rfrank

Yeah I know, and I'm referring to that as well. He pans the Gutenberg Bible early in the article. The whole reason the printing press was a world changing invention is because it reduced books from handmade art to a commodity. To me it feels like he doesn't actually understand or respect the history of his craft.

1st edition of Birds in America by John James Audubon: https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9aiM_tlf4s0/TxuGE5ytVPI/AAAAAAAAE...

Yale rare books library: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/45/e8/56/45e8...

Books have always been an art form...

> If a journalist can find it - any internet layman who knows how to Google can find it.

News organizations have access to many non-public databases.

HN political discussion in a nutshell.

No, I've never heard of civil disobedience. Fantastic question.

Sure seems to me like people would have been able to say, "I don't consent to listening to these people ask for equal representation, an aggressive violation of my rights." And then the whole movement gets stopped in its tracks when it ceases to be protected speech.

> They just convicted a protester from Session's hearing.

"She did not get convicted for laughing. It was her actions as she was being asked to leave," the jury foreperson told the Huffington Post. "Ms. Fairooz's comments as she was being escorted out caused the session to stop. It disrupted the session." [1].

> They just arrested a member of the press because they asked the wrong question of Tom Price.

"Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump, was with Mr. Price, and at one point in the recording, a man’s voice is heard saying: “Do not get close to her. Back up.”

"...a criminal complaint said he “tried aggressively to breach the security of the Secret Service” and was “causing a disturbance by yelling questions.”" [2]

1. http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-a-woman-wasnt-convicted...

2. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/business/media/reporter-a...

No, we don't need to talk about consent. If both parties had to consent to a conversation, the civil rights movement would have never happened.

Young America's Foundation.

http://www.yaf.org/news/statement-young-americas-foundations...

Do you actually know conservatives that you associate frequently with in real life? I really doubt they've ever been interested in what Milo has to say.

> "Violence" is always somehow brought into the mix by conservatives.

Antifa and other leftist extremist groups have attacked people a lot lately...

> ...when you see how quick conservative America was drop Milo like a hot potato once he said something that crossed their lines.

"Conservative America" doesn't care about Milo, and most didn't know who he even was before the election and the left attempting to hold him up as some straw man of right wing thought. Pre-election the only thing people knew that guy for was GamerGate, he's never been taken seriously by the right.

An application of an Amendment to the Constitution is different than the entire document. Context is important, but I see you're committed to ignoring that.

> The only thing preventing Trump from being impeached is that it's his party in control; that's it.

This is objectively, factually incorrect. Nixon's case was a slam dunk, 100% win. Nothing you've presented comes even close, try harder. Yes, it is theoretically possible to push for impeachment charges with a worse case. I'm arguing that would be very stupid to do, because it wouldn't work and it would destroy potential for stronger cases in the future.

> ...there's enough to attempt to bring charges, that's all that matters.

Considering he'd still be in office, and any later attempt to impeach would likely fall on its face due to the embarrassing failure, no, charges aren't all that matters.

Attempting to remove Trump with the 25th Amendment is a ridiculous pipe dream that will never happen. Thinking that doesn't mean I somehow don't take the Constitution seriously, but thanks for the super reasonable interpretation of my comment.

> The point stands, there's enough that congress could impeach him at any time...

No, it doesn't, as I've just pointed out why all of your listed items have legitimate legal defenses that would probably win in court. I don't take the 25th seriously because it's basically fan fiction by people who hate Trump, and is completely impractical as an actual means of impeachment.

Best reply so far. Might be misinterpreting, but I think that both you & the other person who replied to my above comment are taking the somewhat broad charge of high crimes and misdemeanors as allowing for just about anything to become grounds for impeachment, which just isn't the case.

Per Wikipedia, "Impeachment in the United States is an enumerated power of the legislature that allows formal charges to be brought against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed. Most impeachments have concerned alleged crimes committed while in office, though there have been a few cases in which Congress has impeached and convicted officials partly for prior crimes." [1]

Wording in the Constitution, "The President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors." [1]

"The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office." [2] Fun fact, the English version of the charge, in use since 1386, included losing a ship by neglecting to moor it as one of the offenses.

All that goes to say that legislation (law) is related, and there's some fairly specific criteria any president has to meet to be successfully impeached. There is a degree of "prosecutorial discretion," but it comes in the context of misconduct in office, as I understand it. Two sitting presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson for violating the Tenure of Office Act, and Bill Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice.

Of the things you list, I think the divesting/time at own property are probably the strongest case. Assuming they'd go after him with the Emoluments clause, it could still be challenging, however. Lots of opinions on how broadly applicable it is [3-5].

The family thing is something I'm not personally a fan of, but I doubt it would be impeachable [6]. To quote, "Interestingly, there may be a loophole around all of this. The law says that penalty for violating this law is that the person is "not entitled to pay."" Bit later, “While it’s true that the penalty for violation of the statute is just to withhold salary or other financial remuneration from the wrongfully appointed employee, there’s also the possibility that any action taken by such a wrongfully appointed employee could be subject to legal challenge and potentially even be voidable,...”

