No Thank You, Mr. Pecker • Hacker News Board

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#721

Post by crispyambulance » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

oligopoly wrote: post #453

gyaniv wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really doubt that it was done by a US government entity. Trump is the president and all, but to hack and release (by a third party) the personal information if a citizen (not suspected or related to any crime) seems to me to be something that even Trump or his supporters can't do, the intelligence agencies just wouldn't do it in my opinion. The Saudis seem like a much more likely party to do it in my opinion, mostl…

What usually happens in these kind of things is mistress or partner shares images with friends and someone looks to profit or take vengeance behalf of cheated friend. I'm baffled nobody brings this up.

Yeah, like "the fappening", for christ's sake, it doesn't have to be a "state actor"!

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#722

Post by squozzer » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:11 PM UTC

abrahamepton wrote: post #699

creaghpatr wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to read about the measures great past Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, amongst others, took. It's gonna be an eye-opening experience for you if your comment is in good faith.

Uh huh. Please provide even a single example. Keep in mind the standard you've gotta match or beat: a President elected in significant part by collaborating with a foreign adversary to undermine our elections, and in significant part by using a media outlet to cover up his scandals. Said President is accused of using said media outlet to blackmail his enemies, going back at least years if not decades. One of those en…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

http://ocean.otr.usm.edu/~w304644/ajha/americanjournalism/fa...

"During the Civil War the federal government was responsible for the greatest amount of newspaper suppression in the nation’s history. More than 300 newspapers were shut down, most of them Democratic papers that were sympathetic to the Confederacy. Some historians have criticized President Abraham Lincoln for allowing such widespread constraints on the press. This article reconsiders the nature of Lincoln’s view of press freedom. Based on a letter the president sent to a Union general, it concludes that Lincoln changed his thinking about midway through the war and began to believe that suppression of the press was not the appropriate policy."

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#723

Post by skiman10 » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:14 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #175

ronilan wrote: post #26

He chose Medium. @ev is 3 out of 3 (and a podcast pivot).

big kudos but he should remove the popups , with the extra gdpr prompts it's unbearable

This browser extension has really saved my Medium reading experience.

https://github.com/thebaer/MMRA

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#724

Post by chipotle_coyote » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #693

logfromblammo wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impeachment is a political process. The dangerous precedents have already been set, for Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. The former was impeached for firing the Secretary of War without consent of the Senate, and refusing to reinstate Stanton in that position when it did not ratify the dismissal. Acquitted by one vote. The latter was impeached for lying about inappropriate personal behavior, and obstruction of jus…

--"I have little doubt that the current president will be confronted by a stack of previously sealed criminal indictments on the afternoon of the next president's inauguration day. Those cases will be tried in courts with a fixed standard of proof--beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, and preponderance of evidence for civil cases." The precedent has already been set there also -- both Bill and Hillary Clinton…

Actually, there's an awful lot of debate about that.

There are almost certainly more claims made about/against the Clintons than there are about/against the Trumps. But many of the claims against the Clintons haven't had enough "there" there for anyone but, well, conspiracy theorists to run with them. There have been, as far as I know, considerably fewer actual legal investigations against the Clintons, their associates, and their businesses than against the Trumps, their associates, and their businesses, and certainly far fewer actual charges and indictments.

There's a lot of political history behind the campaign against the Clintons, and a lot of it's fascinating -- but it's not actually a history of a corrupt criminal enterprise, at least on the part of the Clintons. It's the history of personal vendettas and rich conservative ideologues, and the history of the birth of the modern right-wing media movement, starting with the Arkansas Project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Project

The Trump Organization also has a lot of fascinating history, but you know what? From all appearances, it may well be a history of a corrupt criminal enterprise.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#725

Post by dahfizz » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:16 PM UTC

rblion wrote: post #302

dahfizz wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we made a pro con list, what would you say are Amazon's greatest negatives to society? It saves people time and money, and AWS has enabled many start ups and small businesses. I can't think of any big negatives other than the general hate that people have towards big companies.

The only negative I can think of is 'monopolistic tendency'. Yet, this is almost inevitable for any prolifically innovative company like Apple or Alphabet. I happen to like Peter Thiel a lot and agree with most of his perspectives. I'm not sure if punishing an extremely forward-thinking organization is the way forward for our society. I don't know. I'm hungry to find out though. What are your thoughts on this?

I would agree about the 'monopolistic tendencies' but I don't think that's necessarily bad. Monopolies are not inherently bad. Being anti competitive and trying to coerce consumers is bad. But, by and large, Amazon is a "monopoly" because they offer a better product/service than everyone else at a better price.

In other words, bad behavior that's bad for the consumer is highly correlated with monopolies, but not synonymous. Sometimes companies grow large exactly because they are good for the consumer and so consumers prefer them.

Related to that, I think a lot of the negative feelings toward Amazon come from a fear about the power that Amazon holds as such a huge company without substantial competition. And while they do have a lot of power, I've not seen abuses from them that would warrant such fear.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#726

Post by rhizome » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:18 PM UTC

chippy wrote: post #513

Balgair wrote: post #15

Whatever you think about Jeff, this is the correct way to handle such things. We should all have the same character in such a situation (despite how the situation arose; in this case via an affair). Jeff has MANY other issues of moral disfortitude (we all do to some degree, though not at these scales). However, this particular event is to be applauded and emulated.

Imagine if the material contained morally grey stuff, like something politically incorrect. Not even illegal - just monetary support for some alt right figure or someone. Then imagine if the material was about this other woman before he got his divorce. Then imagine if the material contained actual borderline illegal stuff or something like photos of his nieces on a beach holiday. He got lucky - many many others woul…

So in a nutshell, "Imagine if instead of normal pics they were of weird shit that might be illegal?" There isn't enough time in the world for me to think about that line of inquiry.

