vertig0h

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 administration's use of legal defensive measures is not itself illegal or prohibited by the Constitution.

Congress' unprecedented barrage of subpoenas force the administration's hand here. You may find it "absurd", but unprecedented animus requires unprecedented defensive measures.

>"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.

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 don't disagree with you.

From experience, I recommend a good pair of noise cancelling headphones.

"positive"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Online forums.

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.

What's striking is that DNA from this ghost population comprises up to 19% of the modern DNA of the studied West Africans. For comparison I believe Neanderthal contribution to European and Asian genomes is around 3%.

Menstrual blood is pretty gross though. It's not misogynistic to recognize that. Plenty of gender neutral bodily fluids are gross too. Another person's bodily fluids in general are gross.