-
@canefan said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
@Duluth said in US Politics:
A competent Governor.. no idea if they have one after the way the last few months have gone. Cuomo isn’t the media darling anymore
Yes, that is the flaw in my prediction. There doesn’t seem to be a good replacement
I reckon, and no idea if others would agree, that if Biden stepped down and Michelle Obama took over she would absolutely piss it in. Smart, sensible and a clean record. I'd say the centre would love her. She's the only person that stands out to me.
She would be fascinating. Trump used to speak admiringly of her when she was first lady, would be interesting to see how he conducts himself against a highly respected woman of colour
Well you would hope that he wouldn't grab her pussy.
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
I still suspect he won’t be the nominee. If I’m correct that will be stage managed. A Biden press conference with his wife, she talked him out of running for health reasons etc etc.. That would happen a week or so before the convention for maximum impact
I'll take the other side of that. A managed transition is a much smoother proposition once in office than while a candidate. If their reading of the polls and internal research leads them to believe that his election is going to be a referendum about Trump then there is no need to muddy the waters with a move like that. It would take some serious balls to see GA and TX in play in recent polls and bow out.
The only complicating factor is the VP would take over and he has seriously boxed himself in with his statements on potential VP candidates.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
-
@rotated said in US Politics:
If their reading of the polls and internal research leads them to believe that his election is going to be a referendum about Trump then there is no need to muddy the waters with a move like that
Current polls? Yes they won’t do it
The polls pre covid? They would have worked on a contingency plan
I agree they think it’s a ‘unlosable’ referendum on Trump. What changes that is a faulty candidate who is running out of batteries.
A few points:
The polls will probably tighten because that’s what they usually do.
Most people are not paying attention yet.
At some stage Biden needs to be seen more or the questions will grow.
If he speaks more does he continue to look unwell?Yes with the polls as they are nothing changes
The calculation changes when they think a generic Dem beats Trump easily and a creaky Biden might cost them an ‘unlosable’ election
-
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
It's called current affairs. Look at many sources, filter out the obvious fawning or logic jumping and underneath are descriptions and reality.
I'm not going to link every thing I see to save you the trouble or to provide you with stuff to critique.
Google has a search function called 'news' . You could start there.
You won't find it following Twitter. -
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
And yet this despicable Twitter is mostly famous as the vehicle for Trump to call people names and spread mis-truths.
I'm kind of confused about what you want. -
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
It's called current affairs. Look at many sources, filter out the obvious fawning or logic jumping and underneath are descriptions and reality.
I'm not going to link every thing I see to save you the trouble or to provide you with stuff to critique.
Google has a search function called 'news' . You could start there.
You won't find it following Twitter.I did. But I wasn't impressed still
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I'm not sure if folk here are paying attention or going off old news but Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up. Has recently appeared very statesmanlike in his comment around Afghanistan and the Statues issue. Has played the ball rather than the man.
Early in the piece yet as well and candidates need to tread a line regarding over-exposure. Keep some powder dry for debates etc.A link example would be helpful.
It's called current affairs. Look at many sources, filter out the obvious fawning or logic jumping and underneath are descriptions and reality.
I'm not going to link every thing I see to save you the trouble or to provide you with stuff to critique.
Google has a search function called 'news' . You could start there.
You won't find it following Twitter.I did. But I wasn't impressed still
I didn't ask you to be impressed.
Am I somehow meant to provide links that impress you?The assessment of Biden's statements is quite obviously my opinion. The fact is that he is making coherent appearances/releases etc contrary to some statements here that he is hiding away in fear of his own senility.
I'm no big fan of Biden, just following what is actually going on and commenting on it.
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
Funny, because I found their rules quite easy to find https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules and quite clear.
Just like rugby laws though, the referees interpretation can sometimes not agree with your own.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
Funny, because I found their rules quite easy to find https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules and quite clear.
Just like rugby laws though, the referees interpretation can sometimes not agree with your own.
As I understand things people or companies are being banned without any reason given. At times they have been on a site for years and then just banned.
Trumps approach is a good one. Let then do this but take away their exemption -
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
Funny, because I found their rules quite easy to find https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules and quite clear.
