Full Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement Intellectual Property Chapter Analyzed (freezenet.ca) 109
Dangerous_Minds writes: Freezenet seems to be the first website to publish a full run-down of the final draft of the Intellectual Property chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The leak was published on Wikileaks earlier. The analysis seems to confirm what the EFF has said, saying that the chapter "confirms our worst fears about the agreement, and dashes the few hopes that we held out that its most onerous provisions wouldn't survive to the end of the negotiations." The analysis focuses mainly on copyright enforcement on the Internet and the impact the chapter would have on personal devices, VPN services, and ISPs. One noteworthy find by Freezenet is the inclusion of a "TPP Commission" which would decide when different countries are supposed to meet outside of the 10-year cycle, discussing "market circumstances" of "the development of new pharmaceutical products." What other roles the TPP Commission takes on is unclear given that it is not mentioned anywhere else in the chapter.
So to summarize... (Score:3)
So to summarize the effect of TPP in one semi-sentence....
"....and the horse you rode in on..."
Re:So to summarize... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, more like by the horse they rode in on.
This is yet another example of idiot governments rolling over and giving corporations everything they want, and utterly failing to serve the people who voted for them.
This shit needs to stop. Because governments should be looking out for our interests, instead of lying to us and telling us what is good for corporations benefits us.
Welcome to the oligarchy kids. We're all pretty much fucked now.
Re: (Score:1)
The TPP overwhelmingly benefits rich people ie stockholders. Politicians are rich people and so are most of the people they know, certainly the ones they know personally anyway. Thus the TPP is a great deal for politicians and everyone they 'know' and supports them
Re: (Score:2)
Only as long as they still have a head on their neck.
But I dare say we still have a lot of time 'til we're at that point again.
Re: (Score:2)
A couple of weeks with no food in the stores and no gas at the gas stations would do it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's basically why you'll see anything and everything else happen before something like this happens.
Freedom? Pffft, who gives a shit? We have food, we have TV, we have cheap gas.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is why members of Congress should be required by law to spend at least 48 weeks per year in the districts that they serve. Meet physically in D.C. three times per year—for the opening session, for the State of the Union address, and for the closing session. Use a multi-way video conferencing system for everything else. Make the lobbyists work for it by flying to 535 different places instead of being able to talk to everybody in one place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"This is yet another example of idiot governments rolling over and giving corporations everything they want, and utterly failing to serve the people who voted for them."
You're under the dangerous idea that they ever worked for you.
First, our brains are much worse at reality and thinking than thought. Science on reasoning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]
Protectionism for the rich and big business by state intervention, radical market interference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHj2GaPuEhY#t=349 [youtube.com]
Wh
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's no longer the USA. No megacorp really has a home country any more. They play countries against each other for the best profit.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes, we have the best gov't money can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
...utterly failing to serve the people who voted for them.
People don't vote for someone, at least not recently.
People either vote against the person/party they hate most or they vote for [R or D]-affiliated candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
People are only able to vote for or against what their masters let them vote for or against. It's not like there has been a really independent (and I don't even mean "not affiliated with either side of The Party" but rather "not in the pocket of some business that pretty much propped up the puppet") candidate available in any election where the outcome actually had any kind of meaning. At least none that had a nonzero chance of winning.
Essentially, you may vote what corporation(s) get to rip you off. Not wh
Re: (Score:2)
Please do. I won't hold you back.
Don't expect me to do it, though. Not that I'd value the life of a politician, but what good does whacking the sock puppet do if you can't hit the hand inside?
They have bigger guns (Score:1)
And when you use them, you become a murderer.
Protest without guns. They can't shoot you without looking like the bad guys.
And a million people who decide to just walk up to them will crush them to death.
Re: So to summarize... (Score:2)
The last I checked, Jews weren't the majority of the CEOs, nor are they the majority of the leaders of the OECD countries.
American business has long hated Jews (well before World War II) so I'd love to hear your explanation for how Jews are running everything.
