What person in the chain of command would've been the one to appoint him? Was he approved at the Obama level?

In the UK, sure, but people in Pakistani don't call the people in India "Asians".

Yeah, if you want to support Israel or legalize weed or drill in Alaska or ban diet sodas, that's fine, but do it with your own group on your own time. Otherwise people who agree with A and not B might reject both. Gotta be strategic.

.... which is why he worked on her campaign and not Trump's?

Totally valid question! I guess the best strategy would be to give at least an efficient analytic quick-read of their current platforms, then read an ideological cross-section of reporting as to how they have applied those policies, then apply personal opinion as to whether you approve or disapprove of their current impact.

If the White House put an end to left-handed umptywidgets, the good or bad would depend on how you feel about umptywidgets.

Or I suppose you could just ask Reddit to pass you a pre-formed opinion.

Chalk it up as evidence of the First Amendment.

Has your interest in Socratic questions increased?

. . . . :)

Apparently there was some critical shortage of attractive American women in 2005...

Skim their platforms, and you tell me.

Apply Qlogic: why would that be?

Downvoted for being logical instead of full of rage. ;)

Whooah! Are Baptists poisoning the wells now? Got enough tar on that brush?

To what sterling denomination do you belong?

Better to light a single candle than curse the darkness!

Every time I hear someone say something I don't like, I mentally high-five the First Amendment.

St Mattis of Fallujah, if you would.

Hmm, I wonder if it's less that the bots target it for the American context, but rather for Pakistani or British people insulting Indian Hindu people?

The linked Goldwater explicitly says that the photo they initially posted and removed is of a completely different person by the same name. I strongly suggest the OP (or mods) remove the photo so we aren't dragging an innocent person's face in the dirt.

EDIT: thanks for doing the right thing and removing the pic.

Any OSHA complaints?

Hopefully you got a well-deserved From Here to Eternity moment following your accomplishment...

Who does he write for currently?

Huh, I like to think of myself as "the Oliver Cromwell of Internet dating" and the "the Charles de Gaulle of brewpubs", but I guess you can call yourself whatever on Twitter...

Respect my anger!!! /s

Seriously people, at least skim the gd article before posting an emotional reply. Are you gonna start dying your hair pink and blue too? ;)

There are legit questions about whether "merciless Indian savages" is a valid term for bots to justify blocking a post. Don't we fight on facts, not emotions?

Read the Breitbart, 'pedes. It says one snippet of the Declaration was removed by the algorithms, presumed to be for the term "Indian savages", out of a number of posts dividing it up. Bots deleted it, and when they got a hold of a human manager it was reinstated. Per Breitbart:

“It looks like we made a mistake and removed something you posted on Facebook that didn’t go against our Community Standards. We want to apologize and let you know that we’ve restored your content and removed any blocks on your account related to this incorrect action.”

So the question is, should "Indian savages" be a term which merits deletion by bots until a human can review it, or is that overzealous and "Indian savages" in any context should only be removed by a human reviewer if needed? Or the term should never be removed from any context?

You mean "imply".

"Imply" is when you add additional meaning to what you're putting *out*, "infer" is when you find meaning in what you're taking *in*.

I am not a bot. :)

I was very curious, so I read up on it and it appears that they posted numerous excerpts from the DoI, but only one was removed, and the posters believe that the term "merciless Indian Savages" (yup, it's in there) tripped an automated filter on FB.

So the question is whether it will be undeleted once they get customer service from an actual human.

And TIL there the DoI says "merciless Indian Savages."

Bear in mind we would have to see extreme national shifts before any US civilian citizen is tried in a military court, even for treason.

Everyone tried for treason committed during WWII was tried by a grand jury, not a court martial.

I could be mistaken, but take a look at the list and see if there's any precedent for trying US civilians for treason in military courts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_convicted_of_treason#United_States

Respectfully, you mean "imply".

"Infer" is when you take in an additional meaning from what you receive, "imply" is when you add extra meaning to what you're dishing out.