"Imagine if instead of simply walking down the street you punched everybody you passed."

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#727

Post by vict00ms » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #673

abrahamepton wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not "the only thing strange" about this. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with American history, but this is wildly without any remote precedent. Not to say that previous Presidents haven't done bad things, abused laws, etc, (shit, even launched disinfo campaigns, used the press to attack enemies, etc) but this is just gobsmackingly different from what has come before. Obviously caveat "if this is true" blah blah…

You need to read about the measures great past Presidents like Abraham Lincoln, amongst others, took. It's gonna be an eye-opening experience for you if your comment is in good faith.

I agree that Abraham Lincoln took some questionable measures but that smacks of "whataboutism" and has no bearing whatsoever on this situation. I have difficulty taking your comment in good faith because if there is truth to this (i.e. one of our spy agencies or a foreign gov't was spying on and leaking information about a U.S. citizen with the sitting president's knowledge and/or tacit endorsement) it is unprecedented.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#728

Post by dmode » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #548

_ei8q wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The example Thiel used in the original "seriously but not literally" argument was the wall. Of course Trump wasn't talking about a literal wall, he said, it was more of a metaphor for, you know, something. This argument was always embarrassingly stupid, but anyone still making it after Trump shut down the government for a month over literal wall construction has forfeited their right to be taken seriously at all.

I disagree with Thiel there, His base, and most independents want a literal wall (and, as he claims, Dems used to be for a wall) But his speeches are littered with these blue collar type speech patterns (boasting, exaggeration, put-downs, etc., when trying to “win” an argument).

Can we stop saying that "blue collar" people delve in boasting and exaggeration ? Most blue collar people I meet are very polite, mild mannered and focused on executing their tasks. The only people who talk like Trump are narcissists.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#729

Post by gumby » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

alasdair_ wrote: post #206

gumby wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I'm at the other extreme: blackmailing me would be pointless as there would be no gain (not to mention in my boring case any unclad selfies would have to be synthesized). And in the current world[+] there's so much exposure that such pictures will be drowned out by the sheer volume of stuff. Yes, we're still at a point where politicians can lose their jobs because of racialist photos or certain indiscretions,…

>racialist photos Can you clarify what makes one of these different from a racist photo?

The distinction is subtle I admit. Racist depictions would be a white person playing a nonwhite character (e.g. Fu Manchu, Tonto or Othello), or Shakespear's depiction of Shylock.

Racialism -- pretending or willfully wanting to believe that there are actual meaningful racial distinctions differences -- you can see in the photos of lynchings, slave era laws in the slave states etc. I think most of the people in those photos knew they were wrong, just as I believe some of those old laws I've read were written by people who knew they were wrong. Likewise modern laws that happen to "coincidentally" exclude some sections of the population from voting.

I believe some racist comments and representations can be innocent (though in this day and age, quite few IMHO) and they can also be intended to send a message (e.g. neither Alexander Hamilton nor Aaron Burr were black; you could purposefully either neuter or hyper-extend the portrayal of Shylock to make a point).

The racialists have no excuse.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#730

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Feb 08, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

jki275 wrote: post #693

logfromblammo wrote: post #690

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impeachment is a political process. The dangerous precedents have already been set, for Andrew Johnson and William Clinton. The former was impeached for firing the Secretary of War without consent of the Senate, and refusing to reinstate Stanton in that position when it did not ratify the dismissal. Acquitted by one vote. The latter was impeached for lying about inappropriate personal behavior, and obstruction of jus…

--"I have little doubt that the current president will be confronted by a stack of previously sealed criminal indictments on the afternoon of the next president's inauguration day. Those cases will be tried in courts with a fixed standard of proof--beyond reasonable doubt for criminal cases, and preponderance of evidence for civil cases." The precedent has already been set there also -- both Bill and Hillary Clinton…

Hillary Clinton has never been president, therefore cannot set a precedent in this matter.

Bill Clinton's supposed "conspiracies" are mainly sexual assaults and their ensuing covers-up. Some of his accusers received cash settlements, and presumably would not testify against in any criminal trials. The remainder apparently did not leave enough evidence by the time Clinton left office to pursue criminal charges, or did not come forward until #MeToo emboldened them to do so, long after he left office, and possibly after any relevant statutes of limitations had elapsed.

If Bill Clinton was indeed as dirty as Donald Trump appears to be, he was certainly better at cleaning up the evidence of it. He may have also pursued a policy of being more honest in less critical situations, such that he could attempt a lie--and still be believed based on reputation--when a deception would benefit him most. Furthermore, fewer of Clinton's former aides, employees, and associates were indicted and convicted during his term in office.

It is possible that Clinton was not charged because he was a more cautious criminal. It is also possible the reports of his crimes were invented or exaggerated to weaken him or his wife politically. It is also possible that I think Trump's suspected crimes are so much more severe than Clinton's that the best fixers in the country can't massage them away.

In any case, that's a fallacy of distraction. It doesn't matter what anyone else did but Trump, when the states' attorneys come knocking on Trump's door. They have prosecutorial discretion, and many have political ambitions of their own, so it may well be a matter of whether going after a former president and getting the conviction will help them more in the future than permanently burning all of that president's remaining political allies. Clinton can still pull in some votes and some campaign contributions. Even Nixon had folks that would still go to bat for him after he resigned. Trump is burning his (R) bridges, and snubbing all possible networking opportunities with the (D) side. It's almost like he has no conception whatsoever about how he can stay politically relevant--or at least politically protected--after leaving office.