(03-19-2024, 07:24 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-18-2024, 11:32 PM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]The logic behind each is the same, the difference is one example is politicians playing politics, the other is the media carrying water for a political party. I get the media does this for the left pretty much out in the open now, but as a citizenry we collectively should want a truly impartial media, right? I mean, I don't want softballs being lobbed at my candidate. I want him/her to knock it out of the park with the tough questions. I don't want them carrying my candidate's or party's water. You can't in good conscience be defending the media being impartial, can you? It just strikes me as an example of arguing your other stance in bad faith. In the span of just a couple of weeks it might as well have been in the same breath.
I'm not defending the media as impartial. Not at all. I'm saying in this instance they have good reason to treat Trump harshly.
They used to treat him much better than he deserved, back in 2015 and 2016.
Misrepresenting what he said or filling in the blanks for the casual audience, which they do at almost every turn once you dig deeper for context, is more than harshness though. I don't want to put specific words in your mouth, but from your posting history on him it appears to me that you see him as an existential threat to the United States constitution. Perhaps you've already said as much. Many on the left share this view. What you are describing happening in this instance (and being ok with) is the ends justifying the means which is something I see much more prevalent in political tactics from the left than from the right and quite frankly, when the ends justify the means, you lose all moral high ground you might have had or thought you had.
(03-17-2024, 10:28 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (03-14-2024, 08:39 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]It’s a CCP entity which doesn’t even attempt to conceal the fact they are using this platform to gather knowledge on users as well as leverage it to influence society, and you’re still in question about why it has been acted upon by Congress?
You’re outsmarting yourself.
How many times in your lifetime do you need to see a behavior repeated until you notice it's an intentional pattern? How many threats have been used by the government to curtail the power of private citizenry? How many bills have been passed that expand the power and reach of the government in the name of safety in your lifetime? How many times have you seen that power exploited and corrupted?
TikTok will not be the only company affected by this bill. TikTok isn't even mentioned in the bill. Did you read it? I did. It basically gives the President and the Secretary of Commerce the authority to divest or take measures against any company deemed to be connected to a foreign adversary. Even an accusation could bring about corrective measures from the state.
The bill makes it seem like Congress can check this power, but it's just illusionary, of course. The Secretary of Commerce needs to notify congress when it's sanctioned a company or CEO. HOWEVER, it would take a joint resolution to override it (meaning both the House and Senate would need to agree), but even then, the President can veto the sanction, lol. If that were to happen, typical veto rules apply, which means two-thirds of both the House and Senate would need to oppose the veto. For all intents and purposes, Congress ceded its powers in this matter to the President. They left themselves room to grandstand, though.
The only real protection in this bill is Judicial Review, which, as we are currently seeing, is only as strong as the courts overseeing the case.
If you really believe this isn't going to be abused moving forward, you're deluding yourself. IF congress were interested in stopping TikTok, this bill would address that threat. It doesn't. It just gives more and more power to the executive branch of the government.
At some point, you're going to have to start smarting yourself.
Every person on this board should read that post in its entirety.
I want to go back to this. Last night, I realized I read the Senate bill instead of the House bill that was passed (which sucks, since the Senate bill was 4x longer).
A few things: The House bill does specifically mention TikTok and ByteDance, but it still uses language that is broad enough to encompass any company the President determines is dealing with a foreign adversary. While the bill focuses on the tech sector, it could easily be broadened to address any company or entity that is determined to be "covered" by a foreign adversary.
The President gets to make that decision unilaterally, for both the company and the foreign adversary. The secretary of commerce has been dropped completely from the language and replaced with Attorney General, who has much more legal power.
Congress removed themselves from oversight completely (unless a brand-new law is made). It's subject to judicial review, but the DC circuit court of appeals was exclusively appointed to oversee these cases.
This is a joke. It's basically a dumbed down version of the Senate bill, that gives even more power to the President with less congressional and judicial oversight (unless you think the DC circuit is just the bee's knees, lol). It does at least mention the threat directly, but does not limit itself to those companies or entities within.
I have zero problems with regulating foreign actors who are aggressively taking our information for potentially nefarious purposes, but it needs to be specific. These types of broad policies ALWAYS get abused.
