The Donald Trump Thread

I agree the NSA is a problem. In fact I am a lot more worried about the NSA than my ISP.
Now you should be. Because ISPs will have NSA superpowers.

When keeping secrets makes republicans look bad they want to keep secrets. When revealing information makes republicans look bad they are in favor of revealing information. I don't like my personal data sold, but I am not convinced the critics have real principles they are defending - it looks to me like they are trying to make political points
This isn't about politics, quite honestly.
I'd be praising Trump's administration if he had done anything that went in the opposite way of this really lousy idea.

so I am dubious about their fears of catastrophe.
Giving up all protection of privacy to all your communications and putting such data on the market for businesses to profit from it isn't a catastrophe?
Well, I guess from a business standpoint it isn't... I can you give you that...
 
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-to-stay-sane-in-era-non-stop-outrage/

5 Ways To Stay Sane In An Era Of Non-Stop Outrage
...
Hey, you know what happens when you read something really enraging on the internet? You get a hit of dopamine. And even though it's a "bad" feeling, you immediately want to feel it again, because anything is better than being bored. Well, people who know how to manipulate this mechanism rule the world.
...
Ignore Headlines Telling You To Feel An Emotion
...
Remember That People Literally Get Paid To Upset You
...
Know That If You Can Be Trolled, You Can Be Controlled
...
Understand The "Firehose Of Falsehoods"
...
You Must Separate The Signal From The Noise​

They try to convince us that repealing a rule that is only a few months old will bring a catastrophe because they want to keep us addicted to anger, hate and fear. That addiction lets them control us. It helps them amass money and power.

http://ncu9nc.blogspot.com/2017/03/most-news-stories-are-crafted-to.html
 
Last edited:
A lot of very good, nice, hard working people are employed by ISPs. If google and facebook and other internet companies have an unfair competitive advantage because they are allowed to use customer data, then the ISPs won't earn their fair share of revenues and those nice hard working people will not get raises and promotions they deserve. More of them might get laid off if there is a recession. It is fun to rebel against the system and vilify corporations as evil, but please remember those corporations provide jobs and the people they employ have families, children, elderly parents and their livelihood is just as important to them as yours is to you. If the government gives an advantage to some companies but not all, then that is misgovernment and it is unfair to good hard working people who deserve the same compensation and opportunities whether they work for an ISP or Google.
 
Last edited:
It looks like most ISP would anonymize the data:

http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...an-200000-to-buy-lawmakers-browsing-histories

Internet users raise funds to buy lawmakers' browsing histories in protest
...
A Post reporter also wrote it would be possible to buy the data “in theory, but probably not in reality.”

A former enforcement bureau chief at the Federal Communications Commission told the newspaper that most internet service providers would cover up this information, under their privacy policies. If they did sell any individual's personal data in violation of those policies, a state attorney general could take the ISPs to court.​
 
Last edited:
A lot of very good, nice, hard working people are employed by ISPs. If google and facebook and other internet companies have an unfair competitive advantage because they are allowed to use customer data, then the ISPs won't earn their fair share of revenues and those nice hard working people will not get raises and promotions they deserve.
You realize that ISPs services are paid, right?
 
You realize that ISPs services are paid, right?
People pay for cable TV which also has commercials.

I'm not thrilled about ISPs selling data but I don't believe the hysteria that it means big brother is here and if it means my monthly ISP bill is less that is some consolation.

I am more worried about media and politicians manipulating people into hysteria by spreading partisan fear and hate. That is the real problem, not annoying internet ads.

The fact that people are going nuts over a rule that is only a few months old and affects ISPs but not other internet companies, seems to me proof that people are being manipulated for an ulterior purpose. Most pepole don't know the rule is only a few months old and most don't know the data is anonymized. They don't know these things because it is easier to spread the hysteria by selective reporting.
 
Last edited:
People pay for cable TV which also has commercials.
How is this relevant?
What have TV commercials to do with stripping fundamental privacy rules?

