DominikR

I'm in Austria, it was a disgrace. All of media was attacking the right wing guy with no dissenting voices, and you have to be afraid of personal and professional consequences if you endorse him or say anything against the Socialist candidate they are trying to push.

It's literally like in the Soviet Union, at least that's what my parents told me as they came from a Communist country.

He does not explicitly appeal to or endorse white identity politics. Where's the proof for your outrageous statement?

And what exactly is wrong with wanting to "take back your country"? He's talking about enforcing existing laws like having borders.

I believe it is about hiding illegal actions. (Whistleblowing) I don't think WikiLeaks has ever dumped data that exclusively contained irrelevant info about normal and legal actions.

Authoritarian regimes in most cases maintain power over their population by controlling media 100%, they don't actually put shackles on their people, only on the few ones who see through it.

If you are able to break their narrative then the dictatorship has no other way than using massive force to maintain control, in which case everybody will know from now on that they are being enslaved and this will have an effect in the future. (citizens will be less cooperative in a non offending way)

I did not say Trump lies or doesn't lie. I say he isn't treated in a fair way and that there is a concerted effort by media to bring him down in any way they can.

He's been in the media for 40 years without anyone calling him racist and he's been around supermodels without anyone calling him a sexual predator or anything like that. But all of a sudden they find he is all of that and even worse.

And on the other hand, how much negative stuff is reported about Hillary? There certainly is lots of material with all that WikiLeaks has put out. Almost zero, she is instead praised like a Soviet leader. She's a wonderful human being and politician that somehow made $250 million while in office.

It was reported in Austria by ORF which is our national broadcasting channel. What they report is at least from our governments perspective uncontroversial.

Also Israeli media reported this.

This is not related in any way to whistleblowing. In fact what he wants to do is to hold media accountable for maliciously twisting information in order to manipulate public opinion and the elections.

Can you honestly say that you feel he is treated in a fair way by the media and they are not trying their best to prevent a Trump presidency even if that includes outright lying?

If he wanted to force them to lie for him it would be a completely different thing. But since he wants media to report more truthfully I see more alignment between Trump and Assange than seeing them at odds with each others.

Well many veterans did but that doesn't they were immoral. When you're in war people try to kill you.

I just don't like it when people admire what was shown in this TV series. (yes, I felt it was cool back then, but I've realised sine then that this series really just indoctrinated me to accept torture)

> he did a job at CIA that's as close to Jack Bauer as exists in real life.

Did he torture people to death?

Didn't know this is your safe space. You could move to a country where only one ideology is allowed.

How many of these centrally planned utopias have ever worked out well for the people?

I'd prefer if political parties would openly state their policy and how they will change the laws instead of saying one thing and then in secret ignore existing laws to create a situation with tens of millions of illegal immigrants that is now hard to deal with humanely.

Nobody is going to win a popularity contest with the policy to deport millions of people, but no one would have won a popularity contest either by importing millions of people.

Now they can all shrug their shoulders and say it's not our fault, but it clearly is someones fault. It is possible to have a secure border with mostly legal immigration, other countries did it before and they do it today as well.

Aside from that it isn't beneficial for Mexico that some of their brightest men and women move to the US while their drug cartels smuggle money and weapons into Mexico which they use to corrupt and slaughter their own people.

The costs for the examples you list are costs of having your own nation and your own set of laws.

There's no point in having either of those if we collectively do not enforce it.

Your position would allow to introduce arbitrary limits on freedom because you can always show a direct or indirect cost caused by having freedom. (it would certainly be cheaper to have everyone living in safe and orderly labour camps, wouldn't it?)

Regarding the U.S. Constitution: I'm in the EU but from my basic understanding the Constitution is a list of supreme laws limiting the governments power to interfere with citizens freedoms and not the other way around. Compiling a list of citizens freedoms would be senseless anyway as it would quickly approach an infinite list. Since I have not heard about a Constitutional law that allows the government to displace people internally it follows that the government does not have this power.

Oh you've got me completely wrong, I wouldn't guarantee anyone a place or service anywhere in the world.

What I'm saying is that people are free to go and stay where ever they want in their country as long as it isn't someones private property. That's a very basic freedom that we all have.

You don't have a mandatory responsibility to care for the homeless and homeless do not have a responsibility to accept any your care. Especially if your care amounts to basically forcing them to live in a different place.

> It's more like this: San Francisco is very expensive. It is also a nice place to live.

I don't care, I can be where ever I want as long as it is not someones property. Doesn't matter if I'm poor or rich.

> Why not put shelters and programs to get people back on their feet

Such programs and shelters do already exist all over the country. Do you want to force them to move to these places or camps?

> Just like everybody else.

Not everybody wants to be you or me.

I don't like having homeless people on the streets but even the homeless have freedoms and the same rights that you and I enjoy.

What you are saying is that SF is only for certain people, all others should be made to go.

Something similar was actually tried already in the Soviet Union and in other Communist/Socialist countries with regards to Gypsies. (it didn't target them specifically and instead all homeless, but policy makers had this group in mind)

Laws were implemented that would force them to live in (free) government assigned apartments and accept government assigned jobs.

This policy failed because you can't force someone to like or accept a lifestyle they don't want. They just run away at the first opportunity. You can offer them different opportunities and some might accept it, but as far as I know this is already being done.

What is funny though about this article is that many of the SF tech billionaires are themselves immigrants from former Communist countries or children of these immigrants. Many of their statements seem to indicate that they believe in technocrat rule and some kind of artificial betterment of people that can be achieved through education and policy. (which often translates into propaganda and use of force if you ask me)

It's interesting how values can persist throughout generations, even if you move to a different continent.