Perhaps your ire should be directed at the greedy sociopaths who want ever more power and money, rather than channeling Henry Ford with your anti-semitism.
Re: (Score:1)
instead of lying to us and telling us what is good for corporations benefits us.
See, this sounds great and all, but really doesn't make any sense.
Corporations (or businesses) and the vehicle through which private money can get products to consumers in the US. You wouldn't have widespread professional employment options without corporations, which drives your middle class. And the consumerism of that middle class drives over 70% of the massive economy. You would be fucked, and a third world country without that.
No, pretty much your entire comfy, Starbucks sippin' existence is b
Re: (Score:2)
No, what we have is a broken form of Capitalism in which the corporations get to skew the rules, change them as they wish, have governments entrench things in law which fuck up the system and tilt the playing field in their favor.
They get to have H1B visas, a government who keeps extending copyright so multi-billion dollar corporations can continue to profit, and actually be the agency to enforce those copyrights.
What we have now is an oligarchy, in which the multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation
Re: (Score:2)
If the libertarians had their way and dismantled the government, Microsoft, Google, Comcast, GE, GM, IBM, Disney, Walmart, etc... would just buy it back on even more favorable terms. The only way to dismantle most of the government and keep it dismantled is if you have a highly educated majority of voters that keep blocking moves to restore it. But once you take most of the government, any majority
Re: (Score:2)
You don't actually know any Libertarians or understand the ideology, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing Libertarianism with an economic model. It is not. Libertarianism is a political ideology. Laissez faire capitalism is entirely different and is only subscribed to by a (actually) small group of noisy Libertarians. I'm a dyed in the wool Libertarian and am more often mistaken for a Socialist which is just plain silly but much of what I believe does end up mirroring Socialism in results, but the routes and reasonings are different.
So, no... You don't understand - as is evidenced by your confu
Re: (Score:2)
Your idea of safety nets leads me to believe most people would call you a Civil Libertarian, which is far different from a plain Libertarian.
If you want to give me links to more discussions, art
Re: (Score:2)
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]
Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve coercive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.
Some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights,[3] such as in land, infrastructure, and natural resources. Others, notably libertarian socialists,[4] seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of their common or cooperative ownership and management.[5][6] An additional line of division is between minarchists and anarchists. While minarchists think that a minimal centralized government is necessary, anarchists propose to completely eliminate the state.[7][8]
The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[9][10] political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[11] As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties, and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.
That's just Wikipedia, they do a fairly good job with it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I would fall, I suppose, somewhere between your run of the mill Libertarian and a Libertarian Socialist - leaning heavily towards the socialism side because reality trumps ideals. It is, for example, cheaper for me to feed you than it is for me to hire goons to keep you from taking my stuff. It's cheaper to keep you healthy than to deal with the plague. It's better to have you educated than to have to deal with your mi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ayn Rand was an idiot. (I don't know how many times I've felt compelled to state the obvious over the years.) I no longer waste the time declaring why she was an idiot, I figure it should be obvious. Well, obvious to anyone that I'm making an effort to communicate with. If they don't understand that and why then, frankly, I'm not sure that they're a good place to invest my time and effort. I have better things to do.
It is tough to use the nomenclature. It is hard to self-identify as a Libertarian. The conno
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a big fan of the original ideas in socialism from Marx. But from wh
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, yes, yes I was poking fun at the modern American socialist. I'm allowed some humor... It really has become a matter of emotion, at least that's what it appears like.
I like Marxism but I don't think it will ever work without totalitarianism and it needs to be absolute. There's no room for there to be a comparison. It also needs to eliminate the "more equal than others" that seems likely to be inevitable. Like all ideologies, nothing can be done in its pure form effectively. That's one of the re
TTP commission (Score:3)
The name "TTP commission" strongly echoes the EU commission's name. The later is an unelected, unaccountable body that takes over nation state sovereignty, and it is interesting they chose a look alike name.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, one can try to stamp on educated people sovereignty, but sooner or later, they revolt.
If the leader acts wisely, it is able to just step down. Otherwise it turns into a bloody hell like french revolution of 1792.
