirmed by name but even using this more generic 12 its still a non existent problem.
A State Department spokesperson said of the nearly 785,000 refugees admitted through the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program since 9/11, “only about a doz
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
but don't you want to let in 600,000 more refugees?
Yes. Look at Detroit. The population there has collapsed from 1.8M in 1950, to less than 700k today. There are vast tracts of empty houses, and abandoned strip malls. An influx of 600,000 Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy, and would almost certainly be an improvement over the type of people living there now. Just require them to stay put in Detroit for 5 years. By the end of that time, there would be thriving Syrian neighborhoods and shopping centers, and they will be happy to stay.
The mayor of Baltimore, another city in decline, has said she would welcome Syrian refugees.
Disclaimer: I live in San Jose, California, which has an extremely high percentage of immigrants. There are several muslim families in my neighborhood. They are just normal people going about their lives.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
> Syrians, who tend to be educated and hard-working, would do wonders for Detroit's economy
The Detroit economy needs jobs, not hard workers. When the auto industry started shutting down factories, Detroit fell. Importing more labor, won't fix the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
He doesn't appear to understand the meaning of the word free trade because support for free trade were words out of his mouth after talking about implementing tariffs, though.
He has no idea what he is doing. And just because you are upset with your plumber, you don't get your Real Estate agent to do the job because he has a nice smile.
Hillary may not be ideal, but at least she's a plumber.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Back that shit up with factual examples, or get the fuck out.
Re: (Score:3)
So what you're saying is, you want him to stop speaking unless he says what you want him to say...?
Re: (Score:3)
So, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Good to know.
I mean, the US has the least regulated airwaves in the western world, Britain has far stricter libel laws, the US doesn't actually have "no hate speech laws" (neonazis are allowed to march in the US, the name is illegal in Germany), "fighting words"/incitement means you're not allowed to encourage people to commit crimes.
And the anti-obscenity laws not struck down basically say you cannot use the 7 dirty words repetitively and frequently
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, the US has the least regulated airwaves in the western world
Tell the grandparent he's a fucking cunt on the TV in America. Now try it in Britain. One of these will land you with a large fine, the other will not.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right -- many of these are ridiculous. But, the onus is on you to show how the US is more restrictive than "just about any other western country on earth". I don't see it.
That's because you're right. All you need to do is look at us up here in Canada, and you'll quickly find out what restricted speech is like. Here we do not have protected speech, or freedom of speech. We have speech as permitted under S.1 of the Charter. We have hate speech laws too. An American can go stand on the corner and scream "gas the *insert group,* race war now!" if they wanted. In Canada, that's hate speech, incitement to cause harm to an identifiable group, and so on. Most Canadians would
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but my understanding is that in the US "truth" is a defense against a slander suit. Other countries, am looking at you Australia, do not offer that defense by itself, and in addition to truth you have to prove that your statement was also in the public interest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And before anyone says it, yeah the U.S. was wrong on Snowden and Assange and many other cases. But who else would you rather have calling the shots? A bunch of European countries who consider criticizing Islam a hate crime, or who want to ban all non-SJW's from being allowed to speak lest they hurt some Snowflake's feelings? Or maybe one of the hundreds of vile dictatorships, authoritarian regimes, and religious wackjobs across the world who want to ban all speech criticizing them and their ideology/religi
Re: (Score:2)
How about putting it in the hands of a giant committee [wikipedia.org]? That'd guarantee endless discussions, and zero potentially harmful changes. Sounds a lot more appealing to me than risking control by someone like Trump or Hillary.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
So who else is left who even stands a CHANCE of preserving any semblance of free speech on the internet?
A country that seizes domains registered in foreign countries at the request of corporations?
Sorry I'd rather live with anti-hate speech laws, than do whatever the hell a corporation decides to allow you to do laws.
Re: (Score:3)
What has the US done about Assange that could be considered wrong?
And Snowden broke the law. It's not as if he doesn't admit it. You think it's wrong that the US would like him to stand trial?
