US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7

On March 21 2018 03:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Amusingly, if you read the actual poll results, 63% were not familiar and 24% were somewhat familiar with the term Deep State before the pollster provided the definition for the follow-up question.

The other thing, of course, is that the wording of the specific question

+ Show Spoiler + is pretty much strictly true if you miss the "secretly" part, and strictly true if you think the "secretly" only applies to the manipulation portion.

It also applies equally as much to an intelligence conspiracy as it does Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner pulling dear father's strings.

Kind of how to write a bad poll question 101.

On March 21 2018 03:37 A3th3r wrote:
Russia does have elections but they do seem to be very "suspect" in nature. It seems a little fishy that Putin won again by such a wide margin - just seems unlikely I guess. They do hold elections, in any case

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-calls-putin-to-congratulate-russian-president-on-election-win-1521564314

On March 20 2018 14:49 Danglars wrote:


We may be waiting a long time for just what made the FBI & career civil servants & Obama appointees want McCabe out.

On March 21 2018 04:03 pmh wrote:
I don't think anything will be done about data collection/mining and selling it,other then maybe symbolical.
Its a bit late now to come with laws for it as well,its been going on for a long time already. A large part of the value of many internet companys comes from exactly this data that allows personalized and targeted advertising,data collection is one of the main sources of their income and usa companys are leading in this. Seriously constricting data mining and selling would be a severe blow to the whole internet industry.

On March 21 2018 04:06 pmh wrote:


Putin is very popular in rusia still and the result seems genuine to me. CNN had "breaking news" (just lol at the devaluation of that term over the past years) that trump did congratulate putin. But every foreign leader (Europes included) did congratulate putin. They are making every basic simple thing into something horrifc. It would be laughable if it was not for a whole generation growing up with this bs.

On March 21 2018 04:17 Plansix wrote:

They could use some constricting and blows to their profits, IMO. These companies seem to think they are untouchable and are not encumbered by laws or responsibility for their platforms. They also receive blanket liability protection due to a 20 year old law from the dial up era of the internet. These companies need to feel the fear of government oversight through some regulation.


I question any polling about a dictator’s popularity, since they oppress anyone who resist them.

On March 21 2018 05:21 Logo wrote:
It kinda makes you wonder if CA just hired a bunch of Russian farms to boost messaging which seems a lot more straightforward than some Russian government plot and probably pretty cost effective compared to getting Americans to do it.

On March 21 2018 04:07 Tachion wrote:

I'm a little confused over this tweet.
McCabe's representation put out a statement saying that "The investigation described in the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report was cleaved off from the larger investigation of which it was a part..." The larger investigation they are referring to would be the investigation into the FBI and DOJ over Hillary's e-mails, right?

That report was originally suspected as coming out in late March to early April, but is probably the one getting it's date pushed back. They may not even be talking specifically about McCabe's report in that tweet.

It’s been a big year for free speech at the Supreme Court. Two of the most high-profile cases argued before the court so far have revolved around free speech rights, four other cases on the docket this term involve free speech questions, and yet another case where the issue is paramount greets the court on Tuesday.

The court today is hearing arguments on whether the state of California is trampling on the free speech rights of crisis pregnancy centers — nonprofit organizations that do not perform abortions and encourage women to seek alternatives to the procedure — by requiring them to post notices explaining patients’ ability to access abortion and other medical services. In December, attorneys for a baker at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado argued that a state anti-discrimination law violates his free speech rights as a self-described cake artist by requiring him to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Last month, the justices heard oral arguments in a case about whether state laws allowing unions to require nonmembers to pay fees violate those employees’ right to free speech.

Whichever way the rulings come down this spring and summer, it’s almost certain that the winning side will include Chief Justice John Roberts, who has spent his 12-plus years at the helm of the high court quietly carving out a space as a prolific and decisive arbiter of free speech law. Supporters and critics both agree that during his tenure, the court has dramatically expanded the reach of the First Amendment by striking down a wide range of statutes for encroaching on free speech rights. And Roberts has authored more majority opinions on free speech than any other justice during his tenure, signaling that this is an area where he wants to create a legacy.

But just what that legacy will be is highly contested. Roberts’s admirers argue that his commitment to the First Amendment transcends ideological boundaries. But others contend that his decisions don’t protect speech across the board. Instead, they say that Roberts is more than willing to allow the government to restrict speech when it’s speech he disagrees with — meaning free speech is becoming a legal tool that favors corporations over individuals.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, a highly anticipated case that combines two often controversial topics: the First Amendment and abortion. The question before the justices today was whether a California law that directs “crisis pregnancy centers” to provide their patients with specific kinds of information – including, for some, the availability of low-cost or free abortions – violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. After roughly an hour of oral argument, the law appeared to be in some jeopardy, not only among the court’s more conservative justices but also perhaps at least with Justice Elena Kagan, one of the more liberal justices.

