The Next President is...

[slackline]

Just now, jazzdude said:

 

 

Congress doesn't really directly let it continue-the political parties allow it to continue. Either because they: a. support the action (maybe not personally, but to retain good standing and support from the party for continued reelection), b. because they can't get enough traction to do anything because option a., or c. They don't want to challenge the power so it's there when they can take control of that power because option a.

 

I should have been more clear.  I was referring to the fact that their inaction in their primary legislative roles allows it to continue unabated. For a president to feel like they're accomplishing anything, they have to take action through EOs.  All Congress manages to do is fight each other.  Only time they pass anything consequential is if one party has a majority. Otherwise, it's bipartisanship is because it's some Mickey mouse policy that doesn't really matter.

[jazzdude]

- The key point: Other restrictions resulting from less cut-and-dried issues (e.g. political rhetoric) are probably best handled by private companies. Not perfect, but way better than the government, who has a poor record in that regard.  Do you really want people like Trump, Schumer, Pelosi, McConnell having legal means to compel who can say what on private platforms?  If so, is the government (particularly conservatives) willing to subsidize these private companies since they are restricting their ability to manage their businesses? 

If far right conservatives want to have a social media outlet, maybe they should try harder and not just whine. Especially if they don't want government limiting their speech. And if there's demand for that service, it shouldn't be hard to get a business started around providing that service.

I mean, if Pirate Bay (or any number of other questionable at best websites) can figure out a way to stay online when being actually persecuted by governments...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing

[Swamp Yankee]

23 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

If far right conservatives want to have a social media outlet, maybe they should try harder and not just whine. Especially if they don't want government limiting their speech. And if there's demand for that service, it shouldn't be hard to get a business started around providing that service.

I mean, if Pirate Bay (or any number of other questionable at best websites) can figure out a way to stay online when being actually persecuted by governments...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/3an7pn/pirate-bay-founder-thinks-parlers-inability-to-stay-online-is-embarrassing

 

That is very true.  Anyone can develop a social media platform.  If you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy to build a great platform, you'll succeed. If not, well, thems the breaks in the free-market innovation economy.   

Edited January 20, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Swamp Yankee]

On 1/17/2021 at 12:11 PM, nsplayr said:

I actual have a personal jihad against self checkout at stores, especially grocery stores when I always seem to have a ton of items in the cart. I do not work at the grocery store, nor do I want to!

Self checkout in grocery stores is more convenient for the store, not for me. FFS, I do not want to self checkout at a tiny kiosk when I have a week's worth of family groceries, but usually all but 1 of the "normal" lanes will be closed. I want to see the Grocery Store Clerks Full Employment Act (GSCFEA) of 2021 passed post-haste!

I agree. In concept I like self-checkout. However, it's always a PITA at Home Depot with large items like lumber and the scanning gun not working. Then you've got to wait for the single employee trying to reset all the other self-checkout stations with problems.  Room for technological improvement. 

[jazzdude]

I should have been more clear.  I was referring to the fact that their inaction in their primary legislative roles allows it to continue unabated. For a president to feel like they're accomplishing anything, they have to take action through EOs.  All Congress manages to do is fight each other.  Only time they pass anything consequential is if one party has a majority. Otherwise, it's bipartisanship is because it's some Mickey mouse policy that doesn't really matter.

I get that your points. But the political parties wield significant power and influence, and finances campaigns for both Congressional and Presidential candidates, which buys them significant influence over those branches of government.

I think it's also why many times a President's agenda shifts in a second term-they've got nothing to lose politically, and no reelection campaigns to worry about, so they are free to pursue what they want over what their party wants.

As far as Congress goes, without term limits, if they want to stay in a seat of power, they typically will have to play nice enough with their supporting party's platform. Otherwise they lose their support for reelection, and they lose their influence/power. So that leaves them in a position where to stay in the game, they may have to vote the party line over their beliefs. And since our country is pretty evenly split politically (or at least that's how the parties sell it to the masses), it leads to legislative gridlock. Especially when members from both parties agree on something, but then tack on an unrelated contentious issue as a rider, and end up killing what they all agreed in the first place.

Don't know how to fix the problem though. Only way really to do it is to limit how long someone can campaign, and the manner they can campaign in, as that drastically reduces a political party's influence on individual elections. But that'll immediately be protested on first amendment grounds, or you'll have shell organizations that "spread the word" but really are finding loopholes in campaign rules. But I don't see the parties giving up their source of power.

