Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 30th Jun 2016 10:14 UTC
In the News

[US senator Elizabeth] Warren had different beefs with Google, Apple and Amazon, but the common thread was that she accused each one of using its powerful platform to "lock out smaller guys and newer guys," including some that compete with Google, Apple and Amazon.

Google, she said, uses "its dominant search engine to harm rivals of its Google Plus user review feature;" Apple "has placed conditions on its rivals that make it difficult for them to offer competitive streaming services" that compete with Apple Music; and Amazon "uses its position as the dominant bookseller to steer consumers to books published by Amazon to the detriment of other publishers."

"Google, Apple and Amazon have created disruptive technologies that changed the world, and ... they deserve to be highly profitable and successful," Warren said. "But the opportunity to compete must remain open for new entrants and smaller competitors that want their chance to change the world again."

Before we start, I strongly urge you to watch Warren's actual speech, instead of just reading the linked article. Warren explains clearly why the extreme consolidation and monopolisation in all manner of sectors in America is absolutely terrible for consumers, killing competition, dampening innovation, and maintaining high prices.

Obviously, this entire speech is music to my ears. Warren is the obvious - and effectively inevitable - VP pick for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, meaning that if she were to beat the Republican nominee come November, the United States will have a Europe-style democratic socialist as vice-president. Obviously, this has the monopolistic US companies and their corporate cheerleaders shaking in their boots.

Thanks to the unexpectedly successful Sanders campaign, Clinton is effectively forced to pick Sanders' friend and ideological compeer as her VP, directly threatening the free ride these companies have been getting for decades since the Reagan years, perpetuated by both Republicans and Democrats ever since. It won't be immediate - the VP position is more of a mindshare podium than one of policy-making - but it represents a huge shift in how the United States government and its politics treat the business world.

There's a reason Tim Cook is raising money for Paul Ryan.

Order by: Score:
Who is "Warren"?
by rklrkl on Thu 30th Jun 2016 10:46 UTC
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's slightly bizarre that the name "Warren" is used in this article several times and yet the full name/title of the person isn't mentioned at all. I thought it was Warren Buffett at first or it could have been Warren Beatty :-)

Turns out it's actually US Senator Elizabeth Warren in case you're curious and you may have deduced that from the "VP pick" paragraph of the article already admittedly.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Who is "Warren"?
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 30th Jun 2016 11:02 UTC in reply to "Who is "Warren"?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Good point. Added some clarification. I'm so deep into US politics that I kind of forgot that normal, functioning human being aren't necessarily aware of this ;) .

Reply Score: 4

Elizabeth Warren's actual speech
by ameasures on Thu 30th Jun 2016 10:49 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

She actually appears at 57 minutes into the first video on the link given.

Reply Score: 3

Great but ...
by ameasures on Thu 30th Jun 2016 11:16 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

Warren may become VP alongside Hilary.

<genuine question> So Hilary is not engaged at all in the business of receiving monies from lobby groups? </genuine question>

FWIW her articulation of problems on tech innovation and competition are a very good listen.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by puenktchen
by puenktchen on Thu 30th Jun 2016 11:26 UTC
puenktchen
Member since:
2007-07-27

a Europe-style democratic socialist

Sorry but what does her speech have to do with democratic socialism or social democracy? She is all about trust control and working markets. The idea that markets work fine if only monopolies don't interfere isn't something social democrats have historically been fond of. On the contrary, monopolies were often seen as a good way to get rid of the irrational working of the free market which only needed to be socialised so that the profits would be privat but public.

I see trust control as typical liberal (again in the european sense). That liberal parties have often worked for big companies and not for working markets and so called social democrats have in fact become liberals in the passing decades doesn't change the fact that free markets are the basic principles of liberalism.

So I'd rather call her a real liberal, european style.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by puenktchen
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 30th Jun 2016 11:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by puenktchen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

doesn't change the fact that free markets are the basic principles of liberalism.


Of course it changes the fact. This is the very definition of changing the fact. The political spectrum is ever-changing, so whatever it looked like 100 years ago simply is not accurate any more for how it looks today.

And yes, this may mean that people might not be as right- or left-wing as they think they are. Deal with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by puenktchen
by darknexus on Thu 30th Jun 2016 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by puenktchen"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And yes, this may mean that people might not be as right- or left-wing as they think they are. Deal with it.

