Is Nikki Haley aware that the Federalist Papers were written by founding fathers using pseudonyms?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 14, 2023
Nikki Haley may be one of the most war-mongering and authoritarian candidates for president in some time. She's completely unhinged. This is blatantly unconstitutional. https://t.co/irQwxsSTrI
November 15, 2023
"Is Nikki Haley aware that the Federalist Papers were written by founding fathers using pseudonyms?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
94 comments:
Never a fan of hers...she is essentially a better-looking Hillary.
There's a reason people don't want to use their real names...mainly the pervasive surveillance state and cancel culture.
Get a clue, Nikki...
I am all for dumping on Haley for this issue. However, in a bit of blatant hypocrisy, I would like to see anyone in the news media jailed for referring to a former official by their title without the word "Former" immediately preceding it.
Nikki has bad judgment. She's dead to me.
Seen elsewhere on the net, "woman who changed her name wants to eliminate online anonymity.".
I'm actually all for this. No more pseudonyms. No more John Stewart, just John Leibowitz. No more Miley Cyrus, just Destiny Hope Cyrus. No more Dr. Seuss, just Theodor Geisel.
And no more Nikki Haley.
So anonymous internet trolls are a "national security threat"? LOL! And we're supposed to think "Russian Bots, CHinese Bots, and Iranian Bots" are somehow creating "incivility" on the internet.
Hello? You can block almost anyone on Twitter, Facebook, or Disqus. Don't like what they say? Press a button and poof they're gone.
this is no different than Hillary Clinton and other establishment types talking about "Russian Disinformation on the intenet" Or "Chinese Misinformation". As shown by Musk's Twitter revalations, the FBI/DHS/DOJ and some mysterious state department agency were all involved in banning and censoring people on the internet, for political reasons and then CLAIMING it was to stop DISINFORMATION.
These moderate GOPe types drive me up the wall. They're just like the Goddamn Leftwing Establishment types except they like big business and tax cuts. When they aren't trying to start WW III, or giving us open borders or stirring up racial hatred, they're trying to strip us our civil liberties and freedom of speech.
Nikki Haley is just a younger, browner, Hillary Clinton.
So anonymous internet trolls are a "national security threat"? LOL! And we're supposed to think "Russian Bots, CHinese Bots, and Iranian Bots" are somehow creating "incivility" on the internet.
Hello? You can block almost anyone on Twitter, Facebook, or Disqus. Don't like what they say? Press a button and poof they're gone.
this is no different than Hillary Clinton and other establishment types talking about "Russian Disinformation on the intenet" Or "Chinese Misinformation". As shown by Musk's Twitter revalations, the FBI/DHS/DOJ and some mysterious state department agency were all involved in banning and censoring people on the internet, for political reasons and then CLAIMING it was to stop DISINFORMATION.
These moderate GOPe types drive me up the wall. They're just like the Goddamn Leftwing Establishment types except they like big business and tax cuts. When they aren't trying to start WW III, or giving us open borders or stirring up racial hatred, they're trying to strip us our civil liberties and freedom of speech.
Nikki Haley is just a younger, browner, Hillary Clinton.
I responded to that XTwitter post; She's losing me 🫥
one of the most war-mongering and authoritarian candidates for president
More than Biden is as President?
Agree that it's a bad look for her. Or for any Politician.
With apologies to our gracious hostess, I think this is a woman thing. The OCD control-freakery they all seem to manifest in their private lives comes to the fore in politics too.
There are only 3 women I have ever thought I could trust to lead my country and not turn into the schoolmarm from hell: Margaret Thatcher, Sarah Palin, and Condi Rice. And I'm not so sure about Condi in these days of Romneyist logrolling and backscratching by half of our putative opposition party.
I think there is a need to verify who people are before they get an account, and they could post under an anonymous name.
But we need to keep the Chinese, Russians, and Iranians from posting their crap in our country. There is no first amendment right for foreigners.
I also think it would do us a world of good if we prohibited minors from having social media accounts. There is a lot of evidence that it causes much more harm for teens than any good.
"Nikki Haley may be one of the most war-mongering and authoritarian candidates for president in some time. "
I'm beginning to believe this.
GOP: Please don't force me to vote for her.
The government would never harass people for stating unpopular opinions. Why would they? That would be crazy. Signed, D.D.Driver which is totally my real name.
Glenn Greenwald is really shining as a journalist right now.
Given that "blatantly unconstitutional" is sort of in vogue with Washington, the rest of the Leftoverse, and among the sheep these days, I doubt that many would notice.
