|
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 November 20 2024 02:25 oBlade wrote:
Appointing a commissioner of the FCC to chair the FCC?
Stuff like this is literal fascism, I'm shaking at the idea, can't believe I've been hoodwinked like this. Should have known sooner or later he'd appoint someone with the exact most uncontroversial boring resume needed.
Like I said, absolutely nothing to say about the Project 2025 connection.
I gotta respect it.
|
"Project 2025" has 30 chapters.
Blumpf hired this guy before it existed. Same as Ben Carson.
He wrote one.
The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communications networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
Real dystopian stuff in this guy's opinion that he wrote for a think tank (conservatives writing for think tanks should be illegal as we all know obviously btw). Why hasn't Blump appointed the other 29+ authors yet? Slowrolling fascism? Is Blumpf intentionally singling out this one guy as a fascist conspiracy to restore free speech or is Blumpf planning something bigger? As we all know, to satisfy leftists Blumpf should intentionally NOT hire someone he already hired before they wrote a completely professional opinion in their field. Then you could finally prove the accusations of fascism to be false and quell them once and for all.
What's your opinion on net neutrality, Jockmcplop?
|
Well we're at the point where Oblade now admits that trump is persuing project 2025 and is at the stage of "well yeah but its not a bad thing". Posting a guy who openly wants to go after tech companies and media companies by repealing section 230 and considers Net neutrality a bad thing is certainly a way to call yourself for free speech. Constantly railing against media companies that don't give him flattering pieces and any type of fact checking is certainly not what a facist would do.
|
Seems like the only thing to do in oBlade's world is prostrate yourself before Blumpkin and worship Blumpkin's every move. He can do no wrong, and if you find something Blumpkin is doing is problematic, no you didn't! Because Blumpkin is the second coming, and he has the perfect agenda that's sure to work all the wonders he didn't get around to doing the first time. Blumpkin really promises to improve the economy this time, and oBlade is here being a belligerent asshole to anyone he can find to prove it!
|
We need the butterfly meme "Trump appoints most normie, expected Republican possible to FCC" "is this project 2025/fascism?"
Ans I have bad news for you Serm, Biden wanted to gut section 230 as well. Joe Biden, anti-free speech.
|
On November 20 2024 04:15 Sermokala wrote:
Well we're at the point where Oblade now admits that trump is persuing project 2025 and is at the stage of "well yeah but its not a bad thing". Posting a guy who openly wants to go after tech companies and media companies by repealing section 230 and considers Net neutrality a bad thing is certainly a way to call yourself for free speech. Constantly railing against media companies that don't give him flattering pieces and any type of fact checking is certainly not what a facist would do.
That's exactly right Sermokala. "Unleashing economic opportunity at the FCC" is a dog whistle for establishing a totalitarian theocratic alt-right superstate. We tricked you the whole fucking time and now you can't do anything for four years. It's absolutely beautiful. People like you who knew it was a ruse all along can take solace in the fact that you at least now have the chance to say "I told you so" - that is, for the time being at least, before Brendan Carr repeals the 1st amendment and you can't say anything anymore that doesn't pass the moderation rules of Truth Social. Hahahaha.
To me net neutrality is extremely overblown. I haven't seen or felt any significant change that I know of from whether ISPs are common carriers or not. However, I feel no sympathy for enormous companies, which are not people, that demonstrably interfered in the 2020 election and I have seen repeatedly mess with the "little guy."
|
On November 20 2024 03:29 oBlade wrote:"Project 2025" has 30 chapters. Blumpf hired this guy before it existed. Same as Ben Carson. He wrote one. Show nested quote +The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communications networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Real dystopian stuff in this guy's opinion that he wrote for a think tank (conservatives writing for think tanks should be illegal as we all know obviously btw). Why hasn't Blump appointed the other 29+ authors yet? Slowrolling fascism? Is Blumpf intentionally singling out this one guy as a fascist conspiracy to restore free speech or is Blumpf planning something bigger? As we all know, to satisfy leftists Blumpf should intentionally NOT hire someone he already hired before they wrote a completely professional opinion in their field. Then you could finally prove the accusations of fascism to be false and quell them once and for all. What's your opinion on net neutrality, Jockmcplop?
My opinion on net neutrality is pretty irrelevant here, but obviously I'm for it in general, despite it mostly being a USA issue that doesn't affect me that much.
