|
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 June 20 2020 05:00 ShoCkeyy wrote:
One of Trumps most recent tweets include not treating protesters like "normal" people. Literally people who are actively using their first amendment right shouldn't be treated humanely.
Doesn't surprise me. Remember how long it took for any response to the Turkish security assaulting American Turks?
|
I've seen a fair number of these "fact check" things on Facebook in particular. Mostly in response to right-wing memes that kind of bend the facts to support a narrative. I can see what they're trying to get at here. What strikes me is that questionable, agenda-driven, or partially true that doesn't have a right-wing slant rarely gets called out in the same way. And perhaps even more egregious is that the "fact checker" of choice is Politifact, which is far more of a partisan hack than more reliable ones like FactCheck or Snopes. Politifact in particular has been known to bend the definition of "factually accurate" quite a bit in a way that seems to almost inexplicably favor a Democratic agenda, to the point that it can't be trusted at all.
I guess the caveat is that the right-wing stuff tends to be more factually inaccurate on average, but this whole game of "fact checking" has gradually devolved into a visibly partisan endeavor with little to no credibility.
|
|
|
On June 20 2020 08:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 07:38 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2020 07:25 JimmiC wrote:On June 20 2020 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2020 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 20 2020 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2020 12:14 Wombat_NI wrote:So apparently there’s some new controversy over Trump/CNN and Twitter, his account tweeting out some attempt at satire using CNN footage of toddlers hugging only selective editing it to make them be running away twitter.comFirst chance seeing this new Twitter filter in action (I rarely use it as a platform) Small thing but I really do quite like the ‘this is fake news’ filter they’ve added. Enough replies to said Tweet saying it’s disgusting what CNN are publishing kind of points to the necessity of such flags. I’m curious as to where this goes from here, Trump seems to be doubling down in his long-standing war against the media and now tech aggregators. It’s long been my fear that the worst part of a mostly terrible legacy is going to be Trump’s tearing down of the media. Not that the media is without fault but a situation where a sizeable constituency of a nation outright doesn’t believe basically anything coming from the fourth estate regardless of veracity is a terrible state of affairs for societal cohesion. The problem I have with this new trend of tech giants trying to filter out fake news is who gets to decide what the truth is. For example, I saw a video the other day of Joe Biden supposedly committing a gaffe by saying he was going to "beat Joe Biden" + Show Spoiler +So I googled it and I found that Politifact which has a partnership with Facebook to combat fake news has deemed this to be false and that what he actually said was "I'm going to be Joe Biden." My problem is that when I watch that video it sounds more like "beat" than "be" to me. It's a little troubling if these tech giants that already have so much influence in our society are now also able to decide what the "truth" is and censor anything that doesn't go along with their version of it. The example you gave is nothing to do with facts or information though. Its either an obvious accident or you misheard it. You can't fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden' any more than you can fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden'. Right. It's either an obvious accident or I misheard it. We don't really know which so Facebook/Politifact are way out of line by declaring it factually false. I assume you are agreeing with me since you're saying it can't even be fact checked. He says. " I have a record of over 40 years and I'm going to be Joe Biden". In context I'm not sure how you would think he says beat, when they cut the clip I can see how you would. It is like if you hear "there is a bathroom on the right" when CCR sang "there is a bad moon on the rise". It would be factually incorrect to the say the former, no matter what you think you hear. Yeah it makes more sense for him to have said "be" but that's kind of what a gaffe is: saying something that doesn't make sense. I think if you watch the whole interview you will see why it is highly unlikely that it is the gaffe, and rather that the clipping and commenting is meant to make it look like he said something dumb or is senile when he looks quite with it in the interview. I suspect they are calling it not factual because they are pulling it out of context to make it look like something it is not, and sadly so many people are not going to go and watch the full interview. I also am not sure Trump wants to go down the fit for office comparison because the him walking down the ramp clip will get played on repeat. It would be nice for them to discuss the issues but that has never been Trumps move so I doubt it will happen.
