|
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 |
On July 10 2019 21:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 19:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2019 11:50 Emnjay808 wrote:
Crowder said the best source to get unbiased news is to get the most biased news source/opinion from both sides. This thread, more or less, offers that.
I used to watch mark dice but that guy is a fucking nut job. I’ve calibrated since.
You must not have calibrated too much if you still watch a comedian-turned-meme-who-doesn't-understand-the-burden-of-proof for your revelations about the news, especially since his assertion is a clear logical fallacy (false compromise fallacy)  And, to be fair, there are plenty of news sources posted in this thread that aren't crazily biased in either direction, such as Associated Press (AP), BBC, NPR, Reuters, and CBS  Which one of those is either neutral (could take it or leave it) or anti-capitalist? You must be bored and so jaded to literally find a divide in everything said and put it into two boxes; capitalism or communism. You offer nothing new except to attempt, fraily, to steer the conversation to your choice of topic. No one is going to stop their current discussions and join you in your pathetic attempt to hijack said conversation because you think what you have to say is more interesting. It isn't. Either contribute to the current discussions or sit by quietly until your topic of choice presents itself.
Not directing anything anywhere except clarification. The suggestion was that a list of relatively unbiased news sources was provided and I pointed out a rather distinct and undeniable bias they share.
What exactly are your last 3 posts here contributing?
|
United States41989 Posts
On July 10 2019 18:04 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 07:17 KwarK wrote:
The whole thing is way more obvious if you simply change the word Twitter to “the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton”.
Are politicians entitled to the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton?
Can people be denied access to the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton?
Should the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton be required to serve everyone?
and
If the government rents the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport Hilton to hold a public forum then should the government be able to restrict access to the public forum from members of the public? Sorry for not replying to this sooner, sleep and all. From your example I'm getting that the Convention Hall at the Dulles Airport is a private space which could be used as a public forum if the owner chose to allow the government to host said forum there. Not sure how to answer your first question but. I believe the owners can deny access to people, so long as they aren't singling them out based on sex, ethnicity etc. Also if the gov holds a public forum in said space they aren't allowed to exclude people from it. But I think there is also an extension to this, if the owner chose to let the government hold a public forum, they themselves also can't deny people access to it. (correct me here if I'm wrong) The problem I have with social media platforms, not necessarily just twitter is that, according to the court ruling from today, they act as a public forum all the time. Social media are private platforms but by the nature of whom they host act as a public forum all the time. Hence, by that logic I don't think social media platforms should be banning people from them either. The fact that social media platforms now can ban people from them also leads, in my opinion, to a very weird loophole where the gov conducts a public service, informing the public on important matters, but people aren't allowed to engage. Its not so bad today where you have other forms of discourse but I think it could become a bigger problem as the world starts relying more and more on social media. In short its like the government can outsource censorship by choosing to conduct its discourse through a private platform.
But I think there is also an extension to this, if the owner chose to let the government hold a public forum, they themselves also can't deny people access to it. (correct me here if I'm wrong)
I disagree with this part. If you'd been permanently banned from the convention center for what you'd done at DragonCon three years earlier then you'd still be reasonably denied access by the owners. They're not waiving their rights to control over who they allow on their platform simply because a government official has chosen to make use of their space to hold a public event. If the event requires the participation of key individuals which the convention center refuses to allow access to then the location for the event should be moved elsewhere. Or to put it another way, if the government doesn't want to allow a private company to exercise its rights over the use of the private company's venue then they shouldn't be using the private company's venue. If the guy banned from the convention center is crucial to the planned public forum then the public forum needs to be moved because you can't legally compel the hotel to let the guy back in after what he did. The hotel has other guests besides those there for the public forum and it's allowed to not want this guy creating an atmosphere that drives those other guests away.Social media are private platforms but by the nature of whom they host act as a public forum all the time.