Governments = Evil. (Score:1, Insightful)
For those who are still very thick in the head and cannot comprehend the simplest thing since for the first time in history of this planet a rock was used to bash somebody on the head, I would like to repeat this axiom: governments = evil.
Government is an evil structure by its very definition, as it is set up to provide the collective with violent means of dominating an individual. Whatever system that is fundamentally based on violence can not and will not avoid using violence to increase its own power, a
Re: Governments = Evil. (Score:1)
Except with healthcare. More government control has been proven to be a good thing.
Re: Governments = Evil. (Score:4, Funny)
Except with healthcare. More government control has been proven to be a good thing.
... and roads. Also public health and sanitation. And peace and public order. And the aqueduct. But apart from the aqueduct, roads, public health, sanitation, peace, public order, education, and healthcare, what have the Romans ... uh, government, what has the government done for us?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But apart from the aqueduct, roads, public health, sanitation, peace, public order, education, and healthcare
Yes, those are things that nobody would demand in a market situation. Clearly we need human sacrifice on the order of hundreds of millions of people [hawaii.edu] to provide water transportation systems.
"But if we don't sacrifice the virgins, the sun won't come up, and then everybody will die!"
I'm not sure which is the most repulsive: the Stockholm syndrome, the lack of reason and creativity, or the sociopathic
Re: (Score:3)
They can demand gold bricks but they won't get them, without government only wealthy people get these things, poor people wouldn't be allowed to drive on private roads, just look at third world countries for a lack of sanitation, clean water, health care etc.
No Government = No Market (Score:3)
Yes, those are things that nobody would demand in a market situation.
If you don't have a government you don't have a market. Markets can only operate where there are some basic rules which the participants can be trusted to follow. This requires someone with the best/most pointy sticks to enforce the rules which will be the de facto government.
Your link goes on about freedom but the only reason many of us have some guaranteed freedoms is because there is a government which is willing to enforce them with the use of pointy sticks. That's why we created them and why we sti
Re: (Score:1)
These things do not require innovation. Medicine does, and that costs money.
That's before governments ladle on well over a billion dollars of testing requirements on average for a new drug.
Government-supplied medicine is based off the idea of providing a static product, when in fact you actually want a changing, improving one, and rent control doesn't work with that.
Re: (Score:1)
Again, if you want to behave like an apelike hunter and gatherer, you can go out and seize all the medicine that is currently invented.
If you want more, though, no, government funding of it is just a small fraction of the total invention. I don't want 1970-level medicine in 2015. Nor do I want 2015 level medicine in 2050 because some busybodies seized out all the profit making from it.
Please keep your literally mass murderous political theories to yourself and let the rest of us be free.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want more, though, no, government funding of it is just a small fraction of the total invention. I don't want 1970-level medicine in 2015. Nor do I want 2015 level medicine in 2050 because some busybodies seized out all the profit making from it.
Your failure is lack of imagination. Why can't you imagine that people would still want to solve the problem of illness if they couldn't get rich by doing it? The actual research of drug production occurs primarily at public universities, underwritten by drug company grants. The drug companies spend over half of their money on advertising. Then there's all the drugs they create specifically to game the system, which are often actually inferior to the drug they replace. Capitalism and Big Pharma actually hol
Re: (Score:1)
Governments aren't evil. Governments you don't control are evil. TPP is solely a deal between the US government, staffed through the revolving door, and a few multinationals. Part of the deal is forcing other governments via means legal and illegal (remember Hillary saying 'collect all compromising information on foreign leaders that you can' to their ambassador?) to accept it. So, if you're in the US, you are the problem, because you had at least nominal control over your government, and you let it lapse.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations = evil. Wall street regulates Congress. Solution: public money creation, distributed directly to individuals in the form of a basic income.
Re:Governments = Evil. (Score:4, Insightful)
Govenments CAN be beneficial for those who lack power if, and only if, the government itself does not ally itself with those in power. Then it is at best useless. At worst compounding the problem.
