Hillary Clinton Urges Silicon Valley to ‘Disrupt’ ISIS
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Stop publically calling Edward Snowden a traitor, stop trying to pass nonsensical cybersecurity legislation through congress, remove the ridiculous ban on working for an intelligence agency if you've smoked Marijuana in the past year, have a quicker and more transparent background investigation process for security clearences, and start winning some goodwill with the developer communities if you want help with political conflicts.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/21/edward-snowde...
"about 64 percent of Americans familiar with Snowden hold a negative opinion of him"
Hillary may be a triangulating politico ; but this one is a no brainer for her ... and any one else who wants to win.
While being popular overseas and among net hacktivists, Defending Snowden doesn't play well out in flyover country.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1618/favorability-people-news.asp...
Be that as it may, it still shows Hillary viewed unfavorably by more people than not at 43% vs 46%. And to my point, this group probably overlaps significantly with those who hold an unfavorable view of Snowden. And I'm guessing in that intersecting group (people who dislike both), the hatred of Hillary is generally stronger than of Snowden.
Well that's exactly the point though, no?
Deep, excavatory reform in intelligence (and government generally) - the kind of change that might lead Snowden to be treated with respect - is precisely the motion that requires thought leadership from a statesperson who is ahead of public opinion instead of riding it.
I actually like that turn of phrase ... but I"m not holding my breath this election cycle.
* excremenatory reform
I don't recall where I read it, but some years ago I came across the good advice that designing for the future is most easily done from being about 20 minutes ahead of the general public - less and your proposals don't look interesting enough, more and they're too hard for people to understand and you won't be able to get a job.
When asked about the actual ramifications of Snowden's revelations (how they would feel about "dick pics" being seen by the government), nearly all of them had very negative opinions (which would likely affect their opinion of Snowden).
Doesn't really affect Hillary's politics but still, if the media would actually inform the public about his revelations, things may change.
Emphasis mine.
Well, if we make the assumption that most probably over 50% of people don't know and don't care (about much of anything that doesn't have to do with their direct income) we can immediately see that there isn't 64% left!
Obama says "no". So do all the other polticians as far as I can tell.
“If he felt his actions were consistent with civil disobedience, then he should do what those who have taken issue with their own government do: challenge it, speak out, engage in a constructive act of protest, and — importantly — accept the consequences of his actions,” White House counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco said.
A majority — 53 percent — believes the U.S. should pursue a criminal case against Snowden.
[1] http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2010/08/karl-rove-say...
I'd much rather read about a new Raspberry Pi or some obscure new programming language for X than have to force my eyes to glean through corporate-backed, career-politician rhetoric (to win votes or to win some PAC-funding - I'm not sure which is more valuable these days).
Yes, those tiresome "freedom of speech" complaints. I guess we know what kind of president Hillary Clinton will make - one that takes the Constitution even less seriously than Obama did.
I don't think that is how disruption works either
Assuming the websites and videos for propaganda purposes are used for sympathizers to engage in discussion, as opposed to being pure brochures, surely keeping them up is most desirable for recon purposes.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgMgjPzXqg4
When will the lies stop?
If you could focus on one core idea that would end suffering, bloodshed and violence in this region it would be to nurture the spread competing ideologies (eg.atheism) to the religious one.
Unfortunately, America is never going to do that, and this is why the middle east won't be disrupted, and why it hasn't happened in the last 50 years. It would be good if some other western country's propaganda dept would pick up this torch, but they'd never get it done as good as your average silicon valley growth marketer could.
Which is hard to imagine being said from any influential politician in the US.
And there are, as we would see them today, some gory things in the Bible. But not even most extreme international organization of believer fighters tries to "do all what's in the Bible." Not so with the Quran and Surah, only because the doctrine, even promoted by the US "close friends" like Saudi Arabia, is that these "words of God" are to be taken very seriously.
And there is really a lot of explicit intolerance in these basic Islamic texts. Which is also unimaginable to be admitted, even if it's true.
Humpty-Dumpty politics.
And another thing politicians would never say is "OK we'll really stop doing what we're doing, supporting the guys "on our side" no matter what they do."
Basically Hillary just hopes "somebody" would invent how to let the big politicians do just what they did up to now, and not lose any sponsor, but to cause change, but only to the taste of them.
Win against ISIS but not admit that Libya is much worse since the West did what it did, and Assad is not allowed to stay too, just because "we" don't like him, and that Syria remains "a kind of Libya" "we" don't care too... And "we" will never excuse to anybody for what "we" made of Iraq. Or that "we" actually like those Islamic religious guys making wars because that's always "opportunity" for "us."
And when you're there, invent how to make energy out of nothing while keeping the rich rich and the poor poor. And how to eat sugar and fat indefinitely and remain thin. And...
- control the border and those here already illegaly
- address big pharama /drug use
- cover meds and background checks past 18 states
- address radical islam, they proved they won't self police
- encourage respect for life and responsibility for self defense and safety
Otherwise, you're correct.
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/james-craig-detroit...
What if experiments proved that home owners and such having a weapon makes everyone safer. What if. What if a gun free zone was proved to attract loons? Then in that case I say those 14 did not need to die.