I disagree with this to an extent too. A public forum in this instance is a specific kind of event used by the government to communicate policy and invite public comments. Our discussion, whether on Twitter or on teamliquid, is happening a private party's space that we have engaged for our use. This may be a forum open to the public but it is not a public forum in the governmental sense. The problem is that Trump has ceased holding press conferences, ceased answering the questions from the media, and engaged the use of a private service (for free) in communicating his intentions and inviting public comments. Twitter is not intrinsically a public forum space, but Trump keeps holding public forums there anyway.The fact that social media platforms now can ban people from them also leads, in my opinion, to a very weird loophole where the gov conducts a public service, informing the public on important matters, but people aren't allowed to engage. This loophole does potentially exist but it is not currently in use and were it in use it would inform the judicial decision imo. What Trump is effectively doing is holding the public forum at a hotel with a convention hall and giving the hotel a list of individuals to deny access to the convention hall (by blocking them). He's being told he's not allowed to do this. If he gave the hotel a list of individuals to deny access to the hotel (by banning their accounts) we would have the exact same issue. But if the hotel were banning people for its own reasons, such as disrupting other events and other guests then that would be fine, even if those individuals could no longer come to Trump's events. The only possible problem is if Trump provided a list to ban from the hotel and the hotel maintained that no such list existed and that it was exercising it's own rights but that's a hypothetical situation, not the current one.
|
On July 10 2019 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 21:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 19:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2019 11:50 Emnjay808 wrote:
Crowder said the best source to get unbiased news is to get the most biased news source/opinion from both sides. This thread, more or less, offers that.
I used to watch mark dice but that guy is a fucking nut job. I’ve calibrated since.
You must not have calibrated too much if you still watch a comedian-turned-meme-who-doesn't-understand-the-burden-of-proof for your revelations about the news, especially since his assertion is a clear logical fallacy (false compromise fallacy) And, to be fair, there are plenty of news sources posted in this thread that aren't crazily biased in either direction, such as Associated Press (AP), BBC, NPR, Reuters, and CBS Which one of those is either neutral (could take it or leave it) or anti-capitalist? You must be bored and so jaded to literally find a divide in everything said and put it into two boxes; capitalism or communism. You offer nothing new except to attempt, fraily, to steer the conversation to your choice of topic. No one is going to stop their current discussions and join you in your pathetic attempt to hijack said conversation because you think what you have to say is more interesting. It isn't. Either contribute to the current discussions or sit by quietly until your topic of choice presents itself. Not directing anything anywhere except clarification. The suggestion was that a list of relatively unbiased news sources was provided and I pointed out a rather distinct and undeniable bias they share. What exactly are your last 3 posts here contributing?
Their content has tinges of your perceived bias in all facets of reporting? News outlets cannot be trusted if they are? Where do you get news from?
Moving on, I am interested in what fallout happens from Epstein. NPR had a short article on it and I get alerts on it. This administration can't seem to keep its hands off the stove.
|
On July 10 2019 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 21:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 19:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2019 11:50 Emnjay808 wrote:
Crowder said the best source to get unbiased news is to get the most biased news source/opinion from both sides. This thread, more or less, offers that.
I used to watch mark dice but that guy is a fucking nut job. I’ve calibrated since.
You must not have calibrated too much if you still watch a comedian-turned-meme-who-doesn't-understand-the-burden-of-proof for your revelations about the news, especially since his assertion is a clear logical fallacy (false compromise fallacy) And, to be fair, there are plenty of news sources posted in this thread that aren't crazily biased in either direction, such as Associated Press (AP), BBC, NPR, Reuters, and CBS Which one of those is either neutral (could take it or leave it) or anti-capitalist? You must be bored and so jaded to literally find a divide in everything said and put it into two boxes; capitalism or communism. You offer nothing new except to attempt, fraily, to steer the conversation to your choice of topic. No one is going to stop their current discussions and join you in your pathetic attempt to hijack said conversation because you think what you have to say is more interesting. It isn't. Either contribute to the current discussions or sit by quietly until your topic of choice presents itself. Not directing anything anywhere except clarification. The suggestion was that a list of relatively unbiased news sources was provided and I pointed out a rather distinct and undeniable bias they share. What exactly are your last 3 posts here contributing? Their content has tinges of your perceived bias in all facets of reporting? News outlets cannot be trusted if they are? Where do you get news from? Moving on, I am interested in what fallout happens from Epstein. NPR had a short article on it and I get alerts on it. This administration can't seem to keep its hands off the stove.
