US Politics: 2017 Edition

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Magister**

Rosebuddy wrote:
I The sanctions against Iraq were awful and I very much doubt that they can be wielded with pin-point accuracy so that a collapsing economy has no real effect upon the Russian people.

People are the economy though - they pay for services, get paid for service and ultimately get taxed on what they earn. Collapsing an economy can do nothing but affect the normal person surely?

It would be an effective way of changing public opinion about a government, but only if you could convince people it was instigated by their government, not a foreign government.

I'll try and find the original article

**Rosebuddy**

That's why I doubt that sanctions could somehow not affect the people more than their rulers and that they wouldn't cause massive ill will against the enforcers.

That is to say that I expect them to bite the US in the ass somehow.

**Frazzled**

Ahtman wrote:
Maybe I am remembering this wrong but didn't HRC 'move' to NY back in the day just for a Senate opening? I didn't think she was from NY to begin with.

She's a carpetbagger from Illinois who first hooked up0 with some bubba from Arkansas.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:
I feel like people are reading things into the question.

Instead of "yes she moved there for a job" I get "there is nothing wrong with moving somewhere for a job" when it wasn't ever questioned whether it was ok to move for a job or not. It has gone from a simple question to a bizarre tangent.

Obliviously this is Frazzled's fault.

Its all part of my nefarious wiener dog plan. First, the wife makes me take jitterbug dance lessons. Then, my expert wiener dog hackers hack Alfred E. Newman's emails.

**Vash108**

Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/

**lonestarr777**

Welp, was nice while it lasted. Brace yourself for all the 'freedom' the republicans are gonna shove up there, and bite the pillow cause I doubt we're getting spit.

**Gordon Shumway**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!

I have honestly never seen a person claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking, and definitely not here. Your straw man is undermining your point if that is the case.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!

I have honestly never seen a person claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking, and definitely not here. Your straw man is undermining your point if that is the case.

My opinion on this issue is drawn from a wide range of newspaper articles, periodicals, magazines, interviews etc

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks - Trump won as per the rules outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

My advice to Democrat supporters would be peaceful, lawful resistance to the Trump administration, and a preparation of the groundwork for 2020.

**Gordon Shumway**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@Sebster

Of course the USA is well within its rights to retaliate against Russian hacking. I've consistently supported that position from Day 1.

The problem I have with the Democrats and other pro-Clinton voices is this view that Clinton only lost because of Russian hacking, which in my book, is concentrated hog wash!

I have honestly never seen a person claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking, and definitely not here. Your straw man is undermining your point if that is the case.

My opinion on this issue is drawn from a wide range of newspaper articles, periodicals, magazines, interviews etc

At any rate, it doesn't really matter what anybody thinks - Trump won as per the rules outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America.

My advice to Democrat supporters would be peaceful, lawful resistance to the Trump administration, and a preparation of the groundwork for 2020.

Care to cite any of them that claim Clinton only lost because of the hacking?

**wuestenfux**

Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

**Frazzled**

Whats the problem? Idiocracy forecast this years ago.

**Easy E**

Rosebuddy wrote:

Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power? Additionally you aren't accusing Russia of anything the US hasn't already done. Singling Russia out as some eternal enemy seems both hypocritical as well as unwise.

Well, this a little policy that served us pretty well for a long time called.... Containment? We could go back to that?

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:

Perhaps. But we must ask ourselves the question: what is one nuclear power meant to do about another nuclear power? Additionally you aren't accusing Russia of anything the US hasn't already done. Singling Russia out as some eternal enemy seems both hypocritical as well as unwise.

Well, this a little policy that served us pretty well for a long time called.... Containment? We could go back to that?

Containment always had the nice risk of escalation and nuclear war and cost tens of thousands of American dead.

Yea...no. Russia is not the USSR.

I have a better idea. Trade with people we can trade beneficially with, don't with the ones we can't, and be a good civic partner with the other nations of the world via the UN.

**Ustrello**

Vash108 wrote:
Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/

Republicans the party of small government, unless is directly effects their corporate sponsors

**whembly**

wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

**Frazzled**

Ustrello wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/

Republicans the party of small government, unless is directly effects their corporate sponsors

NO.

They elected Trump. Republicans are now the party of big government intervention.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
Ustrello wrote:
Vash108 wrote:
Great...

Author of anti-net neutrality “Internet Freedom Act” gains leadership position

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/enemy-of-net-neutrality-and-muni-broadband-will-chair-house-telecom-panel/

Republicans the party of small government, unless is directly effects their corporate sponsors

NO.

They elected Trump. Republicans are now the party of big government intervention.

The whole 'small government' is worthless now...

Calvinball this fether ya'll. You'll feel better.

Besides, the term 'net neutrality' is not what you think it is, or will do... when you know how the backend infrastructure works. If you want any inkling of net neutrality codify into law, then you best advocate for government takeover (ala, nationalization) and make 'em public utilities.

**Co'tor Shas**

I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?

**WrentheFaceless**

Well at least one thing is true, having the most thin-skinned president in history is somewhat entertaining every time he has a tantrum when someone makes fun of him

**Co'tor Shas**

whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?

...

The company Netflix pays movie or TV companies for the rights to use their movies/TV shoes, and charge customers to use Netflix to view them (either with an application or web page). They also do mailed physical discs (they still do that right?).

Or is this another of those BS "Netflix uses lots of data so you should pay extra!" arguments?

**lonestarr777**

Whembly can you not go one day without making people cringe?

**Spinner**

whembly wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Trump is now after Maryl Streep.
This shows that he doesn't have the souverenity of a states man. He's still the nerd he used to be. I hope this changes until Jan. 20.

