Chrome Extension Offers Trump-Free Browsing (usnews.com) 247
Earthquake Retrofit writes: A new Google Chrome extension lets you remove mentions of Donald Trump from your browsing experience. Trump Filter scans websites for references to the Republican presidential candidate, showing a blank void in the place of Trump-related content. "I am doing this out of a profound sense of annoyance and patriotic duty," the extension's creator, Rob Spectre, writes on the Trump Filter website. "[I was not] put up to this by the Republican or Democratic Parties, the Obama Administration, my mother or any other possible sphere of influence." Trump Filter's code is open source and can be found on GitHub.
good but.... (Score:5, Funny)
do they have one for hillary and burnie as well?
Re:good but.... (Score:5, Informative)
do they have one for hillary and burnie as well?
There's only so much you can expect an extension to do; it can't read your mind.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: good but.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want to see liberals acting stupid the comments on Huffpo are the best place.
you've never been on reddit have you?
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Rob Spectre hates America too. Rob, if you're reading this, shoot me your info. I'll buy you a first-class one-way ticket out of the country you hate so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people would see the right to disagree, or dislike things, as pretty inherently American; apparently you disagree, so maybe you dislike America and would be happier somewhere else.
Missed Chance (Score:3)
What Spectre could have done was make it so you can filter for whatever you desire...Hillary, Trump, football teams, Kardashions, whatever. Then, he wouldn't have the aura of a political tool about him and instead been seen as allowing people to "actively ignore" anything they find annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why he has the aura of a Political Tool.
Re:good but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When Bernie said that the illegal Clinton email server and the illegal use of a private (and illegal) server wasn't anything of importance, Bernie signed his defeat statement and gave it to Hilliary. Bernie is only in for the drama and the show. Bernie has already given up.
Regrettably, the Bern-ites haven't figured that out yet. Are they in denial?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bernie gets a lot of press. If he didn't get press then no one would have heard of what his campaign is doing. He's a household name now even by those who don't pay attention to the senate, and you don't get to be a household name without the press. He's not "ignored" though he certainly wishes he had more press that covers his actual policies rather than just being treated as the also-ran.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with trump is if you ignore him, he won't go away.
The problem is the GOP had branded themselves to the following statements.
Liberal Media (meaning you shouldn't trust the news as its bias will overstate all issues)
Democrats who favor government interaction = socialism which is detailed government controls on businesses = Communism the lack of property (so any approach giving additional government funding means they are just not conservative enough and are a PinkoCommy)
Gun Controls = No Guns
That
Re: (Score:3)
Except that Trump's appeal is way beyond the GOP. The people you describe above have mainly rallied to the likes of Cruz and Carson, and others below. They make up the bulk of the GOP base. While Trump does have evangelists, libertarians and Tea Party activists, his gap w/ them over his rivals is actually LOWER than his overall margin in the GOP.
Reason being that he has attracted Democrat Blue Collar workers - mainly the Union guys - to his rallies. THOSE are the people who throng his rallies - not t
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that Trump isn't getting strong Christian Right support, because he's most obviously and clearly not the poster child for piety or repentance.
The group he's picking up are the discontented Republicans. What I wish that Republican-in-name-only really meant, because they don't know what Republican policies are and aren't true believers in the Republican cause. Ask them about their politics in detail and it will come out vague and contradictory. They're just strongly opposed to government, whether th
Re: (Score:2)
"do they have one for hillary and burnie as well?"
I'd prefer a Kardashian filter myself.
Re: (Score:2)
You should have read to the end of the summary:
In other words, you could roll your own extension to filter out everything but Fox News and white supremacist websites if you'd like. It's free software and it's a free country.
Re: (Score:2)
The trump chrome extension is just another version of the same chrome extension that can be used to filter out all the kardashian & jenner stories from the entertainment section of google news.
Hopefully trump's infamy pushes the devs into porting the extension framework to other browsers...
Re: (Score:2)
do they have one for hillary and burnie as well?
Precisely! To bad this didn't exist in 1995, when we were deluged w/ news of OJ
Re: (Score:3)
The concept seems wrong. The country is already full of people hidden in bubbles, refusing to hear or even acknowledge contrary views. Then they walk around thinking the entire country has the same views they do, or else they split the country into those who they agree with and the enemy. People need to hear contrary views.