An absence of government creates a power vacuum that will instantly be filled by whoever has the most power. In our world this essentially means that the entity with the most money will rule. And of course abuse its power to suppress anyone wanting to either rise to power himself or to force those lacking the ability to defend themselves against it to bend to his interests. In short, that "rich" entity will force the "poor" ones to work against their own interest and for his.
Any government that supports such a system can as well be considered failed because it serves no purpose. This is the state a society would assume anyway without government.
Re: (Score:2)
Govenments CAN be beneficial for those who lack power if, and only if, the government itself does not ally itself with those in power. Then it is at best useless. At worst compounding the problem.
An absence of government creates a power vacuum that will instantly be filled by whoever has the most power. In our world this essentially means that the entity with the most money will rule. And of course abuse its power to suppress anyone wanting to either rise to power himself or to force those lacking the ability to defend themselves against it to bend to his interests. In short, that "rich" entity will force the "poor" ones to work against their own interest and for his.
Any government that supports such a system can as well be considered failed because it serves no purpose. This is the state a society would assume anyway without government.
Basically governments are not evil. They're inanimate and natively without anthropomorphic characteristics. Its the people in government that determines if it is good or evil.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's just another run-off-the-mill anarchist position. You sound like anarchism had never been proposed as a political view before and as if there had never been any serious debate about this. This has already been discussed and rejected by most thinkers more than a hundred years ago.
Despite the fact that probably everyone wants a lean government and it is surprisingly hard to get one, you position has the fatal flaw that you need a government apparatus to control corporations via anti-cartel laws and reg
Re: (Score:2)
Your abolishing of the government would lead to extreme corporate fascism and totalitarian oligarchy, possibly even dictatorship, and you'd end up as a slave worker in no time.
I think the parent poster is planning to be part of the oligarchy rather then a slave worker. He's probably in for a rude surprise but who knows, maybe he'll end up as dictator for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course copyrights and patents are used to create a monopoly power for specific individuals. That was what they were designed to do. Why would you spend a couple of years to write a book if the moment you showed it to a bunch of publishers they could copy it and sell it as their own? Or why would you send in a demo "tape" to music label if they could just take the song and have an established group release it? What incentive would you have to create the next great mouse trap if as soon as it hit shelv
Re: (Score:2)
> Why would you spend a couple of years to write a book if the moment you showed it to a bunch of publishers they could copy it and sell it as their own?
2 Counter Examples that blow this "argument" right out of the water:
* Fashion Industry thrives inspite of complete lack of copyright [ted.com] proves your premise entirely wrong
* /sarcasm Someone should Mathematics / Mathematicians that for the last few thousand years they have been doing it wrong!
Not everything has to be viewed through myopic capitalism and the
Re:Governments = Evil. (Score:5, Insightful)
however in a free market capitalism monopolies are temporary and their existence depends on them providing a good enough product / service in the most cost effective way possible.
...or product dumping, price fixing, dividing markets, buying up competitors etc. etc.
In the real world businesses hate competition, and will do anything legal to prevent it.
Re: (Score:1)
I am sure that you believe that you are 'insightful' like the fools that marked you up.
Here is another reason that the government is evil, listen to the speech of the man who tried to educate the American public and died in prison in USA, a political prisoner put there for fighting against the oppression and trying to educate people [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Baahh said the sheep. The only stupid quotes are coming from you. Allow me illustrate.
Does the government establish an agreed upon set of laws that we all are supposed to follow. You know, kind of like threatening highway bandits with punishment or putting people in jail for fraud.
TPP was not agreed upon within any reasonable forum, format or political debate. It was done in secret and leaked online by Wikileaks.
See your idealism instantly destroyed. You made a fool of. When will you people get it? In an ideal world you maybe right. But when the world is no longer ideal, you're not only wrong. You're being made a fool of!
Re: (Score:1)
People forget that modern Government is based on power structures that today we otherwise look upon as being uncivilized and/or brutal. But we have to ask ourselves. When did it all change? The answer is, it didn't, its all in our heads. Our preconditioning is that a) everything is supposed to be this way b) we are now part of a civilized and otherwise fair society.