It's the ones who really are extreme right or left that scare me. Very few people are as extreme as they believe they are, but those who really are... they're something else.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by puenktchen
by puenktchen on Thu 30th Jun 2016 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by puenktchen"
puenktchen Member since:
2007-07-27

I would concede that those who call themselves social democrats or conservatives have in fact mostly evolved into liberals nowadays. But I still don't understand why you think that a strong anti-trust policy is something which warrants the label European-style democratic socialist. I don't see much of a difference in that respect between European conservative liberals, liberal-liberals and social democratic liberals.

Reply Score: 2

Not a great VP pick
by ezraz on Thu 30th Jun 2016 12:05 UTC
ezraz
Member since:
2012-06-20

Liz Warren outshines Hillary Clinton in a lot of ways. She's more likeable and trustworthy. Therefore I don't think she's the VP pick.

She makes a great attack dog though, someone to take Trump's insults and throw them back at him. Hillary doesn't insult well, she cackles too much. She's better taking the high road and getting someone else to do her dirty work, like Bush did.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Not a great VP pick
by bosco_bearbank on Thu 30th Jun 2016 12:26 UTC in reply to "Not a great VP pick"
bosco_bearbank Member since:
2005-10-12

But being the attack dog is one now-traditional role for a VP candidate. Think Spiro Agnew.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not a great VP pick
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 30th Jun 2016 14:22 UTC in reply to "Not a great VP pick"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Hillary is awful.

People have noticed that people have a high opinion of Hillary until she starts talking, and then it tanks. Watching her campaign is like watching someone with Aspberger's at a social function.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not a great VP pick
by darknexus on Thu 30th Jun 2016 14:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Not a great VP pick"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Yeah, but that's pretty much true of everyone in office at this point. It's going to be worse with her though because, since she is a woman, we'll have a repeat of Obama's situation where by if you disagree in the slightest with something she does, you'll be immediately jumped on. The only difference is you'll be an "evil sexist" instead of an "evil racist".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not a great VP pick
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 30th Jun 2016 23:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not a great VP pick"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Some (lots of) people really were veiled racists, but yeah, Barack was never really the progressive people wanted him to be.

Evil sexists plus part of the vast right-wing conspiracy out to get her. ;)

They've already played that card with the Sanders supporters. The Bernie Bros were played up quite a bit, while Hillary's nastier supporters were ignored.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Not a great VP pick
by kwan_e on Fri 1st Jul 2016 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not a great VP pick"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Barack was never really the progressive people wanted him to be.


Even if Sanders were somehow to become president, he wouldn't have been the progressive people wanted him to be either.

As an outside observer, it seems a lot of Americans think the presidency is some kind of dictatorial position and therefore any inability to achieve their "promises" must have been a lie, rather than being a matter of almost half of the voters voted the other way.

Unfortunately, this kind of unrealistic expectation has seemingly crept in to Australian politics as well.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Not a great VP pick
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 1st Jul 2016 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not a great VP pick"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Probably not since he would have to deal with congress to get anything passed, but it's the symbolism of electing some one who didn't take money from a superpac or corporations that's important.

Sanders also has the record to back up his talk. Barack came into the election as a one term senator from Illinois whose only qualification was an ambition to be POTUS. He was a stuffed shirt from the beginning.

Sanders has spent his life fighting for his positions, so he has the cred to back his talk.

Yeah, pointing towards the presidency as anything more then a trophy position is silly. I've pointed this out to various people in other areas, but it's a pretty good symbol of America's aspirations.

It's also about spin too. Barack has been horrible at controlling the message, and this has contributed to people seeing him as a failed president. He's kind of sat back and let things happen, which may or may not be true but that is the perception. A lot of times he hasn't looked stately or like a leader.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Not a great VP pick
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 1st Jul 2016 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not a great VP pick"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Regardless of weather or not people want to accept the truth this is it. Most people think of the president as more of a prime minister, who can advance his agenda with minimal interference from opposition.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Not a great VP pick
by sergio on Fri 1st Jul 2016 22:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Not a great VP pick"
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Hillary is awful.

People have noticed that people have a high opinion of Hillary until she starts talking, and then it tanks. Watching her campaign is like watching someone with Aspberger's at a social function.


Hillary is so awful that someone like Trump has a chance to win.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not a great VP pick
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 16:26 UTC in reply to "Not a great VP pick"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

A sharp discursive mind doesn't necessarily carries an executive one.

