Politics Thread - Ka-tet of 19

[Guard Dog]

James do you know what a tar baby is? Just asking. 

[smjjames]

Either a slur* for African Americans or something really sticky?

 

*well, I mean, I've heard that it can be seen as racist in some contexts.

Edited August 7, 2018 by smjjames

[Guard Dog]

I think you know which one I'm driving at here. Sometimes the harder you swing the more entangled you become. 

[Bartimaeus]

Huh, I've never heard of that particular term before. Apparently originates from an old children's story.

[injurai]

Sounds like a chinese finger trap, another dubiously sounding thing.

[smjjames]

I've heard of it from the Brer Rabbit comic or uncle remus stories, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby Never read the stories themselves, but I've seen references to it. Though I didn't quite make the connection to basically 'stop digging your own hole'.

[Guard Dog]

That's the one

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Alex Jones and his channel InfoWars was banned by YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify on the same day.

This is just outrageous attempt to make Jones an unperson ("1984" reference) and a litmus paper of checking how far those companies can go in censoring views they don't like. 

After shadowbanning conservatives on Twitter, which Congress will address it's just another attempt to eradicate conservatives from public debate.

What are your thoughts?

 

 

First Amendment Experts Warn Facebook Banning InfoWars Could Set Completely Reasonable Precedent For Free Speech

 

 

Acknowledging the widespread repercussions from the act of corporate censorship, first amendment experts warned Monday that Facebook’s decision to ban InfoWars could set a completely reasonable precedent for free speech. “If we allow giant media platforms to single out individual users for harassing the families of murdered kindergarteners, it could lead to a nightmare scenario of measured and well-thought-out public discourse,” said Georgetown law professor Charles F. Abernathy, cautioning that it was sometimes very easy for private organizations to draw a line between constitutionally protected free speech and the slanderous ravings of a bloated lunatic hawking snake oil supplements. “What we see here really could be the beginning of a slippery slope towards a horrific ordeal in which any citizen who violates hate speech policies or blatantly spreads lies that cause other individuals to receive death threats will immediately be discredited and, perhaps, even asked to host their demonstrably false content on a website that they actually own.” 

Edited August 7, 2018 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Volourn]

"I don't recall anything saying that it wasn't the first time the two had visited that bakery for things other than a wedding cake, so, you're going to have to back that statement up."

 

Do your own research. researchers are paid good money. I don't work for free. The articles are not hard to find.

[Blarghagh]

 

Triggered? It's The Onion, man. It's a parody article.

[Guard Dog]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FFVWEQnSM

[Bartimaeus]

I think that's slightly less than the number of Republicans that would've supported Trump suspending elections about a year ago in a poll I read, so, um, yay I guess?

[Gfted1]

Why is the "media" a sacred cow anyway? They are not beholden to be factually correct or even truthful, so whats the difference between the media and for example Westboto Baptist Church spewing hate?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media

 

This is extra funny with Sharpie whining about "censorship with extra steps" barely two posts above 

Edited August 8, 2018 by aluminiumtrioxid

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Private companies deleting accounts is something to be afraid of and is a major flaw of having communication channels in private hands.

https://static.theintercept.com/amp/facebook-says-it-is-deleting-accounts-at-the-direction-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-governments.html

 

Oh **** that was over half a year ago and being done at the behest of a government. Nevermind, not as important as some water filter and supplement salesmen getting banned for harassing families.

[smjjames]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media

 

 

When I saw that earlier, I thought to myself "They really should ask themselves whether they'd want a Democrat president to have that power" because I'd imagine most would say no.

[Guard Dog]

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/new-poll-43-of-republicans-want-to-give-trump-the-power-to-shut-down-media

 

 

When I saw that earlier, I thought to myself "They really should ask themselves whether they'd want a Democrat president to have that power" because I'd imagine most would say no.

