Lock down information sources such as the news media. Ensure that all information which is released is fully vetted to support government policies and decrees.
Once information is fully controlled, police activity to enforce government policy can proceed unabated with little fear of meeting organized resistance. President Trump appears to have learned quite well from history.
If by 'learned quite well from history', you include the last 8 years, then you're making a reasonable point. Obama spent 8 years weaponizing the federal government, and then handed it over to Trump. Think about that next time your champion is elected.
My two year Plantronics headset can sense when it's being worn. I imagine the air pods have the same features, and that the designers worked it into the program.
It is not the same as a news story reported in good faith, but with errors.
Is it still in 'good faith' when you make absolutely zero effort to validate a 'story' because it fits your prejudices or serves your political interests?
We're both engaging in conjecture, you seem upset that my conjecture is different from yours. Perhaps you'd be happier on something that isn't so much a discussion board as a proclamation board?
Maybe it costs 1.6 billion to build a new factory in Mexico, and $700 million modernizing an existing plant in the United States. Under the previous rules they thought were going to be in place, they would have recouped the $900 million dollar difference. Trump's plan is to incentivize building in the US, disincentivize building elsewhere- and this changes the risks and calculations associated with the project.
So I wouldn't say the 'Narrative is clearly not true.' With Gruber, Rhodes, and Clinton continuously lying to the America public I can see where you'd get the idea that a 'narrative' would be pushed regardless of the facts on the ground, but please consider that not everyone operates that way.
This. If scientists discovered that [problem X] was no longer a major concern, they would devote their attention to something else.
But oh no, major conspiracy, scientists have vested interests in maintaining a lie for the sake of their careers. BULLSHIT. Scientists are very much interested in the truth. They are trained to seek it, uncover it, present it, and call their colleagues on any attempts to hide it.
The problem is that scientists discover things that are very uncomfortable for certain interests who have lots of money at stake. And those interests spend their money on attempting to discredit what scientists discover.
Scientists are people too, with the same egos, prejudices, fears, and irrational beliefs the rest of us have. Ideally, through honest application of their work, they can filter out these human elements and present to the rest of us objective facts. However, I think any of us who are widely read and have been paying attention know that there is quite a lot of 'standard' human behavior that occurs in scientific circles.
So, perhaps they are trained as you say, but one cannot claim they act as they are trained in a fully consistent manner. So no, scientists aren't some breed of ultra-rational super humans. Stop pretending someone is above suspicion just because they claim the title 'scientist.'
It's just another example of Obama stirring up as much crap as he can in his final days in office; both to screw things up for Trump, and to implement some of his ideas that are deeply unpopular.
A man of honor and dignity would be a much more modest caretaker of government business during the final weeks of his tenure. Instead, Obama is trying to start fights with Russia, has orchestrated a UN backstab of a traditional US ally, and is spewing out regulations that won't survive their first challenge in court. This is what we elected. Twice. This is the man he's always been. If it wasn't for the sycophantic media, it would have been clear to most Americans by 2012.
A solid company would have found *some* buyer at some price point before it came to this
Wishing without work is like fishing without bait. -- Frank Tyger