Reply Score: 2

Lousy set of complaints
by jonsmirl on Thu 30th Jun 2016 12:33 UTC
jonsmirl
Member since:
2005-07-06

Google, she said, uses "its dominant search engine to harm rivals of its Google Plus user review feature;"

Since when is Google+ the dominant player in user reviews? This is much more about other players in the review business trying to get Google to exit the review business so that they can capture the advertising associated with having their own monopoly on reviews.

Anyway, reviews are a feature not a product. It is very hard to make a company work selling a feature.


Apple "has placed conditions on its rivals that make it difficult for them to offer competitive streaming services" that compete with Apple Music; and Amazon

Apple takes it 30% cut if you pay for your subscription in the Apple App store. Duh - go to the service's website and pay there. Raise the prices in the app store 30% and include a note about going to the website.


"Amazon uses its position as the dominant bookseller to steer consumers to books published by Amazon to the detriment of other publishers."

This is just crazy. People buy books they want to read, nobody buys a book based on who published it. Amazon is a private bookseller not a charity, don't expect them to push Hatchette titles if Hatchette titles don't make money for Amazon.

All three of these companies have problems that could use some government intervention, but these three problems are definitely nothing to get upset about. A true problem to fix is eliminating software patents.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Lousy set of complaints
by nicubunu on Fri 1st Jul 2016 06:31 UTC in reply to "Lousy set of complaints"
nicubunu Member since:
2014-01-08

You forget the part where Apple forbids apps to direct users to external payment means. When Spotify included such a note, Apple rejected the update. See http://www.recode.net/2016/6/30/12067578/spotify-apple-app-store-re...

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Lousy set of complaints
by jonsmirl on Fri 1st Jul 2016 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Lousy set of complaints"
jonsmirl Member since:
2005-07-06

That is a fairly new rule from Apple and it is definitely monopolistic. Spotify has probably done the right thing now by removing the ability to pay from their IOS app.

But these are minor spats between vendors. Real problems worthy of government attention are things like software patents.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Lousy set of complaints
by jonsmirl on Fri 1st Jul 2016 11:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lousy set of complaints"
jonsmirl Member since:
2005-07-06

If Spotify makes them put the pay button back, they should price it at $10,000/mth. That should still communicate to people to pay via the website without messing with Apple's silly rules.

Reply Score: 2

Pay for Play...
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 30th Jun 2016 14:18 UTC
Flatland_Spider
Member since:
2006-09-01

You're giving Clinton too much credit. She's a warhawk, a neoliberal disciple, and an oligarch. She's like GW Bush with Hugo Chavez's temperament.

Hillary may pick Warren to appeal to the leftists, but she's corrupt to the core. Those corporations that are "quaking in their boots" are giddy with excitement at the thought of Hillary in the White House. All they will have to do is deposit some coins into the Clinton Foundation, and they will get a free pass.

Liz will get muzzled and fall inline. She's will get a few pet issues to push, but she's going to be useless.

Sander's was the one shot to not have the same neoliberal policies the US has had since 2000 come out of the White House ;) . He's slightly left of center, and he's not really a socialist per hardcore leftists. However, he actually has an economic plan that makes sense and addresses the needs of the American people and economy.

On the flip side, Trump is the one shot the US has at dealing some lasting damage the right. Don't flip out; keep reading. Americans have a tendency to split the power between the Executive branch and the Legislative branch. Which would mean, the movement started by Sanders would get more traction in the upcoming years with a Trump presidency then with a Clinton presidency.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Pay for Play...
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 15:45 UTC in reply to "Pay for Play..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"...She's like GW Bush with Hugo Chavez's temperament."

Then I wouldn't see a future to a Warren pairing. [But I would].

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pay for Play...
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 30th Jun 2016 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay for Play..."
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

It's an odd pairing ideologically, and I'm not sure where it's coming from.

It would buff Hillary's leftist credentials, and Liz is much more personable.

We'll see what happens. There are still cards left to play.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Pay for Play...
by jazman777 on Thu 30th Jun 2016 15:49 UTC in reply to "Pay for Play..."
RE[2]: Pay for Play...
by Flatland_Spider on Thu 30th Jun 2016 23:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay for Play..."
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

He's pretty much what I would expect from a Northeastern Republican.

It's hard to tell what Trump is and is not. The only thing for certain is that The Donald does what is best for The Donald.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Pay for Play...
by darknexus on Fri 1st Jul 2016 12:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pay for Play..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

He's pretty much what I would expect from a Northeastern Republican.

It's hard to tell what Trump is and is not. The only thing for certain is that The Donald does what is best for The Donald.