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I listened to this podcast. I don't agree that Eric W and Glenn B are on opposite sides.  Weinstein is one of several IDW folks who claim to be liberal yet spend nearly all of their time railing against the left as well as being very sympathetic to the right. Of course, it is perfectly fine (and often intellectually honest/rigorous) to critique one's own side. However, virtually ALL of the Weinstein bros content is critique of the left and tacit support of the right.  They rarely mention or defend their supposedly liberal positions.  Similar, in a way, to Tulsi Gabbard.  Something's just not right with that.  Their liberal/left-leaning claims just don't ring true. Again, I think it's great to question all perspectives; however, I very rarely see that from the right except in very brief passing (i.e. 'Trump's a little controversial, BUT, the left is really bad, blah, blah, blah). 

There's a lot of moderates like myself that find the democratic party running away from them. 

[Swamp Yankee]

37 minutes ago, FLEA said:

There's a lot of moderates like myself that find the democratic party running away from them. 

Understood.  However, since Weinsteins' content is consistently 95%+ complaining about democrats and agreeing with conservative positions then perhaps they aren't democrats as they claim.  My cynical side thinks that Brett and Eric, as well as Tulsi and Rogan are not liberal (classical or otherwise). They may say so to help maximize their audience, but then why are they always sympathetic to the right?  They should just state that they are conservatives and own it.

Out of curiosity, as a moderate, what DO you support on the democratic side?  How about the republican side?  I hate that there are "sides" but it's just a reality under the current political structure. 

I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, working in tech for the past 20 yrs after transitioning to the Guard.  By Massachusetts standards, I'm a conservative.  By USAF standards, I'm a raging liberal. Individual liberty (including 2nd Amendment), strong military/diplomacy ("...provide for the common defense..."), broad individual liberty, limited-use safety net ("...promote the general welfare...").  As a developed country, we should be able to provide healthcare not tied to employment.  Investment in public education as it is a key means to beat China with whom we are at economic war.   

Edited January 20, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[FLEA]

26 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Understood.  However, since Weinsteins' content is consistently 95%+ complaining about democrats and agreeing with conservative positions then perhaps they aren't democrats as they claim.  My cynical side thinks that Brett and Eric, as well as Tulsi and Rogan are not liberal (classical or otherwise). They may say so to help maximize their audience, but then why are they always sympathetic to the right?  They should just state that they are conservatives and own it.

Out of curiosity, as a moderate, what DO you support on the democratic side?  How about the republican side?  I hate that there are "sides" but it's just a reality under the current political structure. 

I consider myself a left-leaning moderate, working in tech for the past 20 yrs after transitioning to the Guard.  By Massachusetts standards, I'm a conservative.  By USAF standards, I'm a raging liberal. Individual liberty (including 2nd Amendment), strong military/diplomacy ("...provide for the common defense..."), broad individual liberty, limited-use safety net ("...promote the general welfare...").  As a developed country, we should be able to provide healthcare not tied to employment.  Investment in public education as it is a key means to beat China with whom we are at economic war.   

You and I are probably really similar. On the left right spectrum I'm -2 and on the authoritarian / libertarian spectrum I'm -1 (slightly more libertarian). 

Yet I generally vote Republican. One reason is, is because like you, I'm very strong on the 2A and the democratic party is literally willing to do nothing to defend it or even recognize it's purposes. 

But as you know, both parties carry a moving goal post. And everytime they move it the 50 yard line changes. That is going to cause some people to have a hard time deciding. 

 

Edited January 20, 2021 by FLEA

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

You and I are probably really similar. On the left right spectrum I'm -2 and on the authoritarian / libertarian spectrum I'm -1 (slightly more libertarian). 

Yet I generally vote Republican. One reason is, is because like you, I'm very strong on the 2A and the democratic party is literally willing to do nothing to defend it or even recognize it's purposes. 

But as you know, both parties carry a moving goal post. And everytime they move it the 50 yard line changes. That is going to cause some people to have a hard time deciding. 

 

Good point.  To some extent, I think the right uses the 2nd Amendment and the left uses abortion as scare tactics.  For example, the left used the newly right-leaning SCOTUS to scare their base that the Roe v Wade will be overturned. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were nominated more for their pro-large business support than morality perspectives. Abortion is probably #19 on Gorsuch's priorities, after "lunch at Occidental".   On the 2A, any democrat outside a big northeast or west coast city knows that it is a reality.  In fact, I was even able to get a carry permit in (the people's republic of) Boston.  I did have to interview with a city detective, shoot at the police range, and then wait four weeks. The latter was a PITA but the interview and shooting didn't bother me too much.   In fact, the police were pretty cool about it - let me try a Glock and AR. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, jazzdude said:

If far right conservatives want to have a social media outlet, maybe they should try harder and not just whine. Especially if they don't want government limiting their speech. And if there's demand for that service, it shouldn't be hard to get a business started around providing that service.