I agree, I understand his statement mostly as rejecting the way how the transition was made and for the chaos that ensued after the collapse. (which was truly horrific even without the wars)

> which characterizes Putin's neototalitarian style

First of all the RF is not totalitarian, Putin can't just do whatever he likes. If he did and people would hate him for that then he wouldn't have the power to turn a landslide defeat into a victory by fixing something. So there are real restraints on his power that are directly tied to the support he gets from the population.

But even if I were to accept your characterisation of Putin ruling with a "neototalitarian style" then I'd like to know when in the history of the RF, the USSR or the Russian Empire the society was more free than today? As far as I remember it has always been a Monarchy, a dictatorship or total chaos with Mafia ruling the streets and even the government. So what exactly is "neo" about his totalitarian style when it's obviously gotten better?

Russia never was a democracy by Western standards and it is highly unlikely that it will ever be one.

For me as a Libertarian I'd actually desire to get rid of democracy or at least restrict government influence so much that democratic elected officials have next to no influence. That's because I don't want to be robbed by the majority that always tends to vote for laws in order to steal from those who are successful so they themselves can be lazy.

No it is not, Russians have a different mentality. Putin is stability, if they could somehow make him live another 100 years they would allow him to stay in power unless he makes a major mistake.

In Russia you never know what chaos might come next. Before Putin there was Jelzin who oversaw one of the worst periods for ordinary Russians after the second world war. People are frightened at the prospect of what might come after Putin.

There is a lot of media available that attacks Putin relentlessly but people themselves see them as traitors. It's not my opinion but it certainly is the opinion of the majority there.

Like I said, different mentality, if a leader brings stability they rally behind him and (in an almost paranoid way) see behind every critic a traitor that is colluding with foreign powers.

It's been like that for centuries.

Edit: One thing that certainly doesn't help with having a strong opposition is the fact that every single opposition leader since Putin came into power has been caught having secret meetings with the US ambassador. I have no clue how they can believe that this will help in any way. It sometimes seems like the US ambassador in Russia is only there to collaborate with Russian opposition.

Imagine how that looks to ordinary Russians. Or how would it look to you if all of the US opposition would regularly meet with Russian or Chinese officials to get support?

I very much doubt that this article is 100% accurate on the reason for the fine. The Russian government doesn't defend Communism and the USSR in any shape or form.

What triggers them is any suggestion that the Nazis were good and suggesting the surrender of St Petersburg to the Nazis would have been great definitely falls into that category for the majority of Russians.

On top of that St Petersburg really has a problem with violent Neo Nazis groups, or at least had - don't know how it's today.

I'm actually pro freedom of speech to a degree that most people in Europe are not (I would allow them have their stupid demonstrations) but the truth is that in most countries some ideologies are forbidden. Nazism is forbidden in most parts of Europe or how about showing public support for ISIS.

I'm 100% sure it is forbidden everywhere in Europe (maybe with UK being the only exception).

You might be surprised to find that many Russian emperors who are viewed in a positive light in the West are viewed negatively in Russia and vice versa to this day.

It is actually quite logical since Russia and the West often have had conflicting interests for centuries. What was good for Russia was often bad for the West and what's good for the West was often bad for Russia.

Current example: Putin. (not an exactly an emperor but certainly in power for decades) Insane support in Russia from the common people and viciously vilified by Western elites and media. (for common people though it is mixed here, they are not in a conflict with Putin)

The sad thing is that this guy will probably be set free again after serving 10 months in prison.

Aside from that I have to admit that it is strange to me that a Muslim human rights lawyer would want to defend him.

Maybe it works for you to ask first (I doubt you are serious about this) but I would not advise any man to do this.

Of course it is at some point or didn't you ever touch a women? The problem is that you people all take Trumps words literally, but he isn't a politician and therefore he doesn't talk like one.

Apparently you have difficulty reasoning objectively about this issue. Let's agree to disagree and move on with life.

For you it's sexual assault because you imagine him attacking women without any warning while I on the other hand have no reason to believe that he isn't escalating sexually in a normal way, leaving room for women to say no or move a step back to signal a no.

Edit: When I think about it then I must be a sexual predator according to your definition. I cannot remember to have ever explicitly asked a women if I may kiss her.

Sexual assault? He said "they let you do it if you are rich and famous". Now that's real news. He didn't say that he'd force himself on them against their wishes.

You might feel it's scummy to think that way but claiming this is sexual assault is ridiculous.

People brag sometimes trying to look greater than they are, so whatever.

If you are attacking someone then please do it on substantive issues. (something that can be prosecuted)

For example the fact that Facebook engages in censorship (as does Google and Twitter by the way) and actively pushes propaganda trying their best to manipulate the US election. That's a real issue that might lead to some people being sued or even imprisoned after the election if their candidate doesn't win.

Oh well, we see debt in the West rising exponentially while more and more businesses leave the West and people are getting poorer and poorer. If that's not a clear vote from the productive elements of society on how well taxation is working for them then I don't know what is.

And for you it is not? You donate your income to the government?

And why should it be a problem if there is wealth inequality? When you have a company and make a lot of money you don't steal from anyone. All money that you earn is coming from customers that freely give up their hard earned money in exchange for whatever you are selling. The only one who is stealing your money is the government, actually you are robbed because they will use force if you don't hand over your property.

Also why should rich people pay more taxes than poor people? What is the moral reasoning behind that? As I see it you pay for government services and to me it is immoral that one has to overpay 100x for a service while someone else pays a fraction of that. It's as if you walk into a coffee shop and one guy pays $1 for a cup of coffee while another rich person is forced to pay $100 for the same cup of coffee.

No wonder that rich people move their money somewhere else. If a majority survives by leeching off a productive minority then eventually the system will fail and people will live in abject misery and poverty.