|
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 May 24 2018 09:52 Plansix wrote:
When we talk about this labeling, we do need to remember we are talking about corporations driven by profit. Corporations that will lie or omit information to the public to sell their products. This isn’t about science or creating a more efficient way of feeding people. This is about marketing products. And forcing companies to be upfront about the food and what is it made out of it good people buying that food. Veggie burgers should not be called “wonder burger” with the word “beef” in bold on the front label and then only saying they are a “vegetable product” on the back. That is no fun for anyone. That shit just sucks.
This law isn't what you want then. The law is vague enough about "meat marketing" that this is just as likely to be leveraged against products that are just called wonder burger period or something labeled "lab-grown beef" that was grown in a lab (one of which isn't meat but isn't pretending to be, and one of which is but gives too many the heebie jeebies). With a law this vague I actually might not mind the inevitable SCOTUS decision protecting labeling as speech if anyone tries to enforce this, which likely won't happen because none of the big-name items could plausibly be said to pretend to be meat from their packaging.
|
Agreed. The law needs to be more specific and not as overly broad. I am mostly responding to the framing that this is about progress vs food science vs out of date cattle farming.
|
I know Trump is criminally maniacal (not that he'll face any real legal consequences) and that can monopolize anyone's attention, but there was some impressive bipartisanship that I don't think I saw mentioned in the thread.
Failing to rally enough Republicans to confirm Gina Haspel , Democrats stepped up and confirmed Trump's top pick for CIA director.
Gina Haspel, the CIA veteran who supervised the torture of a War on Terror detainee and helped order the destruction of videotapes depicting torture, has been approved by the Senate as the agency’s director. Two of the Senate’s 51 Republicans—Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul—voted against Haspel. Arizona Sen. John McCain was absent for medical reasons but said previously that Haspel should not be confirmed. Six Democrats—Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and Virginia Sen. Mark Warner—voted to confirm her.
As Jeff Stein of the Washington Post notes, Warner and Shaheen represent states that Hillary Clinton won
slate.com
In an atmosphere when it seems impossible to get the parties to agree, even on what day of the week it is, we also had an impressive bipartisan piece of legislation move toward Trump's desk.
The House on Tuesday passed a plan to roll back banking regulations passed in response to the 2008 financial crisis, sending the bill to President Trump to sign...
Senators had assembled a rare bipartisan coalition to pass the bill by winning support from 17 Democrats, including a half-dozen who are up for reelection in November in states Trump won. Aside from must-pass spending bills, the banking bill stands as the sole example of bipartisan legislation on a major issue in the Senate since Trump became president.
www.washingtonpost.com
Is there hope for more bipartisan legislation for Trump to sign? Or is this a one time deal because despite recording record profits without even counting the tax cuts, voters demanded it?
|
Trump can not block twitter users from his account @realdonaldtrump a judge decided. It would violate freedom of speech. That is absolutely ridiculous lol. Freedom of speech is not only the freedom to say anything you want,it apparently is also the freedom to say it anywhere you want on the internet. Is blocking users on twitter even allowed for anyone with this line of thought? After all if someone blocks me then that effects my freedom of speech lol.
If I am pro abortion I could go to an anti abortion website or twitter account and spew all my pro abortion arguments and propaganda there and then they can not block it? It seems beyond stupid to me.
There is freedom of speech,there should also be the freedom to close your eyes and or ears but I guess that is not the case in the usa. Very very silly.
|
They threw a bone to the anti-Trumps for some aversion (for what? God knows)
But you can bet their fucking asses that they see this as a huge “victory” or w/e. How twitter became this important to some people is beyond me lol.
There’s some Last Man Standing and Parks n Rec scenes that I can think of that makes fun of twitter politics. I’d love to link em if it’s allowed? Or when I’m on my computer.
Overall I just find the scope of seriousness on twitter laughable
|
On May 24 2018 15:06 pmh wrote:
Trump can not block twitter users from his account @realdonaldtrump a judge decided. It would violate freedom of speech. That is absolutely ridiculous lol. Freedom of speech is not only the freedom to say anything you want,it apparently is also the freedom to say it anywhere you want on the internet. Is blocking users on twitter even allowed for anyone with this line of thought? After all if someone blocks me then that effects my freedom of speech lol.
If I am pro abortion I could go to an anti abortion website or twitter account and spew all my pro abortion arguments and propaganda there and then they can not block it? It seems beyond stupid to me.
There is freedom of speech,there should also be the freedom to close your eyes and or ears but I guess that is not the case in the usa. Very very silly.
When you block someone THEY can’t see your tweets.
I am sure you don’t need to be explained why it matters that the president can just restrict at will who sees what he tweets, considering it’s his number one tool to express his « ideas ».
|
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable.
|
On May 24 2018 17:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable.
Only if you forget that twitter is now a key part of domestic and foreign policy, with Donald Trump literally using twitter to undermine his own guys, attack enemies, and give out policy intentions. He's sure not going to do it in a press conference.
