|
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 January 01 2021 04:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:There is a ton of misinformation out there, and sometimes it's not even easy to figure out what's true and what's not, especially when considering how much crap Trump actually tries to pull off. Apparently, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell are trying to rush an executive order and Congressional petition to extend December 2020 to 37 days, not 31, so that Inauguration Day is technically pushed back (giving Trump more time as president, before Biden takes over), and I just completely made this up but you know this would be consistent with their nonsense.
I think it's time to put laws in place against the spread of misinformation. Accountability needs to be king. You need strong rules against this shit. In fact why the heck aren't there 100,000's of lawsuits against Trump and his admin? I don't get it. Only now we are seeing Fox News issue apologies once actual lawsuits start showing up on their desk with regards to the misinformation their anchors etc. have demonstrated. The way you cut this shit out is have severe penalties against such corruption. All that money Trump has been campaigning for should go to charity.
I say throw away the lock and key against conspiracies and get rid of pardons. You do wrong you pay the price.
|
What if it were the gop though writing and enforcing those laws? It's a tough line to straddle taking an authoritarian stance against news. I wonder if there could be better journalistic accreditation and clearer separation between actual journalism and entertainment talking heads. Perhaps public officials too should be held to higher standards when it comes to harmful misinformation. I don't like the thought of laws against random peope being free to spout their bullshit though unless it leads to clear and direct harm.
|
The problem is it has led to direct harm. Democracy in the U.S. is dead. The System has always been broken and needs a true reform. In order for that to happen you need to tear down the foundation and build from scratch.
It's like having sheep lead the sheep. The way to beat shit like this is for every lie told lawsuits should be filed. This is how you beat Trump at his own game. 1,000s and 1,000s of lawsuits to rip him apart.
In either case Trump has already shown his next card. A new network dedicated to his base. Shit like this needs to be stopped to get rid of their propaganda.
|
On January 01 2021 11:21 Starlightsun wrote:
What if it were the gop though writing and enforcing those laws? It's a tough line to straddle taking an authoritarian stance against news. I wonder if there could be better journalistic accreditation and clearer separation between actual journalism and entertainment talking heads. Perhaps public officials too should be held to higher standards when it comes to harmful misinformation. I don't like the thought of laws against random peope being free to spout their bullshit though unless it leads to clear and direct harm.
Pizzagate could have literally got people killed. It's borderline pure luck that it didn't.
The problem here is that this doesn't stop. The lies just get more brazen and more insane, because there are people who eat it up and want more. Sooner or later people are going to get killed by this nonsense. And speaking of direct harm, how much damage has been done by anti-vaxxers? How many lives definitely legitimately lost and how much harm caused by people trying to tear down one of the greatest of mankind's medical inventions? A virus once thought extinct came back because of those dickheads and killed a ton of people.
|
On January 01 2021 16:15 StarStruck wrote:
The problem is it has led to direct harm. Democracy in the U.S. is dead. The System has always been broken and needs a true reform. In order for that to happen you need to tear down the foundation and build from scratch.
It's like having sheep lead the sheep. The way to beat shit like this is for every lie told lawsuits should be filed. This is how you beat Trump at his own game. 1,000s and 1,000s of lawsuits to rip him apart.
In either case Trump has already shown his next card. A new network dedicated to his base. Shit like this needs to be stopped to get rid of their propaganda.
Last time addressing misinformation was attempted, people started labelling and talking about fake news. it led to a president labelling everything he didn't like as fake news. Your problem here would be who's enforcing the rules?
|
On January 01 2021 19:11 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2021 16:15 StarStruck wrote:
The problem is it has led to direct harm. Democracy in the U.S. is dead. The System has always been broken and needs a true reform. In order for that to happen you need to tear down the foundation and build from scratch.
It's like having sheep lead the sheep. The way to beat shit like this is for every lie told lawsuits should be filed. This is how you beat Trump at his own game. 1,000s and 1,000s of lawsuits to rip him apart.
In either case Trump has already shown his next card. A new network dedicated to his base. Shit like this needs to be stopped to get rid of their propaganda.
Last time addressing misinformation was attempted, people started labelling and talking about fake news. it led to a president labelling everything he didn't like as fake news. Your problem here would be who's enforcing the rules?