The debates will clear a lot of this up. As a Bernista, I was honestly surprised at how well Biden did during the debates. All the subreddits had me believe he'd be drooling over himself and saying we need to get out of Vietnam.
|
Northern Ireland27018 Posts
On June 20 2020 08:40 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 07:38 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2020 07:25 JimmiC wrote:On June 20 2020 07:16 BlackJack wrote:On June 20 2020 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 20 2020 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2020 12:14 Wombat_NI wrote:So apparently there’s some new controversy over Trump/CNN and Twitter, his account tweeting out some attempt at satire using CNN footage of toddlers hugging only selective editing it to make them be running away twitter.comFirst chance seeing this new Twitter filter in action (I rarely use it as a platform) Small thing but I really do quite like the ‘this is fake news’ filter they’ve added. Enough replies to said Tweet saying it’s disgusting what CNN are publishing kind of points to the necessity of such flags. I’m curious as to where this goes from here, Trump seems to be doubling down in his long-standing war against the media and now tech aggregators. It’s long been my fear that the worst part of a mostly terrible legacy is going to be Trump’s tearing down of the media. Not that the media is without fault but a situation where a sizeable constituency of a nation outright doesn’t believe basically anything coming from the fourth estate regardless of veracity is a terrible state of affairs for societal cohesion. The problem I have with this new trend of tech giants trying to filter out fake news is who gets to decide what the truth is. For example, I saw a video the other day of Joe Biden supposedly committing a gaffe by saying he was going to "beat Joe Biden" + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdvM9K8N6OY So I googled it and I found that Politifact which has a partnership with Facebook to combat fake news has deemed this to be false and that what he actually said was "I'm going to be Joe Biden." My problem is that when I watch that video it sounds more like "beat" than "be" to me. It's a little troubling if these tech giants that already have so much influence in our society are now also able to decide what the "truth" is and censor anything that doesn't go along with their version of it. The example you gave is nothing to do with facts or information though. Its either an obvious accident or you misheard it. You can't fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden' any more than you can fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden'. Right. It's either an obvious accident or I misheard it. We don't really know which so Facebook/Politifact are way out of line by declaring it factually false. I assume you are agreeing with me since you're saying it can't even be fact checked. He says. " I have a record of over 40 years and I'm going to be Joe Biden". In context I'm not sure how you would think he says beat, when they cut the clip I can see how you would. It is like if you hear "there is a bathroom on the right" when CCR sang "there is a bad moon on the rise". It would be factually incorrect to the say the former, no matter what you think you hear. Yeah it makes more sense for him to have said "be" but that's kind of what a gaffe is: saying something that doesn't make sense. I think if you watch the whole interview you will see why it is highly unlikely that it is the gaffe, and rather that the clipping and commenting is meant to make it look like he said something dumb or is senile when he looks quite with it in the interview. I suspect they are calling it not factual because they are pulling it out of context to make it look like something it is not, and sadly so many people are not going to go and watch the full interview. I also am not sure Trump wants to go down the fit for office comparison because the him walking down the ramp clip will get played on repeat. It would be nice for them to discuss the issues but that has never been Trumps move so I doubt it will happen.
Gaffes are gaffes, unless they aren’t mere slips of the tongue.
Teenage me remembers George Bush being relentlessly lampooned for the odd slipup. Subsequently I’ve seen old speeches of his as a governor, or more recent output that, hey maybe not the brain dead idiot that teenage me consuming standard satirical shows thought.
This isn’t to excuse him of his heinous moral failings by any means or what he did.
Trump doesn’t make gaffes, he’s a lunatic with an incredibly warped sense of reality. Political disagreements aside it genuinely confuses me that people can’t see that Trump as an individual is incredibly psychologically flawed and there is something wrong with the man.
|
I don’t expect Biden will do as poorly at the debates as many expect, but we shall see. It’s hard to say how Trump saying smarmy inarticulate things will interact with Biden’s tendency to trail off or say strangely old fashioned things. Even if Biden old man bombs it, I’d wager that a fair number of voters won’t hold that against him.
|
|
|
Trump politicizing masks is gonna end up making Florida deep blue. Florida is keeping pace with California, which is totally nuts. All those old people trying to own the libs
|
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida?
|
On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida?
