(May 04, 2017, 13:40 pm)penis Wrote: Torrentfreak covered it last year:

https://torrentfreak.com/will-trump-shut-pirate-bay-160911/

(May 04, 2017, 16:17 pm)PhantomPlanet Wrote: ...flip flopping...

(May 19, 2017, 04:18 am)RobertX Wrote: Reply to Phillidor's Question
Some of them might; not everyone's orthodoxy is perfect.

If you run an underground, the stupidest thing you would as a member of the underground is to say that you are who are.

In 1989, following the Tianamen Square Massacre, a lot of the students that participated in the strike defected to Hong Kong, the US, and otherwise foreign soil. They can't do this without help, and not every politician or every one who participated in the massacre agreed and drank the Kool Aid. What did they do? Fund the dissidents, make sure they are free to protest against Communist policy and maybe bring about a new China.

Anyhow, I'm just saying, that nearby Microsoft building might be hatching conspiracies against One Microsoft Way.

Back to Topic
Somehow, I think Trump isn't that concerned with shutting down file-sharing per se. Every politician says that. For more, refer to the top of this post.

(May 04, 2017, 18:30 pm)Sid Wrote: I think you've hit the nail on the head: his opinion on shutting down TPB is no doubt the same as his opinion on pretty much everything: it is and is not something he supports, depending on who he is talking to and which day of the week it is.

(May 19, 2017, 04:18 am)RobertX Wrote: Reply to Phillidor's Question
Some of them might; not everyone's orthodoxy is perfect.

(May 19, 2017, 04:18 am)RobertX Wrote: If you run an underground, the stupidest thing you would as a member of the underground is to say that you are who are.

(May 20, 2017, 05:36 am)Philidor Wrote: It wasn't a question.   My point simply is that no federally elected politician will publicly embrace such an incredibly unpopular position. I'm not quite sure what your argument is with that, since I wasn't addressing how a federally elected US politician thinks, but only how he or she acts.

If I had to find a US analogy to your example of saving the lives of Chinese dissidents after the Tianamen Square Massacre, it would be more along the lines of a tsunami wave of anti-black sentiment sweeping the country, resulting in vastly supported legislation designed to make them all slaves--and a very few Congress members standing up in televised debate to oppose the measure, despite riots throughout all major cities destroying those who disagreed with the enslavement bill. In another words, moments when a shock to one's entire moral system leads to embracing possible physical destruction because one's moral being is more important still. The worst that could happen to a US federal politician who states in public they approve of anti-copyright file sharing sites is that they'd be labeled a nutbag, and lose their Congressional seat. They wouldn't dare do it--they're for the most part the most successful products of a system that rewards lust for power, after all--but I'd suggest the issue isn't ethically apocalyptic and likely to result in a crisis of conscience.

But since you labeled my statement a question, here's a few genuine questions for anybody reading this:

Can you think of a single federal politician elected to Congress or the White House that's currently serving who would state to the media they support anti-copyright file sharing sites? Who, and why? This isn't a challenge. There's no way to measure the accuracy of any such observation. I'm merely curious who anybody might think would do this, and more importantly, why they would. Also, why haven't they? Have at it.