I think you're putting the chicken before the egg a bit; the reason the fake news stuff worked is because people's trust in the news is at a low, and their trust is at a low because nobody's doing anything to stop misinformation from dominating the public consciousness.
|
140 house republicans expected to vote to not count the EC votes.
(CNN)Two Republican members of the House of Representatives tell CNN that they expect at least 140 of their GOP colleagues in the House to vote against counting the electoral votes on January 6 when Congress is expected to certify President-elect Joe Biden's victory.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/31/politics/electoral-college-house-republicans/index.html
They hopefully know they won't succeed, but it is still very alarming for the state of the US democracy.
|
Northern Ireland27220 Posts
On January 01 2021 19:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2021 19:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 01 2021 16:15 StarStruck wrote:
The problem is it has led to direct harm. Democracy in the U.S. is dead. The System has always been broken and needs a true reform. In order for that to happen you need to tear down the foundation and build from scratch.
It's like having sheep lead the sheep. The way to beat shit like this is for every lie told lawsuits should be filed. This is how you beat Trump at his own game. 1,000s and 1,000s of lawsuits to rip him apart.
In either case Trump has already shown his next card. A new network dedicated to his base. Shit like this needs to be stopped to get rid of their propaganda.
Last time addressing misinformation was attempted, people started labelling and talking about fake news. it led to a president labelling everything he didn't like as fake news. Your problem here would be who's enforcing the rules? I think you're putting the chicken before the egg a bit; the reason the fake news stuff worked is because people's trust in the news is at a low, and their trust is at a low because nobody's doing anything to stop misinformation from dominating the public consciousness.
I’m not sure if it’s a Pandora’s box scenario or something that can be mitigated now, but yes it’s a bit of a pickle.
I’d possibly put the egg before the chicken again and say people’s inability/arrogance over their abilities in filtering information lead to a baby out with the bath water scenario.
Plus the technological shift we’ve had the past 15-ish years and what impact it’s had on news and associated media. You want to sell a newspaper, or get eyes on your program you had to put out a consistently decent product. In a fragmented media landscape you’re very much slicing up your content and throwing in click bait to drag people to the decent stuff.
Not to say this is some inevitable state of affairs, the big social media aggregators have hugely dropped the ball given the influence and power they’ve been handed in shaping opinion. Categorically false misinformation should have been (attempted) to be scrubbed years and years and years ago, bringing them at least vaguely into line with traditional media standards.
Having seen enough utterly false, mislabelled and disingenuous videos whose intent is to forment racial discord, I’d prefer to see videos pulled than users banned for hate speech (granted a false dichotomy). The former converts people to bigotry, the latter is merely bigots letting you know they are.
|
Can someone explain to me why our system makes it so hard to force votes on things? Is there some abuse it’s intended to prevent? It really feels like it should be possible for a senator to force a vote on whether something should be voted on. Bernie should be able to ask for people to decide if something is voted on and it doesn’t require McConnell approval if he gets 60 votes or something.
|
On January 02 2021 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain to me why our system makes it so hard to force votes on things? Is there some abuse it’s intended to prevent? It really feels like it should be possible for a senator to force a vote on whether something should be voted on. Bernie should be able to ask for people to decide if something is voted on and it doesn’t require McConnell approval if he gets 60 votes or something.
The funny thing is that its pitched to not allow even more nonsense. Like imagine an anarchists bloc getting elected and all they do is send hundreds of bills to disband various government agencies.
But no this is just the rule basically set by the majority leader for the process. As most things in America things are mostly fast and loose with the particulars.
|
On January 02 2021 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain to me why our system makes it so hard to force votes on things? Is there some abuse it’s intended to prevent? It really feels like it should be possible for a senator to force a vote on whether something should be voted on. Bernie should be able to ask for people to decide if something is voted on and it doesn’t require McConnell approval if he gets 60 votes or something.
He only needs 51 votes to replace McConnell as majority leader already.
It's also important to remember that the senate majority leader isn't an actual position in the constitution. It can be rule changed at will.
|
On January 02 2021 02:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2021 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain to me why our system makes it so hard to force votes on things? Is there some abuse it’s intended to prevent? It really feels like it should be possible for a senator to force a vote on whether something should be voted on. Bernie should be able to ask for people to decide if something is voted on and it doesn’t require McConnell approval if he gets 60 votes or something. He only needs 51 votes to replace McConnell as majority leader already.It's also important to remember that the senate majority leader isn't an actual position in the constitution. It can be rule changed at will.