End 230...period DOT.

[SocialD]

Remember when news stations used sound off at the end of the night with a waving American flag and the National Anthem?  We need more of that and less 24 hours entertainment "news."

[slackline]

20 minutes ago, SocialD said:

Remember when news stations used sound off at the end of the night with a waving American flag and the National Anthem?  We need more of that and less 24 hours entertainment "news."

I so wish we could close that Pandora's box...

[jazzdude]

Remember when news stations used sound off at the end of the night with a waving American flag and the National Anthem?  We need more of that and less 24 hours entertainment "news."

But the latter makes more money...

Plus the old away you remember nestled the news in between entertainment, with fewer network/channel competitors. News and entertainment shows have both managed to break apart from each other and sustain themselves separately, and theirs a lot more competition. This makes that older model harder to do, outside of local channels/networks, with their news being locally focused.

[kaputt]

I liked most of Biden’s speech. Only dislike was it seems like the democrats are already setting up the white supremacist/domestic terror line as their distraction crutch if some of their other policy moves don’t play out as successfully as they hope. Otherwise, I think he genuinely wishes to lower the temperature and try and make the country more united. 
 

That being said, I am highly skeptical that others in his party wish the same and I’m also skeptical of his ability to manage those same people. There are a few republicans that worry me as well who will likely not play ball simply because the other team is in power.  
 

The next two years are going to be really interesting. Probably the most challenging period we’ve had for a new President in a long while. I truly wish him the best and hope he succeeds, but I would be lying if I said I wasn’t worried about where the country may head. 

[busdriver]

11 hours ago, slackline said:

 My big gripe is the reinforcement of executive power that tacitly happens when he does all this.  Congress basically allows it to continue by never saying/doing anything.  It's a problem. 

I was naively hoping Trump in the white house would piss off the Democrats enough for them to strip powers from the executive.  Joke's on me, the hate kabuki got him out and set them up to ramp up the EO party.

[ViperMan]

12 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Congress doesn't really directly let it continue-the political parties allow it to continue. Either because they: a. support the action (maybe not personally, but to retain good standing and support from the party for continued reelection), b. because they can't get enough traction to do anything because option a., or c. They don't want to challenge the power so it's there when they can take control of that power because option a.

It's because it's their turn now. That's all it is. Next time, it'll be someone else's turn.

[ViperMan]

6 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

End 230...period DOT.

I think that's a mistake - it would destroy the internet as we know it. This message board, and others like it would likely be collateral damage, as now the owners, administrators would be liable for whatever gets posted up here - legal or illegal.

A much cleaner kill, and IMO the right move, would be to regulate portions of Amazon's business (i.e. AWS, etc)...ala AT&T and their phone business.

[ViperMan]

8 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Understood.  However, since Weinsteins' content is consistently 95%+ complaining about democrats and agreeing with conservative positions then perhaps they aren't democrats as they claim.  My cynical side thinks that Brett and Eric, as well as Tulsi and Rogan are not liberal (classical or otherwise). They may say so to help maximize their audience, but then why are they always sympathetic to the right?  They should just state that they are conservatives and own it.

The only reason any of us know Bret Weinstein's name is because he had the temerity to call a spade a spade when he stood up to the extreme, racist, left wing mob that attempted to enact a "day without white people" on his campus. He (rightfully) took a stand against that effort and has been in the limelight ever since. Probably because he's not woke enough. So most of his exposure on the internet is derivative of that one-off event, hence why 95% of it is complaining about democrats...since it was a reaction to democrats.

It's the same fundamental story behind Jordan Petersen. These are "normal" guys (professors, scientists, etc.) who wake up one morning and go "WTF is going on around here?" and they call it out. Call me crazy, but we need more of that. For goodness sakes, he's an evolutionary biologist at Evergreen State College...none of that suggests secret conservative mastermind.

And the only reason we hear about him via Joe Rogan (left, right, centerish) and Sam Harris (leftish) is because no one on the true "left" wants to engage in an honest way with what he's saying. That says way more about the left than it does about Bret Weinstein and it certainly doesn't implicate him as a (gasp) conservative.

