Trump was a massive supporter of going into Libya[1] and doing "something" about Gaddafi. These world leaders are stuck with the hard problem of satisfying dumb idiots at home who think that the US can wave a wand and stop people across the sea from killing each other because it sucks seeing the poor brown people kill each other, yet they are only doing so because we meddled in their affairs before, and yet we are proposing to solve it by meddling in their affairs more. The US, including Trump, asked for Libya, and now Clinton is on the hook because the US population is too misinformed to understand why Libya is on edge, why it was America's fault, and why there will be no easy solution because, again, until America stops doing this it won't stop.
This is the issue. Americans don't know what they want and are mad because they feel like they somehow have a special place in the world everyone else is "stealing" from them somehow. This attitude is "anti-American" because it is the unfortunate truth, and America just voted that the truth hurts but it would rather blame it on the immigrants and mexicans and muslims. This is scary. You cannot have the attitude that you somehow have a god-given "right" to jobs in your country, and that filthy immigrants are stealing them because they are bad people. Conservatives feel like the government is a credit card they can use to get more when they want it, no matter what the consequence for the rest of the world. This entitlement is a style of attitude and thinking that is guaranteed to cause global conflict, and is the inevitable end of a culture war between western thinking and other powers. Obama proposed to fix this by being basically an apologist and reparist for the rest of the world, but the rest of the world is so fucked up because of America's history of trying to decide what's best for it that it is starting to turn on America, and deciding it doesn't really need them any more. This stubborness is war-mongering and why it is better to have free trade and globalism rather than using literal direct conflict to solve perceived differences between countries.
So is Wikileaks an organization interested in free information, or using "free information" for maximum political effect? If they are twisting the knife and trying to find out how to cause the maximum possible damage for one side only, then they are clearly not a neutral organization and obviously should be treated as such. If their goal is maximum political discourse, then they are obviously a political organization, not an information or "truth" organization.
Why do you think they wouldn't be causing damage for the other side, if they could? I mean, even if they had emails of the GOP, I doubt it would really hurt Trump in any way, it's not like he had their support anyways... Actually, it would probably help him!
Wikileaks is being unbiased by claiming to be entirely unbiased on what they choose to release (yes, they CHOOSE what they want to release, what to save for insurance, etc.) yet not acknowledging the dangerous false equivalency of saying that this system implies there is no possible way that the other party would do the same things. Until we have equal information about both sides, this is dangerous. Wikileaks gets to be the unfair arbiter of truth while claiming total transparency that we know doesn't exist.
You are being invited to look at "raw data" which is actually filtered, has important information retained for collateral and insurance, and decides when to release things for "maximum impact". To consider this alternative somehow a totally unbiased and impossible to refute thing just because it was founded in the internet era is absurd. It is run by human beings, it is not simply a "upload files here and instantly distribute them" tool. They have their own inherent bias and it is dangerous to consider receiving information that detailed and classified to assume that nobody else dealing in classified information has anything to hide. Obviously people will look bad if you get to snoop through all their trash, but the neighbour was the one who actually let you snoop in their trash, and they won't let you look in their trash either.
I mean, Trump is arguably FAR more involved with Epstein though - he literally has a quote saying that he acknowledges Epstein surrounds himself with young women:
“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine for a 2002 profile of Epstein. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”[1][2]
How can someone come to the conclusion that this means only Clintons support this? Clearly the common denominator is rich people abusing their power to rape children, not politicians raping children, and not Clintons only raping children. Rich people are abusing their power and America voted to fix it by electing a rich person who has abused that power.
Absolutely this. You can't just absolutely do a complete 180 on the principle of US's place in the world Post-WW2 and not expect bad things to happen. There is a reason things are the way they are. It's because we have let America always think they are the greatest and have some sort of God-given right to be the best in the world. They absolutely hate Muslims and can easily quote the fact that Islam dictates global dominance, hence it is wrong. When the US says it comes first and should have global dominance, everyone else is supposed to roll over and conform to all their demands?
They just elected a strongman into office who has a clear pattern of misplacing blame for all of the countries problems on the out-groups, including immigrants, Muslims, LGBT, liberals, politicians, the "upper class", and all kinds of other things. What will happen when his misplaced blame doesn't solve the problem? He will double down on the out-groups that gave him such easy support... It is DANGEROUS to have the principle of America first and everyone else second when you don't understand the consequences of America's actions and what it has inflicted on the world. It started the globalist capitalist elite, and now it doesn't want to be on the hook for them while blaming IMMIGRANTS for problems that were clearly caused by big corporations. So he wins by promising to cut taxes for those same corporations... I just don't get what he thinks his end-game is. Mostly WW3, I suppose.
>Mexico can't ever improve while the US continues to steal their despondent youth for low cost landscaping, house painting and wait staff.
Their options are working with the cartels or terrible local economy in Mexico, or going to the US to earn drastically more valuable dollars to send home to their families. I mean, we are being immoral by letting them stay here, but they are only so desperate because of how unimaginably damaging the US has been to Mexico. We mess with their government, incentivize them to sell us drugs by having so much demand for them, and exploit their natural resources. If anything, this is why I don't get anyone who thinks its JUST the immigrants fault - why do you think people commit suicide, or would think it's worth it to cross a border where they could be jailed or shot? Hint, it's because the alternative is so much worse. And anyone who is aware of even the tiniest bit of history knows exactly why the alternative is bad.
> earn drastically more valuable dollars to send home to their families.
I've had that remittances argument thrown at me so many times; do you honestly believe ---- I mean actually and genuinely believe ---- that transferring money back home is somehow equivalent to participating in the fate of your nation personally as a worker, parent, voter, dissident, etc.? Citing remittances is just another lame attempt to rationalize tolerating illegal immigration because admitting that there might actually be a great benefit to these countries if the US stopped stealing their youth is abhorrent to the leftist mind. You're so wrapped up in your SJW views you won't allow yourself to see the real damage.
Remittances don't fix anything. None of these nations that export their youth and collect remittances ever get better; Mexico, Haiti, so many Middle Eastern and North African nations, former Soviet republics exporting their youth to the EU... they fester on as failed states forever because the people they need to deal with the fail just leave for greener pastures. Individually you can't blame them, but the collective outcome is tragic. All remittances do is allow origin nations to subsist on a trickle of hard currency and continue feeding wealthy nations with more young.
> We mess with their government, incentivize [sic] them to sell us drugs by having so much demand for them, and exploit their natural resources.
All of these same conditions apply to Canada yet, somehow, Canada isn't a third world kleptocracy.
> If anything, this is why I don't get anyone who thinks its JUST the immigrants fault
Your 'anyone' that blames only immigrants is a mostly a strawman; there are despicable people in the world but that's not who elected Trump, despite what you think. We know employers create demand by employing illegals, and we know those employers buy politicians to oppose securing the border. We know drug abusers in the US create demand for narcotics, and we know securing the border will hinder their supply from Mexico, dealing a great blow to Mexican drug cartels; yet another important benefit of securing the border.
Is the fact that Mexican women can cross the border, pop out babies, and have them be FULL FUCKING CITIZENS so "DAMAGING" to you? Poor fucking Mexicans, give me a break. Charity starts at home.
What about the natives (Mexican or US)? They're gone and people don't care. Why should ALIVE US citizens support something leading to THEIR poverty and death?
Before the US was a country, Mexico was poor. It's still poor now. It'll still be poor 3000 years from now. It's not the US's job to help them.
What's unavoidable about the basic requirement of a USB3 port and SD card? How about HDMI/DP at least? I take it this is a sign every Thunderbolt device is totally dead in the water now? It's not about including a port for every single type, it's about including at least SOME kind of port. It's one thing to make a leap like Thunderbolt 1 and then Thunderbolt 2 and Lightning etc. have been, then it's another to say it's all USB-C now (with no real transition!) and expect anyone to believe you when you say it's REALLY THE LAST PORT THIS TIME GUYS TRUST US. Would it really have ruined the laptop to include a single USB3 port?
MS definitely is not paying attention to the high-end workstation market. They are paying attention to the trends of interaction and new interfaces that technology is allowing us. The product here is the new styles of content creation and the accelerated pace of current content creation via the form factor and accessory knob thing. If you have needs that demand extreme resources, you can probably afford to have remote rendering or processing using all of the myriad of wonderful networking technologies that have advanced so much.
It can't be an effective interaction device and a server-level resource at the same time. Anyone who is enough of an enthusiast to require a dual Xeon workstation is clearly not who MS is targeting with a single product. Leave the multicore server-grade towers to HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. because there's nothing to innovate there - you just throw hardware, bought at market price, into a box. What is MS supposed to innovate on there if all you care about is specs/$ and ignore the design and use-case?
This is the issue. Americans don't know what they want and are mad because they feel like they somehow have a special place in the world everyone else is "stealing" from them somehow. This attitude is "anti-American" because it is the unfortunate truth, and America just voted that the truth hurts but it would rather blame it on the immigrants and mexicans and muslims. This is scary. You cannot have the attitude that you somehow have a god-given "right" to jobs in your country, and that filthy immigrants are stealing them because they are bad people. Conservatives feel like the government is a credit card they can use to get more when they want it, no matter what the consequence for the rest of the world. This entitlement is a style of attitude and thinking that is guaranteed to cause global conflict, and is the inevitable end of a culture war between western thinking and other powers. Obama proposed to fix this by being basically an apologist and reparist for the rest of the world, but the rest of the world is so fucked up because of America's history of trying to decide what's best for it that it is starting to turn on America, and deciding it doesn't really need them any more. This stubborness is war-mongering and why it is better to have free trade and globalism rather than using literal direct conflict to solve perceived differences between countries.
[1]: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/...