Congress' unprecedented barrage of subpoenas force the administration's hand here. You may find it "absurd", but unprecedented animus requires unprecedented defensive measures.
> Congress' unprecedented barrage of subpoenas force the administration's hand here. You may find it "absurd", but unprecedented animus requires unprecedented defensive measures.
Not sure where in the Constitution this appears...
Claiming that congress doesn't have subpoena powers and everything needs to be taken to Supreme court is not "legal defensive measures". That is the only thing that matters to this sub-thread here. Remember, it is only a while ago that the tables were turned and republicans were happy to claim then President Clinton did not have any powers to defend.
>"Especially considering all the other political reprisals and pardons that are in the news"
What news are you talking about? Whatever news you're watching is only giving you one perspective on events, so this "observation" is not helpful on its own.
The rest of your comment is similarly rooted in assumptions and speculation borne out of a hostile media's interpretation of recent events, so the conclusions you're reaching are built on a far less sturdy foundation of "evidence" than you may think.
The media is supposed to be hostile. They are always hostile to the administration. It is their job as one of the checks on power enshrined in the constitution. Why do you think freedom of the press is in Amendment one?
That's not always the case. The mainstream media - both the news media and entertainment media more broadly - was extremely accommodative and deferential to the Obama administration largely because he was on the mainstream media's political "side".
Given this, many actions taken by the Obama administration that would have dominated the news cycle as impeachment-worthy if taken by the Trump administration were simply ignored or brushed aside by the Obama administration's media allies.
> The mainstream media - both the news media and entertainment media more broadly - was extremely accommodative and deferential to the Obama administration
These things you're mentioning are minor issues which have been blown out of proper proportion and context by a hostile media spoon-feeding political propaganda to a willing segment of the public.
That said, none of the things you mentioned are related to investigating tax evasion.
"Oh, you sneezed on Sally when you were in first grade without apologizing? You must be guilty of armed robbery."
Welcome to Europe. European salaries in general are low. Take home pay too, and goods and services are much more expensive. It's important for people to realize this, that "free" healthcare, education, etc. are far from free.
I'll take "paid parental leave, not being let go on a moment's notice and not being bankrupted by unforeseen medical issues for everybody" over "a bit more cash just for me".
It's also worth noting that the U.S' "not free" healthcare costs the taxpayer more than (for example) the U.K.'s "free" system (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...). It's almost as if the word 'free' is not a useful term to use when describing government-subsidised services.
This isn't a very common opinion, but I'd rather contribute to a system that has free healthcare and a better safety net, even if I get lower (but still comfortable) pay, even if I'll never directly benefit from it myself.
Not all goods and services are more expensive, in my experience. I've been living in Cali (not bay area) for a couple of months now and the price of fresh fruit and veg in the shops is outrageous compared to UK. Bell peppers for example seem to cost two or three times as much, even though California is the top producing state in the US. Eating out in restaurants is definitely more expensive when you factor the tip in, whilst fast food is comparably priced. The only good that I've found to be noticeably cheaper is petrol.
The only good that I've found to be noticeably cheaper is petrol.
And that is because the vast majority of the price of petrol here in the UK is tax (in fact, multiple taxes). Successive UK governments have long used tax policy, on fuel and otherwise, to deter the use of wasteful, highly polluting vehicles. This has arguably been somewhat successful, though it will be a moot point within a generation in any case because eliminating petrol and diesel vehicles entirely is clearly the goal for several good reasons.
Plenty other forms of produce are dirt cheap. You can eat fruits and salad every day and do it cheaper than any other country I've been to, as long as you don't insist on outliers like multi-colored bell peppers in your food.
As for restaurants, technically fast food counts as restaurants. So I'd be surprised if the US wasn't one of the cheapest in the developed world there too. Hard to compare if you want to factor in quality though.
True, fast food is probably a bit cheaper than the UK, especially when considering cost relative to average disposable income. I've found the prices of a lot of fruit and veg surprisingly high though, including things like oranges, onions and eggplants. Also, bread! Can't find a loaf less than $1.79 in the local Cali supermarkets but would be able to get one for 80p or less in the UK.
I was on 143k usd before I left London and now work remotely for about 188k usd for a UK company. This was was with stock options as well.
