Impeachment

Political discussion here. Any reasonable opinion is welcome, but due to the sensitive nature of the topic area, please be nice and respectful to others. No flaming or trolling, please. And please keep political commentary out of the other board areas and confine it to this area. Thanks!
User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12427
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment

Post by Indy » Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:19 pm

I thought he was quoted in one of those tell-all books and Trump turned on him. He was fired from Brietbart and had to leave town with his tail between his legs. Not sure Trump would pardon him unless he was blackmailed.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment

Post by In2ition » Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:01 pm

"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.

User avatar
ShelC
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:00 am

Re: Impeachment

Post by ShelC » Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:10 pm

At one point, Obama asked whether there was any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia, but any response that may have been recorded in Brennan’s notes is redacted.
Convenient.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12427
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment

Post by Indy » Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:14 pm

In2ition wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:01 pm
Do you know about the funding of The Federalist?

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment

Post by In2ition » Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:20 pm

ShelC wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:10 pm
At one point, Obama asked whether there was any evidence of collaboration between the Trump campaign and Russia, but any response that may have been recorded in Brennan’s notes is redacted.
Convenient.
Yeah, I thought that was interesting too.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment

Post by In2ition » Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:21 pm

Indy wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:14 pm
In2ition wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:01 pm
Do you know about the funding of The Federalist?
No I don't. Is it someone(s) nefarious?
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 12103
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Impeachment

Post by Mori Chu » Tue Dec 15, 2020 11:21 pm

@BenKTallmadge proudly mentions being followed by Michael Flynn (traitor) in his Twitter profile, and mentions a Parler account as well. Scroll his timeline if you want to see the quality of this news source. Why even indulge it?

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12427
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment

Post by Indy » Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:21 am

In2ition wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:21 pm
Indy wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:14 pm
In2ition wrote:
Tue Dec 15, 2020 9:01 pm
Do you know about the funding of The Federalist?
No I don't. Is it someone(s) nefarious?
It was a huge point of issue over the last several years. Their funding was a closely held secret, with "reporters" from The Federalist blocking people on twitter that asked who funded it. It used to be a strongly Libertarian publication, with no allegiance to any particular politician, and more focused on the ideals of Libertarianism. Because most of his policies are definitely not Libertarian, they were pretty anti-Trump while he was running in 2015-16.

They changed owners and removed the details of their owners/funding around that time, and dropped their Libertarian stance, and just focused on supporting Trump and his policies in every way they could. For the last several years, there has been an investigation to try and find the owner/funder. It was just discovered this week that it is Richard and Liz Uihlein. They are the multi-billionaire owner of Uline, and have given 100M to GOP candidates lately, and based on their 5B yearly revenue, received quite a substantial tax break from the Trump Tax Cuts (over 1.5 trillion to big businesses).

User avatar
Mori Chu
Posts: 12103
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Impeachment

Post by Mori Chu » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:29 am

One might say, why attack the source of an article? That's an argumentum ad hominem. Focus on the content of the article, not bashing the source.

And I agree with that in the general case. But, knowing that a source of info has an obvious partisanship or lack of credibility does matter in terms of default acceptance of any of their content. If I know that a site is run by, say, major GOP or Dem donors, or by somebody who's been known to peddle disinformation and unverified fake crap, or if I go to their site/feed and see nothing but extremist content, then yes, it does matter that they're a bad source. It does influence how I will interpret their content unless and until the content is heavily verified by a less biased source.

In other words, The Federalist is not a non-partisan news organization and cannot be cited with any reliability. It is at best a GOP/conservative opinion desk that offers up pro-Trump and anti-Democrat stories. Visit the Federalist front page right now and you'll see:

- bashing Taylor Swift's new album (she pledged support for the Democrats)
- article against having museums for Black and brown people
- article defending Bill Barr and his "commitment to law"
- article claiming the media are "weaponizing COVID against Americans"
- article calling (very liberal) Seattle WA an "American wasteland" (preposterous)
- article complaining about Biden/Harris being Person of the Year and complaining about our "stunning weakness" against China

I could keep going, but I think the point is made. The Federalist is partisan garbage.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment

Post by In2ition » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:44 am

I just don't think we should go down that road, as it opens up everyone to the same scrutiny and then we don't have a single publication that will be deemed "non-partisan". I think that's the tactic of people that just don't like what they see, and then do their best to discredit it, instead of discrediting the article itself. Even Glenn Greenwald left the company he founded over censorship, as they were trying to censor him and what he wrote. It's very 1984ish, and it's creepy.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12427
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment

Post by Indy » Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:57 am

In2ition wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:44 am
I just don't think we should go down that road, as it opens up everyone to the same scrutiny and then we don't have a single publication that will be deemed "non-partisan". I think that's the tactic of people that just don't like what they see, and then do their best to discredit it, instead of discrediting the article itself. Even Glenn Greenwald left the company he founded over censorship, as they were trying to censor him and what he wrote. It's very 1984ish, and it's creepy.
Asking for facts is not censorship.
On October 29, 2020, Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept, saying that he faced political censorship and contractual breaches from the editors, who he wrote had prevented him from reporting on Joe Biden's conduct with regard to China and Ukraine.[40] On his blog, he wrote that the magazine "is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties" and no longer provided editorial freedom.[41] The Intercept disputed Greenwald's accusations, writing that Greenwald "believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor" and telling The Washington Post, "it is absolutely not true that Glenn Greenwald was asked to remove all sections critical of Joe Biden from his article. He was asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence."[42][43] In response to The Intercept, Greenwald published the emails that led to his resignation which show Greenwald being asked to make "significant revision", treat "disinformation issue" with "greater complexity" and be skeptical of the materials on the laptop because "it remains a very strange story surrounded by many unanswered questions".[44]

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment

Post by In2ition » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:09 am

Indy wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:57 am
In2ition wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 8:44 am
I just don't think we should go down that road, as it opens up everyone to the same scrutiny and then we don't have a single publication that will be deemed "non-partisan". I think that's the tactic of people that just don't like what they see, and then do their best to discredit it, instead of discrediting the article itself. Even Glenn Greenwald left the company he founded over censorship, as they were trying to censor him and what he wrote. It's very 1984ish, and it's creepy.
Asking for facts is not censorship.
On October 29, 2020, Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept, saying that he faced political censorship and contractual breaches from the editors, who he wrote had prevented him from reporting on Joe Biden's conduct with regard to China and Ukraine.[40] On his blog, he wrote that the magazine "is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties" and no longer provided editorial freedom.[41] The Intercept disputed Greenwald's accusations, writing that Greenwald "believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor" and telling The Washington Post, "it is absolutely not true that Glenn Greenwald was asked to remove all sections critical of Joe Biden from his article. He was asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence."[42][43] In response to The Intercept, Greenwald published the emails that led to his resignation which show Greenwald being asked to make "significant revision", treat "disinformation issue" with "greater complexity" and be skeptical of the materials on the laptop because "it remains a very strange story surrounded by many unanswered questions".[44]
Hmm, his side of the story says completely different.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12427
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment

Post by Indy » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:16 am

I am sure it is. But you have to wonder if they were forcing him to do what he says, why didn't the emails he release paint that picture. The fully fall into the camp of, if you make claims of impropriety, you need to back it up with facts, not just disparaging remarks.

Also remember this guy actively reached out to represent neo-Nazis to re-affirm their rights to free speech.

User avatar
ShelC
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:00 am

Re: Impeachment

Post by ShelC » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:18 am

The social media sites have an obligation, as does the govt (but it may be too late for that), to moderate content being pushed out. Conspiracy theories and hate speech should be forbidden. Facts matter. How you debate those facts is one thing, but to push out theories, or arguments without any factual basis whatsoever is damaging to our society and way of life. Words matter and there should be accountability for those words. This is something I feel very strongly about. You're entitled to have your own opinion on something but there can be consequences for it if it's a shitty or hateful opinion (ie, racism, sexism, etc).

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12427
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment

Post by Indy » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:27 am

ShelC wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:18 am
The social media sites have an obligation, as does the govt (but it may be too late for that), to moderate content being pushed out. Conspiracy theories and hate speech should be forbidden. Facts matter. How you debate those facts is one thing, but to push out theories, or arguments without any factual basis whatsoever is damaging to our society and way of life. Words matter and there should be accountability for those words. This is something I feel very strongly about. You're entitled to have your own opinion on something but there can be consequences for it if it's a shitty or hateful opinion (ie, racism, sexism, etc).
I agree, but I do question how that would work. For example, should every post on this site go into a queue that Marty has to review (as the owner of the site) to ensure it is factual and doesn't have any hate speech in it before it posts publicly? Or are you only saying once a platform has a certain amount of traffic/users it has to go through this mechanism? Or should it be the owner of the domain hosting service Marty uses that reviews all content from all sites before it gets shared publicly?

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment

Post by In2ition » Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:29 am

I have a problem with people that are deciding what is free speech and what isn't. They don't tend to be working in good faith. I believe that's completely against the First amendment. The ACLU used to fight for the right of free speech by anyone, even the truly despicable, the racists, the sexist assholes. Now, they don't. I'm glad you've decided what should and shouldn't be spoken about Shel, what's next? You will be sending people to reeducation camps? Police thought? I think that's complete BS. Who keeps an eye on the gatekeepers? When do they turn their ire towards your direction or do you just always go with what is deemed acceptable? Trust me, they will come for you too after no one is left.
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.

User avatar
Indy
Posts: 12427
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2014 9:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Impeachment

Post by Indy » Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:32 am

In2ition wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:29 am
I have a problem with people that are deciding what is free speech and what isn't. They don't tend to be working in good faith. I believe that's completely against the First amendment. The ACLU used to fight for the right of free speech by anyone, even the truly despicable, the racists, the sexist assholes. Now, they don't. I'm glad you've decided what should and shouldn't be spoken about Shel, what's next? You will be sending people to reeducation camps? Police thought? I think that's complete BS. Who keeps an eye on the gatekeepers? When do they turn their ire towards your direction or do you just always go with what is deemed acceptable? Trust me, they will come for you too after no one is left.
They are still actively defending white nationalist "free speech." They defend nearly any breach of civil liberties.

And just because you have the right to say racist stuff (you in general sense, not you In2), doesn't mean a publisher or service provider or anyone else has to agree to let you do it on their platform or at their place of business or on their billboard. I think that is what Shel is saying.

User avatar
ShelC
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:00 am

Re: Impeachment

Post by ShelC » Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:10 am

Indy wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:32 am
In2ition wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:29 am
I have a problem with people that are deciding what is free speech and what isn't. They don't tend to be working in good faith. I believe that's completely against the First amendment. The ACLU used to fight for the right of free speech by anyone, even the truly despicable, the racists, the sexist assholes. Now, they don't. I'm glad you've decided what should and shouldn't be spoken about Shel, what's next? You will be sending people to reeducation camps? Police thought? I think that's complete BS. Who keeps an eye on the gatekeepers? When do they turn their ire towards your direction or do you just always go with what is deemed acceptable? Trust me, they will come for you too after no one is left.
They are still actively defending white nationalist "free speech." They defend nearly any breach of civil liberties.

And just because you have the right to say racist stuff (you in general sense, not you In2), doesn't mean a publisher or service provider or anyone else has to agree to let you do it on their platform or at their place of business or on their billboard. I think that is what Shel is saying.
Ideally it would be some government arm not dissimilar to the FCC setting laws and guidelines about content allowed on websites. But when money and profits are involved, that stuff goes out the window. Domain hosting services, I believe, have taken action against sites that were created for or became hate sites or promoted acts of violence. Twitter and FB seem to have created algorithms or filters that find certain words that are flagged and take down those posts/users.

I think generally that's a way to start.

The issue is now social media has become a megaphone for conspiracy theorists and hate speech/hate groups. If Hitler had Twitter and social media accounts back in the 30s and 40s, things may have turned out differently. And sorry, I know hate speech when I see it and I know neo-nazis and swastikas when I see them. Germany has laws against displaying swastikas but we have Americans waving nazi flags at political rallies and putting swastikas on facemasks. I don't think there's a place for that. That goes for any hate speech and any hategroup. If you think that's not operating in good faith and you're offended by that, I don't know what to tell you.

I think actively undermining our democracy with lies and pushing false arguments to delegitimize our free elections should be put in check. Twitter and FB seem to agree and have taken measures to curtail it. Again, if there's credible evidence and arguments to be made then let the courts decide.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-ptb-d ... story.html
On average, a false story took roughly 10 hours to reach 1,500 Twitter users, compared to 60 hours for truthful stories, according to the study, which cross-checked every story with six independent fact-checking sites. Also, true stories didn't get retweeted nearly as repeatedly as stories full of lies, mistruths and rumors.

User avatar
In2ition
Posts: 7107
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:35 pm

Re: Impeachment

Post by In2ition » Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:23 am

ShelC wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:10 am
Indy wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 10:32 am
In2ition wrote:
Wed Dec 16, 2020 9:29 am
I have a problem with people that are deciding what is free speech and what isn't. They don't tend to be working in good faith. I believe that's completely against the First amendment. The ACLU used to fight for the right of free speech by anyone, even the truly despicable, the racists, the sexist assholes. Now, they don't. I'm glad you've decided what should and shouldn't be spoken about Shel, what's next? You will be sending people to reeducation camps? Police thought? I think that's complete BS. Who keeps an eye on the gatekeepers? When do they turn their ire towards your direction or do you just always go with what is deemed acceptable? Trust me, they will come for you too after no one is left.
They are still actively defending white nationalist "free speech." They defend nearly any breach of civil liberties.

And just because you have the right to say racist stuff (you in general sense, not you In2), doesn't mean a publisher or service provider or anyone else has to agree to let you do it on their platform or at their place of business or on their billboard. I think that is what Shel is saying.
Ideally it would be some government arm not dissimilar to the FCC setting laws and guidelines about content allowed on websites. But when money and profits are involved, that stuff goes out the window. Domain hosting services, I believe, have taken action against sites that were created for or became hate sites or promoted acts of violence. Twitter and FB seem to have created algorithms or filters that find certain words that are flagged and take down those posts/users.

I think generally that's a way to start.

The issue is now social media has become a megaphone for conspiracy theorists and hate speech/hate groups. If Hitler had Twitter and social media accounts back in the 30s and 40s, things may have turned out differently. And sorry, I know hate speech when I see it and I know neo-nazis and swastikas when I see them. Germany has laws against displaying swastikas but we have Americans waving nazi flags at political rallies and putting swastikas on facemasks. I don't think there's a place for that. That goes for any hate speech and any hategroup. If you think that's not operating in good faith and you're offended by that, I don't know what to tell you.

I think actively undermining our democracy with lies and pushing false arguments to delegitimize our free elections should be put in check. Twitter and FB seem to agree and have taken measures to curtail it. Again, if there's credible evidence and arguments to be made then let the courts decide.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-ptb-d ... story.html
On average, a false story took roughly 10 hours to reach 1,500 Twitter users, compared to 60 hours for truthful stories, according to the study, which cross-checked every story with six independent fact-checking sites. Also, true stories didn't get retweeted nearly as repeatedly as stories full of lies, mistruths and rumors.
So you haven't been duped or even pushed misinformation and lies? I wish all you arbiters of truth would have denounced the Russian BS and impeachment scam instead of letting it go for 4 yrs. Where were the fact checkers?
"30 wins would be an extremely disappointing season" yeah, I said it and I mean it.

User avatar
ShelC
Posts: 7156
Joined: Fri Feb 28, 2014 6:00 am

Re: Impeachment

Post by ShelC » Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:55 am

Not sure I have. If you can find any posts, I'll address them.

I try and vet any and all info, learn what I can from credible sources. I don't think all of the Russia stuff was BS, especially when so many so close to the Trump campaign were indicted and found guilty over their ties to Russian and Ukrainian officials during the 2016 election. In reality, aside from the Russia stuff, Trump probably could've been impeached for a few other things related to his business dealings, taxes, etc.

Post Reply