Saying this I feel that I could can be taken grossly out of context. By no means do I not want to live in a fair and civilized society or more i
Re: (Score:3)
For those who are still very thick in the head and cannot comprehend the simplest thing since for the first time in history of this planet a rock was used to bash somebody on the head, I would like to repeat this axiom: markets = evil.
Markets is an evil structure by its very definition, as it is set up to provide the collective with violent means of dominating an individual. Whatever system that is fundamentally based on violence can not and will not avoid using violence to increase its own power, and a mar
Re: (Score:2)
For those who are still very thick in the head and cannot comprehend the simplest thing since for the first time in history of this planet a rock was used to bash somebody on the head, I would like to repeat this axiom: markets = evil.
Tee hee hee. Putting insults on the front of it doesn't make it true.
Among other things, a "market" is a body of existing or potential buyers for specific goods or services. What you're saying, know it or not, is that people are evil. Well, that's true in its own way, but it's only a small part of the story.
Markets is an evil structure by its very definition, as it is set up to provide the collective with violent means of dominating an individual.
You don't even know what a market is, do you? A market is when people want to buy stuff. 1100-1150; Middle English, late Old English < Vulgar Latin *marcÄtus, Latin mercÄtus trading, traffic
Randian Dumbfuckery (Score:3)
As much as starting your own business means you will sexually harass your female employees, defraud your investors, dump toxic waste in the river, and join the international slave trade. For what some businesses have
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you aren't so foolish as to also assert that lack of government == good.
To an extent I agree with you. Centralized positions of power tend to be attractive to those psychotically attracted to power. And the proper solution, when possible, is to decentralize the power. When that cannot be done, the only reasonable answer is to so design things that striving to attain power does not increase your probability of getting it. It is for this reason that I propose replacing elections by a lottery along
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I think that absence of government is good and that government is evil by very definition. I think that all and any ills of the world do not warrant reduction of individual freedoms at all under any circumstances. Yes, governments tend to form in the power vacuum that exists when there is no centralized authority. No, that does not mean that the power vacuum being filled with a government is a good thing, it is a horrible thing, the real question is what to do to actively prevent that from happenin
Re: (Score:2)
We should limit voting to only those who possess doomsday devices in order to incentivize freedom.
Shape of things to come (Score:3)
In the future the global legal framework will be created and enforced by corporations. The nation-state will lose its sovereignty.
From the governments become more corrupted from representing their people to the privatization of military forces to Google and other corporations owning, paying for research that they can 'sell back' to consumers, your world will be controlled by corporations. Democracy, socialism and communism will no longer exist thanks to capitalism.
This is a good time to read "When Google Met Wikileaks" by Julian Assange
Re: (Score:2)
sounds very much like Agenda 21 (Score:1)
Another treaty that was negotiated by the leaders of world governments without concern about the state of the citizens they represent and kept as much in secret as possible.
This video explains this law very well (Score:2)
it can't be that bad (Score:1)
Re: it can't be that bad (Score:2)
Do you really believe that Trump or Sanders would be seated by the Electoral College? Those elites will put Clinton or some establishment Republican in the White House.
We need to get Americans involved in their government as they are in most of Europe and Australia, and as selfish as Americans are, this will only happen after the next global economic crash.
To paraphrase Churchill: America can always be counted on to do the right thing...after having exhausted all other available options.
Doesn't matter Intellectual Monopoly is finished (Score:2)
These are just the last gasps. Intellectual Monopoly is on the way out. It cannot be enforced. The economy is too fast for the bureaucrats to control now. Sure the laws will be there but they will be ignored and only used occasionally for political revenge. it will just be a cost of doing business.
Holy smoke! TPP Commission. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't fit the constitutional definition of treason. Malfeasance, yes. In fact I would suggest that one could find a hundred counts of malfeasance, so that if the sentences were served sequentially those involved would never get out of prison. And I believe this could be done for most members of Congress, as well as for the President. Certainly anyone who votes for this atrocity should be arrested for malfeasance. But no prosecutor would even file charges.
