hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2631 of 2848 FirstFirst ... 163121312531258126212628262926302631263226332634264126812731 ... LastLast
Results 52,601 to 52,620 of 56951

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #52601
    dzajic's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 15, 2011
    Posts
    3,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    It is rare, but sometimes the Trump administration does something I agree with. Although in this case, it is for less-than-noble reasons.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1LT2PQ

    Trump's antitrust enforcer considers shifting up a gear

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, which stops mergers it believes will push up prices, signaled Thursday he was willing to consider tougher enforcement, a move that could affect high profile big tech companies but also energy producers, drug makers and a big swath of the U.S. economy.

    Joseph Simons, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to head the FTC in October 2017 and began work in May, noted in a brief speech that during two previous stints at the FTC, most recently as head of the Bureau of Competition, there had been a tendency to take a relatively hands off approach to antitrust enforcement.

    “But now at the beginning of my third stint at the commission, things have shifted. The broad antitrust consensus that has existed within the antitrust community in a relatively stable form for about 25 years is being challenged,” he said at a conference organized by the FTC.

    “First, some recent economic literature concludes that the U.S. economy has grown more concentrated and less competitive over the last 20 to 30 years, which happens to correlate with the timing of a change to a less enforcement-minded antitrust policy, beginning in the 1980s,” he said. “These concerns merit serious attention.”

    Simons also noted calls for antitrust to address issues of income inequality and lagging wages, and said that this would also be discussed.

    “We do this with the goal of understanding if our current enforcement policies are on the right track or on the wrong track, and if they are on the wrong track, what shall we do to improve them?” he said, noting that he was keeping “a very open mind.”

    Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat on the five-member commission, noted in a tweet a Roosevelt Institute study showing relatively few big companies dominate markets ranging from airlines to pharmaceuticals, saying “@FTC is listening.”

    ......
    Bullshit. If any antitrust action is taken it will be against Amazon, Google and Facebook. Not against anyone else. All of Trump's and GOP's antitrust talk is just a way to silence media they cant fully control. Even after Google and Facebook let Russians and Cambridge Analytica "play" and help Trump win.

  2. #52602
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,658
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?


  3. #52603

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    10,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    Should a bar kick out a drunk guy who yells obscenities?

  4. #52604
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should businesses be allowed to remove people from their services?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    :thinking:

  5. #52605
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    Should a bar kick out a drunk guy who yells obscenities?
    Being intoxicated in public is illegal, as is shouting obscenities in some jurisdictions.

    Unpopular speech is not.

    I'll ask you a more apt comparison question: Should the NFL be allowed to silence any and all unpopular (as they define it) protest/kneeling/speech of it's players AND paying game attendees?


  6. #52606
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,638
    People silently kneeling for the flag != people calling for race war, ethnic cleansing, villifying the press as the “enemy of the people” etc.
    Last edited by Lachesis VII; September 13 2018 at 11:17:36 PM.

  7. #52607
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    5,526
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Don Rumata View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    Should a bar kick out a drunk guy who yells obscenities?
    Being intoxicated in public is illegal, as is shouting obscenities in some jurisdictions.

    Unpopular speech is not.

    I'll ask you a more apt comparison question: Should the NFL be allowed to silence any and all unpopular (as they define it) protest/kneeling/speech of it's players AND paying game attendees?
    You're being a melon and damaging your own position every time you post.

  8. #52608
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,638
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ort Lofthus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    GOP senators: No Sessions replacement could get confirmed

    Senate Republicans are in a jam when it comes to Jeff Sessions.

    While resigned to President Donald Trump firing the attorney general after the midterm elections, they suspect that perhaps only a sitting senator could win confirmation as Sessions’ successor — that is, someone they could trust not to interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. But no one from their ranks seems to want the job.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said any new nominee must pledge to protect the Mueller investigation, and that it would help if that person were “somebody from the body or someone who has had experience … or somebody you know personally, you know what you’re getting.” But he said it’s not going to be him, despite private belief among his colleagues he’s eyeing the job.

    “No. I like being a senator. There are plenty of more qualified people than me. Bunches of them, thousands,” Graham said Wednesday.

    Asked about Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, a fellow Senate lawyer who was considered as FBI director, Graham said: “He’d be great if he wanted to do it.”

    No dice, said Cornyn.

    “We already have an attorney general,” said Cornyn, who some colleagues think could be confirmed to succeed Sessions. “I love my job.”

    And Mike Lee (R-Utah), who some Republicans think might be interested in the job, is “very happy” in his current role as senator, a spokesman said.