Re: (Score:3)
Dude, nowhere in the whole world you have as many SJW nutjobs as in the US. The stuff I get to see from US colleges couldn't fly here in a million times, with "safe spaces" and "microaggessions". The dean would simply kick you out and tell you to come back when you're willing to learn instead of trying to turn his university into a clown college.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.theblaze.com/storie... [theblaze.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It would probably be worth looking up exactly what "hate speech" laws actually say in Canada. The laws actually offer a number of affirmative defenses such as truth, or a reasonable basis for believing the things said are true, religious belief.
In that they are not unlike US libel laws, which restrict free speech where it harms others (reputationally in this case rather than causing fear), but their are major and significant limitations to the application of the law.
Personally the problem I see is that the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The Harper government that wanted to invoke hate speech for talking about boycotting Israel? The Harper government that passed laws to log every ones internet access, which of course chills speech. The Harper government that wouldn't let public servants talk to the taxpayers who pay their salary? The Harper government that invoked Crown Copyright to keep tax payer paid research away from the taxpayers because he didn't like what it said? The Harper government that spent $1 billion to repress speech at the G
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to stop reading the Internet and get out more. There more to life then not being allowed to call black people niggers. And I'm sure Canada an Australia are much better places for it.
You need to get out into real life, or perhaps come and visit us in Canada. The current government has pulled the same stuff as in the EU, criticizing Islam is bad. Very bad. You can't do that! I'm waiting for the RCMP to start doing early morning raids on peoples houses, just like they did in Germany for people who posted things which went against what the government believed in.
Let's get this clear, you don't create a good society by banning speech. You create a good society by having an open societ
Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Except the U.S. has already been in charge for 20 years and I've yet to see them seriously try to ban criticism of the U.S. government or its leaders from the internet. Do you seriously think the same would be true if China or Russia had been in charge?
Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Funny)
if China or Russia had been in charge?
Absolutely I do. China and/or Russia would have no problem with people criticizing the U.S. government or its leaders on the internet.
Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like [wikipedia.org]. It wasn't all that long ago.
Capitalism, like every other organisation, needs checks and balances. There's no other way to ensure accountability, and without accountability then unrestrained capitalists can do just as much damage to society as unrestrained communists or dictators. Moderate regulation is a necessary tradeoff to stop psychopath CEOs like Shkreli from efficiently strip-mining their markets to the bone.
Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
think people have forgotten what unregulated capitalism looks like
That's not unregulated capitalism, and things are just as bad today: the powerful are just better at keeping a low profile.
Also, corruption happens just as much in regulated systems as non-regulated systems.
More regulation does Not eliminate or reduce the problem, not a single bit.
And the issue is not specific to capitalism, and occurs with ANY system, including communism, where it is the government itself that tends to become corrupted absolutely, See: China/Russia.
Re: The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Informative)
Just to pick the first three:
John Jacob Astor: bribed officials & politicians [buyandhold.com] to ensure his monopoly, exploited natives with liquor.
Andrew Carnegie: insider trading, exploited workers, murderous [wikipedia.org] strike-breaking.
William A. Clarke: inspired the Corrupt Practices Act 1912 [msnbc.com], but not in a good way.
We all agree that economic activity needs to follow basic laws, but I'm mostly referring to regulations that limit corporate exploitation of things that aren't illegal, yet can be clearly damaging to society. Pollution and dumping of waste is an obvious one (incidentally, benefits of EPA regulations outweigh costs by 10 to 1 [livescience.com]). Worker health & safety is another. Price-fixing, false advertising, leveraged monopolies, offloading of external costs onto the general public etc - all things that benefit the corporation at the cost of others, often in hard-to-quantify but very real ways.
Regulations are a burden on the economy - but kept reasonable, they prevent excesses that can be much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the US is ridiculous copyright laws and the FBI seizing random sites that the MAFFIA doesn't like.
Maybe Iceland? Realistically though, it's kind of cute that Trump thinks he has a choice here. If the US doesn't keep other countries happy they will just set up their own parallel system. May sites have already moved away from US controlled TLDs.