If Senate Republicans are in charge, then unfortunately that would require a few Republicans turning on their own party and ending their own political careers. Choosing country over party is the antithesis of their platform.
|
On January 02 2021 02:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2021 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain to me why our system makes it so hard to force votes on things? Is there some abuse it’s intended to prevent? It really feels like it should be possible for a senator to force a vote on whether something should be voted on. Bernie should be able to ask for people to decide if something is voted on and it doesn’t require McConnell approval if he gets 60 votes or something. He only needs 51 votes to replace McConnell as majority leader already. It's also important to remember that the senate majority leader isn't an actual position in the constitution. It can be rule changed at will. Replacing McConnell requires less then that actually.
The majority leader is elected by vote among the majority party (likewise for the minority leader among the minority party).
So 27 out of 52 Republicans decide that McConnell is the majority leader.
Democrats in the Senate don't get to decide who the Republican senate leader is.
Its not like the Speaker of the House where the entire house gets to vote
|
Trying to deal with insane and fictitious media (i.e. rumors Schumer was arrested on Christmas) is simply impossible in the age of the world wide web.
The bigger problem is that the core mechanism for censuring politicians and their surrogates for making verifiably false claims-the public not voting for them-simply doesn't function in a two-party climate as polarized as this one. Or, if it functions, its effects are at an all-time low. Come the visit to the ballot box people simply don't care if politicians fabricate facts from whole cloth to support their position, or claim to have secret plans that never materialize (not even in primaries, not really), or mislabel policy plans to align them with policies people have positive (or negative) feelings about.
Honesty and truthfulness just aren't highly valued attributes in US politicians anymore.
|
On January 02 2021 04:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2021 02:54 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 02 2021 02:35 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone explain to me why our system makes it so hard to force votes on things? Is there some abuse it’s intended to prevent? It really feels like it should be possible for a senator to force a vote on whether something should be voted on. Bernie should be able to ask for people to decide if something is voted on and it doesn’t require McConnell approval if he gets 60 votes or something. He only needs 51 votes to replace McConnell as majority leader already. It's also important to remember that the senate majority leader isn't an actual position in the constitution. It can be rule changed at will. Replacing McConnell requires less then that actually. The majority leader is elected by vote among the majority party (likewise for the minority leader among the minority party). So 27 out of 52 Republicans decide that McConnell is the majority leader. Democrats in the Senate don't get to decide who the Republican senate leader is. Its not like the Speaker of the House where the entire house gets to vote
Bad wording on my part. I'm suggesting that Schumer and some defectors take control of the senate. The senate majority leader isn't in the constitution so this shouldn't be an issue law wise.
The problem with Republicans crossing party lines is it would end their political career and this goes for the majority ousting McConnell as well. They're a complicit party. The only hope for America seems to be DSA destroying Democrats and Trump destroying Republicans at the same time so we can move forward with a system that doesn't have two parties.
|
The Democrats can deprive the Senate Majority Leader of many of his powers if they can win a senate majority from the voters of this country. It might happen in Georgia; Georgia looks close. When they get power, I absolutely believe they'll keep the traditional powers afforded to the majority leader.
Did anybody, absolutely anybody care when high-ranking Senators from the Democratic party objected to counting electoral votes, citing irregularities, back in 2005? I grant people here can justifiably dislike a possible hundred Republicans doing the same thing this year, it is a issue of greater degree, but I don't really see any opposition in principle to the actual act. (We call these things slippery slopes because they tend to get larger as time goes on, first a losing candidate and two governors call the election illegitimate, next the outgoing president does the same thing)
|
On January 02 2021 04:43 Danglars wrote:
The Democrats can deprive the Senate Majority Leader of many of his powers if they can win a senate majority from the voters of this country. It might happen in Georgia; Georgia looks close. When they get power, I absolutely believe they'll keep the traditional powers afforded to the majority leader.