So, like every other human on this planet?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Pay for Play...
by Flatland_Spider on Fri 1st Jul 2016 17:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pay for Play..."
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

Except politicians generally subscribe to one ideology or another as a basis for their platform. It's part of their brand. Hillary is a neoliberal, Sanders is a socialist, and Cruz is an evangelical.

The Donald subscribes to the ideology of Winning. That's all he stands for. It's very unusual to get a politician who is so forward about pandering to whatever block will get him/her elected.

It's interesting in that he kind of shadows Nixon. Nixon didn't care about domestic policy, and he was one of the more liberal Republican presidents in that regard. Nixon was a full Republican in the foreign policy realm, and that was disaster.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Pay for Play...
by sergio on Fri 1st Jul 2016 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Pay for Play..."
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

Trump is an American nationalist economically, socially he's liberal, so he's not "Conservative". He's anti-interventionist, so he's not globalist. There's some overlap (certainly not complete) with Sanders.


You are 100% right!! Trump is not a conservative at all. He's an anti-system, more akin to neo-fascism than traditional anglo-saxon conservatism.

Trump ideology and manners remembers me a lot to the old italian "Fronte dell'Uomo Qualunque" (Common Man's Front) in the 40's... a very pragmatic populism. Something We've already seen in Silvio Berlusconi.

Also from an economic point of view, Trump has more in common with nationalist left than traditional right-wing conservatives.

In fact, I feel Trump more like an european populist phenomenon than an American politician.

IMHO Trump is America's Silvio Berlusconi.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Pay for Play...
by dionicio on Sat 2nd Jul 2016 19:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pay for Play..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

So, as far as they say to be, the World is confronting an USA election line of two pragmatics. One openly in the fascist line. Where the other?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Pay for Play...
by sergio on Sun 3rd Jul 2016 02:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pay for Play..."
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

So, as far as they say to be, the World is confronting an USA election line of two pragmatics. One openly in the fascist line. Where the other?


To me this election is not about "democracy" vs "fascism"... this is about "old" vs. "new".

IMHO Trump is the new thing here, Hillary is the typical american politician, she's the incarnation of "the system". She is Washington DC.

That's why I think Trump has a chance to win.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Pay for Play...
by Alfman on Sun 3rd Jul 2016 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pay for Play..."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

segio,

To me this election is not about "democracy" vs "fascism"... this is about "old" vs. "new".

IMHO Trump is the new thing here, Hillary is the typical american politician, she's the incarnation of "the system". She is Washington DC.

That's why I think Trump has a chance to win.



I agree about Hillary, but you'd have to be blind not to see that Trump is a fascist. I'm rarely one to Godwin a discussion, but the parallels are certainly there in the way he directs people's anger to empower himself. Even his ex-wife stated he was studying "My New Order" speeches by Hilter. I don't know how people don't see it, or maybe they do and it doesn't bother them...

What sucks is that we're going to be voting for candidates who each have 2/3 disapproval ratings and the majority of voters are going to be disappointed no matter who gets in. Both of them pass the threshold where many voters say "I will never vote for this candidate". I'm no fan of Hillary, but Trump's a nutjob.

"Old vs New" would be better exemplified by Hillary vs Sanders IMHO because noone else ran a campaign as progressive as Sanders. He is considered too much of a socialist for many in the US though.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Pay for Play...
by sergio on Sun 3rd Jul 2016 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Pay for Play..."
sergio Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree about Hillary, but you'd have to be blind not to see that Trump is a fascist. I'm rarely one to Godwin a discussion, but the parallels are certainly there in the way he directs people's anger to empower himself. Even his ex-wife stated he was studying "My New Order" speeches by Hilter. I don't know how people don't see it, or maybe they do and it doesn't bother them...

What sucks is that we're going to be voting for candidates who each have 2/3 disapproval ratings and the majority of voters are going to be disappointed no matter who gets in. Both of them pass the threshold where many voters say "I will never vote for this candidate". I'm no fan of Hillary, but Trump's a nutjob.

"Old vs New" would be better exemplified by Hillary vs Sanders IMHO because noone else ran a campaign as progressive as Sanders. He is considered too much of a socialist for many in the US though.


I agree with you 100%. I don't like Trump at all, I'm just trying to understand why a mediocre populist candidate has a chance to win in the oldest democracy of the world.

Right-wing demagogue populists like Trump are super common in Europe (National Front in France, Lega Nord in Italy, Freedom Party in Austria, ecc)... but they are something "new" in the US (at least at presidency level).