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow, AND have potentially fractured standards.
It's not as simple as us controlling it versus "them" controlling it. Unfortunately, the us-vs-them portrayal resonates better as a compact political sound-bite.
Re: (Score:2)
But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow, AND have potentially fractured standards.
It's not as simple as us controlling it versus "them" controlling it. Unfortunately, the us-vs-them portrayal resonates better as a compact political sound-bite.
I'm sorry, I can't tell if you're saying that as being a good thing, or a bad thing? Do you really think that if a country runs a different DNS service, that it won't just result in most every citizen trying to work around it to get to the "real" internet?
Re: (Score:2)
But if other nations don't like our management of it, they'll fork it, and then we'd lose control anyhow
Actually, there is practically zero chance of that happening; However, if a large enough community Did get together to fork it, and build the critical mass to re-do things in support of the public interest, then it would be a very good thing.
Because, you see.... the "Global stakeholder groups" they are talking about..... are actually about a small number of elite and powerful orga
Re: (Score:3)
North Korea has no reason to be interested in doing that, because
their citizens don't have access to the public internet. They already have their own fork,
which is no DNS, essentially.
As for Russia and China, there's no real impetus there to attempt to fork the DNS root,
because you see, they have their CCTLDs, and they essentially have to play in the ICANN Sandbox
to do business with the rest of the world.....
As for technical standards: You would have to be kidding. That requires Real genuine expense a
Re:The U.S. ain't perfect, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit.
A more or less open, liberal internet. If China, or Russia, or whomever doesn't like it, they'll fork it? And how does handing control to an organization even more prone to bribery, compulsion, and control by inimical governments in any way ensure that the system remains open? If they "don't like it" that much, they'd fork it anyway. All your proposal does is allow them the opportunity to control the whole thing, not their fork.
Simply, that's bullshit.
If someone doesn't like something, you don't GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO CONTROL IT in order to preserve it. That's colossally dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
Including protection for corporate "donations"? It's certainly better off in someone else's hands, but it's got to be the right someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
When it comes to free speech, I'd still rather them be in charge than just about anyone else.
You're assuming the US has a choice.
A lot of other countries don't particularly like the idea of the US being in charge of this global resources, and they are already preparing their own root DNS servers. It's not that hard, mirror the current root node and then start forking. Maybe do a bit of censorship, maybe make sure nothing resolves to google.com without a giant cheque.
International governance doesn't make the problem go away, censorship already exists to a degree, but it makes it politically easier t
Re: (Score:2)
An overrated comment, in my opinion.
Personally, I'd much rather see an international body in charge than a country that's become a byword for throwing its weight about, extending its legal tentacles into all corners of the globe, bullying and coercing other countries, and going to war for specious reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
'Nobody thought the Brexit campaign could possibly win'
- except for the clear majority who thought that it could (and would) win.
What are the actual implications of this? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, what happens if I want to access content that another country and/or religion deems offensive to their god?
Are those people now going to have a say in how the internet should operate? Will they be able to prevent me from viewing such content from another country?
As much as I hate to admit it, even with all the stuff going on today, the US is still one of the least fucked up countries on the planet. It worries me what will happen to the internet if everyone suddenly gets their say in how it's operated. And I don't say this as an American either, since I'm Canadian.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It won't be that bad. Just imagine something like slashdot moderation.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump is right on this, as on many things (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't agree with everything Trump wants to do It's pretty obvious to anyone that knows anything Trumps position is way better for the internet than turning it over to an international panel that can start censoring the hell out of it. The U.S. is already not prefect in that regard but they are WAY better than, say, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea... or China.
The fact is Trump has been demonized beyond belief on so many issues where Hillary is worse... Trump is far less racist than Hillary (just look a
Re:Trump is right on this, as on many things (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree with everything Trump wants to do It's pretty obvious to anyone that knows anything Trumps position is way better for the internet than turning it over to an international panel that can start censoring the hell out of it.
