|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
What the legislature does has no bearing on whether the report is released. It will ultimately be up to Barr/Trump, and consistent with DOJ regulations.
|
On March 15 2019 16:10 Danglars wrote:
I gotta hand it to Graham. One hundred percent of Democrats and allies would never think of appointing a special counsel to investigate the DOJ/FBI. Here they're at least aware that Graham wants that to happen. The natural curiosity of why anyone would vote against such a nonbinding resolution makes them seek the reason.
I don't think a special counsel into the domestic surveillance and unmasking/leaking will ever happen. I think that Mueller report is coming out just like the dossier did.
I don’t see the need for a special counsel to investigate the FISA and unmasking issues. Barr can do it himself. I do think, however, that a special counsel may be needed to investigate the Midyear operation given how much more inherently political that investigation could be.
|
|
|
On March 15 2019 22:59 Gahlo wrote:Terror attack in New Zealand as two mosques got shot up, killing 49 and injuring 48 more. Explosive in cars were defused by authorities. Man claiming responsibility had a 74 page anti-immigration manifesto and claims Trump as a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose. https://www.apnews.com/ce9e1d267af149dab40e3e5391254530One of the tough guys decided to get tough.
As Gordon Ramsay would say, this is shocking. I'm shocked. This must be the first time something like this has happened.
.User was warned for this post.
|
I wonder what Danglars and xDaunt think of Candice Owns response.
On one hand I see that she has to distance herself from this. Could it really be said to be her fault if a crazy person holds her up as an example of why he did something? On the other hand, should it be a time for self reflection and watching your words?
All I know is I don't know if it is a good idea to attack ' the racist left ' for pointing out the shooter called you an inspiration.
I only ask for Danglars and xDaunt because I have a good feeling about what other posters would say
|
On March 15 2019 23:50 IyMoon wrote:
I wonder what Danglars and xDaunt think of Candice Owns response.
On one hand I see that she has to distance herself from this. Could it really be said to be her fault if a crazy person holds her up as an example of why he did something? On the other hand, should it be a time for self reflection and watching your words?
All I know is I don't know if it is a good idea to attack ' the racist left ' for pointing out the shooter called you an inspiration.
I only ask for Danglars and xDaunt because I have a good feeling about what other posters would say
What response to what?
|
On March 15 2019 23:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 23:50 IyMoon wrote:
I wonder what Danglars and xDaunt think of Candice Owns response.
On one hand I see that she has to distance herself from this. Could it really be said to be her fault if a crazy person holds her up as an example of why he did something? On the other hand, should it be a time for self reflection and watching your words?
All I know is I don't know if it is a good idea to attack ' the racist left ' for pointing out the shooter called you an inspiration.
I only ask for Danglars and xDaunt because I have a good feeling about what other posters would say What response to what?
Sorry, guess I need more context.
The New Zealand mosque attacker sighted trump and Candace Owens in his manifesto. Saying that Owens was the main reason he did it.
Her response has been to blame the left.
I was wondering what you feel about her response to the attack. I understand if you have not looked into it yet, it's pretty fresh
|
Did she really include "LOL" and "FACT" in her twitts responding to the fact the shooter cited her as his main inspiration??? what the fuck is wrong with her? 49 people are dead and she thinks it's all just memes?
|
On March 16 2019 00:00 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2019 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2019 23:50 IyMoon wrote:
I wonder what Danglars and xDaunt think of Candice Owns response.
On one hand I see that she has to distance herself from this. Could it really be said to be her fault if a crazy person holds her up as an example of why he did something? On the other hand, should it be a time for self reflection and watching your words?
All I know is I don't know if it is a good idea to attack ' the racist left ' for pointing out the shooter called you an inspiration.
I only ask for Danglars and xDaunt because I have a good feeling about what other posters would say What response to what? Sorry, guess I need more context. The New Zealand mosque attacker sighted trump and Candace Owens in his manifesto. Saying that Owens was the main reason he did it. Her response has been to blame the left. I was wondering what you feel about her response to the attack. I understand if you have not looked into it yet, it's pretty fresh
Where's her response?
|
On March 16 2019 00:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2019 00:00 IyMoon wrote:On March 15 2019 23:56 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2019 23:50 IyMoon wrote:
I wonder what Danglars and xDaunt think of Candice Owns response.
On one hand I see that she has to distance herself from this. Could it really be said to be her fault if a crazy person holds her up as an example of why he did something? On the other hand, should it be a time for self reflection and watching your words?
All I know is I don't know if it is a good idea to attack ' the racist left ' for pointing out the shooter called you an inspiration.
I only ask for Danglars and xDaunt because I have a good feeling about what other posters would say What response to what? Sorry, guess I need more context. The New Zealand mosque attacker sighted trump and Candace Owens in his manifesto. Saying that Owens was the main reason he did it. Her response has been to blame the left. I was wondering what you feel about her response to the attack. I understand if you have not looked into it yet, it's pretty fresh Where's her response?
You can literally google it in 1 second:
https://www.thewrap.com/candace-owens-ripped-for-lol-reaction-after-new-zealand-massacre-suspect-named-her-biggest-influence/
|
Her response is in bad taste, but she's not wrong. The fact that she's named as an "inspiration" for the attack is ludicrous on its face, even if the shooter named her.
|
Interesting that trump didnt identify the attack as terrorism. If he wont apply the right label to it, that is evidence that he doesnt take seriously the nature of the problem. See: "radical Islamic terrorism."
|
Coming at this from another angle, here's an excerpt from a BBC article about the relationship between this attack and social media:
The question is, at what point should it be upon a government to push companies like Google/Youtube to remove content containing racist/far right views?
Where's the line that once crossed, makes something viable for censorship?