I read a somewhat thorough analysis of how covid being a “boomer remover” would fix a large number of social and economic issues. Inheritance distribution, land prices and a variety of other things having wide ranging, concrete benefits can’t really be ignored. It’s by no means an ethical perspective, but there are schools of thought where someone could argue it as a good thing. I love my grandma so that thinking can go to hell, but it was kind of fascinating to read about “so what if 10% of everyone over 70 died?”
|
On June 20 2020 09:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Trump politicizing masks is gonna end up making Florida deep blue. Florida is keeping pace with California, which is totally nuts. All those old people trying to own the libs
Being anti-masks does seem like a startlingly bad move even for Trump (who routinely makes "bad" political moves and emerges with his approval rating unscathed). With how quickly the number of cases is increasing in Arizona, Florida and Texas (as well as California), masks are the obvious way to contain things. The alternative, which is more lockdowns, is politically impossible for him. And given for example how well Japan has fared so far during the pandemic despite doing everything wrong apart from widespread mask wearing it's quite obvious to everyone how important mask wearing is.
So far the pandemic has hit Black Americans harder than White Americans, and districts that Clinton won harder than those that Trump won, but it looks like that might be changing with covid cases increasing rapidly in some very red areas of the country. One has to wonder about how seeing covid closer to home will shape the opinion of Republicans. And if it might affect Trump and the GOPs attitudes to masks. Trump could save a lot of lives (and presumably improve his re-election chances) by pivoting on masks.
|
On June 20 2020 11:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? I read a somewhat thorough analysis of how covid being a “boomer remover” would fix a large number of social and economic issues. Inheritance distribution, land prices and a variety of other things having wide ranging, concrete benefits can’t really be ignored. It’s by no means an ethical perspective, but there are schools of thought where someone could argue it as a good thing. I love my grandma so that thinking can go to hell, but it was kind of fascinating to read about “so what if 10% of everyone over 70 died?”
It does seem a bit callous, doesn't it? The merits are there but then the ethical questions become the thing you have to square with yourself. I'm not that cold-hearted to sacrifice someone's grandparents for my own well being, but I'm Ivan Drago in Rocky 4 at the same time.
|
Barr announced the head of the SDNY was stepping down ("had resigned"). The head of the SDNY said "no, I'm not resigning, and you can't fire me. Only the Senate can" on Twitter shortly after via the SDNY official twitter. Apparently twitter was also how he learned of his own resignation.
The SDNY is the location where it has long been rumored that it is holding investigations into Trump, and is where he is expected to be charged after he leaves office for campaign finance violations.
It also tends to handle the most explosive investigations in general, so news about it like this matters probably equally to a lower level cabinet position (like interior or agriculture), regardless of the Trump rumors.
|
On June 20 2020 12:42 Nevuk wrote:Barr announced the head of the SDNY was stepping down ("had resigned"). The head of the SDNY said "no, I'm not resigning, and you can't fire me. Only the Senate can" on Twitter shortly after via the SDNY official twitter. Apparently twitter was also how he learned of his own resignation. The SDNY is the location where it has long been rumored that it is holding investigations into Trump, and is where he is expected to be charged after he leaves office for campaign finance violations. It also tends to handle the most explosive investigations in general, so news about it like this matters probably equally to a lower level cabinet position (like interior or agriculture), regardless of the Trump rumors. https://twitter.com/SDNYnews/status/1274178732476059650
This will be a history defining moment. I'm terrified. SDNY needs to understand this is not a normal circumstance and needs abnormal response.
|
When he says the Senate, does he mean the US Senate of the NY Senate?
|
US Senate. SDNY is a federal branch.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny
Barr almost certainly doesn't have the authority to fire him, so this is gonna get weird. Trump may be able to, but Barr didn't say Trump was ordering this.