Did anybody, absolutely anybody care when high-ranking Senators from the Democratic party objected to counting electoral votes, citing irregularities, back in 2005? I grant people here can justifiably dislike a possible hundred Republicans doing the same thing this year, it is a issue of greater degree, but I don't really see any opposition in principle to the actual act. (We call these things slippery slopes because they tend to get larger as time goes on, first a losing candidate and two governors call the election illegitimate, next the outgoing president does the same thing) I wasn't paying attention back in 2005 so I did a quick google which gave me The move was not designed to overturn the re-election of President Bush, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, most of whom are House members, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems. edition.cnn.com
Have these Republicans states they do not intent to overturn the election result but want to draw attention to perceived issues that would otherwise be ignored?
Because while I don't think the electoral vote count is the place to draw attention to issues, there is a MASSIVE difference in these 2 situations from my perspective.
|
On January 02 2021 04:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2021 04:43 Danglars wrote:
The Democrats can deprive the Senate Majority Leader of many of his powers if they can win a senate majority from the voters of this country. It might happen in Georgia; Georgia looks close. When they get power, I absolutely believe they'll keep the traditional powers afforded to the majority leader.
Did anybody, absolutely anybody care when high-ranking Senators from the Democratic party objected to counting electoral votes, citing irregularities, back in 2005? I grant people here can justifiably dislike a possible hundred Republicans doing the same thing this year, it is a issue of greater degree, but I don't really see any opposition in principle to the actual act. (We call these things slippery slopes because they tend to get larger as time goes on, first a losing candidate and two governors call the election illegitimate, next the outgoing president does the same thing) I wasn't paying attention back in 2005 so I did a quick google which gave me Show nested quote +The move was not designed to overturn the re-election of President Bush, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.
The objecting Democrats, most of whom are House members, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems. edition.cnn.comHave these Republicans states they do not intent to overturn the election result but want to draw attention to perceived issues that would otherwise be ignored? Because while I don't think the electoral vote count is the place to draw attention to issues, there is a MASSIVE difference in these 2 situations from my perspective.
I mean if they do a thing, and state it's for the highest ideals under the sun, I guess it matters how much you trust and value the speech of politicians. Personally, I don't care a lick if Trump and Republicans stated they only did this for future changes in the security of elections. See and respond to previous post for why.
|
On January 01 2021 19:11 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2021 16:15 StarStruck wrote:
The problem is it has led to direct harm. Democracy in the U.S. is dead. The System has always been broken and needs a true reform. In order for that to happen you need to tear down the foundation and build from scratch.
It's like having sheep lead the sheep. The way to beat shit like this is for every lie told lawsuits should be filed. This is how you beat Trump at his own game. 1,000s and 1,000s of lawsuits to rip him apart.
In either case Trump has already shown his next card. A new network dedicated to his base. Shit like this needs to be stopped to get rid of their propaganda.
Last time addressing misinformation was attempted, people started labelling and talking about fake news. it led to a president labelling everything he didn't like as fake news. Your problem here would be who's enforcing the rules?
Considering we have definitions of libel/defamation I don't think it would be that complicated for the courts to preside over.
If there were stricter penalties and consequences when it comes to the spread of propaganda and not sourcing things appropriately then there would be less of this shit.
It does mean digital ads would need stronger enforcement.
I don't think it is that hard. Just need harsher penalties against such things and actual consequences.
|
On January 01 2021 19:47 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2021 19:11 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 01 2021 16:15 StarStruck wrote:
The problem is it has led to direct harm. Democracy in the U.S. is dead. The System has always been broken and needs a true reform. In order for that to happen you need to tear down the foundation and build from scratch.
It's like having sheep lead the sheep. The way to beat shit like this is for every lie told lawsuits should be filed. This is how you beat Trump at his own game. 1,000s and 1,000s of lawsuits to rip him apart.
In either case Trump has already shown his next card. A new network dedicated to his base. Shit like this needs to be stopped to get rid of their propaganda.
Last time addressing misinformation was attempted, people started labelling and talking about fake news. it led to a president labelling everything he didn't like as fake news. Your problem here would be who's enforcing the rules? I think you're putting the chicken before the egg a bit; the reason the fake news stuff worked is because people's trust in the news is at a low, and their trust is at a low because nobody's doing anything to stop misinformation from dominating the public consciousness.
Democracy has been dead in the States a long time ago. This isn't a question of rebuilding. They need to tear it down and build a new foundation.
The US system is a complete nightmare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