I'm more concerned that extremely influential Republicans, including ones who are shoe ins for extremely powerful positions, have bought in to Project 2025.
|
On November 20 2024 04:33 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 03:29 oBlade wrote:"Project 2025" has 30 chapters. Blumpf hired this guy before it existed. Same as Ben Carson. He wrote one. The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communications networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Real dystopian stuff in this guy's opinion that he wrote for a think tank (conservatives writing for think tanks should be illegal as we all know obviously btw). Why hasn't Blump appointed the other 29+ authors yet? Slowrolling fascism? Is Blumpf intentionally singling out this one guy as a fascist conspiracy to restore free speech or is Blumpf planning something bigger? As we all know, to satisfy leftists Blumpf should intentionally NOT hire someone he already hired before they wrote a completely professional opinion in their field. Then you could finally prove the accusations of fascism to be false and quell them once and for all. What's your opinion on net neutrality, Jockmcplop? My opinion on net neutrality is pretty irrelevant here, but obviously I'm for it in general, despite it mostly being a USA issue that doesn't affect me that much. I'm more concerned that extremely influential Republicans, including ones who are shoe ins for extremely powerful positions, have bought in to Project 2025.
You should consider the opposite. Carr was on the commission before project 2025 was a thing. He was always the most logical choice for chairman if a Republican won. His association with project 2025 probably stems from his status and opinions, not the other way around.
In other words he's not "buying into" anything, they alligned with what he already has said.
|
On November 20 2024 04:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 04:33 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 20 2024 03:29 oBlade wrote:"Project 2025" has 30 chapters. Blumpf hired this guy before it existed. Same as Ben Carson. He wrote one. The FCC should promote freedom of speech, unleash economic opportunity, ensure that every American has a fair shot at next-generation connectivity, and enable the private sector to create good-paying jobs through pro-growth reforms that support a diversity of viewpoints, ensure secure and competitive communications networks, modernize outdated infrastructure rules, and represent good stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Real dystopian stuff in this guy's opinion that he wrote for a think tank (conservatives writing for think tanks should be illegal as we all know obviously btw). Why hasn't Blump appointed the other 29+ authors yet? Slowrolling fascism? Is Blumpf intentionally singling out this one guy as a fascist conspiracy to restore free speech or is Blumpf planning something bigger? As we all know, to satisfy leftists Blumpf should intentionally NOT hire someone he already hired before they wrote a completely professional opinion in their field. Then you could finally prove the accusations of fascism to be false and quell them once and for all. What's your opinion on net neutrality, Jockmcplop? My opinion on net neutrality is pretty irrelevant here, but obviously I'm for it in general, despite it mostly being a USA issue that doesn't affect me that much. I'm more concerned that extremely influential Republicans, including ones who are shoe ins for extremely powerful positions, have bought in to Project 2025. You should consider the opposite. Carr was on the commission before project 2025 was a thing. He was always the most logical choice for chairman if a Republican won. His association with project 2025 probably stems from his status and opinions, not the other way around. In other words he's not "buying into" anything, they alligned with what he already has said.
Mmmm maybe.
I'd presume its a bit of both tbh.
Either way, the causal relationship isn't what is bothering me about it.
Project 2025 = a bunch of horrid fascist-adjacent garbage.
Carr wrote stuff for Project 2025.
Therefore him having lots of power, in my opinion, is bad.
|
Thank God Introvert and oBlade are here to explain why everything's actually okay. Guess everything with Project 2025 is actually okay! Phew, it simplifies everything when I just realize that everyone else are the unreasonable ones, and that all the problems people have with the P25 agenda are just figments of our imagination.
|
Northern Ireland27360 Posts
With some caveats, a lot of the guy’s chapter in Project 2025 actually seems fairly reasonable to me. Having briefly scanned.
First caveat is there are references to particular statutes that I’m not familiar with, so maybe there’s some egregiousness there I’m not especially aware of by virtue of that unfamiliarity.
I don’t know about this bloke’s personal politics, but I think there’s a wider conservative incoherence in this domain. Enthusiastic eulogising the Invisible HandTM and advocating deregulation. Until some facet of the Free MarketTM operates in a manner that clashes with other sensibilities and thus must be reined in by the state.