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/why-attorney-general-barr-may-not-have-the-legal-authority-to-force-out-the-u-s-attorney-for-sdny/
Basically, the language used to install this guy says he is the PERMANENT acting director of the SDNY. Note he was a Trump donor in 2016, and was picked by Trump. Whole thing is bizarre.
So he can only be replaced with a fully confirmed replacement in the Senate - not an acting one. At least, that's his argument.
(Bharara was also fired by Trump from the SDNY).
Nadler has already scheduled a hearing on Wednesday about this topic, and invited Berman to join (was about Barr interfering in the doj)
This is like a category 2 or 3 shitstorm, with possibility of it being upgraded pretty high. It is gonna take a lot of political capital for Trump to force through this guy's replacement in the Senate, though he should be able to. Only question is if it was done to prevent some damning investigations from continuing. If so, we will probably find out what it was within the week. The guy tapped to replace Berman has no relevant experience to running investigations. I think Barr miscalculated and thought Berman would just quietly shuffle off into the night
|
On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida?
Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer.
The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things.
Prices are high because the government makes it so.
|
On June 20 2020 15:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 09:50 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
Maybe housing prices will finally get under control in Florida? Being a ghoul about this whole situation is the wrong answer. The best way to get housing prices under control is to let Fannie Mae & friends eat the loss when market forces inevitably cause a repeat of 2008. That would cause a widespread financial collapse since housing-derived financial instruments make up a frightening percentage of the entire market, and housing prices failing to maintain their current generally absurd price levels would cause trillions of dollars of losses. But it'd work a damn sight better than people dying, an effect which would be much more transient in the grand scheme of things. Prices are high because the government makes it so.
I guess they owe the govt. too much for it to allow that. It's like it made itself to a competitor of the consumer as a price to save the banks.
|
Berman is the guy in charge of the Epstein investigation?
Oh wow that looks bad.
|
On June 20 2020 07:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2020 06:02 Jockmcplop wrote:On June 20 2020 05:57 BlackJack wrote:On June 19 2020 12:14 Wombat_NI wrote:So apparently there’s some new controversy over Trump/CNN and Twitter, his account tweeting out some attempt at satire using CNN footage of toddlers hugging only selective editing it to make them be running away twitter.comFirst chance seeing this new Twitter filter in action (I rarely use it as a platform) Small thing but I really do quite like the ‘this is fake news’ filter they’ve added. Enough replies to said Tweet saying it’s disgusting what CNN are publishing kind of points to the necessity of such flags. I’m curious as to where this goes from here, Trump seems to be doubling down in his long-standing war against the media and now tech aggregators. It’s long been my fear that the worst part of a mostly terrible legacy is going to be Trump’s tearing down of the media. Not that the media is without fault but a situation where a sizeable constituency of a nation outright doesn’t believe basically anything coming from the fourth estate regardless of veracity is a terrible state of affairs for societal cohesion. The problem I have with this new trend of tech giants trying to filter out fake news is who gets to decide what the truth is. For example, I saw a video the other day of Joe Biden supposedly committing a gaffe by saying he was going to "beat Joe Biden" + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdvM9K8N6OY So I googled it and I found that Politifact which has a partnership with Facebook to combat fake news has deemed this to be false and that what he actually said was "I'm going to be Joe Biden." My problem is that when I watch that video it sounds more like "beat" than "be" to me. It's a little troubling if these tech giants that already have so much influence in our society are now also able to decide what the "truth" is and censor anything that doesn't go along with their version of it. The example you gave is nothing to do with facts or information though. Its either an obvious accident or you misheard it. You can't fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden' any more than you can fact check 'i'm going to beat Joe Biden'. Right. It's either an obvious accident or I misheard it. We don't really know which so Facebook/Politifact are way out of line by declaring it factually false. I assume you are agreeing with me since you're saying it can't even be fact checked.
I got confused about the example you were giving, sorry.
I guess yeah, i dont know why or how they would fact check that.
EDIT sorry for double post, I have my mafia no editing hat on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
