-
@pakman said in US Politics:
This Presidency is not going to end well.
I think this is a good step. This allows more men to compete for medals.
-
@Catogrande said in US Politics:
@pakman said in US Politics:
This Presidency is not going to end well.
I think this is a good step. This allows more men to compete for medals.
Well, it worked for East Germany.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Just goes to show, this is not a new issue
-
@Kiwiwomble said in US Politics:
@JC said in US Politics:
@Kiwiwomble You do know, don’t you, that an actual newspaper (the New York Post) did in fact investigate the Hunter Biden story, and as a result printed and posted it as a news story only for Twitter and Facebook to start deleting any posts that mentioned it? IIRC correctly Twitter suspended the editor’s account for spreading misinformation. Whether we like it or not Facebook and Twitter are exercising editorial discretion over what their users can see.
As for alternative channels, if you don’t already know what views or channels are out there you are dependent on search engines to present you with options. Can you trust Google to do that with a range of options if you know they are an organisation that unilaterally decided to ban Parler?
That kind of proves my point, actual journalists are going out and investigating...go and read those papers rather than wait for Facebook to tell you what to read
I’m not saying Facebook etc are good, far from it...but we know theyre bad...so why are we expecting them not to be
How did we use to find out stuff, we talked to people, I’ve leant loads just to talk to different people on here let alone out in the real world
I use social media but stopped relying on years ago just because the noticeable algorithm changes from friends lists firsts too “news” sources
I don’t even have accounts with any of the social media platforms, my attitude is very much like yours. But I have to accept that for a majority of people Facebook and Twitter are how news makes it’s way to them.
To make matters worse traditional media are rapidly becoming non-viable due in large part to the transfer of advertising revenues to the tech companies. Facebook is literally killing off newspapers at the same time as it is replacing them with news streams that it demonstrably is prepared to censor.
And indeed we have all seen how the remaining news outlets use Twitter and Facebook (and others) as the source of and validation of news “stories”. They’re participating in their own journey to irrelevance and eventual demise. Social media have turned traditional news organisations into Ouroboroi.
Meanwhile while we debate on a sports forum the relevance of social media as news sources, it’s pretty clear that the people who make our laws have moved on well past that. For them the question is settled: they obviously monitor Twitter in particular and give it weight in what they respond to. If our lawmakers believe Twitter represents what we all think and start incorporating that into laws, then we need to care about what they are seeing on it and how Twitter regulates that content.
-
As long as the First Amendment includes freedom of the press, there is very limited regulation available in the USA context. Freedom of the press includes from censorship by government (obviously) but it also includes freedom from interference in editorial decisions such as what is or isn't news.
Freedom of the press doesn't extend to freedom from regulation of commerce (since they are both in the constitution), but regulating commerce is more about antitrust laws around monopolies and the like than content.
Under Teddy Roosevelt, breaking up monopolies and oligopolies using antitrust legislation was a major government activity, and various laws maintaining that included media to avoid media companies getting so big that they would be able to influence and/or control elections, but extensive lobbying by Murdoch and co and various Supreme Court cases in the past 40 years has really watered that down in the media context.
Consequently, even if Congress decided it was desirable to heavily regulate online aggregator algorithms (unlikely but they might manage to reach an agreement on it), it's entirely possible that the courts would throw it out as government interference in the freedom of the press since it involves regulating editorial decisions, and the recent trajectory of the courts in this area is not one of allowing regulation.
-
@pakman said in US Politics:
This Presidency is not going to end well.
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
-
Interesting public comment mentioning that for transgender criminals in the prison system, the individual will determine if "she" is a woman, NOT the prison system. Reversing the old legislation that required evidence of 2 years previous changing gender activity among other criteria.
President-elect Joe Biden has said that “in prison, your sexual identity is defined by what you say, not what the prison says.”
Going be an explosion of "female" felons.
Quire a first day Joe. You've eliminated the idea formerly referred to as "women's rights" 😄
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals". -
USA USA
-
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
-
@Siam said in US Politics:
And I don't have to be a Biden supporter to have this opinion. I could be a Mitt Romney. Or a John McCain. Or possibly, even a Mitch McConnell.
Ahh yes the pie in the sky useless argument cop out.
Renders your opinions worthless in a discussion. A very popular face saving device these days.And I don't have to be a Biden supporter to have this opinion. I could be a Mitt Romney. Or a John McCain. Or possibly, even a Mitch McConnell.
Regards this
"Ahh yes the pie in the sky useless argument cop out.
Renders your opinions worthless in a discussion. A very popular face saving device these days."
Complete rubbish.
I have explained why I think President Trump was a terrible leader.
