IT does. you are only making money because of IP. if you dont believe in IP maybe you should at least work for the govt who makes money from robbing people like it would in a socialist regime as well

Just to be clear on this, you're suggesting that I should be allowed to go buy the new Stephen King novel, copy it word for word, publish it myself, and sell it on Amazon?

See here.

But also, to the extent that there are some typical distinctions made between "Republics" and other forms of Democratic government those distinctions seem to reinforce my point. Namely, one of the features of our form of constitutional, republican, democracy is protection for the rights of minorities, i.e. we are not a direct democracy where the bare majority always wins. But that's pretty relevant to my views on protest. Protection of the right to protest is explicitly a protection aimed at limiting the power of a majority to squash various minority views. There is some sense in which it would be correct to say that it's because we are a republic that we ought to be cautious about suppressing protest. The ideals that cause us to favor the republican form of democracy over a pure direct democracy are the same ideals that should lead us to value protest.

yes but you shouldnt get to keep the profits!!!

yes but you shoujld be protesting to your representatives not at hearings

town halls are great for protests and voicing opinions too

why does china have IP laws?

sigh

So much of this wouldn’t make any sort of sense in a world where private property doesn’t exist.

People who want to eat at McDonald's might disagree.

There is actually so much wrong with this it’s hard to even know where to start.

Who is stopping them iyo?

are you being intentionally obtuse?

this post shouldn't have been ignored.

i think glenn greenwald tweeted the same thought

it's pretty amazing this guy said "if we don't like what the president is trying to do, we just manipulate him and the situation whatever way we can to change it/him"

it's pretty amazing that a guy can get 63 million people to vote him to be president but he can't find 12 of them who are both able and willing to do what he says

That's terrible. How about we outlaw corporations giving boatloads of money to politicians?

Im willing to consider this to a point

That also would have to mean unions cannot contribute either

I mean way too much money is spent on elections i wish we could stop it. But im not sure that's what democracy is

Clinton and trump campaigns spent over a billion on the election. Insane

If democracy isn’t elections being decided by vast sums of money that lead to a government that serves the mega-rich and corporations then I don’t know what democracy is!

A rational human being will come to Kokiri's conclusion if all they ever saw were Trump's tweets and speeches.

Trump is a contemptible person so people who come into contact with him tend to hold him in contempt. Trump is also frightfully incompetent at setting policy and on many issues simply uninterested in doing so, which leaves a lot of room for administration officials to maneuver. Both of these things add up to Republicans in the Trump administration deluding themselves into thinking that pushing through pre-Trump Republican orthodoxy is patriotic.

It's not treason or a coup. Trump is unable to control his administration because of his personal qualities, not because he has been removed from power. People can complain that they didn't get what they voted for, but it was entirely predictable that electing an incurious reality TV performer with a small child's understanding of policy issues would lead to administration officials, many of them Republican party apparatchiks, holding the power the president is incapable of using.

Anyone who doesn't want to serve the administration should resign. Not undermine

That's fair. I was assuming Kokiri actually looked at more than that since he called it a constitutional crisis

as soon as those words were written it's been a constitutional crisis. those words were never true

the writers of those words were committing genocide at the time they wrote them, and they were slavers.

Sorry I’m not following. You seem to be implying:

A) it’s reasonable to conclude from trump’s own words that he’s unfit for the presidency and likely compromised in some fashion by Russia.

B) that I think the above is evidence of my manipulation by the media

C) that I wouldn’t think the above if I had gone further than just taking trump’s words on their own terms. Ie there is some substance which explains trump’s words and demonstrates he is capable of serving as president and is not in any way compromised by Russia.

Is that right? Because it makes exactly no sense to me whatsoever. What exactly should I know that would rectify my mistaken understanding?

Because all I know about trump’s business career looks like a series of red flags to me and unless I’m missing something, there’s not much in the way of a policy track record.