(03-19-2024, 08:43 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 07:24 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not defending the media as impartial. Not at all. I'm saying in this instance they have good reason to treat Trump harshly.
They used to treat him much better than he deserved, back in 2015 and 2016.
Misrepresenting what he said or filling in the blanks for the casual audience, which they do at almost every turn once you dig deeper for context, is more than harshness though. I don't want to put specific words in your mouth, but from your posting history on him it appears to me that you see him as an existential threat to the United States constitution. Perhaps you've already said as much. Many on the left share this view. What you are describing happening in this instance (and being ok with) is the ends justifying the means which is something I see much more prevalent in political tactics from the left than from the right and quite frankly, when the ends justify the means, you lose all moral high ground you might have had or thought you had.
I would be very hesitant to say the ends justify the means about anything.
You say this is more than harshness, you imply it is lying. You didn't come out and say it is lying.
Lying is intentionally leaving your reader or listener with a false sense of the facts, that you know is false.
I don't think this is lying. Trump wants to be a dictator. He doesn't care about the continuation of the constitution. Those are simple facts that anyone can see. His specific statements about a bloodbath do not necessarily point to those facts, however, using that statement as if it were evidence leaves the viewer with a true sense of the facts: Trump threatened members of Congress with violence, tried to end the Constitution, and is unrepentant.
If there were other recent statements from Trump that implied contrition or remorse regarding his behavior, you could make the case that the media was lying. But absent that evidence I don't see the case.
Weird how a country with $35 trillion in debt has the nerve to give me a credit score
(03-19-2024, 09:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 08:43 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Misrepresenting what he said or filling in the blanks for the casual audience, which they do at almost every turn once you dig deeper for context, is more than harshness though. I don't want to put specific words in your mouth, but from your posting history on him it appears to me that you see him as an existential threat to the United States constitution. Perhaps you've already said as much. Many on the left share this view. What you are describing happening in this instance (and being ok with) is the ends justifying the means which is something I see much more prevalent in political tactics from the left than from the right and quite frankly, when the ends justify the means, you lose all moral high ground you might have had or thought you had.
I would be very hesitant to say the ends justify the means about anything.
You say this is more than harshness, you imply it is lying. You didn't come out and say it is lying.
Lying is intentionally leaving your reader or listener with a false sense of the facts, that you know is false.
I don't think this is lying. Trump wants to be a dictator. He doesn't care about the continuation of the constitution. Those are simple facts that anyone can see. His specific statements about a bloodbath do not necessarily point to those facts, however, using that statement as if it were evidence leaves the viewer with a true sense of the facts: Trump threatened members of Congress with violence, tried to end the Constitution, and is unrepentant.
If there were other recent statements from Trump that implied contrition or remorse regarding his behavior, you could make the case that the media was lying. But absent that evidence I don't see the case.
If you are attempting to lead your audience to a specific political conclusion by filling in the blanks for them, you are no longer media, you are propaganda. You can't be ok with that from your media just because you agree with the conclusion and then at the same time deny the ends justifying the means being the underlying philosophy.
They've said the same thing about every two term President I can remember which goes back to Reagan regarding wanting to stay in power beyond their second term. It was said about Reagan, it was said about Clinton, it was said about Bush 43, it was said about Obama and although Trump's is a unique situation in our lifetime running for a second non-consecutive term, it is said if he regains power he'll never give it up. Most individuals do not want to give up power once they have it, however, our form of government requires it. The constitution survives each time, the nation survives each time, power transfers each time, and it's been laughable conspiracy theory level paranoia each time. Any attempt to change it by whomever sits in power, would turn many of even the most fervent supporters against him/her. I think the level headed amongst us on both sides would agree that 8 years is enough to serve as President.
(03-19-2024, 11:25 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 09:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I would be very hesitant to say the ends justify the means about anything.
You say this is more than harshness, you imply it is lying. You didn't come out and say it is lying.
Lying is intentionally leaving your reader or listener with a false sense of the facts, that you know is false.
I don't think this is lying. Trump wants to be a dictator. He doesn't care about the continuation of the constitution. Those are simple facts that anyone can see. His specific statements about a bloodbath do not necessarily point to those facts, however, using that statement as if it were evidence leaves the viewer with a true sense of the facts: Trump threatened members of Congress with violence, tried to end the Constitution, and is unrepentant.
If there were other recent statements from Trump that implied contrition or remorse regarding his behavior, you could make the case that the media was lying. But absent that evidence I don't see the case.
If you are attempting to lead your audience to a specific political conclusion by filling in the blanks for them, you are no longer media, you are propaganda. You can't be ok with that from your media just because you agree with the conclusion and then at the same time deny the ends justifying the means being the underlying philosophy.
They've said the same thing about every two term President I can remember which goes back to Reagan regarding wanting to stay in power beyond their second term. It was said about Reagan, it was said about Clinton, it was said about Bush 43, it was said about Obama and although Trump's is a unique situation in our lifetime running for a second non-consecutive term, it is said if he regains power he'll never give it up. Most individuals do not want to give up power once they have it, however, our form of government requires it. The constitution survives each time, the nation survives each time, power transfers each time, and it's been laughable conspiracy theory level paranoia each time. Any attempt to change it by whomever sits in power, would turn many of even the most fervent supporters against him/her. I think the level headed amongst us on both sides would agree that 8 years is enough to serve as President.
Anyone who said that about any other US President but Trump was exaggerating or lying.
Anyone who says that about Trump is not.
The last guy to lose re-election was Bush 41. Bush 41 did not try to intimidate Congress into allowing him to stay in power, back in 1992.
Trump is very different. He is the exception. Even if journalists in the past were crying wolf, this is the real thing here, or at least, much closer to the real thing than any other point in my lifetime.
(03-19-2024, 11:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 11:25 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]If you are attempting to lead your audience to a specific political conclusion by filling in the blanks for them, you are no longer media, you are propaganda. You can't be ok with that from your media just because you agree with the conclusion and then at the same time deny the ends justifying the means being the underlying philosophy.
They've said the same thing about every two term President I can remember which goes back to Reagan regarding wanting to stay in power beyond their second term. It was said about Reagan, it was said about Clinton, it was said about Bush 43, it was said about Obama and although Trump's is a unique situation in our lifetime running for a second non-consecutive term, it is said if he regains power he'll never give it up. Most individuals do not want to give up power once they have it, however, our form of government requires it. The constitution survives each time, the nation survives each time, power transfers each time, and it's been laughable conspiracy theory level paranoia each time. Any attempt to change it by whomever sits in power, would turn many of even the most fervent supporters against him/her. I think the level headed amongst us on both sides would agree that 8 years is enough to serve as President.
Anyone who said that about any other US President but Trump was exaggerating or lying.
Anyone who says that about Trump is not.
The last guy to lose re-election was Bush 41. Bush 41 did not try to intimidate Congress into allowing him to stay in power, back in 1992.
Trump is very different. He is the exception. Even if journalists in the past were crying wolf, this is the real thing here, or at least, much closer to the real thing than any other point in my lifetime.
How does a president stay in power in The United States of America if they’re elected out or reach term limits? What mechanism do they use to remain?
(03-19-2024, 09:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 08:43 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote: [ -> ]Misrepresenting what he said or filling in the blanks for the casual audience, which they do at almost every turn once you dig deeper for context, is more than harshness though. I don't want to put specific words in your mouth, but from your posting history on him it appears to me that you see him as an existential threat to the United States constitution. Perhaps you've already said as much. Many on the left share this view. What you are describing happening in this instance (and being ok with) is the ends justifying the means which is something I see much more prevalent in political tactics from the left than from the right and quite frankly, when the ends justify the means, you lose all moral high ground you might have had or thought you had.
I would be very hesitant to say the ends justify the means about anything.
You say this is more than harshness, you imply it is lying. You didn't come out and say it is lying.
Lying is intentionally leaving your reader or listener with a false sense of the facts, that you know is false.
I don't think this is lying. Trump wants to be a dictator. He doesn't care about the continuation of the constitution. Those are simple facts that anyone can see. His specific statements about a bloodbath do not necessarily point to those facts, however, using that statement as if it were evidence leaves the viewer with a true sense of the facts: Trump threatened members of Congress with violence, tried to end the Constitution, and is unrepentant.