Just like rugby laws though, the referees interpretation can sometimes not agree with your own.
As I understand things people or companies are being banned without any reason given. At times they have been on a site for years and then just banned.
Trumps approach is a good one. Let then do this but take away their exemptionExamples? 'As I understand things' doesn't cut the mustard.
Twitter would have to ban Trump immediately if he removed the exemption. His comments open them up to all sorts of legal action.
-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
The assessment of Biden's statements is quite obviously my opinion. T
All I asked for was just one example to back this up.
"Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up."
You may be right but I haven't seen any improvement yet. And comparing Biden to just a few years back the decline is noticeable
-
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Winger said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
@Victor-Meldrew said in US Politics:
@Crucial said in US Politics:
I don’t get this whole “election interference “ rubbish.
AFAIK Twitter is a private organisation that has a right to allow or disallow whoever they like. They certainly don’t have to allow themselves to be an advertising or promotional tool for everyone.
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Don't have a problem with that.
But Twitter should have the honesty and integrity to spell out clearly how its views and political partiality impact on users and how it censors it's platform. We all know where Fox News & CNN stand, why not Twitter?
If they favour one side then it becomes obvious and consumers get to choose
whether to use their product.Again, no problem with that. But let's have an anti-trust investigation into Twitter's virtual monopoly of micro-blogging media to ensure the public do have a choice.
Is micro-blogging a right now? They only have a monopoly because users don’t want to change.
I’m being silly here I know but some of the very people that are so adamant about their “rights” on things like not wearing masks are also first in the queue to complain about a business having rights as well.
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
The issue is this. They shoudl either be forced to comply with this agreement. Or have it immediately removed
“With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship,” said Sen. Hawley. “Unfortunately, and unsurprisingly, big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”
Yeah, Twitter should have a written policy around what is acceptable on their platform (oh they already do?).
“There’s a growing list of evidence that shows big tech companies making editorial decisions to censor viewpoints they disagree with,” Hawley said in a statement. “Even worse, the entire process is shrouded in secrecy because these companies refuse to make their protocols public.”
Funny, because I found their rules quite easy to find https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/twitter-rules and quite clear.
Just like rugby laws though, the referees interpretation can sometimes not agree with your own.
All I asked for was just one example to back this up. It may be right but I haven't seen any improvement yet. And comparing Biden to just a few years back the decline is noticeable
"Biden is making regular appearances and being very coherent even when reporters try to tryp him up."
It's an opinion not a fact.
Regarding appearances, that may be a bit misleading as he has only recently held an open Q&A but has been making statements, so yeah, maybe some could see that as hiding away. Fair due.
You can watch videos of his press conference and IMO he is coherent and shows no signs of senility.As far as my opinion that his comments were statesmanlike goes, I base that on him explaining his position with recognition of other opposing opinions, looking for solutions rather than being arrogant. Whether you agree with that assessment is up to you. I can't prove it and no link will do so either.
My only point is that he appeared in front of the press, took questions without avoidance on many subjects and spoke clearly about his stance and position regarding them.
Methinks you buy into the nicknames and doctored videos too much.
-
What is really laughable is people concerned about Biden when Trump struggles to form sentences and apparently can't even make it obvious when he is being sarcastic like most people can. Not a good trait for a statesman. You kind of want people to know whether to take your comments at face value or not.
-
Without section 230 the internet would be a very differnt place. Forums, comments sections and social media would basically not exist because no one would take the risk
In defamation cases the commentator is liable not the host of the service. That is a good thing.
For instance if 230 didn't exist and TSF was in the US, kirwan would be liable for what winger has to say. Fuck that.
A news paper with a comments section is not liable for the comments underneath. Twitter is all comments. If they produce their own content (an editorial, or they engage in the conversation and make defamatory response etc) they will be liable for that content.
There is no carve out for certain companies. the law simply recognises that comments aren't the same as a traditional publishing process.This sentence is a lie
"complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship"This deal does not exist in the law.
This article is pretty good response to Senator Hawleys comments: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2020/06/22/why-we-need-section-230/
US Politics