Also, It would take the Chinese and Russian bots, that this idea of hers would supposedly get rid of, about 48hrs to do their workarounds.
Despite the widespread condemnation online, that will appeal to a certain segment.
I used to not worry about anonymity, but after the demonstration of socialist authoritarianism that was the covid lockdowns, I learned you can't even question the profit motive of big pharma. Then there is what the FBI did to get rid of undesirables from their ranks. Apparently it is UnAmerican to say the same thing the VP said when she was on the campaign trail. I have a greater admiration for Guy Fawkes these days.
I don't agree with her. But on the other hand, there are a lot of posters here on Althouse Blog who would have their front teeth knocked out if they ever posted their comments in person. Cowards revel in anonymity. As they do here. That is why social media is so toxic. That is why young people commit suicide based on social media posts. So chew on that for a while.
the pervasive surveillance state and cancel culture
Covert watchers that the founders knew, which is why they limited central authority, and recognized individual rights under God, and a market system guided by the invisible hand.
I have some vague memory - decades old, that the 1st Amendment protected anonymous speech. Perhaps some commentator with more current knowledge can opine.
she will force "every person on social media" to be "verified by their name."
Before we get to that, how about starting by verifying who's voting in our elections? Once you've proven you're competent at handling that without screwing up...
I'm gonna legally change my name to Gusty Winds. Just in case.
Why are women such authoritarians?
Utah Senator Pierre Delecto (Mitt Romney) would have a problem with this.
The problem we have is trying to protect speech while not assisting in the doxing of someone for engaging in protected speech. If you aren't anonymous it is dangerous to criticize government; if you are anonymous it is easy to hound someone to death.
In Nikki Haley's neocon world, Mark Twain would have been outlawed. So would Marilyn Monroe.
Does she want all the books and movies reissued under Samuel Clemons and Norma Jean?
What about Bono? Or Sting?
John Mellencamp is now in compliance. But in Nikki's 1981 summer, that John Cougar shit doesn't fly!
Joe Smith nails. it
If that's your real name. ... /
Yeah, this time Glenn is right.
I used to like and respect Haley. Obviously I was wrong
Joe Smith: "Get a clue, Nikki..."
She does have a clue. She understands perfectly well what she is saying.
She's just another GOPe-er and simply on the other side against the republican base.
What about Barack Obama? Will he have to change his online name to Barry Soetoro?
Does anybody know his real name? Or his GPA in college? Or the gender identity of his wife? Or his sexual preferences?
Nikki Haley is unbelievably stupid. How did she think this would help her?
Do women like it?
Doesn't bother me, I have been using my current real name everywhere..
Also wants to raise Social Security age, another definite winner.
Would Nikki make "Meadehouse" illegal?
She done. Next!!
She's past her prime.
Trump broke the establishment. While he is in trouble, they are showing signs of coalescing again. Swamp is going to swamp.
Nikki Haley asserts that allowing people to post on social media anonymously is a "national security threat". She promises that as president, she will force "every person on social media" to be "verified by their name."
Replace "Nikki Haley" with "Elizabeth Warren" and nobody would bat an eye.
this time Glenn is right
Exactly. On one hand, on the other hand, always and forever.
Let's do a weighted correlation ("AI", machine learning, ethics) and see what emerges. Show me the fitness function!
Gusty - Joe, Merrick, Wray, etc are all authoritarians. Does that make all men authoritarians?
'What about Bono? Or Sting?'
In all fairness, Bono should be outlawed : )
Rsbsail, the first amendment text imposes restrictions on the U.S. Congress with respect to freedom of speech. No limits regarding the speakers are stated.
On the web, one often hears someone say, "I'm not in the us, the first amendment doesn't apply here." I've always argued that it does apply, universally. Congress shall make no law restricting ANY PERSON'S freedom of speech, regardless of citizenship or location. Doesnt keep your local non-us gov from handcuffing you, though.
I can be kind of a dick about it, in the right crowd.
That bitch is crazy.
(Uh-oh. Should I choose a pseudonym?)
Of course, my name isn't really "Narr." That's more a description.
We should all download pgp while we still can.
https://www.openpgp.org/
It is still uncrackable. Even by nsa.
If used correctly and with a long enough key.
Download a copy, learn how it works. Just keep it on a thumb drive in a desk drawer. When the time comes that you need it, the fascists may have already banned it.
1A notwithstanding.
John Henry
Were the Federalist Papers published anonymously?
I thought everyone knew at the time it was Madison Jefferson and Jay. Just not who wrote each essay.