How so?
The media/Dems have been trying to pin anything on Trump the past three years to remove him from office.
If they had intel that Trump did illegal activities with Epstein why not go after him on that instead of the Stormy Daniels or fake Russia collusion narratives?
Then again wasn’t Hillarys vice campaign chair/deputy chief of staff Huma Abedins husband Anthony Weiner jailed for sending a 15 year old girl dick pics? I guess we’re not dealing with smart people here.
|
On July 10 2019 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 21:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 19:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2019 11:50 Emnjay808 wrote:
Crowder said the best source to get unbiased news is to get the most biased news source/opinion from both sides. This thread, more or less, offers that.
I used to watch mark dice but that guy is a fucking nut job. I’ve calibrated since.
You must not have calibrated too much if you still watch a comedian-turned-meme-who-doesn't-understand-the-burden-of-proof for your revelations about the news, especially since his assertion is a clear logical fallacy (false compromise fallacy) And, to be fair, there are plenty of news sources posted in this thread that aren't crazily biased in either direction, such as Associated Press (AP), BBC, NPR, Reuters, and CBS Which one of those is either neutral (could take it or leave it) or anti-capitalist? You must be bored and so jaded to literally find a divide in everything said and put it into two boxes; capitalism or communism. You offer nothing new except to attempt, fraily, to steer the conversation to your choice of topic. No one is going to stop their current discussions and join you in your pathetic attempt to hijack said conversation because you think what you have to say is more interesting. It isn't. Either contribute to the current discussions or sit by quietly until your topic of choice presents itself. Not directing anything anywhere except clarification. The suggestion was that a list of relatively unbiased news sources was provided and I pointed out a rather distinct and undeniable bias they share. What exactly are your last 3 posts here contributing? Their content has tinges of your perceived bias in all facets of reporting? News outlets cannot be trusted if they are? Where do you get news from?
Their content is decidedly pro-capitalist, you can refute that or not but acting as if I made it up is silly. I didn't say "news outlets can't be trusted"?
I read/listen to reporting/commentary from a variety of sources ranging from fox news, to workers world basically
|
On July 10 2019 22:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 21:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 19:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2019 11:50 Emnjay808 wrote:
Crowder said the best source to get unbiased news is to get the most biased news source/opinion from both sides. This thread, more or less, offers that.
I used to watch mark dice but that guy is a fucking nut job. I’ve calibrated since.
You must not have calibrated too much if you still watch a comedian-turned-meme-who-doesn't-understand-the-burden-of-proof for your revelations about the news, especially since his assertion is a clear logical fallacy (false compromise fallacy) And, to be fair, there are plenty of news sources posted in this thread that aren't crazily biased in either direction, such as Associated Press (AP), BBC, NPR, Reuters, and CBS Which one of those is either neutral (could take it or leave it) or anti-capitalist? You must be bored and so jaded to literally find a divide in everything said and put it into two boxes; capitalism or communism. You offer nothing new except to attempt, fraily, to steer the conversation to your choice of topic. No one is going to stop their current discussions and join you in your pathetic attempt to hijack said conversation because you think what you have to say is more interesting. It isn't. Either contribute to the current discussions or sit by quietly until your topic of choice presents itself. Not directing anything anywhere except clarification. The suggestion was that a list of relatively unbiased news sources was provided and I pointed out a rather distinct and undeniable bias they share. What exactly are your last 3 posts here contributing? Their content has tinges of your perceived bias in all facets of reporting? News outlets cannot be trusted if they are? Where do you get news from? Moving on, I am interested in what fallout happens from Epstein. NPR had a short article on it and I get alerts on it. This administration can't seem to keep its hands off the stove. How so? The media/Dems have been trying to pin anything on Trump the past three years to remove him from office. If they had intel that Trump did illegal activities with Epstein why not go after him on that instead of the Stormy Daniels or fake Russia collusion narratives? Then again wasn’t Hillarys vice campaign chair/deputy chief of staff Huma Abedins husband Anthony Weiner jailed for sending a 15 year old girl dick pics? I guess we’re not dealing with smart people here.