As anyone who follows me on the social media platform TL.net is probably aware, I regularly bang the regulatory drum when it comes to Big TechTM, but coming from a generally pro-regulation framework to begin with. Also from a position where it’s misinformation and consistent moderation standards and mutually agreed frameworks that most bother me, rather than censorship/‘I should be able to say whatever the fuck I want, wherever I want’.
Either way, I think there is some commonality too, that in brass tack terms big tech is too powerful and not accountable enough.
It could be that there’s some accommodation where I become Gimli and go ‘Never thought I’d die fighting side by side with a conservative…’ as the classic meme goes.
There’s also a marked difference here and elsewhere between (while somewhat hypocritical considering what the US and US companies do) concerns about what China is up to, and say, to pick a nation at complete random, let’s say Russia.
Overall, I’ve definitely seen worse anyway.
|
Northern Ireland27360 Posts
On November 20 2024 04:47 NewSunshine wrote:
Thank God Introvert and oBlade are here to explain why everything's actually okay. Guess everything with Project 2025 is actually okay! Phew, it simplifies everything when I just realize that everyone else are the unreasonable ones, and that all the problems people have with the P25 agenda are just figments of our imagination.
I frequently defend the likes of the WEF from conspiratorial lunatics because the majority the stuff of what they complain about is in reality what one person on a think tank thought would be a good idea, and isn’t active policy.
Until it is of course.
Not that I trust Trump further than I could throw him, but there’s probably some reason(s) he at least semi-distanced himself from Project 2025 on a few occasions.
Could be mere campaign calculus, could be he just doesn’t agree with some of their prescriptions, could be he resents not unilaterally calling the shots.
I definitely have it very high in my list of worrying potentialities to keep an eye on for sure but I guess a lot depends on what actually happens moving forwards.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland27360 Posts
|
On November 20 2024 04:27 Introvert wrote:
We need the butterfly meme "Trump appoints most normie, expected Republican possible to FCC" "is this project 2025/fascism?"
Ans I have bad news for you Serm, Biden wanted to gut section 230 as well. Joe Biden, anti-free speech.
I'm glad you agree this is anti free speech. Are you also in agreement that this guy authored part of project 2025? Are you also at the stage where you're admitting project 2025 was the plan all along and it isn't that bad?
In other words he's not "buying into" anything, they alligned with what he already has said.
Do you not see how this is a deep red flag? He was aligned with 2025 before it was even a thing out in the public? The guy put his name on the thing and has stood by it, you can't distance the two when they're not doing any of the work for you.
On November 20 2024 04:29 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 04:15 Sermokala wrote:
Well we're at the point where Oblade now admits that trump is persuing project 2025 and is at the stage of "well yeah but its not a bad thing". Posting a guy who openly wants to go after tech companies and media companies by repealing section 230 and considers Net neutrality a bad thing is certainly a way to call yourself for free speech. Constantly railing against media companies that don't give him flattering pieces and any type of fact checking is certainly not what a facist would do. That's exactly right Sermokala. "Unleashing economic opportunity at the FCC" is a dog whistle for establishing a totalitarian theocratic alt-right superstate. We tricked you the whole fucking time and now you can't do anything for four years. It's absolutely beautiful. People like you who knew it was a ruse all along can take solace in the fact that you at least now have the chance to say "I told you so" - that is, for the time being at least, before Brendan Carr repeals the 1st amendment and you can't say anything anymore that doesn't pass the moderation rules of Truth Social. Hahahaha.To me net neutrality is extremely overblown. I haven't seen or felt any significant change that I know of from whether ISPs are common carriers or not. However, I feel no sympathy for enormous companies, which are not people, that demonstrably interfered in the 2020 election and I have seen repeatedly mess with the "little guy."
I don't know why you and intro are quoting something I didn't say, and then acting like its some gotcha. Crafting some delusional conversation you had with yourself is just werid man, adding in bolded laughter is really cringy I don't know how you think thats a good look for anyone. Like yeah I agree thats what you believe and what I'm arguing you believe its not funny to just say "yeah you're right haha an't I a silly boy?"
Being okay with the government going after companies just because you don't like their politics isn't facist at all. Justifying your position with "I'm ignorant, however" isn't persuasive to anyone either.
|
As for the FCC guy:
From DPB 3rd link:
"At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply
broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections
apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by
someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited
Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision
to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these
actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform
can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections."