John Henry
Thank God, the founding fathers and the first amendment that I have the right to say:
EXEcE6RYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdArjWwk3FAqyiFbFBKT4TzXcVBqPTB3gmzlC/U
b7O1u120JkFsaWNlIExvdmVsYWNlIDxhbGljZUBvcGVucGdwLmV4YW1wbGU+iJAE
ExYIADgCGwMFCwkIBwIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgECF4AWIQTrhbtfozp14V6UTmPy
MVUMT0fjjgUCXaWfOgAKCRDyMVUMT0fjjukrAPoDnHBSogOmsHOsd9qGsiZpgRnO
dypvbm+QtXZqth9rvwD9HcDC0tC+PHAsO7OTh1S1TC9RiJsvawAfCPaQZoed8gK4
OARcRwTpEgorBgEEAZdVAQUBAQdAQv8GIa2rSTzgqbXCpDDYMiKRVitCsy203x3s
E9+eviIDAQgHiHgEGBYIACAWIQTrhbtfozp14V6UTmPyMVUMT0fjjgUCXEcE6QIb
John Henry
But on the other hand, there are a lot of posters here on Althouse Blog who would have their front teeth knocked out if they ever posted their comments in person.
Snort.
I'm actually NICER to people like you on-line than I am in person. Chew on that, 'lonejustice' toughguy.
Nimarata Randhawa is worried about pseudonyms on social media?
ID needed to post online, but not to vote.
Karen for President.
Leland,
Admiration for Guy Fawkes? He failed in his biggest endeavor...
First she says she wants to bring Palestinian refugees to the US. Now this.
The GOPe types seem to have landed on Nikki Haley for the nominee. Why is she trying to make it impossible for rank and file Republicans to vote for her? Strange.
All those people for restricting access to TikTok by teens in Idaho and other states that passed laws demanded the same thing.
Funny how when it's a state focused on banning teens for TikTok y'all love this shit (demanding ID proof that you are not underage) but when the brown woman talks about it you freak the f out.
Je suis Rocco!
What else does she need? SS# and blood type?
She's toast.
How out of touch with your base must you be to not know they are being hunted and doxxed across the internet?
This statement just destroyed whatever future she had in politics.
"I think there is a need to verify who people are before they get an account, and they could post under an anonymous name"
Good Lord. You must also think that an online offer is "free" even if you have to provide a credit card.
Nikki Haley... Pffft! Like that's a real name.
From an XTwitter post: "Nikki Haley has united all factions of the right against her ridiculous plan to force social media companies to verify users. She took an L so massive that America will probably start sending it foreign military aid."
lonejustice:
Cowards revel in anonymity. As they do here.
As I sincerely doubt lonejustice is your name, how do you describe your anonymity?
Courageous?
Its so absurd. WHy don't we pass a law saying you have to run for office under your real name. Maybe Nimarata Nikki Randhawa can lead the way!
Typical Establishment Republican. The Democrats use the FBI/DHS/DOJ to get social media to ban Republcians/Conservatives online (see Twitter files for example) and the GOPe response is to propose a national registration for internet users. Because..y'know the FBI/ADL/DNC/Government has to know exactly who's saying what on the internet. And hold you accountable.
They don't want to fight DNC sponsered censorship and attacks on the 1st Admendment - they want to join them!
BTW, that caption of Fox News is one reason why I hate Cable news. I hate trying to listen to some TV show guest while some TV producer flashes their Political opinion on the screen. There is no "Explosion of antisemitism". That's fake news.
LLR-democratical lonejustice: "I don't agree with her. But on the other hand,..."
LOL
LLR-democratical lonejustice: :... there are a lot of posters here on Althouse Blog who would have their front teeth knocked out if they ever posted their comments in person."
Not by the likes of you keyboard "tough" guy.
LKR-democratical lonejustice: "Cowards revel in anonymity."
Like the anonymous Founding Father writers of the Federalist papers that published under the pseudonym "Publius"?
Looks like LLR lonejustice just called James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton cowards.
LLR-democratical lonejustice: "So chew on that for a while."
Nothing you've vomited up at Althouse hss been worthy of "chewing on".
Chew on that for a while.
What's the point? Of course, they avoided using their names to keep the British from arresting them. The fake names were in use before the Federalist Papers were ever compiled.
she will force "every person on social media" to be "verified by their name
How about she does a trial run first with all the anonymous sources used by NYT and WP.
Dang it. I had some hopes for her.
Government officials were already required to do government business under their own names, but have done it under pseudonyms with impunity. It's not rhetorical to ask what would stop them from continuing to use pseudonyms for whatever reasons they chose?
lonejustice anonymously posted: "I don't agree with her. But on the other hand, there are a lot of posters here on Althouse Blog who would have their front teeth knocked out if they ever posted their comments in person. Cowards revel in anonymity."
