EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9772
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Introvert
United States5022 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 25 2018 12:21 Introvert wrote: prob not https://thedailybeast.com/source-twitter-pins-releasethememo-on-republicans-not-russia You mean Twitter's internal investigation that has a huge vested interest in downplaying the penetration of both left and right bots into their platform has anonymous initial findings that make bots look less likely? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! (there was a chunk of time when they were pushing #SchumerShutdown way more than the memo hashtag, though, but now they're back to the memo) | ||
|
Introvert
United States5022 Posts
edit: point is that the tweet gives the wrong impression. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5022 Posts
On January 25 2018 13:11 TheTenthDoc wrote: You mean Twitter's internal investigation that has a huge vested interest in downplaying the penetration of both left and right bots into their platform has anonymous initial findings that make bots look less likely? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! (there was a chunk of time when they were pushing #SchumerShutdown way more than the memo hashtag, though, but now they're back to the memo) Meanwhile we can quote left leaning groups with an agenda? I you want to believe that these are all bots then fine but your call for skepticism doesn't support the bot thesis. I just don't get the bot obsession. I mean besides it being the residue of 2016 heartbreak. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On January 25 2018 12:56 Introvert wrote: Everyone is "open" to the idea, so long as there are actual reforms and security. Stephen Miller wasn’t open to it and we would have a bill if he was. But that, of course, is Congress’s fault. Trump is an excellent negotiator. A billionaire, in fact. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On January 25 2018 05:22 Plansix wrote: To be perfectly honest, I would prefer more banks charge fees for their services directly. Many of their “free” services are paid for by pushing the costs to other aspects. Like debit card fees. If those were tacked on to the price of all of our purchases, we would use cash far more. But instead we are unaware the charge even exists and we assume everything costs nothing. So are they going to stop charging for those other aspects as a result of this fee? Are they going to stop running schemes like "if you transfer money into your account and then withdraw it as cash from an ATM after you see it appear on your bank account you will be charged with an overdraft fee because the electronic transfer takes two days to process despite appearing on your account immediately" (this is something I learned during a training for a job at a bank servicedesk years ago, maybe its changed as a result of EU regulations by now, who knows). The specific example can of course be replaced by any number of schemes that essentially target the financially vulnerable. Banks in the US will have these sort of schemes too, no doubt. But, somehow, I don't think they'll stop other such nefarious schemes as a result of this monthly fee. It'll just be on top of what they're already doing. So the argument that you're making seems entirely pointless to me. Besides, the bank was clearly just using the free checking accounts as a way to draw people in. More accounts = more people to potentially exploit = shares rising = happier shareholders. Stop making excuses for them. | ||
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24314 Posts
On January 25 2018 17:07 tomatriedes wrote: How dare dem dirty Russkies attend Davos!!!!!!! https://twitter.com/KateAronoff/status/956235592567795712 MSNBC has finally just gone full blown Fox News for liberals (not to be confused with leftists). | ||
|
Leporello
United States2845 Posts
On January 25 2018 17:36 GreenHorizons wrote: MSNBC has finally just gone full blown Fox News for liberals (not to be confused with leftists). When MSNBC proffers stories about slain RNC-staffers being killed (Seth Rich), insinuating the RNC killed them, let me know. Look at the last few pages about the recent conspiracy-theories Fox has promoted. But you make the equivalence to MSNBC because... well, here's a graphic of Maddow listing names of Russian businessmen attending Davos. Totally just like something Fox News would do. I mean does the picture contain a falsehood? Is Maddow lying about those Kaspersky Labs people going to Switzerland? Fox is biased, ergo MSNBC is just as biased, because everything must be equal and equivalent to a certain crowd, like those that convinced themselves that Hillary was anywhere near as bad as Trump. I do hope you make peace with the "liberals" some day, GH. It's pretty easy to do. Or at least stop wasting your energy on this Glenn Greenwald worldview, where everyone and everything is perfectly and ambivalently evil unless they express your particular brand of populism. MSNBC is not "liberal Fox News". Hillary is not as bad as Trump. These simplistic comparisons are the LCD of political discussion. It's what people say when they're the sort that don't really pay attention to anything, and I know you're not that, GH. But I do think you've put yourself in a position of denial that isn't sustainable. Evil Hillary is gone. 2016 is over. You were played by all those "Hillary e-mail" stories. Let it go. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24314 Posts
On January 25 2018 18:14 Leporello wrote: When MSNBC proffers stories about slain RNC-staffers being killed (Seth Rich), insinuating the RNC killed them, let me know. Look at the last few pages about the recent conspiracy-theories Fox has promoted. But you make the equivalence to MSNBC because... well, here's a graphic of Maddow listing names of Russian businessmen attending Davos. Totally just like something Fox News would do. I mean does the picture contain a falsehood? Is Maddow lying about those Kaspersky Labs people going to Switzerland? Fox is biased, ergo MSNBC is just as biased, because everything must be equal and equivalent to a certain crowd, like those that convinced themselves that Hillary was anywhere near as bad as Trump. I do hope you make peace with the "liberals" some day, GH. It's pretty easy to do. Or at least stop wasting your energy on this Glenn Greenwald worldview, where everyone and everything is perfectly and ambivalently evil unless they express your particular brand of populism. MSNBC is not "liberal Fox News". Hillary is not as bad as Trump. These simplistic comparisons are the LCD of political discussion. It's what people say when they're the sort that don't really pay attention to anything, and I know you're not that, GH. But I do think you've put yourself in a position of denial that isn't sustainable. Evil Hillary is gone. 2016 is over. You were played by all those "Hillary e-mail" stories. Let it go. You mistake me calling MSNBC Fox News for liberals to mean that they are literally the same thing. That's not what I mean. I mean MSNBC is Fox News for liberals feeding them the propaganda they want. Of course Fox News is crazier and less tied to the truth as is their audience. You made an argument that presumed I held positions I don't, but you also made some mistakes in it so I'm torn on how to address it. I guess I'll just add that I wasn't played by her email stories at all. I know a bunch of liberals who were though. Kinda like this Russia thing really. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On January 25 2018 13:21 Introvert wrote: Meanwhile we can quote left leaning groups with an agenda? I you want to believe that these are all bots then fine but your call for skepticism doesn't support the bot thesis. I just don't get the bot obsession. I mean besides it being the residue of 2016 heartbreak. Bots are a fundamental issue with the current methods used to distribute information on social media platforms (both liberal and conservative propaganda are pushed by bots). It's like Max Headroom interrupting your regularly channeled media broadcast, but he's paying the T.V. station so they're fine with it. Bots also disrupt communication in general on a lot of platforms (538's FB comment section has multiple responses about making thousands of dollars from home) with pretty much no punishment, and were used to steal American identities and comment on the FCC public comment section site about net neutrality (note that most agencies actually utilize those comments). Edit: There's also the fact that the media at large is so bot-dumb that they do things like actually publish the results on online botted polls as if they were accurate. | ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
| ||