Re: (Score:2)
Legally it's more like sedition perhaps, literally it is still treasonous. I don't care much for law, it's an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is Obama so hell bent on passing this? I can understand how this would be popular with corporations and some legislators, but why in his second and final term is Obama bent on passing this seriously flawed bunch of shit?
Re: (Score:2)
Good question, I can only assume he wants to line his pockets with cash from the companies who will benefit from the changes. Ex-presidents should receive a large stipend/pension but not be allowed to take money from anyone after their presidency.
Do Not Ratify (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We (Canada) are kinda stuck with having to go along with America as we're too dependent on trade to refuse to sign. And of course Trudeau will find himself surrounded by advisers reminding him of this as well as all the benefits to the country (actually the rich).
Basically as long as America signs, we (Canada, Australia and NZ) are screwed.
I suspect (Score:1)
That governments had a two-fold purpose to refusing to discuss the TPP during negotiations:
1). A legitimate wish to keep the trade negotiations in an open-ended state, with the fewest possible restriction on the trade negotiators;
2). An illegitimate wish to stifle public discussion of the ramifications of global trade agreements, focus on winners and losers, and the implicit freedom we give capital even as we withhold the same freedoms, rights and practical considerations that restrict workers, employment
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I *WILL* say the TPP is wrong per se. That some kind of trade treaty would be desirable doesn't make this, or anything closely similar to this, acceptable. I even assert that voting for this treaty should be taken as positive proof of malfeasance. (I'll agree that it doesn't say anything about the reason for the malfeasance.)
Also, please note the distinction between misfeasance and malfeasance. http://dictionary.reference.co... [reference.com]
Usually malfeasance is a felony, as opposed to misfeasance or nonfeasance
Secret Laws (Score:2)
Negotiated in secret, without even elected representatives able to review it? I will break it in secret - seems fair to me.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
fuck off you racist idiot
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The Savior Of America, the half-breed kid, Barak Hussain Obama, is laid on the table.
Disgusting.
Ha ha
Thank you for illustrating perfectly why the people in power get away with this kind of stuff. Instead of looking at reality people are mostly swayed by emotionally driven, partisan nonsense. This isn't unique to the right either, Democrats are 100% guilty of this trash.
I sure hope while you're digesting your talking points from the same 'lamestream media' that you so pretend to hate that you take a moment to realize that the companies that control the news have the opposite of your best interests in mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Judging from across the pond, I'd say that both parties are experts in making political debates irrational in order to distract from the real issues. One of them is the gap between 1% of the richest and the rest of the population. If you look at the statistics, this gap has become ridiculously huge during the past 60 years. Whether you like it or not, this is going to be Americas biggest problem in the long run.
------ free analysis of Republican meeting following However, I watched part of a replay of the last debate of Republican candidates last evening and realized with some relief that not all of them are totally irrational. If you disregard misogynic egomaniacs like Trump, fanatics like Huckabee and this moron who was talking about Iran all the time (who the fuck is this guy?--Ah, looked him up, John Dummett, what a dumbass), the rest was not necessarily worse than Clinton, if you know what I mean. Bush, Carson, Paul, and Fiorina weren't that bad, the most reasonable of them was Paul (within Rep. limits), but even Bush appeared to be far more reasonable than any other Bush I've heard before. (Bush can't make it, though, because he has the wry smile of a loser and it's all about showbiz.)
Unfortunately they are all bad. Most of them have come out saying they would end net neutrality. Paul is a libertarian like his father and their philosophy is basically in line with Ayn Rand (who was a sociopath). Fiorina is best known for laying off thousands from HP and destroying the company. She is also a big fan of H1B visas. The only candidate that isn't completely awful is Bernie Sanders. Some of his ideas are out there but Congress will restrict what he can accomplish anyway. He's the only ca
Re: (Score:2)
While true, please remember that the Republican party has been solidly in control of Congress for quite awhile now. BOTH parties have conspired to foist this off on us.