Dr Ciaran Gillespie, a political scientist from Surrey University, thinks the problem goes far deeper than a video, shocking as that content has been.
"It is not just a question about broadcasting a massacre live. The social media platforms raced to close that down and there is not much they can do about it being shared because of the nature of the platform, but the bigger question is the stuff that goes before it," he said.
As a political researcher, he uses YouTube "a lot" and says that he is often recommended far-right content.
"There is oceans of this content on YouTube and there is no way of estimating how much. YouTube has dealt well with the threat posed by Islamic radicalisation, because this is seen as clearly not legitimate, but the same pressure does not exist to remove far-right content, even though it poses a similar threat.
"There will be more calls for YouTube to stop promoting racist and far-right channels and content."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47583393
|
On March 16 2019 00:17 xDaunt wrote:
Her response is in bad taste, but she's not wrong. The fact that she's named as an "inspiration" for the attack is ludicrous on its face, even if the shooter named her.
She's not wrong about what?
Nvm, i am not going to play this game - you already know she is wrong about what she had said in the past, but who cares, this is silly stuff to argue about.
|
On March 16 2019 00:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Coming at this from another angle, here's an excerpt from a BBC article about the relationship between this attack and social media: The question is, at what point should it be upon a government to push companies like Google/Youtube to remove content containing racist/far right views? Where's the line that once crossed, makes something viable for censorship? Show nested quote +Dr Ciaran Gillespie, a political scientist from Surrey University, thinks the problem goes far deeper than a video, shocking as that content has been.
"It is not just a question about broadcasting a massacre live. The social media platforms raced to close that down and there is not much they can do about it being shared because of the nature of the platform, but the bigger question is the stuff that goes before it," he said.
As a political researcher, he uses YouTube "a lot" and says that he is often recommended far-right content.
"There is oceans of this content on YouTube and there is no way of estimating how much. YouTube has dealt well with the threat posed by Islamic radicalisation, because this is seen as clearly not legitimate, but the same pressure does not exist to remove far-right content, even though it poses a similar threat.
"There will be more calls for YouTube to stop promoting racist and far-right channels and content." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47583393
Here's a pretty easy answer: as a general rule, the government should not be involved in regulating speech except in very limited circumstances. That this shooting is already being used an excuse to crack down on free speech rights is troubling (if unsurprising).
|
On March 16 2019 00:26 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2019 00:21 Jockmcplop wrote:Coming at this from another angle, here's an excerpt from a BBC article about the relationship between this attack and social media: The question is, at what point should it be upon a government to push companies like Google/Youtube to remove content containing racist/far right views? Where's the line that once crossed, makes something viable for censorship? Dr Ciaran Gillespie, a political scientist from Surrey University, thinks the problem goes far deeper than a video, shocking as that content has been.
"It is not just a question about broadcasting a massacre live. The social media platforms raced to close that down and there is not much they can do about it being shared because of the nature of the platform, but the bigger question is the stuff that goes before it," he said.
As a political researcher, he uses YouTube "a lot" and says that he is often recommended far-right content.
"There is oceans of this content on YouTube and there is no way of estimating how much. YouTube has dealt well with the threat posed by Islamic radicalisation, because this is seen as clearly not legitimate, but the same pressure does not exist to remove far-right content, even though it poses a similar threat.
"There will be more calls for YouTube to stop promoting racist and far-right channels and content." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47583393 Here's a pretty easy answer: as a general rule, the government should not be involved in regulating speech except in very limited circumstances. That this shooting is already being used an excuse to crack down on free speech rights is troubling (if unsurprising).
I'm not surprised at this answer from you, but I was mostly asking for people on the left just as a tester to see what general leftist opinion is on this right now.
|
The whole manifesto is a meme/troll. Don’t fall into the trap of reading the seal team copypasta literally (“Not only Candace Owens, but he has a Navy Seal upbringing! More US-based anti-Muslim violence!!!.) An evil memester wants to further ideological divides.
Candace Owens in her own right has been saying crazy and edgy stuff for a while now. This fits.
The manifesto also cited Pewdiepie. Just in case people are somehow inclined to take his manifesto at face value.
|
On March 16 2019 00:31 Danglars wrote:
The whole manifesto is a meme/troll. Don’t fall into the trap of reading the seal team copypasta literally (“Not only Candace Owens, but he has a Navy Seal upbringing! More US-based anti-Muslim violence!!!.) An evil memester wants to further ideological divides.
Candace Owens in her own right has been saying crazy and edgy stuff for a while now. This fits.
The manifesto also cited Pewdiepie. Just in case people are somehow inclined to take his manifesto at face value.
Yeah, the more that I look at the manifesto, it does look like a deliberate troll attempt. His comments on the the Second Amendment are a dead giveaway. This guy is just a really sick bastard looking to cause as much damage as possible before he goes out. None of what he says should be taken seriously.
|
On March 16 2019 00:31 Danglars wrote:
The whole manifesto is a meme/troll. Don’t fall into the trap of reading the seal team copypasta literally (“Not only Candace Owens, but he has a Navy Seal upbringing! More US-based anti-Muslim violence!!!.) An evil memester wants to further ideological divides.
Candace Owens in her own right has been saying crazy and edgy stuff for a while now. This fits.
The manifesto also cited Pewdiepie. Just in case people are somehow inclined to take his manifesto at face value.
Well the manifesto of a crazy person is going to be crazy, but Ownes isnt crazy and the response she gave was pretty poor taste.
|
He was clearly motivated by radical ethnocentric ideology, as demonstrated by his social media posts among other things. Hes a right wing ethnocentric terrorist - hes part of a phenomenon. Refusal to identify him as such demonstrates indifference to terrorism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