Fantastic pick.
|
On November 20 2024 06:59 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 04:27 Introvert wrote:
We need the butterfly meme "Trump appoints most normie, expected Republican possible to FCC" "is this project 2025/fascism?"
Ans I have bad news for you Serm, Biden wanted to gut section 230 as well. Joe Biden, anti-free speech. I'm glad you agree this is anti free speech. Are you also in agreement that this guy authored part of project 2025? Are you also at the stage where you're admitting project 2025 was the plan all along and it isn't that bad? Show nested quote +In other words he's not "buying into" anything, they alligned with what he already has said. Do you not see how this is a deep red flag? He was aligned with 2025 before it was even a thing out in the public? The guy put his name on the thing and has stood by it, you can't distance the two when they're not doing any of the work for you. Show nested quote +On November 20 2024 04:29 oBlade wrote:On November 20 2024 04:15 Sermokala wrote:
Well we're at the point where Oblade now admits that trump is persuing project 2025 and is at the stage of "well yeah but its not a bad thing". Posting a guy who openly wants to go after tech companies and media companies by repealing section 230 and considers Net neutrality a bad thing is certainly a way to call yourself for free speech. Constantly railing against media companies that don't give him flattering pieces and any type of fact checking is certainly not what a facist would do. That's exactly right Sermokala. "Unleashing economic opportunity at the FCC" is a dog whistle for establishing a totalitarian theocratic alt-right superstate. We tricked you the whole fucking time and now you can't do anything for four years. It's absolutely beautiful. People like you who knew it was a ruse all along can take solace in the fact that you at least now have the chance to say "I told you so" - that is, for the time being at least, before Brendan Carr repeals the 1st amendment and you can't say anything anymore that doesn't pass the moderation rules of Truth Social. Hahahaha.To me net neutrality is extremely overblown. I haven't seen or felt any significant change that I know of from whether ISPs are common carriers or not. However, I feel no sympathy for enormous companies, which are not people, that demonstrably interfered in the 2020 election and I have seen repeatedly mess with the "little guy." I don't know why you and intro are quoting something I didn't say, and then acting like its some gotcha. Crafting some delusional conversation you had with yourself is just werid man, adding in bolded laughter is really cringy I don't know how you think thats a good look for anyone. Like yeah I agree thats what you believe and what I'm arguing you believe its not funny to just say "yeah you're right haha an't I a silly boy?" Being okay with the government going after companies just because you don't like their politics isn't facist at all. Justifying your position with "I'm ignorant, however" isn't persuasive to anyone either.
I view section 230 as the best thing we have come up with yet but i don't think it's perfect and wanting to tweak it is something we can debate instead of get hysterical about.
"He was aligned with project 2025 before it was even out" is certainly AN interpretation of what I said. I still don't think you quite got my meaning lol.
Meanwhile I am all in favor of going after companies like TikTok and the great disaster that was net neutrality didn't lead to the horror stories Democrats were warning about last time, so I doubt it will this time.
But yes, imagine if the government and law enforcement agencies pressured and colluded with tech companies to advance a particular agenda 🤔 that would truly be new! Meanwhile he wants tech companies to take a lighter hand in moderation, sooo...
|
On November 20 2024 04:27 Introvert wrote:
Ans I have bad news for you Serm, Biden wanted to gut section 230 as well. Joe Biden, anti-free speech.
Nary a word from them when it was Biden's White House having weekly meetings with the Twitter team over which accounts need to be banned, under the veiled threat that if they don't do more to combat misinformation then the government might have to step in. Suddenly Sermokala claims to be the free-speech advocate when 2 years ago he was posting things like this:
On November 20 2022 02:19 Sermokala wrote:
The whole point of public trust in government is for the government to act in its citizen's best interest. Suppressing anti-vaxers is explicitly in the publics best interest.
Ah, yes... the version of free speech where you're okay with government suppression as long as they are suppressing something worth suppressing!
The funny thing is you and I have both repeatedly asked over the past 4 years if people would sing a different tune if Trump got back into the White House. I guess we got our answer.
|
United States24799 Posts
On November 20 2024 09:26 BlackJack wrote:
Ah, yes... the version of free speech where you're okay with government suppression as long as they are suppressing something worth suppressing!
Like screaming fire in a crowded theater, yes. You can certainly argue either way on the government's role in preventing the spread of vaccine misinformation, but the idea of protecting all speech under all circumstances is naive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
