Swordfish Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 13 hours ago, Rippounet said: Yes, it's a very well known-theme of US history. One could arguably go much further back than FDR though. The paradox, as has been pointed out right here, is that Republicans are totally ok with the expansion of executive power in foreign affairs. Both parties are completely fine with executive overreach. until the executive is from the other party. 3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Eh, I don't know if I buy that. When one of those expansions includes killing U.S. citizens remotely with little oversight, I have to categorize that as being something more than small. Agreed. 1 hour ago, Zorral said: Hillary's got a new look, for better or worse (but it's still 100% Hillary) . . . . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-leather_us_58dbaf2ee4b0cb23e65d0848?htd0o9tgduslwhfr& Oh jesus. Please tell me this is not a 're-imagining of Hilary' in order to get her back on track for 2020......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 11 minutes ago, Swordfish said: Both parties are completely fine with executive overreach. until the executive is from the other party. I think one theme in American history has been the president butting heads with Congress over the scope of the president's powers, no matter the president's particular party. As previously noted, even Thomas Jefferson, made some questionable decisions, and he was not a fan, if I recall, of a strong executive. I don't think, it's necessarily the case that the men who have held that office intend to be autocrats, except for the orange one maybe, but it is more the urge to get things done and then being frustrated with the American political process to get things done. Of course having an autocrat isn't a desirable state of affairs, so it's up to Congress, and the courts, to restrain the presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 22 hours ago, Mexal said: House and Senate (all Republicans) voted to allow broadband providers to sell private activity data without permission. I hate these people. Interesting counter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said: I think one theme in American history has been the president butting heads with Congress over the scope of the president's powers, no matter the president's particular party. I don't recall congressmen of the same party butting heads with a president of the same party in recent history over this issue, but I don't follow it very closely. Got any examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Swordfish said: Oh jesus. Please tell me this is not a 're-imagining of Hilary' in order to get her back on track for 2020......... I've seen a shocking number of pundits and commentators suggest that she should run again, and in an interview her campaign manager Robby Mook made it seem like she's considering it. I puked a little in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said: I've seen a shocking number of pundits and commentators suggest that she should run again, and in an interview her campaign manager Robby Mook made it seem like she's considering it. I puked a little in my mouth. This doesn't make sense. I saw something about her going for NYC mayor but I haven't seen anything anywhere about her running for President again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 9 minutes ago, Mexal said: This doesn't make sense. I saw something about her going for NYC mayor but I haven't seen anything anywhere about her running for President again. Lord, I would LOVE it if she ran for mayor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 12 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said: Lord, I would LOVE it if she ran for mayor. I'd take her over De Blasio in a heartbeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis is the man....nis Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Please Hil don't even try to run again. The dems need to run someone young in 2020 to make the generation argument. Someone like Steve Bullock or Julian Castro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mlle. Zabzie Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 5 minutes ago, Mexal said: I'd take her over De Blasio in a heartbeat. In half a New York minute, for sure. De Blasio is really amazing in his ability to unite people of all different political persuasions....against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 3 hours ago, Zorral said: Hillary's got a new look, for better or worse (but it's still 100% Hillary) . . . . http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-leather_us_58dbaf2ee4b0cb23e65d0848?htd0o9tgduslwhfr& Oh ffs. Can we ever stop worrying about what women are wearing? An entire article devoted to what she wore to a talk where she was discussing some pretty serious issues. Gag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 On 3/28/2017 at 5:56 PM, Mexal said: House and Senate (all Republicans) voted to allow broadband providers to sell private activity data without permission. I hate these people. the FCC had ruled that Google can sell search engine data, but ISPs can't the law passed here removed that special carve out for Google and returned authority over internet privacy to the FTC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Interesting counter... Google has always been permitted to sell search engine data. Leftists never cared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 6 minutes ago, Commodore said: Google has always been permitted to sell search engine data. Leftists never cared. Do you pay to use Google? I don't. (I mean Google directly) Obviously, I pay for an ISP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said: I've seen a shocking number of pundits and commentators suggest that she should run again, and in an interview her campaign manager Robby Mook made it seem like she's considering it. I puked a little in my mouth. Even if she tries to run I can't see her actually winning in the primaries. She is, after all, the person who lost to, what most Democrats would say, is the very worst Republican candidate for generations, possibly ever. Really the only thing going for her is she's a woman and there has been no woman president yet. But that is no basis for selecting or electing a candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Do you pay to use Google? I don't. Also, what I search for is only part of my browser history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 29, 2017 Author Share Posted March 29, 2017 7 minutes ago, Commodore said: Google has always been permitted to sell search engine data. Leftists never cared. They are also required by law to let you opt in or out depending. This allows ISPs to sell data without informing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Anti-Targ Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 As long as search data is anonymised I don't see a problem with selling search data. Data in the format of 200,000 people in NYC searched for "blow up sex doll" in the last month, I don't think is anything for people to get up tight over. Now if it's "the following IP addresses were the point of origin for the search "blow up sex doll"" that is a serious concern. And of course if it's "The following people's IP addresses were used to search for "blow up sex doll" and here are their contact details" that is an absolute outrage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Pepper Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said: Do you pay to use Google? I don't. (I mean Google directly) Obviously, I pay for an ISP. Google is an ISP. I pay google for internet service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted March 29, 2017 Share Posted March 29, 2017 1 minute ago, The Anti-Targ said: As long as search data is anonymised I don't see a problem with selling search data. Data in the format of 200,000 people in NYC searched for "blow up sex doll" in the last month, I don't think is anything for people to get up tight over. Now if it's "the following IP addresses were the point of origin for the search "blow up sex doll"" that is a serious concern. And of course if it's "The following people's IP addresses were used to search for "blow up sex doll" and here are there contact details" that is an absolute outrage. yeah. The net neutrality stuff is a WAY bigger deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.