Blocking Trump, Hillary, or Bernie is counter productive (though see the Christmas special of Black Mirror). What happens if Trump wins the election and all these people say "Trump,
Re: (Score:2)
"Bitch" could lead to a lot false positives if you spend time on celebrity pages.
Then again ... false?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Dirty Lying Rich White Career Politician"
Just a FYI but that also applies to most of the republican field of candidates.
Three of the top 4 Republicans aren't white.
That's gotta hurt, doesn't it?
I guess you're going to go all superior and claim they aren't "authentic" blacks or Hispanics?
Re: (Score:2)
"Dirty Lying Rich White Career Politician"
Just a FYI but that also applies to most of the republican field of candidates.
Three of the top 4 Republicans aren't white.
Well, 4 out of 5 ain't bad.
Re: (Score:3)
The DNC candidates, all three of them, are white. Dirty, lying, rich, career politicians.
The Republicans, white non-politican (Trump), Two Hispanic Politicians, a Black Neurosurgeon, a White woman. Granted, they're all rich (Rubio maybe not). So there are at least three non-politicians running
The Left loves to cry "diversity", and mock the GOP for being "white" but this election cycle, there is nothing clearer than the fact that the DNC Plantation is in full force. People of Color need not apply. You may no
Re: (Score:2)
You can be white and hispanic. You can be of 100% european conquistador descent and be hispanic.
I'd call Ted Cruz rich. He's got a 7 figure income. He's a lawyer. He's got a senator's salary.
I'd call Marco Rubio rich. Only 6 figure income though, but he's scraping at the 7 figure level. He's got rental property. He's never going to worry about retirement.
I'd call Ben Carson really rich. He and his wife are making over $9 million according to financial disclosure forms. He was a board member of some
Re: (Score:2)
Over here in Europe we think that all your stand ups are great. Hillary, Bernie, even the hairpiece has some good lines!
Why you constantly insist in making one of the clowns president is beyond us, but hey, we have our strange and weird customs, you have yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
Blocking out the opposing point of view. How Liberal
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yea, I'm a left leaning liberal and this Chrome extension is just stupid. People blocking the front running candidate of one of our major political parties, wilful ignorance is the worst kind of ignorance.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's not. Like I don't support Hilary, so am not following what her policies are in the primaries. Since I have no intention of voting for her. But once she does become the nominee, I'll definitely check back. Although, given her history w/ the Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Cattle Futures, the Bimbo Eruptions and more recently Benghazi as well as her deal within the Clinton Foundation to support Russia getting control of major Uranium supplies, I know what to expect - more corruption if she get
Re: Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:2)
I'm Canadian, so I assume your snide reference to liberal would translate to "right wing nut job" up here since the Democrats look like our Conservatives. That aside, though, I think the notion of blocking anything from your net experience is foolish. If you hate Trump, you should *want* to keep up on his psychotic rants. An informed voter is better than uninformed.
This does not apply to Justin Bieber, of course...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm Canadian, so I assume your snide reference to liberal would translate to "right wing nut job" up here since the Democrats look like our Conservatives.
I think you are correct assuming the post was referring to the American definition of liberal.
Here are a couple of clues for you:
The article is addressing American politics
It is posted on an American news site
The poster made no indication that they had changed the focus of the article to Canada
Re: (Score:2)
I got that he was mixing terms from different countries. But what did that have to do with this article other than to make a dig that the USA is the last conservative nation left (at least by European / Canada standards.)
In the US - which this article was was about, Hillary is very far left.
I don't recall in the Australia and Canada articles, a bunch of Americans jumping on the story claiming by US standards, the person was a leftist. You know why? Because it would not be relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
US policies should follow the interests and will of the US people. There is no reason for the Democrats or Republicans to try move their policies Leftwards just b'cos Canada's Conservatives, or Europe's Christian Democrats, or Britain's Tories are to the left of both.
We are not Canada, Britain, Europe or anyone else.
Re: Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:2)
I'm equally interested in blocking out what the blue team is saying. Truly, it's bipartisan: I'm tired of hearing about the guy regardless of who is speaking.