Trump is infamous for his proclivity for suing people and desire to use libel law against critics. If the Internet were governed by the US under a Trump administration I think you'd here a lot of grumbling from his administration about doing something about websites that are being unfair to Trump or the administration.
He's already threatened to use the power of the presidency to go after Amazon because Bezos owns the Washington Post and it's been mean to him.
Trump is far less racist than Hillary (just look at past Hillary remarks like arriving late because she was on "Colored People Time").
Wow, your evidence of Hillary's racism is a misremembered SNL sketch [youtube.com]?
It wasn't even intentionally racist, it was supposed to be a joke about a politician inadvertently saying something racist (which they ironically did).
I thought Trumpites understood the good "Hillary is a racist" stuff is back in the mid-90s with all the super-predator stuff, you really need to catch up on your twitter.
Trump chose a black woman to win and work with on the Apprentice - sure it's a TV show but she did work for him and supports him, as do a number of prominent black celebrities.
You're literally making the argument that Trump can't be racist because he has black friends.
Trump also wanted to cooler evaluate NATO commitments before taking action,
He seemingly wants to extort allies into paying the US for protection, I say seemingly because he doesn't have coherent foreign policy.
and yet the media portrays him as a warmonger. Why?
Because he's generally really quick to call for military action and to call for major war crimes like stealing other countries natural resources, up until the military action turns out poorly. And then he hops in a time machine and goes back to change his mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump properties discriminated against black renters. [washingtonpost.com]
Oops, I guess he did act in a racist fashion over a long period of time.
Re: (Score:3)
"Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not something they can control. Don’t you agree?"
-- Donald Trump
Trump also wanted to cooler evaluate NATO commitments before taking action
He also wants the option to refuse to defend countries which are already in NATO. He, and apparently you, don't understand what NATO is for. It is not a defense cost sharing club. It's a keep Europe Out of War police agency. You c
Re: (Score:3)
NATO is also a legally binding agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
So the difference is that Trump was just courting the racist votes while Hillary, who as we all know is from the south, holds deep and concealed the true extent of her racism - which she has revealed to a greater degree in the past, and not under conditions of running for office.
"authoritarian" (Score:3)
Isn't America getting authoritarian itself, especially the Republican?
We're gonna lose this one (Score:2)
Stupid advised by clueless (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of amazed (Score:5, Informative)
I accept a few posters going off the deep end, not reading the copy or just plain not understanding the issues, but practically every post with a score missed the point entirely.
This whole issue is just a boring technical matter. The only reason it is news is that politicians with an axe to grind want to make it so.
ICANN has been running successfully as an international corporation with multinational stakeholders for much more than a decade now. Its one remaining tie to the US is the contract that it has with the Department Of Commerce to manage internet names and numbers. That contract will lapse unless renewed at the end of September and ICANN will then carry on exactly as it has been, except without the theoretical DOC control, the US then becomes a stakeholder like everyone else.
Reminder: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I feel the exact same way about Hillary.
Then I'm sorry to tell you your feelings are wrong.
You're free to prefer Trump for a variety of reasons of your choosing.
But to suggest he's more honest than Hillary? That's factually incorrect.
Clinton, even if you think she's lying about a few key things (like her knowledge of confidential emails, forgetting security warnings), her lies are only about key subjects, have a definite utility, and are relatively hard to disprove.
Trump on the other hand lies constantly about almost everything and lies about a l
Re:Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score:5, Informative)
Are you smarter than a Trump supporter? (Score:2, Interesting)
The last I'd heard, news fact-checking organizations were reporting that he told the truth 15% of the time. Why would I ever care what the opinion of someone like was?
And don't tell me "because he's going to be president". The people of the United States are still smarter than that.
Here's one of your news organizations fact checking [huffingtonpost.com] some things about Donald Trump.
Bruce, I don't know if you've noticed, but the media sometimes misrepresents things. For example, the polls say that 44% of Trumps supporters have a college degree, which the media is quick to point out is less than 50%, so Trump supporters are mostly uneducated.