He's not some random spod, he's the President of the USA using his official twitter to give official policy positions of the official white house of his official US government, as voted on by the people of the US.
Of course he's not allowed to block the people of the USA seeing the actual policy of the actual government they voted in.
|
I find the lack of privacy security controls in America these days to be disturbing. I guess Amazon is now selling facial-recognition software to police that cross-references faces with 52 million mugshots in its Next Generation Identification (NGI) database. That seems troublesome & worrisome. Planning anything these days is difficult & that makes things worse.
https://www.weeklystandard.com/dan-king/amazon-selling-rekognition-facial-recognition-to-government-and-police
In the past, there used to be a lot of news articles about privacy planning and security measures that individuals & companies can take
|
On May 24 2018 17:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable.
If it was not the official account of the POTUS, it would be. I know he talks and behaves like one but Trump is not a random internet kid who can decide who sees his crappy posts and / or participate to what is a public forum and who can’t.
Now if you want official accounts of elected government members on social media starting to decide who can see what they post and who can answer based on partisanship, it’s your right. I think it’s a slippery road. And no matter how trivial the subject is, the POTUS is supposed to respect the law and the constitution. Even on twitter.
Last thing. Don’t you think what’s laughable is the fucking POTUS taking time to block people who say stuff about him that hurt his ego on twitter? I mean can you imagine Obama taking time to do something like that? If you can’t stand being criticized, you have no business anywhere a government job in a demicracy. We knew that already but it’s still the bottom line.
|
On May 24 2018 18:36 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 17:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable. Only if you forget that twitter is now a key part of domestic and foreign policy, with Donald Trump literally using twitter to undermine his own guys, attack enemies, and give out policy intentions. He's sure not going to do it in a press conference. He's not some random spod, he's the President of the USA using his official twitter to give official policy positions of the official white house of his official US government, as voted on by the people of the US. Of course he's not allowed to block the people of the USA seeing the actual policy of the actual government they voted in.
He can, he just has to go through Twitter first. Not sure how many of you are on twitter, but those who are have probably already noticed that Twitter is significantly curating what they see. Many tweets will have many replies but only a couple are visible. None that you follow or even the top fav'd/rt'd. Or the "too many replies" where it won't show any as a result. They switched from chronological to 'here's what we think you want to see' more than a year ago and a lot of other changes over the years influencing what you see vs what is 'actually there'.
This one isn't even a big deal as people have worked around blocks to see content for years on twitter. The other ones are far more potentially nefarious. This one was more of just a "na-na na-na boo boo" for people to make jokes about Trump losing. There's plenty of critical 1st amendment and other constitutional issues surrounding twitter, this one was probably one of the least significant I can think of.
|
On May 24 2018 17:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable.
Weirdly enough the features of twitter for private accounts were never run by a constitutional law expert before being used by government officials. People in the government cannot selectively deny citizens privilege other citizens had. Even something as silly and trivial as responding on twitter.
|
On May 24 2018 18:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 17:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable. Last thing. Don’t you think what’s laughable is the fucking POTUS taking time to block people who say stuff about him that hurt his ego on twitter? I mean can you imagine Obama taking time to do something like that? If you can’t stand being criticized, you have no business anywhere a government job in a demicracy. We knew that already but it’s still the bottom line.
I dont think his ego is hurt. I think he does it cause he finds it hilarious.
Imagine: A verified tweeter wakes up in the morning, sips their morning coffee, loads up their twitter ready to pick a Trump tweet-of-the-day and post a witty reply to it and await the cascade of "likes" and "retweets". Instead "You have been blocked" is on their screen. Fucking LOL
It's most likely the former, but I'd like to entertain the thought of the latter as well. 
|
On May 24 2018 20:04 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 18:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 24 2018 17:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable. Last thing. Don’t you think what’s laughable is the fucking POTUS taking time to block people who say stuff about him that hurt his ego on twitter? I mean can you imagine Obama taking time to do something like that? If you can’t stand being criticized, you have no business anywhere a government job in a demicracy. We knew that already but it’s still the bottom line. I dont think his ego is hurt. I think he does it cause he finds it hilarious. Imagine: A verified tweeter wakes up in the morning, sips their morning coffee, loads up their twitter ready to pick a Trump tweet-of-the-day and post a witty reply to it and await the cascade of "likes" and "retweets". Instead " You have been blocked" is on their screen. Fucking LOLIt's most likely the former, but I'd like to entertain the thought of the latter as well.
The attitude of finding one of the most powerful people on the planet unconstitutionally "trolling" people via what they have now made, out of a total lack of self-control and sane platform use, an official outlet for presidential statements, hilarious is sort of disturbing. The person with the office of most responsibility in your country shouldn't be spending time getting lols (unconstitutionally) at their citizens' expense. It's already an absolute joke that the bloody president is making serious announcements on a twitter feed that hasn't seen coherence in years.