Re: (Score:2)
I saw whut you did there, you liberal trickster you. It's not funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, just because I don't want to read any more than I already did about MMS and B17 doesn't mean I am not interested in medicine and cures for sickness. I just don't want to deal with snakeoil. I've looked at it, decided it's stupid, ridiculous, cannot work out and is generally at best useless and at worst detrimental.
Same with politics.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, Socialism makes so much sense it must always be imposed under thread of violence.
Opt in to Social Security? No, men with guns will lock you up if you don't pay in.
Opt in to Medicare? No, men with guns will lock you up if you don't pay in.
Re: Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:2)
Or opting in to having an army, police and courts...
Re: (Score:2)
Armies, police and courts have been around since (literally!) before the dawn of history, many thousands of years. And for nearly as long, they have been recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area, with no practical way to restrict the benefits to only those that pay in.
Meanwhile, medicine and retirement have been around for just as long, but were handled privately until like 50 and 80 years ago, and benefit only the recipient. The modern "innovation" in those areas was in robbing Peter to
Re: Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:2)
The government still demands payment for those things at gunpoint. In most countries letting people starve when they get old or suffer with treatable conditions is considered a bad thing. You can clearly see into the future and know that nothing will prevent you affording health care and a retirement income. Most people are not so lucky.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, prior to the 30s, we took old people out back and shot them, and prior to the 60s, we did the same thing when people got sick.
If government doesn't do something, it doesn't get done. There are no communities, no families, no churches. The options are government or death. History begins at Marx.
Re: Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:2)
No the poor ones were left to suffer and die which is what you seem to be happy with as well. If some imaginary society or charity took care of the poor and sick then where were they when people were dying of cholera in the slums? Why have those charities not eliminated suffering in countries where the goverments are weak or non existent? Why would anyone bother to go to the huge hassle and expense of creating universal health care or welfare of it was already being done? I know, I know commie commie burn
Re: (Score:2)
you show no knowledge of how inadequate private charity was and continues to be.
social security didn't spring into existence because of a Marxist plot, but in response to that inadequacy of private charity to actually meet the needs of the needy.
Re: (Score:2)
they have been recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area
This shows a terrible misreading of history at best and complete ignorance of history at worst. Throughout almost all of history, armies and courts/tribunals have been the tools of far flung rulers rather than "recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area." If the Assyrian Empire's troops [ancient.eu] were in your city, you were not a happy camper. Likewise with the Northern European tribes with respect to Roman Legions. All the way up to North Vietnamese troops taking Saigon [wikipedia.org] or ISIS troops in Mosul. But e
Re: (Score:2)
so that makes them ok then?
publicly funded armies to protect the welfare of the nation and ensure a stable standard of living: old therefore ok.
publicly financed medicine to protect the welfare of the nation and ensure a stable standard of living: new therefore bad.
and no, they weren't handled privately until recently.
they weren't handled AT ALL.
social security actually predates pensions; the explosion of the middle class, and the resulting concept of a retirement pension, happened in the midst of greatest
Re: (Score:2)
also:
And for nearly as long, they have been recognized as mass goods that benefit everyone in the area, with no practical way to restrict the benefits to only those that pay in.
you just also precisely described why social security and socialized medicine are good things (and that means that your statement that they only benefit the recipient is patently false and shows a lack of understanding on your part of how the various parts of the economy interact):
a) when older folks can no longer work, they used to become drags on society, if they were helped at all. now they contribute to the economy. yes its through redistribution, but that redistribution enables economic activity a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
again your ignorance is on display.
no, the 10th does not bar any such thing.
read it again. this time with your brain engaged:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
.
There are two IF-THEN clauses to work through before getting to the part where powers are reserved to the States or People.
The first is the "powers not delegated to the United States". What are the powers delegated to the United States? A good place to start is the 3 articles concerning the 3 branches, and their responsibilities and powers.
Congress:
Article 1 Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Executive:
Article 2 Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Judicial:
Article 3 Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
The second IF-TH
Re: (Score:2)
It does? Wait, who threatened and violated us? We have had a socialist dominated government (with a few interruptions) since WW2. I can't remember anyone coming with me into the voting booth and holding a gun to my head to make my cross at the "right" spot, though.
Ohhh, wait, you're one of those that conflate socialism with communism, right? And who can't get either right. I get it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, the Republican echo chamber is much more effective than anything the Libs have. The only way conservative ideals make any sense at all is if you have a bunch of other idiots that are as stupid as you are pumping their fists in agreement with you. The moment logic is applied, it all falls apart. The solution? Don't try to apply logic.