I really thought American people was immune to that kind of bullshit... I'm afraid I was wrong. ;)

Edited 2016-07-03 20:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Pay for Play...
by TheNorseWind on Mon 4th Jul 2016 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pay for Play..."
TheNorseWind Member since:
2015-07-21

IMHO Trump is America's Silvio Berlusconi.


That's exactly what I thought.

That said, I don't share Thom's optimism about democratic socialism. Popular governments aren't moral; they're just better at burying their victims' bodies discreetly. Look at the difference between the riots in Ferguson, Mo. and Baltimore (which have led to real change), and the plight of the Roma in France (who are still mostly ignored). Or the 1,000 years that the Irish spent suffering under British oppression. Or my Austrian cousin who stood up to the Nazis and was almost guillotined for his courage. Was he celebrated as a hero after the war? Of course not. He died an ostracized bachelor.

It's be fine with me if Thom's populism stayed on the other side of the Atlantic. Mencken had it right:

"The numskull runs amuck in a crowd, not because he has been inoculated with new rascality by the mysterious crowd influence, but because his habitual rascality now has its only chance to function safely. In other words, the numskull is vicious, but a poltroon. He refrains from all attempts at lynching a cappella, not because it takes suggestion to make him desire to lynch, but because it takes the protection of a crowd to make him brave enough to try it.

"What happens when a crowd cuts loose is not quite what Le Bon and his followers describe. The few superior men in it are not straightway reduced to the level of the underlying stoneheads. On the contrary, they usually keep their heads, and often make efforts to combat the crowd action. But the stoneheads are too many for them; the fence is torn down or the blackamoor is lynched. And why? Not because the stoneheads, normally virtuous, are suddenly criminally insane. Nay, but because they are suddenly conscious of the power lying in their numbers— because they suddenly realize that their natural viciousness and insanity may be safely permitted to function."

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Pay for Play...
by dionicio on Tue 5th Jul 2016 03:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pay for Play..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"...because they suddenly realize that their natural viciousness and insanity may be safely permitted to function."

And technically still speaking about democracy. The tyranny of democracy.

But, do They -up there, at Olympus Mount- know better? decide better? do better?

Your reference smells to clean air, aristocratic, Zarathustrian. Are you a "higher" man, confronting a pack of beasts?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Pay for Play...
by TheNorseWind on Tue 5th Jul 2016 11:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pay for Play..."
TheNorseWind Member since:
2015-07-21

"...because they suddenly realize that their natural viciousness and insanity may be safely permitted to function."
Your reference smells to clean air, aristocratic, Zarathustrian.


Not surprising, since Mencken translated The Antichrist into English.

Are you a "higher" man, confronting a pack of beasts?


I'm going to dodge that question and suggest an arrangement that would make my competence/incompetence irrelevant to everyone but myself (and which the US already has to some extent):

1: Local control combined with free movement, which lets people walk away when they're not happy with a local majority's judgment. (If they're right, good for them; if they're wrong, it's their problem.)

2: Limits to what activities can be regulated by any majority, combined with free association. (If a large number of people want to do something, then they should go do it. My individualism doesn't stop them any more than gay marriage stops straight couples from loving each other.)

US progressives will complain that the above system has led to unequal wealth, but they keep buying overpriced iPhones and making Laurene Jobs and Wall Street richer.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Pay for Play...
by dionicio on Tue 5th Jul 2016 03:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Pay for Play..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

I get the sense of your Cousin confronting a Mob -and death, and it hurts.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Pay for Play...
by TheNorseWind on Tue 5th Jul 2016 12:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Pay for Play..."
TheNorseWind Member since:
2015-07-21

I get the sense of your Cousin confronting a Mob -and death, and it hurts.


That's quite thoughtful.

I notice that you capitalized cousin; are you Austrian or German? If so, your English is very good. (I have no bitterness about the war. I enjoy visiting relatives over there, and there are many things about Austria and Germany that I like.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Pay for Play...
by abraxas on Tue 5th Jul 2016 15:28 UTC in reply to "Pay for Play..."
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Anyone who supports Trump for whatever reason is a rube. The guy lies so much he makes politicians blush. He doesn't have a clue about policy and completely reverses himself pretty much daily depending on who he is talking to. He wants more countries to have nuclear weapons. He wants to put tariffs on all goods coming from other countries which would drive up costs on pretty much everything. He also claimed he would eliminate the debt in 8 years which is impossible by any stretch of the imagination.