Wondering how much Cheeto Jesus paid Streep to do that...

...just another reminder Why Trump Won (WTW).

...because people criticized him for mocking a disabled reporter?

**Co'tor Shas**

The "this is why Trump won" meme is really ridiculous. "You dared to call out racism/sexism/homophobia/general assholerey, this is why Trump won!" No it isn't, it's because people ignored his faults and voted for him anyway. Stop trying to deflect blame off of the Republican party, the people who made him their candidate in the first place. Trump won because of two decades of anti-Hillary propaganda. Trump won because Democrats won't vote for their own fething candidate if they are less that perfect. He didn't win because people called out bigotry. He won because people ignored it.

**Frazzled**

Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

**Co'tor Shas**

I mean she's lecturing Donald Trump, it's not like he has a leg to stand on either.

**Spinner**

Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.

**whembly**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
whembly wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I mean, I do advocate for that (or more accurately that they get treated like phone companies are, it's the same concept), but that would never get past congress, so I'll settle for net neutrality rules. Hopefully we can kick up enough of a fuss so they back off (think SOPA/PIPA). And it is important. I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works and why it's important.

Quiz: How does Netflix works?

...

The company Netflix pays movie or TV companies for the rights to use their movies/TV shoes, and charge customers to use Netflix to view them (either with an application or web page). They also do mailed physical discs (they still do that right?).

They're a content provider company. (and yes, they still mail physical discs).

My question was how does Netflix get those contents delivered to their consumers, beyond physical discs (I realized that I should've been more specific)?

The key for Netflix's operations are Content Delivery Networks (CDN)... and there's a butt feth of them out there (as of 2014), that traverses the Netflix streamings.

Generally there's 'peer-to-peer' agreements between CDNs that as long as the in/out data streams between the CDNs are balanced, there's no associated costs.

Since most of Neflix's operations is content delivery, (not taking in data to facilitate data xfer across other CDNs), they incur a costs.

CDNs are a big fething deal with online media... here's a simple pic:

Therefore, Netflix has to purchase 'real estate' at MANY strategically located CDNs to ensure high availability to their customers.

In addition, some of the CDNs are also cable, wireless and telco companies, which CAN provide their own content.

Obviously, Netflix is trying to get into the CDNs business as well, in order to leverage of the cost efficiencies of being in a 'peer-to-peer' arraignment. Meaning, they're ramping up investments to build several datacenter/server farms to host their contents across the globe. That'll take several years, if not decades... but, it's a good strategic goal for the company.

The big KICKER that gets blindly lost in the whole net neutrality debate, is how incestuous the relationship between content providers and cable/wireless/telco companies. First, and foremost, attention need to be addressed here...

Or is this another of those BS "Netflix uses lots of data so you should pay extra!" arguments?

For someone who said "I've looked into this quite extensively, and know how it works..." ought to know there's a wide disparities between a Content distributors, CDN vendors and of course, the cable/telco companies.

Look... not having a go with you... just that, this subject matter in this industry is much more difficult than people think (it works SO well, that it has to be simple!!!... right?!?! RIGHT?!?!?).

But, hey if you want them to be treated as utilities, that's a whole lotta industry to nationalize.

**Frazzled**

Meanwhile real politics is occurring:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-defense-idUSKBN14T1AX

U.S. says Navy ship fired warning shots at Iranian vessels

By Idrees Ali | WASHINGTON

A U.S. Navy destroyer fired three warning shots at four Iranian fast-attack vessels after they closed in at a high rate of speed near the Strait of Hormuz, two U.S. defense officials told Reuters on Monday.

The incident, which occurred Sunday and was first reported by Reuters, comes as U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office on Jan. 20. In September, Trump vowed that any Iranian vessels that harass the U.S. Navy in the Gulf would be "shot out of the water."

The officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the USS Mahan established radio communication with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps boats but they did not respond to requests to slow down and continued asking the Mahan questions.

The Navy destroyer fired warning flares and a U.S. Navy helicopter also dropped a smoke float before the warning shots were fired.

The Iranian vessels came within 900 yards (800 meters) of the Mahan, which was escorting two other U.S. military ships, they said.

The IRGC and Trump transition team were not immediately available for comment.

Years of mutual animosity eased when Washington lifted sanctions on Tehran last year after a deal to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. But serious differences still remain over Iran's ballistic missile program as well as conflicts in Syria and Iraq.

One official said similar incidents occur occasionally.

Most recently in August, another U.S. Navy ship fired warning shots towards an Iranian fast-attack craft that approached two U.S. ships.
Also In World News

Chinese state tabloid warns Trump, end one China policy and China will take revenge
Syria truce under strain; Assad ready to discuss 'everything' at talks

In January 2016, Iran freed 10 U.S. sailors after briefly detaining them in the Gulf.

The official added that the warning shots fired on Sunday were just one of seven interactions the Mahan had with Iranian vessels over the weekend, but the others were judged to be safe.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali; Editing by Mohammad Zargham, Chizu Nomiyama and Paul Simao)

**BigWaaagh**

Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?

**Frazzled**

Spinner wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

'Hasn't mimicked a disabled man on the national stage' is a pretty good qualification, honestly. Just because you're an actor doesn't mean you lose your Gakhead Radar.

How many servants of dubious legal immigration status does she employ?
Another good qualification is not calling half the US voting electorate deplorable.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BigWaaagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Because most of the time, Hollywood actors lecturing others from on high is as insulting as it is humorous. Mmmm whats her expertise in again?

American citizen with the right to freedom of speech?

And he has the same right to call respond in kind, which he did.

Pro-tip when you have ME defending Trump, you've gone over the edge.