At least he was jailed?... The point is there's allegations, and these allegations should be looked at, or no?
|
On July 10 2019 22:48 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 22:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On July 10 2019 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 21:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 19:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2019 11:50 Emnjay808 wrote:
Crowder said the best source to get unbiased news is to get the most biased news source/opinion from both sides. This thread, more or less, offers that.
I used to watch mark dice but that guy is a fucking nut job. I’ve calibrated since.
You must not have calibrated too much if you still watch a comedian-turned-meme-who-doesn't-understand-the-burden-of-proof for your revelations about the news, especially since his assertion is a clear logical fallacy (false compromise fallacy) And, to be fair, there are plenty of news sources posted in this thread that aren't crazily biased in either direction, such as Associated Press (AP), BBC, NPR, Reuters, and CBS Which one of those is either neutral (could take it or leave it) or anti-capitalist? You must be bored and so jaded to literally find a divide in everything said and put it into two boxes; capitalism or communism. You offer nothing new except to attempt, fraily, to steer the conversation to your choice of topic. No one is going to stop their current discussions and join you in your pathetic attempt to hijack said conversation because you think what you have to say is more interesting. It isn't. Either contribute to the current discussions or sit by quietly until your topic of choice presents itself. Not directing anything anywhere except clarification. The suggestion was that a list of relatively unbiased news sources was provided and I pointed out a rather distinct and undeniable bias they share. What exactly are your last 3 posts here contributing? Their content has tinges of your perceived bias in all facets of reporting? News outlets cannot be trusted if they are? Where do you get news from? Moving on, I am interested in what fallout happens from Epstein. NPR had a short article on it and I get alerts on it. This administration can't seem to keep its hands off the stove. How so? The media/Dems have been trying to pin anything on Trump the past three years to remove him from office. If they had intel that Trump did illegal activities with Epstein why not go after him on that instead of the Stormy Daniels or fake Russia collusion narratives? Then again wasn’t Hillarys vice campaign chair/deputy chief of staff Huma Abedins husband Anthony Weiner jailed for sending a 15 year old girl dick pics? I guess we’re not dealing with smart people here. At least he was jailed?... The point is there's allegations, and these allegations should be looked at, or no?
He resigned from Congress, his party-connected wife divorced him, and he went to prison. As always, you can see exactly where some people get their information from.
|
|
|
Uhm... Either I'm really stupid and don't get what you mean or my reference to crowder flew way over your head.
Alternatively I embrace that you respect ma authiriteee.
|
|
|
On July 10 2019 22:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2019 22:06 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 21:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 21:03 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On July 10 2019 19:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 10 2019 19:22 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 10 2019 11:50 Emnjay808 wrote:
Crowder said the best source to get unbiased news is to get the most biased news source/opinion from both sides. This thread, more or less, offers that.
I used to watch mark dice but that guy is a fucking nut job. I’ve calibrated since.
You must not have calibrated too much if you still watch a comedian-turned-meme-who-doesn't-understand-the-burden-of-proof for your revelations about the news, especially since his assertion is a clear logical fallacy (false compromise fallacy) And, to be fair, there are plenty of news sources posted in this thread that aren't crazily biased in either direction, such as Associated Press (AP), BBC, NPR, Reuters, and CBS Which one of those is either neutral (could take it or leave it) or anti-capitalist? You must be bored and so jaded to literally find a divide in everything said and put it into two boxes; capitalism or communism. You offer nothing new except to attempt, fraily, to steer the conversation to your choice of topic. No one is going to stop their current discussions and join you in your pathetic attempt to hijack said conversation because you think what you have to say is more interesting. It isn't. Either contribute to the current discussions or sit by quietly until your topic of choice presents itself. Not directing anything anywhere except clarification. The suggestion was that a list of relatively unbiased news sources was provided and I pointed out a rather distinct and undeniable bias they share. What exactly are your last 3 posts here contributing? Their content has tinges of your perceived bias in all facets of reporting? News outlets cannot be trusted if they are? Where do you get news from? Moving on, I am interested in what fallout happens from Epstein. NPR had a short article on it and I get alerts on it. This administration can't seem to keep its hands off the stove. How so? The media/Dems have been trying to pin anything on Trump the past three years to remove him from office. If they had intel that Trump did illegal activities with Epstein why not go after him on that instead of the Stormy Daniels or fake Russia collusion narratives? Then again wasn’t Hillarys vice campaign chair/deputy chief of staff Huma Abedins husband Anthony Weiner jailed for sending a 15 year old girl dick pics? I guess we’re not dealing with smart people here.