The law at issue is the Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act, also known as the Reproductive FACT Act. The California legislature passed the law because it was worried that crisis pregnancy centers – nonprofit organizations, often affiliated with Christian groups, that are opposed to abortion – were posing as full-service reproductive health clinics and providing pregnant women with inaccurate or misleading information about their options. The act requires nonprofits that are licensed to provide medical services (such as pregnancy tests and ultrasound examinations) to post notices to inform their patients that free or low-cost abortions are available, while centers without such licenses – which try to support pregnant women by supplying them with diapers and formula, for example – must include disclaimers in their advertisements to make clear, in up to 13 languages, that their services do not include medical help. [...]

Justice Anthony Kennedy also expressed doubts about the law. In one question that may prove to be pivotal in the case, he asked Farris what would happen if an unlicensed clinic wanted to put up a billboard that said only, in large letters, “Choose Life.” Would that message trigger the law’s notice requirement?

Farris responded that the billboard would indeed have to disclose that the nonprofit does not provide medical services – a point with which Klein seemed to agree.

Facebook is launching the beginnings of a charm offensive in Washington as controversy builds over revelations that the social network's user data was improperly accessed by Trump-affiliated firm Cambridge Analytica.

The company said it's sending staffers to brief a half dozen of Capitol Hill's most powerful committees this week, including the Intelligence, Commerce and Judiciary panels in both chambers. But the briefings may not be enough to satisfy the growing number of lawmakers who want Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg or Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg to testify on the Hill.

"I want to know why this happened, and what’s the extent of the damage, and how they’re going to fix it moving forward," Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said Tuesday when asked about the briefings. Facebook executives, she added, "aren’t coming yet, but they better come."

"Eventually, Mark Zuckerberg needs to testify — he needs to be subpoenaed if he won’t do it voluntarily," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) "They can begin with some staff people, but it’s only the beginning."

acebook is confronting a firestorm of criticism for failing to prevent Cambridge Analytica from allegedly compiling and keeping a cache of data drawn from the social media profiles of some 50 million Americans. The social network has already faced months of blowback over fake news and Russian election meddling on its platform — and is struggling to contain the fallout in Washington.

The company's problems appeared to deepen Monday after reports that its chief information security officer, Alex Stamos, will leave the company over internal conflicts about its approach to curbing Russian misinformation. (Both Facebook and Stamos said he remains engaged with his work but did not directly address the question of his departure.)

Much of the outrage is coming from Democrats, while key Republicans are mulling over how much they want to make an issue of the Facebook flap. Asked Tuesday if he intends to summon Zuckerberg, Senate Commerce Chairman John Thune (R-S.D.) said, "We'll see."

"We’ve got a questionnaire they’re responding to and then a staff briefing and then we’ll make a decision based on that. But I would say it’s not outside the realm of possibility," Thune said.

Over in the House, Christopher Wylie, the whistleblower who detailed Cambridge Analytica's alleged misuse of the Facebook data, will meet with House Intel Democrats to discuss the situation, his attorney, Tamsin Allen, confirmed Tuesday. The panel's ranking member, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), had invited Wylie to brief Democrats earlier this week.

As Facebook's congressional outreach ramps up, the company is getting hit on another front in Washington: a new inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. The agency plans to send the company a series of questions about the Cambridge Analytica issue, according to a source familiar with the matter.

Under a 2011 consent decree with the FTC, Facebook agreed to get express permission and notify users before sharing their data with third parties. The social network could face massive fines if the FTC determines it violated the terms of the agreement.

The agency declined to comment on whether it's investigating, but said, "We take any allegations of violations of our consent decrees very seriously as we did in 2012 in a privacy case involving Google.”

Cambridge Analytica, which did voter analysis work for the Trump campaign, obtained the Facebook account information from academic Aleksandr Kogan, who in 2014 developed an app that harvested Facebook data for research. Facebook has suspended both Cambridge Analytica and Kogan as it looks into the firm's receipt, use and retention of the data.

“We remain strongly committed to protecting people’s information. We appreciate the opportunity to answer questions the FTC may have," Rob Sherman, Facebook's deputy chief privacy officer, said in a statement.

On March 21 2018 05:58 Gorsameth wrote:
How does requiring pregnant women to be informed of all the medical options available to them violate the first amendment?
How does forcing non medical facilities to clear state that they are not medical facilities violate the first amendment?

This reads completely crazy, is misinformation patients about medical options protected by the right to free speech? Oo.