I agree it's probably true, but he hasn't been convinced of insurrection (yet), has he? The sixth amendment to the Constitution guarantees a fair trial, no?
So the sitting government decided their opponent is guilty of "The act or an instance of open revolt against civil authority or a constituted government", and then told you and everyone else you're not allowed to vote for him. Could that not be applied to all opposition?
That's not concerning? What if it's switched next time?
There was one migrant crisis during the Obama years IIRC where it was some obscure native South American Tribe that tried to cross the border illegally, like hundreds of them, and it took an anthropologist to figure out just how to communicate with that group.
Trump is fucking up the story but there's actually an element of truth here. Border patrol likely told him the story to describe the day-to-day of a border patrol agent, and then Trump misunderstood and is now telling this... New thing... But anyone who knows the border knows the nugget of truth here.
It's like when that Senator said: internet is a series of tubes (instead of pipes, because pipe is ACTUALLY a computer networking term). It's a reasonable mistake for a non-technical policy maker to say here.
Trump says a lot of shit. But this one about not understanding some languages of some migrants... Yeah, it happens every few years. There's a lot of random native American tribes who don't speak Spanish, English, or Portuguese.
Not just Unix and yes, since they're often used as a socket-based communication tool between applications, just locally like I said, leading to a large overlap with other socket-based code. That's also why the comment that was originally responded to would still be wrong.
Except the part where you put data on one end, the data pops out on another end, and networks connect these pipes all together to move the data where they need to go.
TCP's communication model is one-to-one with unix pipes / file descriptors after they connect. And TCP is absolutely "the internet" as most people know it (HTTP, HTTPS, SMTP aka Email, etc. etc.)
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
"Series of Tubes" describes how say... if one network has a 10Mbit "tube", then there's no way it could fit all the data from a 100Mbit tube.
Its... fine. Its poor terminology but anyone listening to Senator Stevens that day would have known what he was talking about.
The real issue with Senator Stevens was the following line:
I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday.
Which is nonsense. I dunno why the "series of tubes" comment got memed when this bullshit was actually the mistake.
The debate with regards to network neutrality that Stevens was leading was about the opposite: whether or not ISPs were allowed to prioritize traffic. And who can choose those priorities when "the tubes got filled".
Anyway, I don't expect Senators to know how technical jargon works or to use technical jargon correctly. But I do expect them to get the gist of the situation so that they can have a policy debate. For all of the faults of language here, there's enough to go on to understand the issue of network prioritization in that discussion.
Similarly, I know Trump is fucking up this border issue / discussion point. But there's enough truth here. Border Patrol agents have to deal with an incredible number of language issues, especially when an obscure native American tribe crosses the border illegally. Its a known problem. In such cases, there's no nearby linguist who can even talk with the migrants.
"It’s important not to lose sight of the fact that any vote that’s not cast for Joe Biden supports a second Trump term,”
God fucking damnit...
I actually like whitmer, she seems to trend less partisan than most, but disparaging Biden does not make someone a fucking trump supporter...
A typical trump supporter is a jonestown-esque cult member. It's not someone who isn't kissing Bidens ring.
I'm sick as absolute fuck of the binary bullshit that you gotta choose red or blue... There's a purple libertarian party, and if you're really off kilter, there's the greens... Just because they only pull 2% of the votes doesn't mean they don't exist, you're still talking about millions of people.
Biden is a puppet, his whole administration has their hands up his ass making his mouth move while they all do the actual talking. That doesn't mean the Biden administration isn't doing well, and it sure as fuck doesn't mean trump is a good idea, but fuck Biden. Without supportimg trump, and without disparaging the way shits going...
Stop buying this shit, and whitmer, you should be ashamed of propagating it
You don't like it, in fact I think most don't, including myself, but the truth is this is a two party system. And in this upcoming election, if you actually want to preserve any semblance of a democracy, as poor and shoddy as it might be, you vote for Biden. Any other vote just helps Trump by not helping Biden.
The very first presidential election I was eligible to vote in, one in six voters chose neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
If you want to preserve any semblance of democracy, stop buying the snake oil. We absolutely can vote for neither, and I go back far enough to have seen 18% of the population go out to the ballots and prove it.
What a bunch of shit. Perot didn't get a single electoral vote. He had zero chance of being president. At best he might have helped Clinton by skimming some votes from Bush.
Wallace is the next closest third party candidate that did anything of mention in the elections, he at least got some electoral votes, so is actually a better third party example. Should have been alive to vote for him.
All other third party candidates that got electoral votes in recent history were faithless electors. So, no, I reject your call to "preserve democracy" by pissing my ballot away and possibly helping a fascist dictator get back into the oval office. Thank you.
I'm sick as absolute fuck of the binary bullshit that you gotta choose red or blue...
Doesn’t matter. It’s still true in our system. You and I can pound sand. I choose to vote for Brandon, who will do far less damage to me and the rest of the world, over the alternative.
You don’t have to like it. But reality will assert itself, no matter your opinion.
Criticizing Biden? Sure, fine. But at election time, she's 100% correct that if you aren't voting for Biden, you're voting for Trump. There's literally very little difference in the end result.
In what way do you think she's incorrect? Let's say there's two people running for something, with ten voters, and five people vote for Person A. If three people vote for Person B, but two people decide they don't really like either candidate, so they don't vote, they've just elected Person A. If Person A is a complete shit show, and Person B is closer to desired but has failings, it makes much more sense to vote for Person B. They might wish they had a better choice, but they don't.
Lemmy.org - Politics
Top