    With few obvious potential applicants for a job that seems to come with built-in clashes with the president, some senators even suggest Trump might have to nominate a Democrat to have any hope of getting a new attorney general confirmed.

    “Trump may very well want a change,” said retiring Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “If I was the president, I’d even consider picking a Democrat if I thought I couldn’t get anybody else through.”
    Kamala Harris did a good job as AG in Cali.
    I dunno. It always seemed to me that she was always reacting to events and bandwaggoning on causes once the political winds were clear. I don’t recall her ever taking a hard stance that wasn’t popular with the electorate and politically prudent.

    She’s not a dummy, though.
    I don't understand the problem? At least she's responsive to voter concerns.

    From what I read she has taken a harder stance with financial abuses like mortgage fraud. It seems most other prosecutors are totally indifferent to white collar crime these days
    Yeah, she was pretty tough on white collar crime, and abusive landlords in SF.

    Uhhhhh did you guys miss the bit where she refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and his bank for their role in the 2008 scam?

  9. #52609
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    13,658
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    People silently kneeling for the flag != people calling for race war, ethnic cleansing, vilifying the press as the “enemy of the people” etc.
    Translation: Speech I find unpopular should be banned. Speech I like should not.

    Fair enough, I wouldn't equate the general offensiveness of two either, personally.

    But my question was not about the speech itself, it's about giving Corporations a ticket to ban speech in the modern public square of the interwebs and social media platforms as they, not society, deems appropriate.


  10. #52610
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.

  11. #52611
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachesis VII View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ort Lofthus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nordstern View Post
    GOP senators: No Sessions replacement could get confirmed

    Senate Republicans are in a jam when it comes to Jeff Sessions.

    While resigned to President Donald Trump firing the attorney general after the midterm elections, they suspect that perhaps only a sitting senator could win confirmation as Sessions’ successor — that is, someone they could trust not to interfere with special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. But no one from their ranks seems to want the job.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said any new nominee must pledge to protect the Mueller investigation, and that it would help if that person were “somebody from the body or someone who has had experience … or somebody you know personally, you know what you’re getting.” But he said it’s not going to be him, despite private belief among his colleagues he’s eyeing the job.

    “No. I like being a senator. There are plenty of more qualified people than me. Bunches of them, thousands,” Graham said Wednesday.

    Asked about Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas, a fellow Senate lawyer who was considered as FBI director, Graham said: “He’d be great if he wanted to do it.”

    No dice, said Cornyn.

    “We already have an attorney general,” said Cornyn, who some colleagues think could be confirmed to succeed Sessions. “I love my job.”

    And Mike Lee (R-Utah), who some Republicans think might be interested in the job, is “very happy” in his current role as senator, a spokesman said.

    With few obvious potential applicants for a job that seems to come with built-in clashes with the president, some senators even suggest Trump might have to nominate a Democrat to have any hope of getting a new attorney general confirmed.

    “Trump may very well want a change,” said retiring Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “If I was the president, I’d even consider picking a Democrat if I thought I couldn’t get anybody else through.”
    Kamala Harris did a good job as AG in Cali.
    I dunno. It always seemed to me that she was always reacting to events and bandwaggoning on causes once the political winds were clear. I don’t recall her ever taking a hard stance that wasn’t popular with the electorate and politically prudent.

    She’s not a dummy, though.
    I don't understand the problem? At least she's responsive to voter concerns.

    From what I read she has taken a harder stance with financial abuses like mortgage fraud. It seems most other prosecutors are totally indifferent to white collar crime these days
    Yeah, she was pretty tough on white collar crime, and abusive landlords in SF.

    Uhhhhh did you guys miss the bit where she refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin and his bank for their role in the 2008 scam?
    No. As I said in two other posts, it’s the biggest mark in her record. That said, the office did prosecute more white collar crime under her leadership.

  12. #52612
    Lachesis VII's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 20, 2011
    Location
    Egghelende
    Posts
    2,638
    It’s a really big mark. Seriously undermines her credibility on putting rich people who need to be in jail in jail. And I suspect that going to be a major issue in 2020.

  13. #52613
    Movember 2011Movember 2012 Nordstern's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    9,603
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I'll ask you a more apt comparison question: Should the NFL be allowed to silence any and all unpopular (as they define it) protest/kneeling/speech of it's players AND paying game attendees?
    The question we should be asking is "Why does the NFL have this problem, but not the NBA, MLB, NHL or other major US sports body?"
    "Holy shit, I ask you to stop being autistic and you debate what autistic is." - spasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Larkonis Trassler View Post
    WTF I hate white people now...