I'm not thrilled about ISPs selling data but I don't believe the hysteria that it means big brother is here and if it means my monthly ISP bill is less that is some consolation.
This sounds more like political propaganda than a real thought... unfortunately. And it suggest you haven't even read the article I posted, or you wouldn't misrepresent it this way.

There's no hysteria.
Rather there are very reasonable concerns for dismantling the protection of a basic individual right. Given the massive growth of internet-based services, this is a fundamental necessity and it was about time you had some basic rules on this matter.

It's also sounds pretty bizarre that you seem more concerned with the interests of giants such as Comcast, Verizon, AT&T than your basic right to keep your thoughts and business(es) to yourself.

And no, your ISP is not going to charge you less. So no consolation either :)
 
Last edited:
It looks like most ISP would anonymize the data
Why would they, when non anonymized data is far more interesting and thus profitable? (See insurance companies...)
Plus how do you anonymize the content of an email with name, last name, address etc... personal data appears very often in non encrypted communications, think of order confirmation emails, for instance.

http://thehill.com/policy/technolog...an-200000-to-buy-lawmakers-browsing-histories

Internet users raise funds to buy lawmakers' browsing histories in protest
...
A Post reporter also wrote it would be possible to buy the data “in theory, but probably not in reality.”​
If you mean targeted personal data then I agree. Comcast et al. will make this available only in large bundles, so those who want specific profiles (such as the protesters mentioned in the article) will likely be disapppointed. The government on the other hand will have no problem to pick and choose "à la carte" ...

A former enforcement bureau chief at the Federal Communications Commission told the newspaper that most internet service providers would cover up this information, under their privacy policies. If they did sell any individual's personal data in violation of those policies, a state attorney general could take the ISPs to court.
On which basis would we believe this exactly?
Even more to the point, how the heck are ISPs going to selectively redact every piece of data that gives away its owner before selling it? In such an ocean of information?

It is utterly ridicolous.
 

Brian_the_bard

Lost Pilgrim
Member
Just thought I would mention how unpopular Trump is over here.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...in-sweden-expert-says/?utm_term=.df9396153ce6

and you might want to see a balanced report on some of the things that have been said about Sweden.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-swe...-donald-trump-didnt-tell-20170225-gul5s6.html
http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-swedish-migrant-crime-story-that-donald-trump-didnt-tell-20170225-gul5s6.html

I don't personally have an opinion on the details but Gothenburg and all of the places I have been are much safer, freer and happier than Trump and others would have you believe. When an American complains about the crime rate in any other country, it just sounds like comedy!
 
Last edited:
Mike Cernovich destroys the mainstream media on their bias, and the media double standard for covering Clinton vs Trump on 60 minutes:

(I don't agree with Cernovich on everything, but I like the way he uses the media's own record to show their hypocrisy.)

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/here-...w-transcript-with-mike-cernovich-a0cb58a80ba0


Here is the full 60 Minutes Interview Transcript with Mike Cernovich
...
I guess, the question I always ask people is, why’s David Duke relevant? He’s not. But the media drags him out every time there’s a Republican runs for office because David Duke knows if he endorses a candidate, then people will say oh my god, you better disavow this guy. You better disavow. Why? Nobody has anything to do with that guy. He’s trash, right?

Whereas on the left, when you have people like ... Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and other kind of fringe people. I don’t see them being dragged out and saying Bernie, you better disavow, Hillary, you better disavow this guy.
...
The narrative at the RNC in the media was divisiveness. It’s divided. There’s three people who supported Ted Cruz that like Trump. Divided, divided, divided.
...
The narrative at the DNC was they’re uniting around Hillary. They’re uniting around Hillary. Meanwhile, I march with the protesters from city hall and Philadelphia all the way to Franklin Della Roosevelt Park five, ten thousand people everywhere you looked, and I way well, wait a minute. I don’t se much unity here. I see a lot of people who are very upset with Hillary Clinton. They think the primary’s are rigged. They’re pro Bernie, they’re pro Jill Stein. And these people are not going to vote for Hillary.
...
Mike Cernovich: Yeah, Dr. Ted Noel had se-sent a story to me anonymously, that I checked out, analyzing her medical condition. And -

Scott Pelley: It isn’t true.