As a salaried employee, that would be exceptionally high in almost any field. Obviously some such jobs exist, but unless you're a very senior figure in a relatively well-paid industry, you're an outlier at that compensation level.
I don't doubt you, but I suspect your startup was relatively well-funded and generous with its team. I know people who have earned that kind of money as well, but it's well outside the central part of the curve, even in tech and in London, for someone on salary. For independents with a good track record, sure, it's less unusual.
You've been breaking the HN guidelines a lot by using this account for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of this site to heart? It's curious conversation, not smiting enemies, and we can't do both at the same time.
Of course the answer is #2. When Obama ran in 2008 and 2012, media, academics and technologists fawned over his campaign's then novel use of technology and Facebook advertising.
I remember clear as day reading articles and analysis about his campaign methods without noting a single hint of concern or animus.
I've lost a significant amount of faith in people's integrity since 2016 not because of Trump, but because of people's responses to Trump.
Very good point. Social media platforms were held up a shining example because Obama's message was largely positive, but few stopped to think about the flip side of the scenario... until 2016.
That's subjective. Something that sounds nice and upliftung may not actually be positive in the long run while something that sounds negative may indeed be necessary.
Which proves the point that opposition to online political advertising is not rooted in some deep and profound moral principle, but is merely a response to one's favored "side" being outmaneuvered by opposition candidates' deft use of online tools and advertising.
Moral shallowness is masquerading as righteousness on the Left, but many have convinced themselves that the masquerade is genuine.
Facebook and the Internet were a bit different in 2008 than they were in 2016. Facebook had fewer than 150m active users and they skewed young. The "news" feed was actually stuff your friends posted and using social media for a political campaign was novel.
Fast forward to 2016 where Facebook has two billion active users, a majority of whom use their location/behavior tracking app. They also have 12 years of user extremely detailed user graphs and own a significant percentage of online advertising (tracking). Their business model has also changed to specifically sell microtargeted ads. They've also resisted all types of regulation of political advertising.
There were misgivings about social media political advertising in 2008 but up to that point social media was just crowd sourcing of bullshit. Since 2008 it's become far less social and really just become a big advertising vector. Whatever misgivings anyone had about it would have vastly underestimated its impact.
Thanks. I have to make this point on HN just about every time Facebook ads come up. It absolutely blows my mind that something so prominent can be intentionally forgotten so quickly. I was very young in 2008 and even then I easily noticed this.
Bloomberg has little organic support compared to the hundreds of millions he is spending. 2016 was clear evidence that money does not buy elections (Clinton outspent Trump 2:1) and this election cycle will demonstrate the same as Bloomberg loses the primary.
If history demonstrates anything, it's that money can buy you the democratic nomination. Bloomerg may well ruin the party and allow Trump to win the election.
Unfortunately Facebook and other tech companies have strong incentives to do just that, given the politics of the large majority of their employees and the power they have over information and elections by extension.
This was extremely courageous and absolutely the right thing to do. Google has unprecedented control over information and it's important that the public be aware of how that information is potentially manipulated. A free society openness and dialog, not corporate sponsored censorship.
This is a shortsighted view. Evidence from many other industries with weak property rights contradicts your point. Nigeria's film industry is unable to allocate significant resources to film production in large part because Nigeria's government is incapable of enforcing copyright on behalf of the filmmakers.
Stealing IP does have an impact on capital allocation.
Doesn't Nigeria make more films than everyone else? I am not sure how this supports your point? There is no way Nigeria will put in the money that the US does.
Actually sort of true, though I might say a better example is Singapore, which attracts business in part because it has the strongest legal system and lowest corruption of the countries in southeast asia.
Salons in 18th and 19th century Europe generally revolved around one or a few wealthy patrons of the salon who not only funded its operations but also attracted the luminaries and intellectuals to its doors.
The analogue of patrons on the internet would be forum moderators, website owners, group creators, etc. But only to a certain extent because the owners and maintainers of an online forum are far less personally engaged with the conversation and daily goings on.
Of course the scale is much larger on the internet, and we don't actually deal with one another face to face. Banter is usually restricted as well and discussions are highly focused, in contrast to salons which were more of a social club.
I don't think online forums are the equivalent of saloons. I believe saloons were fairly scarce, thus if you got banned from one, you could not simply pop in another or make another account. The penalty for breaking the rules was fairly high and that made people leave some of their "crazy" at home.