His entire life is a scam. He drove the only public company that he chaired into bankruptcy and he did it by paying off personal debts with investor money. The guy is a crook who only looks out for himself.

I get it if you don't like Hillary but electing Trump instead is brain dead. It's like trying to cure a cold by giving yourself cancer.

Edited 2016-07-05 15:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Corporations still far away...
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 15:34 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

Corporations still far away From generally being positive entities to the individual. [And I am].

But also able to put my feet into their shoes for a minute: If you are trowed into the arena, better pick up your trident and shield.

My said is this: Corps don't feel that compelled to good behavior, if [local and int.] competence is allowed such a bad behavior.

Legislation has yet to be created [local and int.] to protect the individual from being crushed in the middle of Titans' battles.

Reply Score: 2

Come on.
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 15:55 UTC in reply to "Corporations still far away... "
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Come on. This is also paranoia. A big nation can't be built just from ants. The system is awfully unperfected [kept that way]. But Corps are necessary. This is not left|right wing thinking.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Come on.
by Alfman on Thu 30th Jun 2016 17:49 UTC in reply to "Come on."
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

dionicio,

Come on. This is also paranoia.


Some day you're just going to start trolling yourself and I'm going to bust out laughing ;)

Edited 2016-06-30 17:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Come on.
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 19:11 UTC in reply to "Come on."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

I'm your follower, Alfman. Because understand You most of the times.

Was also talking about me. Quite often I'm the first one with the aluminum foil hat put on.

...Corps are indeed big, and every individual should be carefully following where They stand their gravity center.

Reply Score: 2

Strategery
by atsureki on Thu 30th Jun 2016 15:52 UTC
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

As a U.S. citizen who agrees with everything I've ever heard her say, I think Warren should stay in the Senate. The VP is essentially the least powerful office in the federal government, with almost no official duties besides staying healthy in case the president doesn't and casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate, in the rare event that one should arise (on a bill that already passed in the House). She can do a lot more good continuing to stir things up where she is, especially on those fun occasions where some CEOs get sat down in front of her for questioning.

Maybe veeps have more sway with lawmakers behind closed doors, but even the president's spouse has more time with the eyes and ears of the general public. Then again, the media picks its own darlings, so I suppose she could be the exception.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Strategery
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 16:00 UTC in reply to "Strategery"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Believe it or not most important role of a VP is being a brake.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by judgen
by judgen on Thu 30th Jun 2016 16:22 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

No free market company has EVER had a monopoly, even a 75% intel monopoly requires the state.

"We had NO design leads over motorola until the 386" - Chief of "burst" marketing at intel.
The intreview is avalable at both computerhistory and at archive.org.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by judgen
by Alfman on Thu 30th Jun 2016 17:43 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

judgen,

No free market company has EVER had a monopoly, even a 75% intel monopoly requires the state.


Is this just trivia, or is there something more meant by it?

Even when AT&T controlled the majority of our telecommunications and had to be broken up, they never had an absolute monopoly. One single competitor, no matter how ineffective, would be enough for some pendant to say a monopoly doesn't exist in the absolute sense. However most people are more pragmatic and recognize (just as the antritrust laws do) that monopolies don't need to be absolute to be abusive to the market, which is clearly what we're talking about here.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by judgen
by oskeladden on Fri 1st Jul 2016 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by judgen"
oskeladden Member since:
2009-08-05

Even when AT&T controlled the majority of our telecommunications and had to be broken up, they never had an absolute monopoly. One single competitor, no matter how ineffective, would be enough for some pendant to say a monopoly doesn't exist in the absolute sense. However most people are more pragmatic and recognize (just as the antritrust laws do) that monopolies don't need to be absolute to be abusive to the market, which is clearly what we're talking about here.


Exactly, Alfman. And that's why European law (sensibly) uses the terminology of "dominant position"[1] rather than "monopolization", which is a far more accurate encapsulation of the type of issue with which the law is trying to deal.

[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:12008E102

Edited 2016-07-01 12:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by judgen
by Drumhellar on Thu 30th Jun 2016 19:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

No free market company has EVER had a monopoly, even a 75% intel monopoly requires the state.


Standard Oil?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by judgen
by judgen on Thu 30th Jun 2016 16:25 UTC
judgen
Member since:
2006-07-12

Pocahontas, as coined by the nogaenda show (JCD and Adam curry coined the phrase, not trump) is a phonie that desier to please the establishment.


Warren and H.Clinton wanted every single policy Trump does today in terms of immigration in the 90s

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by judgen
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 16:39 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Migration [in and out] is up to today financially handled as an asset. And it isn't.

