Nah they didn't endorse, but O'Brien was vocally supportive of Trump, and the explanation at the time was that Teamster internal polls showed like 60% of their members did as well.
I'd honestly love to see some journalism or polling on the Teamsters members or Sean O'Brien these days. Are they like, "whoops! I thought he was pro-union," or are they still trying to rationalize this.
Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for usage, modification from its original design, and publication of their version (fork) back to the community.
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge.
I haven't read any open source licenses, so it's possible you are correct in some technical sense, but that is not what people mean when they use the term open source.
Clearly the OP was using the common definition, or most of the post wouldn't make any sense.
If the source isn't publicly available, it's not open source. It sounds like you're suggesting that the software remain closed source until some later date where it then becomes open source.
War was the original purpose of the modern nation-state. It exists to this day because it is extremely effective at taking and holding territory, and the associated tax base. All of these other functions were bolted on to either mollify internal discontent, or to build the economy which fuels the war machine. Sure you can get a lot more nuanced than that, but the history of the rise of the modern nation-state over the older aristocratic feudal systems is one of military conquest.
I think the point about due process is the key here
I was looking for something that would trigger on normally protected speech, and I don't think that's in there. The term "aiding and abetting" is a common legal standard, so I wouldn't call it vague, but placing the onus on the individual whose passport has been revoked to show that the Secretary of State was wrong makes it ripe for abuse and harassment.
As usual the headlines are sensational and misleading, even if there is a real issue.
IANAL but where is the "thought police" part? I see a specific exception for the first amendment. Material support is defined, and doesn't mention speech or advocacy.
I suppose if they declared that a bunch of liberal and/or Democrat non-profits were terrorist organizations, then this means they could also take one's passport, but I'm pretty sure losing your passport would be a minor addition to the general disaster that would entail.
Where did I say Trump would negotiate in good faith?