What they (and you) fail to notice is that the national average for college degrees is 30%, so on average Trump supporters are more educated than the national average
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's all they have. They can't run on her record or her predecessor's record, they have to know their policy prescriptions stink on ice and would be about as popular with the public as pralines-and-dick ice cream...so out come the insults.
Re:Are you smarter than a Trump supporter? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you explain how someone could huff and puff about insults and yet support Trump? I think your feeling of offense is feigned.
How's the birther business working out for Donald? First he goes after Obama without any evidence of wrong doing, gets in front of every camera he can find. He never acknowledges the simple fact that even if Obama was born outside the US he would still have been a citizen. He runs with it clear until the after the convention *this year*, still without a shred of evidence, and then when faced with a general public who rightly understand that birtherism is a merely a ploy to gin up the racists, he flip flops. There's no new evidence, he just decided to switch sides.
He peddled a horrible lie for eight years, dropped it when convenient, then he lied about the lie!
This move follows the same template as all of Donald's moves. It doesn't take a fact checking website to figure out he's the worst liar to take the national stage in decades. All you need is to think a little bit, and remember longer than five seconds.
There are a lot of people who get excited about Trump even though they understand his fundamental dishonesty. For some reason they have faith that on that one issue that's important to them, he speaks from the heart. Why they would believe this from someone who pretty much never speaks from the heart is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
So, he's better than the average politician?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Those left leaning shit bag organisations all cite very clear sources for their conclusions, which is more than I've ever seen a right leaning shit bag organisation do. Must suck to be on the wrong side of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Does anyone care what Trump thinks? (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole birther campaign was a lie. Did Donald ever send investigators to Hawaii? Kenya? What were the amazing things he said they found? How come he thought this was important even though Obama would still have been a US citizen if he had been born in Kenya? This alone should disqualify him. Electing him would be akin to electing a 9/11 truther, not the good kind of truther, the kind who thinks the Jews did it.
His claim to have put it to rest was a lie. His claim that Clinton started it was a lie.
His claim to have been against the Iraq war. A lie.
Donald lies about why he can't release tax forms. An IRS audit does not prevent public release.
He pretended to be his own publicist. This is the kind of crazy stunt that would have destroyed Hillary if anyone found out.
He frequently denies saying things he clearly said, such as his approval of Japan and South Korea building their own nuclear deterrent. Or that he didn't make some horribly derogatory remark or other, like when he made fun of a disabled reporter.
Donald keeps saying his tax plan will cost him money. It won't.
Even his big policies he's famous for are lies. The Wall is pointless, a huge waste of money. Donald knows this. The Muslim ban, besides being unconstitutional, is also impossible to implement and would have little to no effect on terrorism. Donald knows this too.
There are long transcripts of his many, many court cases where he's forced to retract baseless things he'd said, and they are very revealing. The guy screws up and can't admit it. Can't stop from blaming others. If he overpays for a property, he lies about the cost, etc.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
He will change his mind 15 times, not even remember what his position was, and probably end up losing the election anyway. Even if he wins the election, we will be too busy dealing with WW3 to care about internet oversight.
Be afraid of anyone that wont change their mind. Dream on about losing the election though, you're clearly just a Hillary shill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it is the first time he has mentioned it. I'm more interested that he stop the TPP and renegotiate/cancel the anti American NAFTA trade giveaway.
Trump has already stated that he opposes the TPP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't be afraid of this! (Score:4, Insightful)
B.S. If conservatives wanted to censor the internet, they had 20+ years to do so. Ask yourself who is doing the censoring on college campuses these days. I'll save you the trouble of not answering the question and inform you that it's not conservatives.
The bottom line is this: ICANN as it has been for the past 20+ years isn't broken and doesn't need changing.
Re:Don't be afraid of this! (Score:5, Informative)
Conservatives have tried many times to censor the internet, mostly because they fear the pornography it makes so easily accessible. They have failed in their attempts, but not for lack of trying.
How about we do it the other way around? (Score:3)
How about we do it the other way around? If UN doesn't like ICANN, they can offer their own sanctioned alternative and see how many people would sign up.