Perhaps cowardice isn't the reason why people prefer not to have their thoughts of the moment attributed to them in perpetuity, especially in a world in which many would distort one's thoughts. People who disagree with the Narrative are at risk in a multitude of ways. Why should they wish to increase their risk?
The price of permitting anonymous speech is that we have to endure the output of sociopaths, the mentally ill, as well as the bot farms of North Korea, Russia, China, et al. With comment moderation so fastidiously applied, that is a risk we can hope to manage.
I've already said I would never vote for her because of her aggressive war stance. Now she's freaking me out. She really is the heads to Hillary's tails.
From the moment you exit your mother’s womb until the doctor says “Time of death is …” too many politicians think they ought to be able to control every aspect of your life. Go away, Nikki. How can we miss you if you won’t leave?
Why would she do this now? Who wants this to be a policy priority? And why would she want to placate that constituency, whether it is? She’s not a stupid woman. She knows there will be people who don’t like this. My guess is this is her signal to the intelligence community that she will put their priorities first, and that they should trust her to act in accordance with their wishes.
If you're posting under a pseudonym, complaining about other people posting under pseudonyms, and (passive aggressively) threatening to respond violently to those comments, you might be democratical.
lonejustice said...
... Cowards revel in anonymity.
Says the guy who goes by "lonejustice".
Me: So much for Nikki Haley, if this is the hill she wants her campaign to die on.
If the electorate disagrees with me, we will continue to get what we deserve. Gooder and harder.
At some point, it all falls apart. This is not an "if" question. This is a "when" question.
Will you live long enough to see it? Stick around and find out. It's not like this is something anyone here can control. Let's be honest enough to get that straight. Talking about it here gives us something to do in the interim. The trend does not make me sanguine.
Elon Musk on Lex Fridman podcast said he is considering requiring people to use their real names to get a blue check mark on X. Of course that is free speech because the owner of X is free to regulate the speech anyway that he wants to.
So it's kind of clear that I can't do what I was thinking and vote Haley in the primary.
So who do I vote for now?
Trump barely knows what the Constitution *is* (although he was a decent President all things considered).
DeSantis clearly has little respect for the first amendment.
Do I have to vote for the debate club president, then? He didn't exactly cover himself with glory at the last debate.
Where's Ted Cruz when you need him?
Robert L Peters thinks its a great idea
Nope
Blogger Michael E. Lopez said...
"So it's kind of clear that I can't do what I was thinking and vote Haley in the primary.
So who do I vote for now?"
If the election were held today, I'd be voting for Vivek.
"Says the guy who goes by "lonejustice"."
He's not the brightest bulb on the tree.
"What about Barack Obama? Will he have to change his online name to Barry Soetoro?"
Recent revelations about his sexuality have already earned him a new moniker, Bareback Obama. It is one case where Nikki's psuedonimical iconoclasm doesn't apply since it's descriptive in the adjective sense, rather than a proper noun.
“John Mellencamp is now in compliance. But in Nikki's 1981 summer, that John Cougar shit doesn't fly!”
Chipmunk in a black leather jacket.
Elon Musk on Lex Fridman podcast said he is considering requiring people to use their real names to get a blue check mark on X. Of course that is free speech because the owner of X is free to regulate the speech anyway that he wants to.
I don't remember what a blue check gets you, but it's certainly not the bare right to post on X.
I often disagree with Greenwald, but I certainly respect him and enjoy his comments.
You know, the whole point of a free society is to keep the rules to an absolute minimum. When there are rules, it means there is somebody in charge of them. When somebody else is in charge, it's usually - almost always, not you. And with too many rules, it can't be you.
Privacy is the first and most important bulwark against tyranny. Anonymity is the most important feature of privacy.
Can we not lose sight of the implication that she is calling for government control of media?
“ there are a lot of posters here on Althouse Blog who would have their front teeth knocked out if they ever posted their comments in person.”
Tough words that make it sound like mere words begat violence. Touchy.
Cowards revel in anonymity. As they do here.
Interesting since you use a nom de guerre, here.
The toxicity is that people can’t handle their ideas being challenged by words and no other recourse than violence. Or believe that the ability for anyone to challenge their ideas, and at scale as many bots can do, means their own ideas are drowned out. That second part is a problem that can occur, but in practice has it really happened?