I don't personally take the 25th very seriously. Lying is a critique that's been made of a pretty high percentage of politicians in history, I'd assume (not to be dismissive, happy to talk about examples you think are particularly egregious or w/e). "I am not a crook", "If you like your plan you can keep it", and on and on forever.

At the end of the day I don't particularly enjoy impeachment talk from either side because it feels blindly reactionary, when that energy is probably better spent directly opposing bits of policy (which is obviously happening), and in this particular instance preparing for 2018, which will be a very important midterm year. Holding our elected officials to a high standard is important, and the microscope that Trump and his admin are under ultimately benefits everyone, but I think it's also important to be selective about where and when to fight.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_Stat...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/03/0...

4. https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2017/01/26/what-em...

5. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2911871

6. http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/president-trump-is-legally-...

And with the US interfering in foreign elections.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obam...

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/05/04/obama-endroses...

EDIT because I'm rate limited by this joke of a site again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

I think that encouraging people to think about how silly the things they say during political discussions is productive.

I've still yet to see someone propose a rational mechanism with which to impeach the current president.

So you'd be fine with the president being assassinated by a foreign government?

> The only rational response is an organized campaign to convince American citizens to remove Trump from office as soon as possible.

Why is that the ONLY rational response? What removal mechanism do you propose?

And YouTube isn't entitled to thousands of people producing high quality content on a daily basis, just because they provided a means to do so. Nothing stops those same people from leaving for other platforms, and the number of people switching over to twitch.tv means that's already happening. Having a user hostile attitude and making life harder for small content creators is probably an unwise long term play for YouTube to make.

Was that the case before Ryzen? I know their new CPUs support ECC, but I'm not sure for earlier generations.

I totally get you on your critique, but I think the ambiguity is somewhat intentional - think koans in Zen Buddhism. Haven't read it in over 10 years now, so if I were to read it again I might not think the same, however. He probably directly mentions the koans thing himself haha.

Around the same time I read Way of the Peaceful Warrior by Dan Millman [1], and Illusions by Richard Bach [2], and felt they were both better than Zen. At the end of the day I think the real value of any of those texts is the introduction to philosophy/self-discovery in general, in a really accessible form.

"A cloud does not know why it moves in just such a direction and at such a speed, it feels an impulsion... this is the place to go now.

But the sky knows the reason and the patterns behind all clouds, and you will know, too, when you lift yourself high enough to see beyond horizons." - Illusions

1. https://www.amazon.com/Way-Peaceful-Warrior-Changes-Lives/dp...

2. https://www.amazon.com/Illusions-Adventures-Reluctant-Messia...

Not the legitimacy of the page being liked, of the bot's profile. Filling it with dummy information, including various liked pages, posts, etc, to use them for astroturfing.

> Is it wrong to want white drug users to go to jail just like black ones were?

Yes, if you're of the "drugs should be legal" perspective. Revenge isn't justice.

I definitely think that's the case, same for food trucks as well.

It's just amusing to me how only one of those bad things seems to be "terrifying" or "disturbing". Which is worse, unmasking the twitter account owner, or Susan Rice's unmasking of intel reports on Trump's campaign staff?

> the executive branch of the federal government attempting to punish dissent

Like using the IRS to target conservatives?

> Look at what happened when Obama won.

"Elections have consequences." "I won. Deal with it." "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Politicizing the IRS.

Should I pretend that Yvette Felarca [1] is a beacon of liberal thought in the same way you're doing with that nobody you linked in the Mic article? Do you assume that most Trump voters would condone that guy's behavior? Like, seriously?

GOP is the strongest it's been from a local to national level since the 1920's. The internal conflict they're going through with the Freedom Caucus is something Trump voters anticipated, never Trump Republicans were a thing. Democratic leadership seems unsure whether to follow the more vocal portion of their base further to the left, or refocus on the more centrist Democrats who went Obama in '08 and '12 but voted Trump in '16. Obstructionist moves in Washington are something the left isn't traditionally fond of [2]. That's why the left should reach out. Do whatever you want, you clearly don't seem to mind the politicization.

1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/14/berkeley-teacher...

2. https://newrepublic.com/article/141751/democrats-will-lose-w...

Most of America seems to have forgotten that single issue voters exist on both sides.

You should be able to define the words you use, when you want to dismiss conflicting viewpoints with them. Your inability to define what propaganda and bias mean makes the conversation impossible. You have no bar, other than your feelings, for what makes something propaganda. Which is stupid. I just wanted to let you know that thinking it's just some conservative bias against liberals that makes people think NYT and CNN are propaganda is pigeonholing these folks into a very convenient "idiot" bucket.

No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry?

Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and her letter, and the extreme criticism she faced from HN members? Do you think the attitude you commented with will help bridge a political divide? Because your words are exactly why I think it's laughable to expect tech employees to do anything about polarization other than make it much worse.