  14. #52614
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,877
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.
    Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

    Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.

  15. #52615
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.
    Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

    Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.
    Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.
    meh

  16. #52616
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,877
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.
    Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

    Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.
    Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.
    Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.
    And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.

  17. #52617
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.
    Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

    Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.
    Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.
    Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.
    And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.
    This is a massive false equivalence. In one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from the DoD, but their employees are millionaires with a strong union and some of them oppose that, and so they can speak out, and because they are the talent, and its very boring without them, the president froths on twitter.

    In the other one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from other corporations and people promoting all kinds of weird shit, and someone (who is a business, and is taking some of that ad money) starts doing things that are against the terms of service in the first place, and enough people who find it offensive and want it removed from their experience, then I don't know what to tell you. It's like sitting down in a fancy white linen restaurant covered in shit. Are they obliged to serve you?
    meh

  18. #52618
    Approaching Walrus's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 8, 2013
    Posts
    7,877
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.
    Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

    Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.
    Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.
    Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.
    And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.
    This is a massive false equivalence. In one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from the DoD, but their employees are millionaires with a strong union and some of them oppose that, and so they can speak out, and because they are the talent, and its very boring without them, the president froths on twitter.

    In the other one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from other corporations and people promoting all kinds of weird shit, and someone (who is a business, and is taking some of that ad money) starts doing things that are against the terms of service in the first place, and enough people who find it offensive and want it removed from their experience, then I don't know what to tell you. It's like sitting down in a fancy white linen restaurant covered in shit. Are they obliged to serve you?
    I keep seeing this restaurant analogy, but a better analogy would be that of a company buying out the town square and only allowing people who say things they agree with the right to demonstrate there. And when people complain about it, they get told to go to another town square if they have a problem.

    Either the Bill of Rights needs to be applied to speech on social media, or new laws need to be drafted to address it. But companies enforcing arbitrary policies regarding free speech, removing content they don't want without any explanation, banning people without any kind of hearings, is not a just system in any way.
    Last edited by Approaching Walrus; September 14 2018 at 02:05:06 AM.

  19. #52619
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    11,755
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Approaching Walrus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Should corporations be allowed to silence unpopular opinions on their social media platforms?

    Do we trust them to do that, and not abuse it?
    They are welcome to post their nonsense on their own platform. No one is stopping them doing that. If some of the platforms other users complain about offensive nonsense, they have ever right to remove the offensive party. This is not different from reserving the right serve anyone.
    Except they are arguably monopolies right now so you can't go to other platforms.

    Silicon Valley is long overdue for a massive blow from the Antitrust courts.
    Nothing is stopping anybody building a better platform. Why do people keep expecting an application designed to so we can show each other pictures of cats and they can sell data to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have customers. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other media.
    Nothing is stopping those players from kneeling in a different league. Why do people keep expecting a sport known for its overly patriotic displays to be some kind of fucking vehicle of free speech, It's an absurd argument. They have fans. If enough of them complain, you are gone, same as any other sport.
    And this is why the bill of rights should apply to social media companies, who have become the modern version of the public square, and the NFL should not be able to fine players for kneeling either.
    This is a massive false equivalence. In one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from the DoD, but their employees are millionaires with a strong union and some of them oppose that, and so they can speak out, and because they are the talent, and its very boring without them, the president froths on twitter.

    In the other one, a multi billion dollar corporation takes ad money from other corporations and people promoting all kinds of weird shit, and someone (who is a business, and is taking some of that ad money) starts doing things that are against the terms of service in the first place, and enough people who find it offensive and want it removed from their experience, then I don't know what to tell you. It's like sitting down in a fancy white linen restaurant covered in shit. Are they obliged to serve you?
    I keep seeing this restaurant analogy, but a better analogy would be that of a company buying out the town square and only allowing people who say things they agree with the right to demonstrate there. And when people complain about it, they get told to go to another town square if they have a problem.

    Either the Bill of Rights needs to be applied to speech on social media, or new laws need to be drafted to address it. But companies enforcing arbitrary policies regarding free speech, removing content they don't want without any explanation, banning people without any kind of hearings, is not a just system in any way.
    No one bought the town square. They built a restaurant where you are on the menu.
    meh

  20. #52620
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    19,174
    Non-news but I thought it was funny.

    Donald Trump's mangling of 'anonymous' went viral, but we should cut him some slack, an expert says. Presumably because its hard to pronounce things when you are an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •