|
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 March 16 2022 22:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 21:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 16 2022 20:19 farvacola wrote: Making standard time permanent is the far better option. Congress actually tried making DST permanent in the 70s and they had to roll it back shortly thereafter because kids were waiting for the bus/walking to school in complete darkness, and folks hated making morning commutes even more than they do under the other systems. Some will want Daylight time and some people will want Standard time. Maybe we can compromise to half an hour offset so everyone is unhappy. I like this logic. I'm in.
But that is so undemocratic. Why not have a referendum, and then offset time according to the percentage of people who want permanent DST vs those who want permanent standard.
So if 60% of people want DST, you shift time so it is at the 60% mark between ST and DST. So 5:36 ST will become the new 6 AM.
|
On March 16 2022 22:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 22:05 NewSunshine wrote:On March 16 2022 21:29 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On March 16 2022 20:19 farvacola wrote: Making standard time permanent is the far better option. Congress actually tried making DST permanent in the 70s and they had to roll it back shortly thereafter because kids were waiting for the bus/walking to school in complete darkness, and folks hated making morning commutes even more than they do under the other systems. Some will want Daylight time and some people will want Standard time. Maybe we can compromise to half an hour offset so everyone is unhappy. I like this logic. I'm in. But that is so undemocratic. Why not have a referendum, and then offset time according to the percentage of people who want permanent DST vs those who want permanent standard. So if 60% of people want DST, you shift time so it is at the 60% mark between ST and DST. So 5:36 ST will become the new 6 AM.
The chance to mathematically mess with people appeals to me, too.
|
On March 16 2022 22:27 EnDeR_ wrote:So, Truth Social has had a bit of a rocky start, www.theguardian.com: Show nested quote +...nearly a month after its launch, Truth Social has... had a botched rollout, a share price collapse and, in Trump, a figurehead who doesn’t actually post much to his own social media platform. so apparently Trump has only made one single post, or 'truth' as they call it. Very few other conservative big names have joined, with Sean Hannity being just about the only one active there. Show nested quote +The missing major players appear to include the rightwing media figures Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson, as well as Trump’s sometime lawyer Rudy Giuliani. (There is a @RudyGiuliani account on TruthSocial, but it has just 35 followers and is unverified.) Does anyone on this forum have an account in it? I'm glad it's not working out, one thing we don't need is additionally echo chambers. My understanding is that twitter itself does not make tons of money but rather makes money for others. Or at the very least it took a very long time to make money. I assume this is a huge money pit and does not have the future excitement of a Tesla. Most people will keep using twitter, facebook and so on while just bitching about it.
|
Sorry, but in modern America the current time should depend on your party affiliation.
Proposal would be: Patriot Time: It is always 12:00 noon, as it is unimaginable that the god would ever allow the sun not to be centered above the US. Science Time: Just like a sundial, but magnitudes more expensive.
PS: it has this wonderful charming side effectof both sides having troubles to make sense at night
|
Norway28262 Posts
On March 16 2022 22:27 EnDeR_ wrote:So, Truth Social has had a bit of a rocky start, www.theguardian.com: Show nested quote +...nearly a month after its launch, Truth Social has... had a botched rollout, a share price collapse and, in Trump, a figurehead who doesn’t actually post much to his own social media platform. so apparently Trump has only made one single post, or 'truth' as they call it. Very few other conservative big names have joined, with Sean Hannity being just about the only one active there. Show nested quote +The missing major players appear to include the rightwing media figures Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson, as well as Trump’s sometime lawyer Rudy Giuliani. (There is a @RudyGiuliani account on TruthSocial, but it has just 35 followers and is unverified.) Does anyone on this forum have an account in it? I'm glad it's not working out, one thing we don't need is additionally echo chambers.
If 'trolling the libs' is the primary motivation for part-taking in the public discourse, there's not really any point to it if there are no liberals there.
|
On March 16 2022 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 22:27 EnDeR_ wrote:So, Truth Social has had a bit of a rocky start, www.theguardian.com: ...nearly a month after its launch, Truth Social has... had a botched rollout, a share price collapse and, in Trump, a figurehead who doesn’t actually post much to his own social media platform. so apparently Trump has only made one single post, or 'truth' as they call it. Very few other conservative big names have joined, with Sean Hannity being just about the only one active there. The missing major players appear to include the rightwing media figures Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson, as well as Trump’s sometime lawyer Rudy Giuliani. (There is a @RudyGiuliani account on TruthSocial, but it has just 35 followers and is unverified.) Does anyone on this forum have an account in it? I'm glad it's not working out, one thing we don't need is additionally echo chambers. If 'trolling the libs' is the primary motivation for part-taking in the public discourse, there's not really any point to it if there are no liberals there. I remember it trending under "Fart" on Twitter when it launched. I don't know who keyed it in at the time, but it was dead-on.
|
On March 16 2022 23:31 mahrgell wrote: Sorry, but in modern America the current time should depend on your party affiliation.
Proposal would be: Patriot Time: It is always 12:00 noon, as it is unimaginable that the god would ever allow the sun not to be centered above the US. Science Time: Just like a sundial, but magnitudes more expensive.
PS: it has this wonderful charming side effectof both sides having troubles to make sense at night As much as this is a trolling post I await the GOP picking the opposite of whatever was proposed (if it was by a Dem) and it becoming a big bit on Tucker about how the change will steal freedom.
|
On March 16 2022 22:27 EnDeR_ wrote:So, Truth Social has had a bit of a rocky start, www.theguardian.com: Show nested quote +...nearly a month after its launch, Truth Social has... had a botched rollout, a share price collapse and, in Trump, a figurehead who doesn’t actually post much to his own social media platform. so apparently Trump has only made one single post, or 'truth' as they call it. Very few other conservative big names have joined, with Sean Hannity being just about the only one active there. Show nested quote +The missing major players appear to include the rightwing media figures Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson, as well as Trump’s sometime lawyer Rudy Giuliani. (There is a @RudyGiuliani account on TruthSocial, but it has just 35 followers and is unverified.) Does anyone on this forum have an account in it? I'm glad it's not working out, one thing we don't need is additionally echo chambers.
I would at least be trying to make an account if I had an iPhone. Strange that trump isn't posting much though. Happy to see a competitor to Twitter although there already are some.
|
Doesn't a competitor have to compete, doesnt sound like Truth Social is doing much competing, lol.
|
Honestly I kinda miss Trump tweets. His borderline obsession with Robert Pattinson was iconic. You know he loved the Batman.
|
On March 16 2022 22:02 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 11:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 16 2022 05:50 lestye wrote: Tuckers are absolutely not done in good faith. He brings on crazy conspiracy theorists in the name of "asking questions".
It is the same schtick he's been using for years. And why do you think its done in good faith when Fox literally plead in Court that no reasonable person would take Tucker Carlson seriously.
You can not want war with Iraq without being a cheerleader for Saddam Hussein. You can be critical of the United States and NATO without being a tool for Russian propaganda. The argument Tuckers lawyers made is more just a standard argument defending against a defamation lawsuit. The gist of the argument is that Tucker states opinion rather than fact. It was the judge that characterized that argument as "Tuckers lawyers are saying that Tucker can't be taken seriously." In any case, even if Tucker is not stating things in 100% good faith because he's a cable news pundit and that's what they do, that doesn't necessarily make it meaningful to call Tucker a Russian asset. The fact remains that tuckers statements are within the normal bounds of US partisan disagreement. As partisans in the US argue with each other, Russia might agree from time to time with one of the two sides. But it's still just ordinary US discourse, not actual support of Russia. Phrases like "Russian asset" are just a leftover of collusion hysteria. Democratic partisans added another arrow to their quiver, which is to call people Russian assets. The accusation carries little significance; If Tucker says "I wonder if the US should have had these biolabs in Ukraine," Tucker did nothing wrong by saying that, even if Russian state TV picks it up for some reason. As per others yeah the accusation doesn’t have significance as people aren’t taking it seriously, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have legs. ‘Russia isn’t so bad folks’ isn’t to me a particularly seriously held position, it’s been adopted precisely due to collusion accusations. At least to the degree we’ve seen, I don’t think there’s another interpretation to quite the amount of devil’s advocacy we’ve seen in the past few years. Someone like Carlson seems to have two completely different lenses of analysis when it comes to if Russia, or say China has done something. Other folks have made huge judgement errors in taking RT’s shilling and not really questioning if there’s ulterior motives behind them being given a platform to say certain things. Why was Russian state media so happy for Nigel Farage to pop on about the EU being, or anyone with a ‘the left has gone too far!’ view. As has been said elsewhere, and indeed here, Russia has been poking money and effort in accentuating wedge issues in the West to push division that little bit further. And been quite successful in doing so. They’ve just hugely miscalculated quite how far along in that process they are and how easily those divides were shelved the second they invaded Ukraine. There’s a difference in occasionally aligning with someone else’s positions and relentlessly playing Devil’s advocate through an inconsistent application of your own supposed standards. Carlson, unlike others absolutely falls into that second camp, IMO. That said the language of ‘asset’ has certain connotations as per a relationship and intent, ‘useful idiot’ is probably more apt.
I agree re asset vs useful idiot. In the interest of thoroughness and fairness though, many liberal pundits were useful idiots for China during the trump years, due to their knee jerk/devil's advocate opposition to every action Trump took against china.
|
I don’t buy that. Liberal pundits have nuanced opinions on China. They’re not going regurgitating state propaganda. I don’t think being critical of the idea that “trade wars are easy to win” makes you a shill for the PRC
|
On March 17 2022 02:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 22:02 WombaT wrote:On March 16 2022 11:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 16 2022 05:50 lestye wrote: Tuckers are absolutely not done in good faith. He brings on crazy conspiracy theorists in the name of "asking questions".
It is the same schtick he's been using for years. And why do you think its done in good faith when Fox literally plead in Court that no reasonable person would take Tucker Carlson seriously.
You can not want war with Iraq without being a cheerleader for Saddam Hussein. You can be critical of the United States and NATO without being a tool for Russian propaganda. The argument Tuckers lawyers made is more just a standard argument defending against a defamation lawsuit. The gist of the argument is that Tucker states opinion rather than fact. It was the judge that characterized that argument as "Tuckers lawyers are saying that Tucker can't be taken seriously." In any case, even if Tucker is not stating things in 100% good faith because he's a cable news pundit and that's what they do, that doesn't necessarily make it meaningful to call Tucker a Russian asset. The fact remains that tuckers statements are within the normal bounds of US partisan disagreement. As partisans in the US argue with each other, Russia might agree from time to time with one of the two sides. But it's still just ordinary US discourse, not actual support of Russia. Phrases like "Russian asset" are just a leftover of collusion hysteria. Democratic partisans added another arrow to their quiver, which is to call people Russian assets. The accusation carries little significance; If Tucker says "I wonder if the US should have had these biolabs in Ukraine," Tucker did nothing wrong by saying that, even if Russian state TV picks it up for some reason. As per others yeah the accusation doesn’t have significance as people aren’t taking it seriously, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have legs. ‘Russia isn’t so bad folks’ isn’t to me a particularly seriously held position, it’s been adopted precisely due to collusion accusations. At least to the degree we’ve seen, I don’t think there’s another interpretation to quite the amount of devil’s advocacy we’ve seen in the past few years. Someone like Carlson seems to have two completely different lenses of analysis when it comes to if Russia, or say China has done something. Other folks have made huge judgement errors in taking RT’s shilling and not really questioning if there’s ulterior motives behind them being given a platform to say certain things. Why was Russian state media so happy for Nigel Farage to pop on about the EU being, or anyone with a ‘the left has gone too far!’ view. As has been said elsewhere, and indeed here, Russia has been poking money and effort in accentuating wedge issues in the West to push division that little bit further. And been quite successful in doing so. They’ve just hugely miscalculated quite how far along in that process they are and how easily those divides were shelved the second they invaded Ukraine. There’s a difference in occasionally aligning with someone else’s positions and relentlessly playing Devil’s advocate through an inconsistent application of your own supposed standards. Carlson, unlike others absolutely falls into that second camp, IMO. That said the language of ‘asset’ has certain connotations as per a relationship and intent, ‘useful idiot’ is probably more apt. I agree re asset vs useful idiot. In the interest of thoroughness and fairness though, many liberal pundits were useful idiots for China during the trump years, due to their knee jerk/devil's advocate opposition to every action Trump took against china. What I saw from left pundits about Trump vs China wasn't "China is good, stop being mean to them" but a lot more "China is bad and we should do something, but I don't think having a random trade war is the way to go".
And a lot of attacking of the reason why, aka having a trade war because the US has a trade deficit with China, which was a bullshit reason given by someone who has no concept of how trade works.
|
On March 16 2022 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 22:27 EnDeR_ wrote:So, Truth Social has had a bit of a rocky start, www.theguardian.com: ...nearly a month after its launch, Truth Social has... had a botched rollout, a share price collapse and, in Trump, a figurehead who doesn’t actually post much to his own social media platform. so apparently Trump has only made one single post, or 'truth' as they call it. Very few other conservative big names have joined, with Sean Hannity being just about the only one active there. The missing major players appear to include the rightwing media figures Steve Bannon, Glenn Beck and Tucker Carlson, as well as Trump’s sometime lawyer Rudy Giuliani. (There is a @RudyGiuliani account on TruthSocial, but it has just 35 followers and is unverified.) Does anyone on this forum have an account in it? I'm glad it's not working out, one thing we don't need is additionally echo chambers. If 'trolling the libs' is the primary motivation for part-taking in the public discourse, there's not really any point to it if there are no liberals there. That would still work even if the liberal attention to it was external. If it weren't for the war and inflation occupying most of our news time, we might be seeing a lot more "look at this bullshit" type coverage of what's being said there the same way it was done with Parler. And that would have likely been enough to sustain it. But without people having time to be outraged by it right now, it sort of just dies by lack of attention same as the trucker convoy stuff.
|
On March 17 2022 02:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 22:02 WombaT wrote:On March 16 2022 11:00 Doc.Rivers wrote:On March 16 2022 05:50 lestye wrote: Tuckers are absolutely not done in good faith. He brings on crazy conspiracy theorists in the name of "asking questions".
It is the same schtick he's been using for years. And why do you think its done in good faith when Fox literally plead in Court that no reasonable person would take Tucker Carlson seriously.
You can not want war with Iraq without being a cheerleader for Saddam Hussein. You can be critical of the United States and NATO without being a tool for Russian propaganda. The argument Tuckers lawyers made is more just a standard argument defending against a defamation lawsuit. The gist of the argument is that Tucker states opinion rather than fact. It was the judge that characterized that argument as "Tuckers lawyers are saying that Tucker can't be taken seriously." In any case, even if Tucker is not stating things in 100% good faith because he's a cable news pundit and that's what they do, that doesn't necessarily make it meaningful to call Tucker a Russian asset. The fact remains that tuckers statements are within the normal bounds of US partisan disagreement. As partisans in the US argue with each other, Russia might agree from time to time with one of the two sides. But it's still just ordinary US discourse, not actual support of Russia. Phrases like "Russian asset" are just a leftover of collusion hysteria. Democratic partisans added another arrow to their quiver, which is to call people Russian assets. The accusation carries little significance; If Tucker says "I wonder if the US should have had these biolabs in Ukraine," Tucker did nothing wrong by saying that, even if Russian state TV picks it up for some reason. As per others yeah the accusation doesn’t have significance as people aren’t taking it seriously, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t have legs. ‘Russia isn’t so bad folks’ isn’t to me a particularly seriously held position, it’s been adopted precisely due to collusion accusations. At least to the degree we’ve seen, I don’t think there’s another interpretation to quite the amount of devil’s advocacy we’ve seen in the past few years. Someone like Carlson seems to have two completely different lenses of analysis when it comes to if Russia, or say China has done something. Other folks have made huge judgement errors in taking RT’s shilling and not really questioning if there’s ulterior motives behind them being given a platform to say certain things. Why was Russian state media so happy for Nigel Farage to pop on about the EU being, or anyone with a ‘the left has gone too far!’ view. As has been said elsewhere, and indeed here, Russia has been poking money and effort in accentuating wedge issues in the West to push division that little bit further. And been quite successful in doing so. They’ve just hugely miscalculated quite how far along in that process they are and how easily those divides were shelved the second they invaded Ukraine. There’s a difference in occasionally aligning with someone else’s positions and relentlessly playing Devil’s advocate through an inconsistent application of your own supposed standards. Carlson, unlike others absolutely falls into that second camp, IMO. That said the language of ‘asset’ has certain connotations as per a relationship and intent, ‘useful idiot’ is probably more apt. I agree re asset vs useful idiot. In the interest of thoroughness and fairness though, many liberal pundits were useful idiots for China during the trump years, due to their knee jerk/devil's advocate opposition to every action Trump took against china.
