231–240 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
DuckDuckGo it is then. Bing is still Microsoft's product, so thats a bummer.
DuckDuckGo's killer feature is its thousands of !bang search shortcuts. They integrate with content sites' own search forms, so the results are similar to but often better than Google's site:example.com searches because the sites' have more domain knowledge over their content. https://duckduckgo.com/bang
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He became a Republican because he is a corporatist. It is Republican orthodoxy to be against consumer and labor rights. He has absolutely no interest in abandoning the TPP, since, as a Republican, he is in favor of exporting US jobs. When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_..…
> When dealing with Trump, it it important to ignore what he says, because he will literally lie 71 times in a single speech: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-fact-check_... . First of all, HuffPo is uh, far from an unbiased source when it comes to Trump. But secondly, a lot of that stuff has very flimsy reasoning behind it: > 11. Claim: “She wasn’t dragged to the ground.” — Trump on Fields. > Reality…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try typing in 'crooked h' and see how that autocompletes. Keep adding letters... Guess what? A week and a half ago you got 'crooked Hilllary' now you don't, and it's nowhere to bed found.... They censored the results in her favor, no doubt about it.
Did you really create this account to write one comment? This is complete noise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She's so sane and down to earth that she'd rather be the most powerful Senator for 20 years than President for 4 years. You should be thanking her for playing the long game.
There is nothing preventing any former President for running for another elected office that is not in the line of succession. I think Andrew Johnson ran for the Senate while still POTUS if memory serves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about anti-national-sovereignty? The secret drafts and the extra-legal processes weaken national sovereignty. I think a strong nation is good for consumers, and a weak nation destroys the consumer base.
Has there ever been a trade agreement that was not drafted in secret? I mean that's pretty much the point in these things, lots of horse trading behind closed doors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy. Isn’t this the definition of doubleth…
The public gets to influence the implementation or ratification of the final treaty, but they don't get to be a party to the entire negotiation process.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrict…
There's essentially no enforcement of copyright law in many of the signatory states. Yes DRM kind of sucks, but rampant piracy also kind of sucks. The way the US does it I think is closer to optimal than the way Vietnam does it. That's why Google calls the provisions "balanced copyright enforcement."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How exactly does putting a provision in a treaty make it harder to repeal? The same actions that ratify the treaty (for instance, passing an enabling domestic law) can be used to break it.
It's like how the US is slightly less likely to unilaterally legalize marijuana at the federal level, it is signatory to several UN treaties which forbid it from doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you assume the next president won't do a backflip and support it once they're in? Politicians break promises, and break opinions a whole lot more.
I could see Clinton doing that backflip but if it's Trump he seems to be genuinely anti-free trade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One specific part I don't like is that it would require signatories to enforce a DMCA-like ban on circumvention of DRM mechanisms. The US already has such a ban, but putting it in a treaty makes it worse (harder to repeal), and it would create one in countries which don't already have one. In general the intellectual-property related provisions seem not good to me, almost exclusively in the direction of more restrict…
There's essentially no enforcement of copyright law in many of the signatory states. Yes DRM kind of sucks, but rampant piracy also kind of sucks. The way the US does it I think is closer to optimal than the way Vietnam does it. That's why Google calls the provisions "balanced copyright enforcement."
But this is all red herring since the TPP does not set any goals for measuring actual ENFORCEMENT, it only imposes new IP laws outside of the democratic process, with zero transparency, all while claiming to be a "free trade treaty".
Let's make it clear: Copyright laws have nothing to do with free trade. Let's suppose for a moment the US Copyright law is anywhere near "balanced" (and Canada is a caribbean pirate cove, as xxAA groups and the USTR love to claim). That still has nothing to do with Free Trade. If the Obama administration really wants to use TPP to fix all of the world's evils as they see them, why not push signatories to accept LGBT marriage for instance?