Migration are people. Populations being ripped. Populations being overcrowded. Populations being detached and forgotten later [when sweet dreams fail]. All wings are wrong about this.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by judgen
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 16:57 UTC in reply to "Comment by judgen"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

[Hey! judgen: Best agenda is your own...]

Reply Score: 2

VPs RARELY become Ps
by Sabon on Thu 30th Jun 2016 17:23 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

1) I am an independent.
2) With people like George Warmonger Bush and then people like Donald Trump, given the choices that we had yes I voted for someone that was a democrat but they are only slightly worse than the Repugnant Party.
3) If an independent person who's values I share (unfortunately they are few and far in between) then I would vote for that person IF I felt that someone like Trump wouldn't win because I didn't vote for the most likely person that would win if I vote for them and not someone like Trump or George W Bush. So yes, I voted for Al Gore who won the popular vote but POLITICS, not the voting public, caused GW Bush to win..
4) I live on the West coast. By the time we get to vote most of the elections are already determined. I feel that they should have everyone vote at the same time and not tell anyone how the election is turning out until everyone has a chance to vote and the polls are closed. Too many people vote depending who they feeling is winning and not because of what the person stands for. It's complete idiocy!

Very rarely in recent history do VPs become Presidents.

Furthermore, VPs have little to no power in the United States. Even if Hillary has her as the VP it would be mostly because:

1) She can pick whoever she wants, assuming it won't hurt her come election time.
2) IF she picks her she would only pick her if she is best person for the job. You CAN NOT choose someone
3) Some people feel she should pick her because she is a woman and it would be our first woman VP and she would be with the first woman P. People should be hired (and paid equally) because they are the best option.

I'm not saying she isn't the best person. I'm just making sure you understand my position and how things work in the United States. It's different that it looks like from the outside.

Reply Score: 2

RE: VPs RARELY become Ps
by darknexus on Thu 30th Jun 2016 18:03 UTC in reply to "VPs RARELY become Ps"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

It doesn't matter what the popular vote is. Ever. I want you to look up two words: electoral college. Then get back to us on how things work in this country.

Reply Score: 3

RE: VPs RARELY become Ps
by dionicio on Thu 30th Jun 2016 19:00 UTC in reply to "VPs RARELY become Ps"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Al Gore couldn't achieve all He got [Future of Earth wise] if being President of US. Hat off.

Reply Score: 2

I'd be shocked
by Poseidon on Thu 30th Jun 2016 18:10 UTC
Poseidon
Member since:
2009-10-31

I'd be shocked if she is the VP. Wall Street already said they'd cut donations if she's selected, and Clintons herself is right of the center on almost everything, despite what she claimed against sanders.

I agree with you Thom, this is what the USA and the world needs, but I'll be absolutely amazed if she is the VP pick.

Reply Score: 2

Microsoft in the 80s and 90s
by Sabon on Thu 30th Jun 2016 18:45 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

For those of us who were around it in Seattle, if nowhere else, in the 80s and 90s, we ***absolutely*** saw how Microsoft was abusing it's very monopolistic and I would say racketeering practices. Only because "the right people" were making a lot of money from Microsoft that Bill Gates never got put in prison for what his company did. But then rich people almost never go to prison in the United States unless they aren't paying their taxes. Then the I.R.S. goes after them.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Microsoft in the 80s and 90s
by dionicio on Sat 2nd Jul 2016 19:26 UTC in reply to "Microsoft in the 80s and 90s"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Lots of people already suspected [PreSnowden] that it was wild, in the most wild of the concepts... [Not trying to blame, as not blaming Cortez for being a conqueror. Just an historic status quo acknowledge].

Reply Score: 2

Yes off topic but ...
by Sabon on Thu 30th Jun 2016 18:49 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Facebook has won a legal battle against Belgium's data protection authority, which had sought to prevent Facebook from tracking non-Facebook (or not-logged-into-Facebook) users, both on the Facebook website itself but also via the company's Like and Share buttons that can be found in even the darkest depths of the known universe.

It's not just in the U.S. where the laws are ****ed up.

Reply Score: 3

No one cares...
by jnemesh on Thu 30th Jun 2016 19:57 UTC
jnemesh
Member since:
2008-04-08

No one cares what Sellout has to say anymore. She betrayed her own principles when she endorsed Clinton. Everything she says now is just for show.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No one cares...
by dionicio on Sat 2nd Jul 2016 19:34 UTC in reply to "No one cares..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Don't You get it? It's not about Her, or Her beloved principles: It's about Her Country.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No one cares...
by dionicio on Sat 2nd Jul 2016 19:37 UTC in reply to "RE: No one cares..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Not every American is out grabbing their guns, if events not going their own way.