Cant really pursue the Epstein angle until theres an criminal case open, with the investigative powers of law enforcement behind it. Now the govt can pursue whatever leads come across its desk. As well as pressure Epstein to cooperate. In the meantime, the media can write thinly sourced stories that put trump and epsteins names right next to each other  .
|
Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.
We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled the defend their leaders significantly more than democrats.
|
On July 11 2019 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.
We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled the defend their leaders significantly more than democrats.
Clinton holds almost no political power anymore, so Democrats don’t care if he goes. You’d see more of a reaction, akin to the morbid curiosity in the old Clinton war room around the time of bimbo eruptions, if he was close to his political apex.
|
I haven't seen that anywhere (t_d, or however you abbreviate it, doesnt count), but the obvious problem is that we've already seen the Clinton defense force, in the 1990s. It was so strong that people on the left today still think he was impeached over sex. Clinton is currently disposable, even moreso than Franken whose stories dropped at the worst possible time (and was alway going to be replaced with another Democrat).
The two aren't even comparable, unless you are willing to say dems would have thrown him overboard during his presidency.
Snd I think both sides would, if there was tape of either and a 14 year old girl, to be clear. I think being a pedophile is a different animal.
|
United States41989 Posts
Introvert did you miss Nettles in this topic? He’s always going on about Clinton.
|
On July 11 2019 05:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2019 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.
We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled the defend their leaders significantly more than democrats. Clinton holds almost no political power anymore, so Democrats don’t care if he goes. You’d see more of a reaction, akin to the morbid curiosity in the old Clinton war room around the time of bimbo eruptions, if he was close to his political apex.
He holds almost no power anymore, but he and his wife are still the Republican boogieman. Wouldn't you say that in an age where Republicans still do everything they can to tie anything whatsoever to the Clintons, that it means something that Democrats would also say "yeah, fuck 'em"? As it is, you're not being consistent.
|
I'm talking about Bill not Hillary. Hillary lost the vast majority of her relevance after she lost, but Bill is basically dead weight.
edit: as for taking about Hillary... we are still dealing with crap she left us in 2016, including the Russia hoax. so yeah, I would expect her to come up from time to time.
|
On July 11 2019 05:30 Introvert wrote:
I'm talking about Bill not Hillary. Hillary lost the vast majority of her relevance after she lost, but Bill is basically dead weight.
edit: as for taking about Hillary... we are still dealing with crap she left us in 2016, including the Russia hoax. so yeah, I would expect her to come up from time to time.
I don't recall seeing Hillary hold a gun to Trump's head when he openly said on camera "yeah, of course I'd take their assistance in an election, why would you not?" But that's neither here nor there. The fact is that the Republican response to this Epstein thing making Trump look bad was "but also Bill Clinton", and Democrats have only been going "yeah, fuck him too". Was it supposed to be an effective whataboutism, but then not mean anything if they didn't bite?
|
On July 11 2019 04:57 Mohdoo wrote:
Every time someone brings up "Bill Clinton might be screwed by this Epstein thing", democrats are like "if he is, I want him to rot". I am seeing people on the right significantly more resistant to say they'd toss away the key for Trump if the same is true.
We've been down this road before: Cultural axioms of conservatism make conservatives feel compelled the defend their leaders significantly more than democrats.
Think that's pretty much just party politics like danglars said, not unique to conservatives. The party knew Clinton was a creep when they nominated him. Like they'd know Biden is a creep and still expect people to vote for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