If there were other recent statements from Trump that implied contrition or remorse regarding his behavior, you could make the case that the media was lying. But absent that evidence I don't see the case.
The part in red is "fake news" that you believe.
The rest of your statement in bold is a typical left-wing democrat
opinion.
(03-19-2024, 11:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 11:28 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone who said that about any other US President but Trump was exaggerating or lying.
Anyone who says that about Trump is not.
The last guy to lose re-election was Bush 41. Bush 41 did not try to intimidate Congress into allowing him to stay in power, back in 1992.
Trump is very different. He is the exception. Even if journalists in the past were crying wolf, this is the real thing here, or at least, much closer to the real thing than any other point in my lifetime.
How does a president stay in power in The United States of America if they’re elected out or reach term limits? What mechanism do they use to remain?
He persuades enough people in the military that it should be so, and if Congress or judges disagree, he prevents them from meeting by any means necessary.
I think everyone knows this intuitively. So does Trump. In our country with our independent branches of government and the things that we've been taught to believe about ourselves, it has been particularly difficult to do. But as Congress continues to fail to do its most basic duties, and new Supreme Court decisions continue to baffle the people more and more, it's becoming easier to do.
It is what Trump attempted to do, but he probably did not decide to try it until mid December 2020. Up until that point, he figured that he had enough friends at the state level that they would do his dirty work with bogus legal briefs and no one had to get hurt. Even on January 2 with his call to Atlanta you see him trying to get his way without calling for a violent uprising, but from at least December 19 he was already laying out his back up plan for mob violence and his clear hope that he could call up the national guard to have them help him intimidate Congress.
So Jan 6 is what you get when Trump spends just three weeks trying to end the Constitution. It was half hearted and half [BLEEP]. If he enters office again he will have four years to plan for it.
(03-19-2024, 12:36 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 09:43 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I would be very hesitant to say the ends justify the means about anything.
You say this is more than harshness, you imply it is lying. You didn't come out and say it is lying.
Lying is intentionally leaving your reader or listener with a false sense of the facts, that you know is false.
I don't think this is lying. Trump wants to be a dictator. He doesn't care about the continuation of the constitution. Those are simple facts that anyone can see. His specific statements about a bloodbath do not necessarily point to those facts, however, using that statement as if it were evidence leaves the viewer with a true sense of the facts: Trump threatened members of Congress with violence, tried to end the Constitution, and is unrepentant.
If there were other recent statements from Trump that implied contrition or remorse regarding his behavior, you could make the case that the media was lying. But absent that evidence I don't see the case.
The part in red is "fake news" that you believe.
The rest of your statement in bold is a typical left-wing democrat opinion.
It's amazing how smart men can miss the things they don't want to see.
(03-19-2024, 12:58 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (03-19-2024, 12:45 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]He persuades enough people in the military that it should be so, and if Congress or judges disagree, he prevents them from meeting by any means necessary.
I think everyone knows this intuitively. So does Trump. In our country with our independent branches of government and the things that we've been taught to believe about ourselves, it has been particularly difficult to do. But as Congress continues to fail to do its most basic duties, and new Supreme Court decisions continue to baffle the people more and more, it's becoming easier to do.
It is what Trump attempted to do, but he probably did not decide to try it until mid December 2020. Up until that point, he figured that he had enough friends at the state level that they would do his dirty work with bogus legal briefs and no one had to get hurt. Even on January 2 with his call to Atlanta you see him trying to get his way without calling for a violent uprising, but from at least December 19 he was already laying out his back up plan for mob violence and his clear hope that he could call up the national guard to have them help him intimidate Congress.
So Jan 6 is what you get when Trump spends just three weeks trying to end the Constitution. It was half hearted and half [BLEEP]. If he enters office again he will have four years to plan for it.
It's amazing how smart men can miss the things they don't want to see.
Good gawd…
![[Image: giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7hzwafay92wzdkao9k0...y.gif&ct=g]](https://media4.giphy.com/media/12HAmY4Wts1NYs/giphy.gif?cid=2154d3d7hzwafay92wzdkao9k0jnevdz6nv4t53zd9f4iczp&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
In the land of the blind, a man who sees is judged insane.