Would you have any examples of the Chinese government using a pundits comments in full unedited on state TV? Or any memos about airing more of a particular pundit?
What is with the constant defense of Tucker anyway? Attacking him and hia pro russian or other position is not attacking conservatives, unless they agree.
If you do not agree say he is an idiot, if you are defending his position that means you do agree even when you dance around it.
|
On March 17 2022 02:00 lestye wrote: Honestly I kinda miss Trump tweets. His borderline obsession with Robert Pattinson was iconic. You know he loved the Batman. Covfefe, we shall never forget you.
|
On March 17 2022 02:06 lestye wrote: I don’t buy that. Liberal pundits have nuanced opinions on China. They’re not going regurgitating state propaganda. I don’t think being critical of the idea that “trade wars are easy to win” makes you a shill for the PRC
You've not provided any examples of Tucker regurgitating Russian propaganda (or any other examples of what Tucker is actually saying), and I suspect you're exaggerating there. The argument boils down to, Tucker is saying some things Russia agrees with. During the trump years, liberal pundits most definitely said things about trumps trade war with China that China agreed with (china wants american pundits to say that no trade war should happen), and China could have easily played clips on state TV (and may well have). And those liberal pundits were just stating knee jerk criticism, another example is criticizing trumps China travel ban. There's no meaningful distinction (other than partisanship) between Tucker as useful idiot and liberal pundits as useful idiots.
|
There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll.
|
United States40776 Posts
On March 17 2022 05:13 NewSunshine wrote: There's no meaningful distinction if you agree with Trump that trade wars are very good and easy to win. You're burying the lead for the n-th time. The liberal critique of the trade war was that it was an idiotic dumpster fire of a way to get back at China, not that they love China. Troll. Plus the fortune spent in paying farmers for all the stuff they couldn’t sell anymore. $51.2b spent on aid to farmers who didn’t want aid, they wanted him not to get between them and their customers.
|
On March 17 2022 05:09 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2022 02:06 lestye wrote: I don’t buy that. Liberal pundits have nuanced opinions on China. They’re not going regurgitating state propaganda. I don’t think being critical of the idea that “trade wars are easy to win” makes you a shill for the PRC You've not provided any examples of Tucker regurgitating Russian propaganda (or any other examples of what Tucker is actually saying), and I suspect you're exaggerating there. The argument boils down to, Tucker is saying some things Russia agrees with. During the trump years, liberal pundits most definitely said things about trumps trade war with China that China agreed with (china wants american pundits to say that no trade war should happen), and China could have easily played clips on state TV (and may well have). And those liberal pundits were just stating knee jerk criticism, another example is criticizing trumps China travel ban. There's no meaningful distinction (other than partisanship) between Tucker as useful idiot and liberal pundits as useful idiots. You mean like these? That have already been posted, and there is so much more.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/leaked-kremlin-memo-told-russian-052009473.html
https://ca.yahoo.com/news/tucker-carlson-changes-tune-echoing-023043894.html
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/stephen-colbert-shreds-tucker-carlson-080323780.html
|
|
|
|