Others agree with me, journalists, ex-Trumpers, Presidential historians, even Republicans so it is not simply a left-right partisan opinion.
Biden just has to be not-terrible to be better than Trump.
Like Snowy said, it is too early to call that.I don't see anything in what I have written to render my opinion useless.
But just to save you time I consider this closed. -
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
And yet you are arguing - or the historians you quote to prove your point - that unreleased historical records are irrelevant in judging whether Trump is the "worst President ever".
Nope I don't believe I said "irrelevant" and I don't see where they did either. I imagine they believe they have enough evidence already.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/presidential-historian-michael-beschloss-on-trump-he-did-literally-the-worst-thing-an-american-president-could-ever-do/ar-BB1cXz49?li=BBorjTa--In the links you can find those historians and decide for yourself. You could also email survey organizers and ask if the names of the historians were made available: "For additional information about the survey visit www.siena.edu/sri/research or contact Don Levy at 518-783-2901, dlevy@siena.edu or Doug Lonnstrom at 518-783-2362."
-They aren't historians - they teach Sociology & Business Studies at Siena.
They ran the survey on the historians (hence I called them survey organizers not historians) and could hopefully inform you who the historians are- I only mentioned this because you questioned the sources.
Ad hominem: I don't believe I explicitly used one. I'm suggesting if you don't think they undertook sound historical analysis you could show them how it is done. Totally up to you.I believe I was explaining to someone else I was not alone in my opinion of Trump's presidency and I provided examples. I wasn't trying to create an argument based on appeals to authorities.
I've already said where I thought Trump may have shown skills and success but we should not expect to agree or disagree if we are judging on criteria unknown or untested by others. Besides, we may even have similar values but different priorities. And relatively clear marks, like 2 impeachments, might be considered political rather than merit-based by some.
But from my standpoint he has undermined civic debate and trust in government more than the others, he has been ineffectual in crises, and incapable of keeping staff working to consistent, strong policies and principles. Let alone keeping staff.
My colleagues in American organizations have told me of the incredibly mercurial and inconsistent and opaque decision-making blunders of US govt. depts over the last 4 years, this goes back to him and his appointments.
Overall, in my opinion, he will be viewed less favourably than Nixon by 2030.
I'm not American and I won't be too bothered if this opinion is not substantiated within a decade..but if Biden proves to be worse than Trump, I will be truly alarmed for my American friends. -
@nostrildamus said in US Politics:
They ran the survey on the historians (hence I called them survey organizers not historians)
Precisely my point. They are non-historians doing a survey ( a meta-analysis) of, I assume, genuine historians views. They wouldn't have the skills to take into account the streams these historians follow, allow for the differences, and come to a proper conclusion.
Overall, in my opinion, he will be viewed less favourably than Nixon by 2030
But I thought your argument was that Trump was already the worst President ever?
And this was backed up by "historians" who judged his long term legacy before he'd even left office - based on his tweets.
-
Good essay. Trump was more reflective of a view, rather than creating it: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/donald-trump-was-inept-but-his-instincts-werent-wrong-x7sp2lr6d
-
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
-
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@gt12 said in US Politics:
@Snowy said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
So far based on his words and his actions he is utterly beholden to the radicals of the party.
Not sure about that. Some of the things he is doing are just rejoining the world. WHO, Paris accord. Undoing what trump did - rightly or wrongly. Hardly radical.
The trans gender stuff is a lot more out there. Has anybody actually seen what what Biden signed?
Everything in the Sun "article" if it can be called that, is opinion comments and tweets by quite likely "radicals".Yeah, if the order does do what is being said, he's made a huge mistake, but I've yet to hear any analysis from a legal perspective (and I'm too lazy to find and read it myself).
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the rest room, the locker room, or school sports. . . . All persons should receive equal treatment under the law, no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
Anything that threatens women's rights in this way should be treated with extreme caution. This is reckless at best, and will no doubt be used by some to justify biological males competing in women's sports given it explicitly talks about... sports.
There are a lot of well informed and reasonable people expressing a huge amount of concern over this.
I actually don't disagree with that last sentence, but how different is that interpretation from those words?
I also think it can be looked at from the other side too.
Biden may have done as best as he can here - it nods towards the radical wing, but also very few would actually disagree that ppl should receive equal treatment under the law.
As you said, some may mount legal challenges (each way) based on the different interpretations already in effect (states have different rules for transgender kids), so I wonder whether this was a way of getting it to advance through the court system, where at the end of the day a conservative leaning Supreme Court will end up ruling on this.
He virtual signaled to his radical base, and their actions will likely see their arguments fail once they go through the court system.
US Politics