Reply Score: 2

Warren will not be VP candidate
by Windows Sucks on Thu 30th Jun 2016 22:42 UTC
Windows Sucks
Member since:
2005-11-10

Her Senate seat too valuable

Reply Score: 3

Bounty
Member since:
2006-09-18

Can someone who was able to watch it summarize her plan for addressing consolidation and monopolies?

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ilovebeer
by ilovebeer on Fri 1st Jul 2016 15:13 UTC
ilovebeer
Member since:
2011-08-08

"Obviously, this entire speech is music to my ears. Warren is the obvious - and effectively inevitable - VP pick for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, meaning that if she were to beat the Republican nominee come November, the United States will have a Europe-style democratic socialist as vice-president."


You have it completely backwards. Elizabeth Warren is NOT an obvious and inevitable choice for VP. Being VP would actually cripple her in terms of influence and power. She's not going to do that to herself or her career. But what she will do is attack in a way Hillary Clinton can't, essentially being Clintons muscle in this presidential election cycle.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by ilovebeer
by darknexus on Fri 1st Jul 2016 15:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by ilovebeer"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

But what she will do is attack in a way Hillary Clinton can't, essentially being Clintons muscle in this presidential election cycle.

Which should scare anyone with sense, not that there's anyone in this crazy dog-and-pony show that doesn't scare those of us with brains.

Reply Score: 3

Senator > VP
by tpchur on Fri 1st Jul 2016 15:49 UTC
tpchur
Member since:
2007-02-12

Warren has way more power in the Senate than she could possibly have as Vice President. I really hope she doesn't become the VP.

Reply Score: 2

If ...
by ameasures on Fri 1st Jul 2016 21:34 UTC
ameasures
Member since:
2006-01-09

If the American experience follows the pattern of the UK over recent years: you will see Hilary in power - enacting many of the policies set out by Trump. Sounds bizarre I know but time will tell.

Reply Score: 2

Warren AKA Pocahontas is...
by Dano on Fri 1st Jul 2016 23:16 UTC
Dano
Member since:
2006-01-22

a total Wingnut. She thinks that everyone is a victim, and that no one has control of their own actions. She has done nothing effective as a senator. Hillary is going to lose because she is so corrupt and has been totally ineffective herself. They are all part of the NWO.

I was listing on the BBC to the socialists in France. They are mad as David Cameron for letting Brits vote on Brexit. They say "We believe in democracy...but...we have to contain the contagion... We can't let the French people have a vote on leaving the EU." No wonder why the Brits are leaving!

Edited 2016-07-01 23:29 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Warren AKA Pocahontas is...
by kwan_e on Sat 2nd Jul 2016 04:17 UTC in reply to "Warren AKA Pocahontas is..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

a total Wingnut.
.
.
.
They are all part of the NWO.


Yeah.

She's the wingnut...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Warren AKA Pocahontas is...
by dionicio on Sun 3rd Jul 2016 01:21 UTC in reply to "Warren AKA Pocahontas is..."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

The blue Mongol run among my family. Obvious is no paper...

What's the problem of a white rising his|her fist and proclaiming black pride? Or vice versa? Just as an example.

Reply Score: 2

"You Didn't Build That"
by bazaillion on Sun 3rd Jul 2016 10:39 UTC
bazaillion
Member since:
2006-09-30

More comments from the phony who claims she is Native American and if your successful you didn't build your business on your own, its all the governments doing.

Elizabeth Warren's You Didn't Build That Speech as made famous by Obama HD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AMoBU7lFUA

Reply Score: 1

From Paul Ryan on email-gate:
by dionicio on Tue 5th Jul 2016 18:19 UTC
dionicio
Member since:
2006-07-12

"...it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent."

via cnn.com

Specific technical conditions raised that forced executive action. Also very punctual of that time-line where eventual link unavailabilities and generalized unreliabilities. Decisions.

A Secretary of State need no less than 100% availability. Point.

No legal following I see here. But says a lot about how Hillary 'solved' from within her inner circle.

This liking for privacy on the chewing of [non-private] problems is no more acceptable in contemporaneous politics. Would love Hillary commenting from her heart about it.

Reply Score: 2