Greece.
Venezuela.
Detroit.
Do tell us about "liberal" and "socialist" logic: tax and spend your way to prosperity.
Explain to us how it wasn't a "liberal" in NY that tried to ban large sodas - all because it isn't a "liberal" idea that the government knows what's best for everyone. Oh no, "liberals" don't know what's best for everyone, nor do they think they're better then everyone because "they care".
Tell us that the stupidity of "microagressions" and "check your privilege" and campus speech codes aren't fr
Re: (Score:2)
Greece.
Venezuela.
Detroit.
Do tell us about "liberal" and "socialist" logic: tax and spend your way to prosperity.
Canada
Australia
England
France
Germany
Finland
Norway
Sweden
San Francisco
Seattle
New York City
Portland
Sorry Ac, but your list only shows that you don't actually comprehend the underlying issues behind the places you listed.
Hint: its not what you claimed it is.
Re: Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:2)
What does the Republican echo chamber have to do with Trump? The media aligned with the GOP hates Trump.
Re:Liberals and willful ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
Right... and the Liberals aren't responsible for doubling the debt in the last 7 years
Well, the Republicans control Congress and the purse strings, so you tell me who's responsible? We had surpluses under Clinton. As soon as Bush took office, that changed quickly.
the complete mess that the Middle East became with premature pullout of troops
We never should have had troops there to start with. Thanks, Conservatives.
the mess that the healthcare industry is in
The only people that are complaining are on the far right.
It's all obviously Bush' fault.
No, it goes all the way back to Reagan, and probably much further. Bush was a moron but he didn't mess it all up himself.
Hillary? The epitome of Rich White Corrupt Career Politician?
I don't really care for her either, never have. We don't need any more Bush's or Clintons in the White House.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right... and the Liberals aren't responsible for doubling the debt in the last 7 years
Well, the Republicans control Congress and the purse strings, so you tell me who's responsible? We had surpluses under Clinton. As soon as Bush took office, that changed quickly.
The surplus under Clinton was because we had a Republican Congress that wasn't afraid of telling the President "No.". So tell me who's responsible for budgets.
The current Congressional leadership is so afraid they'll be called racists by your open-minded liberals they can't piss without getting White House approval first. Add to that, today the Republican party wants most of the same things the Democrat party wants, just with a different set of voters.
Re: (Score:2)
There are so many issues w/ this - where to begin? The 2 big race issues right now are Black Lives Matter and Illegal Immigration (mainly of Mexicans). While no one on the GOP side sides w/ BLM, the candidates are all over the map on Illegal Immigration. Quite a reaction from people who 'act like racists'.
The Republican leadership oppose the moves of the Obama administration b'cos they are the opposition and were elected to do just that. If the public likes the policies of the Obama administration, th
Re: (Score:2)
Reagan did not have a Republican Congress, or else, history would have been different.
Bush 43 was quite a Liberal and not opposed to big government in a lot of places. What exacerbated it was his pursuing nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, making those 2 successful wars needlessly complicated and expensive. The right thing to have done in both cases was ask the UN to take over, and leave. But by staying and taking up big and expensive nation building projects, he cost people whatever faith they h
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the Republicans control Congress and the purse strings, so you tell me who's responsible? We had surpluses under Clinton. As soon as Bush took office, that changed quickly.
We had surpluses under Clinton up until the dot.com bubble burst. The government ran deficits the last three years Clinton was in office. The projections of surpluses going on forever were all based on fantasy.
Re: (Score:3)
wait, so now your just completely ignoring that the bulk of that money was spent fixing the economy that imploded under bush, and financing the wars that started under him too? your just completely ignoring that lil ol' recession now, and the extended summer camps in Iraq and Afghanistan? what buffoonery.
Re: (Score:3)
The Economy under Bush failed primarily because of 9/11 and liberal mortgage laws passed by Frank Dodd under Clinton to create the whole sub-prime mortgage fiasco. The Bush wars didn't help either. But if you're going to go down that road, then blaming six bad years under Bush as all Bush's fault, then we can blame all seven years of Obama economy on Obama.