Mike Cernovich: How do you know?

Scott Pelley: Well, she doesn’t seem to have any signs of Parkinson’s disease.

Mike Cernovich: She had a seizure and froze up walking into her motorcade that day caught by a citizen journalist.

Scott Pelley: Did you, well, she had pneumonia. I mean -

Mike Cernovich: How do you know?

Scott Pelley: Well, because that’s what was reported.

Mike Cernovich: By whom? Who told you that?

Scott Pelley: Well, the campaign told us that.

Mike Cernovich: Why would you trust a campaign? Why would you trust the Hillary Clinton flats?

...
But then when Hillary Clinton is having you, coughing fits, well it’s allergies. Hillary Clinton seizes up, oh, it’s pneumonia. Right? So that’s what I mean. ... the confirmation bias says that you’re willing to take the Hillary Clinton campaign on their word. But that kind of benefit of the doubt would not be given to say, Donald Trump. If Donald Trump had some kind of seizure, and he said oh, it’s pneumonia, people would say oh, that’s alternative fact. And people wouldn’t accept that as true.
...
Scott Pelley: The point is, you didn’t talk to anybody who ever examined Hillary Clinton.

Mike Cernovich: Have you?

Scott Pelley: No. No.
...
That’s what I’m saying about the double standards which is I don’t take anything Hillary Clinton’s going to say at all as true. I’m not going to take her on her word. The media says we’re not going to take Donald Trump on his word.
...
Scott Pelley: You reported in November five days before the election, quote Clinton’s inner circle includes child traffickers pedophiles, and now members of a sex cult.

Mike Cernovich: Lauren Silsby was arrested in Haiti trying to smuggle children out of Haiti. Do you remember that story?
...
Mike Cernovich: She was a friend of Hillary. Hillary intervened on her behalf, to get a reduced sentence for Lauren Silsby.
...
It does include that inner circle. Dennis Hastert, Jeffrey Epstein. Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein good friends. Jeffrey Epstein is a lifetime registered sex offender. He was convicted of trafficking women who are underage. Great fiend of Bill Clinton. Great friend to Hillary Clinton. So that is part of her inner circle, so that is indeed a true statement.
...
Scott Pelley: These news stories are fakes.

Mike Cernovich: They’re definitely not fake.

Scott Pelley: They’re lies.

Mike Cernovich: There are not lie at all. 100% true.
...
Scott Pelley: Well, the benefit of intermediaries is having experienced editors check things out and research people. Check the facts before it goes out to the public. You don’t do any of that.

Mike Cernovich: Where are the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

Scott Pelley: That was a big mess, but that was because the Government -

Mike Cernovich: And how much -

Scott Pelley: Told us they existed.

Mike Cernovich: And how much, then why trust the government?
...
Mike Cernovich: Reporters are the mouthpiece of Democratic National Convention. Most of it is pro Hillary, pro Barack Obama. Donald Trump tweets something mean, the whole world, left-wing media explodes. Barack Obama prosecutes whistle-blowers more than anybody before him. Good old Barry. We love Barry, we love Barry, we love Barry. 90% of campaign contributions that came from journalists went to Hillary Clinton.

So the idea that journalists are these unbiased bastions of truth, and they’re not human beings, is completely not consistent with reality. Not consistent with the observable data. And moreover not consistent with what we know about people.​

Its not like people trusted Clinton they didn't, the media just accepted her statements because it suited their political agenda.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/podcasts/hillary-clinton-trust.html?_r=0
Americans Don’t Trust Her. But Why?
 
Last edited:
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

The "Trump is Putin stooge" conspiracy theory, I guess an inverse or mirror image to the "Trump vs Deep State" conspiracy theory, continues:

Alfa Bank, Trump Tower and a Social Media Impeachment


Here is my theory of how Donald Trump will be impeached, and scores of people around him jailed.

It wasn’t just money laundering – it was “data laundering”.

My theory is based on public reporting, to which I will link in the text. Here it is:
I wonder what makes one conspiracy theory credible, while another doubtful in people's minds?
 
Top