In the real world, where we can’t hide behind a nom de guerre, we tend to self regulate for fear that someone takes our commentary as violence, but we don’t necessarily worry about being drowned out (although that happens, ask Riley Gaines). But is that actually better? Also in the real world, people will actually were masks, even and especially when being violent, to get away with speaking their minds verbally and physically. Is that why the real world is toxic? Probably so, but who on the campaign trail right now is demanding to demask people in real life so they might be held accountable? I rather we worry about that before we create new laws for social media.
Otherwise, we get the same phenomenon of lawful people following the law and outlaws doing what they will so long as they can without consequences. It is the consequences, not the punch in the face, people are most concerned. This is where Nikki Haley misses what Trump, and many others, are pointing out. In real life, conservatives and Jews face consequences for their actions. Progressives and anti-semites seem to do as they will (except now in Gaza). Solve that first, because that threat is real and is costing lives.
Not for nuthin, but Bono and U-2 were unbelievable their first time through Atlanta, whatever year that was. They came back through a few months later and kicked ass again. It was all down hill from there.
Steve Marriott on the other hand moved to College Park, then Stockbridge Georgia about the same time. He used to sit at the bar in Brandies on Old National Highway. I remember looking at the guy thinking “That’sSteve
Marriott! Which no way man, it was Brandies. On Old National Highway. Anyhoo, all of a sudden Humble Pie (No Frampton of course) was gonna play Atlanta! At the Agora! It was insane. Still one of the best shows I’ve ever seen. Six months later, they’re back! Poor guy.
It would obviously be unconstitutional for the government to ban anonymous posting. That said, I’m all in favor of social media platforms and other internet media prohibiting anonymous posting on their own sites. Almost all of the bad things on the internet, the nastiness, the false claims and lies, the piling on, etc., are the result of anonymity. People are a lot more responsible when they have to put their own name to a post.
Is the validity of an argument enhanced because you think you know the name of the author?
Douglas Levene: "Almost all of the bad things on the internet, the nastiness, the false claims and lies, the piling on, etc., are the result of anonymity. People are a lot more responsible when they have to put their own name to a post."
Just how blind does one have to be to write such a thing as above given the history of the astonishingly dishonest, malicious though properly identified legacy media types, corrupted political institutions and the Schiffs/Lieu's/Swallwells/Taylor Lorenz's of the world?
Would you like to try again?
"Almost all of the bad things on the internet, the nastiness, the false claims and lies, the piling on, etc., are the result of anonymity. People are a lot more responsible when they have to put their own name to a post."
IDK, the media have no problem at all lying and everybody knows who they are.
The anonymity issue is not the point that needs attention. The threat of disproportionate response, and the unequal meting out of those responses, is where the real toxicity lies. If one group of people is being treated differently to another, across the social spectrum, that is the poison that needs addressing.
Right now, conservative voices are being doxed, their homes targeted, sometimes by physical mobs. Some have died as a consequence of being 'SWAT'ed'. Right now, those in charge of policing - unless you're a Supreme Court candidate - have a relaxed approach to the letter of the law, when citizens are targeted this way. Right now, mobs swarms through stores wearing masks to sweep the shelves bare and steal inventory. Black Blockers in masks assault and bloody peaceful protestors on the other side of the issues. Right now, those in charge of policing are again, relaxed and refusing to confront and prosecute the peace. A short time ago, there was a political protest in the halls of Congress. The police are not relaxed about prosecuting those misdemeanors, now are they? Sometimes, with full SWAT gear. Now, which, of the two groups, is inflicting the greater damage to society? Fix that problem first - it's much easier to correct, if you're working from the top down. Even-handedness: It's an eminently 'fixable' problem, isn't it?
Well, she can still count on Gyno-Americans to vote for her. Because patriarchy and white people.
She's opened up a wide, wide lane for DeSantis to talk about free speech rights. I hope he jumps on that.
This is the Supreme Court's finest free speech case.
I think the rules put down in Brandenburg are foundational to a robust free speech clause. In general I think the U.S. government has zero authority over what free people think or say. But of course some physical harms can occur from speech. Theft by fraud, for instance. That's using speech to steal money. Or people use speech to conspire to rob a bank.
So Brandenburg is very helpful in those cases.
Three prongs to the Brandenburg test:
1) intent (speaker intends for a crime to happen)
2) likelihood (crime is likely to happen)
3) imminence (crime is about to happen)
Ugh! I had liked Nikki Haley.
"With apologies to our gracious hostess, I think this is a woman thing."
Women are more risk-averse than men. You don't need a study to tell you, everybody knows this from personal experience.
Not sure if ‘Aggie’ if from Texas…but he/she fucking nailed it at 9:33
Post a Comment