OR you can realize that it is really the whole R/D cabal that is to blame, and realize that both parties are "fixing it until it is really broken". Why w
Re: (Score:2)
the complete mess that the Middle East became with premature pullout of troops It's all obviously Bush' fault.
To be fair, the timetable for withdrawal from Iraq was agreed to under Bush's watch. Obama just took credit for it. Of course, he also had no choice but to remove them because Iraq refused to grant an extension to US troop presence (believe it revolved around criminal immunity for troops).
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, he also had no choice but to remove them because Iraq refused to grant an extension to US troop presence (believe it revolved around criminal immunity for troops).
It's not because Iraq refused to sign an status of forces agreement, it's because Obama refused to grow a spine and negotiate one - which gave him the weasel room needed to do his partial troop withdrawal as needed to pander to his low-information political supporters. He could easily have negotiated an SOF and kept a couple of operating airbases with supporting troops as needed. But he chose not to for purely partisan political reasons, and we see the results.
Re: (Score:2)
The SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) could have been extended. Every SOFA ever, like going back to Rome and probably earlier, has involved sabre rattling from the local politicians, and they are almost always extended after giving the local politicians either loot or something to enhance their local prestige.
There were negotiations towards extending this particular SOFA in 2010 and 2011. I don't have my references handy, but I seem to recall that they got hung up on something trivial that the Iraqis want
Re: (Score:2)
While hindsight is 20:20, there was support for Obama pulling out the troops. In fact, that was one of the things that he promised, and won his election on. So he was pretty much where the American people wanted.
The whole Iran - and Afghanistan issue - was the mission creep that Bush embraced. The real mission in Afghanistan ended in December 2001 when Kandahar fell: in January, the Bonn negotiations started, and there really was no reason for the US troops to stay on. That could have been handed over
Safe spaces... (Score:3, Insightful)
... Who is blocking trump but not blocking ISIS? Who would sit there and say "I can deal with people that nail children to the wall while their mothers are raped behind them... but Trump... Too much."... Who does that?
The term "safe space" referred to offering a safe harbor to emotionally unstable people so they could calm down and then go back out and deal with the real world. The term has been coopted largely by dishonest hipster idiots that think they can apply the term to anything.
The world is the way the world is... Trump is admittedly very unusual and quite obnoxious. But on the grand scale of shit in this world... if you need a safe space from him... then you're not ready to leave your parents basement.
Just let it go.
Re:Safe spaces... (Score:5, Insightful)
Me for starters, even when you poorly try to misconstrue the position like a true keyboard warrior. Nothing about the coverage of Trump is news; it can all be summed up as "Populist ideologue says something half-considered and offensive" (depressingly similar to what a lot of ISIS's populist ideologues spout I imagine, though admittedly with less calls for beheadings). You don't appear to be responding to someone who mentioned safe spaces, or a summary that mentions safe spaces, so god knows why you went on a rant about hipsters. You also got the origin of the term wrong, which is odd given how much its imagined misuse bothered you.
Re: (Score:2)
1. The guy is running for president which for Americans is news. So you're just factually in error right out of the gate.
2. As to attacking populists... that would mean you're going to block Obama, Hillary, Bernie, etc because they're mostly populists right now. You're not doing that though which either means you're being dishonest or don't know what the word populist means.
3. As to safe spaces, that is literally the point of the stupid program. Its a cyber safe space. We've seen this with the Twitter block
Re: (Score:3)
... Who is blocking trump but not blocking ISIS? Who would sit there and say "I can deal with people that nail children to the wall while their mothers are raped behind them... but Trump... Too much."... Who does that?
Personally I have not seen ISIS propaganda, and definitely I've not seen anyone nailed to the wall or raped. Trump however I can't seem to get away from, and I'm not even bloody American.
Re: (Score:2)
ah the "X is worse, so who cares about Y" canard.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as tired as the old strawman of "I know you said X but let me see if people are stupid enough to not realize I'm arguing against Y fallacy".
I didn't say Trump was not worthy of being annoyed by... be annoyed by what you like. However, if Trump is so psychically painful to your fragile mind that you need to use a bot to scrub him from the internet... precisely how do you look at ISIS? And if you scrub out all those things... what is left and what do you see with any accuracy?
The safe space concept is for
Let me try that (Score:2)
If I am using that plugin... (Score:3, Interesting)
I would not be able to see this interesting thread?