Like I know value systems aren't universal, but damn.
|
Sadly, it's a popular political trope nowadays to tacitly ridicule people who take the acts of Trump seriously through basically laughing everything off as one big joke.
|
On May 24 2018 20:39 farvacola wrote:
Sadly, it's a popular political trope nowadays to tacitly ridicule people who take the acts of Trump seriously through basically laughing everything off as one big joke.
Abandon hope, all ye who give a shit. And/or worry about the potential of yet another goddamn war breaking out, what with this whole Iran thing looking tenuous.
|
On May 24 2018 20:04 Emnjay808 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2018 18:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 24 2018 17:21 Emnjay808 wrote:
It’s not about censorship it’s about protecting the blocked people’s rights to reply to Trump’s tweets. Which again is just laughable. Last thing. Don’t you think what’s laughable is the fucking POTUS taking time to block people who say stuff about him that hurt his ego on twitter? I mean can you imagine Obama taking time to do something like that? If you can’t stand being criticized, you have no business anywhere a government job in a demicracy. We knew that already but it’s still the bottom line. I dont think his ego is hurt. I think he does it cause he finds it hilarious. Imagine: A verified tweeter wakes up in the morning, sips their morning coffee, loads up their twitter ready to pick a Trump tweet-of-the-day and post a witty reply to it and await the cascade of "likes" and "retweets". Instead " You have been blocked" is on their screen. Fucking LOLIt's most likely the former, but I'd like to entertain the thought of the latter as well.
I just imagined. Oh my god so funny, I spat my coffee. That's hillarious dude. Epic trolling.
So anyway, you are rejoicing that instead of acting like a 14 years old internet edgelord, he behaves like a 4chan troll. Just in case you forgot, we are talking of the president of the United States, not your undergrad college pal.
|
On May 24 2018 15:06 pmh wrote:
Trump can not block twitter users from his account @realdonaldtrump a judge decided. It would violate freedom of speech. That is absolutely ridiculous lol. Freedom of speech is not only the freedom to say anything you want,it apparently is also the freedom to say it anywhere you want on the internet. Is blocking users on twitter even allowed for anyone with this line of thought? After all if someone blocks me then that effects my freedom of speech lol.
If I am pro abortion I could go to an anti abortion website or twitter account and spew all my pro abortion arguments and propaganda there and then they can not block it? It seems beyond stupid to me.
There is freedom of speech,there should also be the freedom to close your eyes and or ears but I guess that is not the case in the usa. Very very silly.
I actually think that decision was pretty clearly correct and you might be misunderstanding it. Put it this way: freedom of speech means (to simplify a bit) that the government can set restrictions on speech, but those restrictions can't discriminate based on viewpoint. So you can have a "no talking in the library" rule, but you can't have a "no Democrats talking in the library" rule. (There's exceptions when the "viewpoint" involves inciting violence, and a few other things, but w/e)
So any regular citizen can block people on twitter, including abortion activists and whoever else, but if the government is blocking people they disagree with, that's silencing based on viewpoint. I think the only hard question is whether Trump is acting as president or as a private citizen when he uses his private Twitter. But given how often he uses it as his primary way to make policy pronouncements, I think it's pretty clearly a government account as long as he's president.
Put it another way: imagine people regularly gathered in some government building to debate politics. The government could reasonably tell everyone to go away, or restrict people from bringing weapons, or set any other viewpoint-neutral restrictions, but if they started policing what viewpoints could be expressed in that space, that'd be plainly unconstitutional. In this case the venue is virtual (replies to the president's tweets), but if Trump is blocking people who criticize him so they won't have access to that venue, that's pretty obviously discriminating based on viewpoint.
|
The president is still deep into fueling that culture war. Implying the NFL players that don’t come out for the anthem should have their citizenship stripped. Mandatory patriotism is the thing of dictatorships.
|
On May 24 2018 15:06 pmh wrote:
Trump can not block twitter users from his account @realdonaldtrump a judge decided. It would violate freedom of speech. That is absolutely ridiculous lol. Freedom of speech is not only the freedom to say anything you want,it apparently is also the freedom to say it anywhere you want on the internet. Is blocking users on twitter even allowed for anyone with this line of thought? After all if someone blocks me then that effects my freedom of speech lol.
If I am pro abortion I could go to an anti abortion website or twitter account and spew all my pro abortion arguments and propaganda there and then they can not block it? It seems beyond stupid to me.
There is freedom of speech,there should also be the freedom to close your eyes and or ears but I guess that is not the case in the usa. Very very silly.
before deciding that something is absolutely ridiculous, you should stop and think if maybe there's a good reason for it that you're unaware of, and that you might not entirely understand the actual issue being decided. then ask for clarifications on those points/seek more info, rather than simply assuming it's stupid. best to be very careful about making assumptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