 

Absolutely correct. The biggest error the zealots on either side make is to assume any victory is final. There is always going to be another election (hopefully). In 2008 the Democrats crushed all opposition. They had the White House, House or Representatives, and a filibuster proof super majority in the Senate. Media outlets everywhere were gleefully declaring the death of conservative politics in America. In 2010 they lost the house. In 2012 they lost the Senate. In 2016 they lost everything including most of the state offices. At the end of 2016 you could drive from Miami to Spokane Washington and not pass through any district that had a democrat in elected office. Now the Republicans are gloating. But as the Romans used to say, all glory is fleeting. There is an election in November and with all of the retirements of Republican office holders (many in protest of Trump) it is unlikely they will hold both houses oc Congress in January. 

 

When Obama was in office he was very liberal and heavy handed in his use of executive authority. Far too much. Congress really should have reined him in but chose not to. When he did these things his supporters cheered. They should have been thinking of what that kind of power in the hands of the next President they don't like would look like. What one President can get away with, another can.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

That survey is hardly a sample size of actual Trump supporters. But it's a little worrisome to me that you can find that many out of a thousand random people who are OK with a tyrannical government as long as they like what they are doing.

[Guard Dog]

Reactions to last nights special election in Ohio:

 

[smjjames]

To be fair to Obama, Republicans in Congress forced his hand with severe obstruction, and yeah, I remember them threatening impeachment a few times over the EO's but never followed through. I believe there were some on the Democrat side who may have said that the EO's were being done too much or should have been done through legislation (like DACA for example) but didn't complain much about it or do anything about it because popular Democrat President.

 

In addition to what you said about another President abusing the EO's (other than the EO reversions early on, Trump hasn't done EO's as heavily as Obama did), they definetly should also have realized that what one President does through EO, another can reverse, which Republicans heavily abused. Especially for stuff that could have been done through legislation.

 

edit: ow, wall of an image...

 

edit2: Cases like this close election where the margin is narrower than the number of votes a third party protest vote got really show the need for ranked voting, otherwise you can't know what their second choice was without directly asking those 1K+ people.

Edited August 8, 2018 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

"I dont like the way you voted. *squeeeeeeeeeal*"

 

Remember folks, in life, everyone else know better than you about everything.

[Guard Dog]

To be fair to Obama, Republicans in Congress forced his hand with severe obstruction, and yeah, I remember them threatening impeachment a few times over the EO's but never followed through. I believe there were some on the Democrat side who may have said that the EO's were being done too much or should have been done through legislation (like DACA for example) but didn't complain much about it or do anything about it because popular Democrat President.

 

In addition to what you said about another President abusing the EO's (other than the EO reversions early on, Trump hasn't done EO's as heavily as Obama did), they definetly should also have realized that what one President does through EO, another can reverse, which Republicans heavily abused. Especially for stuff that could have been done through legislation.

Are you seriously defending the abuse of executive orders because the Republicans in congress were opposing him? They were SUPPOSED to oppose him. Their voters sent them there to do that. You do understand that Congress is a co-equal branch of the government right? With certain responsibilities that are EXCLUSIVELY theirs? Enumerated powers? I'm certain I remember reading that somewhere. Ah, yes Article 1 of the Constitution. It does not become OK for the President to abuse his office because an election went against him. I can't believe you even suggested that was a justification. Congress is against you? Tough, Either deal with them or do better in the next election.

[213374U]

Remember folks, in life, everyone else know better than you about everything.

 

Hmm. Sounds like a useful sentiment to remember when you're driving against traffic.

 

Seriously though, that's Twitter, and the so-called content there is not always representative of "life". I should know, I've on occasion mistakenly believed that it is...

Edited August 8, 2018 by 213374U

[smjjames]

They were doing it to the extreme, that was the problem. Although the DACA thing was born more out of desperation to do something on immigration when Congress repeatedly failed to get anything done.

 

That Congress didn't try to do anything much about the excess EOs is Congress's fault, I'm pretty sure that there were some Democrats who thought that some of that should have been done legislatively, but hey, hyperpartianship.

 

edit: You know, in hindsight, I'm a bit surprised he didn't attempt to do something about guns via EO, not that it neccesarily would have been a good idea.

Edited August 8, 2018 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

Twitter is simply a reflection of our broken society. Everybody thinks their opinion is important and that counter opinions should be shouted down instead of discussed. Nobody is ever wrong and rumor is treated as fact and acted upon without vetting. I really cant wait until someone blows an EMP and sends us back to the telegraph age.