Or how about... (Score:2)
there is an alternative (Score:2)
you could always just use a web extension to change all mentions of Trump to Darth Vader. [google.com]
"Vader slams Obama for 'Star Wars' quip | TheHill" is a much better google result.
Is it open Source - Multilingual? (Score:2)
I need to block The Kardashians, The Jenners and Marjorie de Souza.
If it is open source, and provides for multilingual/localization, i can modify to suit the needs of the spanish speaking people.
I may modify this to block cats. (Score:2)
Really - what's the obsession?
Slashdot Extension (Score:2)
How..."adult" (Score:2)
Yes. Because the way to deal with people we find offensive/unbearable is to censor them from our reality and pretend they don't exist.
What? Are we fucking two years old or something?
Jeter code, Trump code, bad link inside, oh my! (Score:4, Interesting)
The original code references a "Jeter" filter -- presumably Derek Jeter. (see README.md).
The Github link in the code and in the github readme says to do this:
git clone https://robspectre/Trump-Filte... [robspectre]
Actually you want to include the host name and do this:
git clone https://github.com/RobSpectre/... [github.com]
It would have been nice if instead of replacing almost all references to Jeter with Trump :)
the code would have allowed entering any number of character strings, such as
Trump, Clinton, Kardashian, and Fogle
Ehud
Tried it! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet! I can selectively blank out pages I disagree with by posting Trump comments on them?
Staring into the void. (Score:2)
... showing a blank void in the place of Trump-related content.
Just like the x-ray showing the space in his chest where his heart should be ...
Laughing (Score:2)
Because it is such a winning strategy to ignore one's opponent and pretend he doesn't exist.
I know where the Trump websites went. (Score:2)
It's disgusting, I don't want to talk about it. No, it's too disgusting. Don't say it, it's disgusting, let's not talk, we want to be very, very straight up.
Re: Head In Sand (Score:2)
Reasonable he isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, block out mentions of the first reasonable candidate to come along in 30 years.
Because "build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" and "ban all Muslim travel to the US and keep a database of all Muslim US citizens" both just scream out "reasonable".
Re: (Score:2)
http://boingboing.net/2015/07/... [boingboing.net]
btw, I hate rich assholes who think too much of themselves. hopefully our country does not go full retard (any more than they already have) and elect this chump.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say that he wanted to keep a database of all born American Muslims. The reporter said that and - in typical Trump fashion -, Trump ignored the reporter and kept talking about what he wanted to talk about (the wall and databases on people coming over illegally.)
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta tell ya, there's absolutely zero chance of my voting for Trump but the narrative and lies (I've checked to see what was really said and what was quoted) are really, well, amusing (for lack of a better word). This indicates, to my mind, fear. Why are you guys so afraid of Trump that you need to lie, misrepresent, take out of context, and then continue on with denigrating comments towards those who would show you the truth?
There are many things, perfectly valid things, that should keep Trump out of of
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, we should build a wall, but clearly it's going to be paid for mainly with funds from the Chinese mafia. (Things to make sure: 1. it's not actually in Mexico; 2. it's not a tower a mile up into the air with bushes hanging mid-air; 3. don't build it while high on maca.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
30 years? So the last reasonable guy was ... Reagan? Really? The man who needed his Secret Service to find his ass because he couldn't do it with both his hands himself?
The last decent president your country had was Eisenhower. And the country would sure need someone like him again. Level headed, upright and not least someone who not only dabbles in international politics and military but actually KNOWS what he's doing in BOTH of them.
Though I absolutely doubt that he could even survive the primaries in thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anger and intolerance are the enemies of correct understanding.
Yes, but anger and intolerance are the allies of the winners.
Re: (Score:2)
In a couple months version 457 will come up and it will only be using Chrome extensions.
Re: (Score:2)
As a European, he sure is my favorite candidate. I don't trust anyone but the hairpiece to actually drive the US economy fully and irreversibly into the ground. With that Bernie guy I was for a moment worried that you might actually elect someone who could have ideas that might just work, but since that bullet has been dodged, your election bickering is great popcorn cinema for us across the pond.
What's left is a bitch with zero clue in economics and a hairpiece whose knowledge in economics should ensure th
Re: (Score:2)