[Negatory]

I don't see how ending 230 is actually going to help. In my eyes, ending 230 protections would have one of two effects:

1) Companies are more wary of being sued, and they actually censor a lot more stuff based on their opinions of what is right and wrong

2) Companies try to maintain neutrality by allowing literally anything and everything, turning the whole internet into 4chan

[Pooter]

15 hours ago, Swamp Yankee said:

That is very true.  Anyone can develop a social media platform.  If you have the financial means, technical acumen, and business savvy to build a great platform, you'll succeed. If not, well, thems the breaks in the free-market innovation economy.   

The free market is amazing (for businesses I personally agree with.) For example: I fully support businesses' constitutional right to not bake gay wedding cakes or refuse service to certain minorities.

But the idea a business could deny internet service to a seditious mob actively inciting violence is simply a bridge too far.  

[pbar]

On 1/17/2021 at 12:11 PM, nsplayr said:

I actual have a personal jihad against self checkout at stores, especially grocery stores when I always seem to have a ton of items in the cart. I do not work at the grocery store, nor do I want to!

 

Who the hell at Walmart decided that was a good idea?  I mean seriously, have they ever been to a buffet line!?!  Same fools that are loading their plate one kernel of corn at a time now are gonna self-checkout in an expeditious manner?  YGBSM.  Now going to Walmart takes 3 times as long.   <rant switch off>

 

[ClearedHot]

6 hours ago, ViperMan said:

I think that's a mistake - it would destroy the internet as we know it. This message board, and others like it would likely be collateral damage, as now the owners, administrators would be liable for whatever gets posted up here - legal or illegal.

A much cleaner kill, and IMO the right move, would be to regulate portions of Amazon's business (i.e. AWS, etc)...ala AT&T and their phone business.

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, pbar said:

Who the hell at Walmart decided that was a good idea?  I mean seriously, have they ever been to a buffet line!?!  Same fools that are loading their plate one kernel of corn at a time now are gonna self-checkout in an expeditious manner?  YGBSM.  Now going to Walmart takes 3 times as long.   <rant switch off>

 

I really like it for running into a grocery story to just buy 1-3 things. It is a great option over having to wait in line behind families with cart fulls of groceries. They probably need to put an item limit on it, but grocery stores are probably unlikely to do that. 

[FLEA]

55 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Maybe the internet as we know it should be destroyed.  As it stands there are a few tech conglomerates that control EVERYTHING and they have shown they are willing to silence free speech.  Many are troubled by them banning Trump (complete overkill as they respond to the mob), but i am more concerned about the double standard because they are picking sides.  The did nothing when Madonna said "I want to burn down the White House, the did nothing when Kathy Girffin stood there with the severed head of Trump, they did nothing when BLM rolled out their "Fry police like bacon" chat, they did nothing when BLM and other extreme groups burned cities and attacked Government property this summer....all of these acts inciting violence but it happened on the other side of the political aisle.  MOST concerning is they silenced the NY Post when they published the story about Hunter Biden's laptop...calling it fake news when in fact it is true and there is an active federal investigation.  If these few companies that control our access to information can choose sides and determine what we are allowed to see then our system is done.  I am stunned that more people on here are not shocked...you took and oath to the Constitution, not a political party...you should be appalled that we have abdicated control of the free press to Jack Dorsey, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook.

I think this is my issue. It's not neccessarily that they are censoring, but the FCC has special rules and provisions that giveany tech and telecom companies de facto monopolies. Telling conservatives to build their own social network is near impossible, as they need all the infrastructure and cloud behind it as well, plus a search engine and everything else that brings traffic. 

[jazzdude]

The free market is amazing (for businesses I personally agree with.) For example: I fully support businesses' constitutional right to not bake gay wedding cakes or refuse service to certain minorities.
But the idea a business could deny internet service to a seditious mob actively inciting violence is simply a bridge too far.  

Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...

Getting kicked off Facebook or twitter is not being kicked off the internet. You still have options to express yourself-build a website, forums, etc. Using a phone example, someone or some business blocking your number in their phone because they think you're annoying does not mean your ability to communicate by phone has been restricted.

Getting kicked off AWS or Azure because Amazon or Microsoft do not support your business is not the same as being kicked off the internet. You can use your own computer to host your website, and then scale up to bigger and better servers if it becomes popular. It's like losing phone voicemail hosted by a third party-you can still make and receive calls, but you lost a service you wanted that makes your ability to communicate with incoming calls easier. You can always buy an answering machine if you want that voicemail service.

Comcast or Verizon blocking your internet service based on the the traffic they see on your home network, or your opinions expressed elsewhere, is what being kicked off the internet means. This would be getting cut off from using the phone.