So Republicans should be down to 50 votes max for the tax scam with Mike Pence the deciding vote but they're going to "Merrick Garland" Doug Jones for this so that he doesn't get a vote.
Seriously, of ALL the provisions that could have been added under the radar, they added a major financial boom to real estate developers. At this point they are just rubbing our nose in it because they can. Now we're just collectively writing a massive check to Donald Trump.
Trump's lawyers have said that the FBI obtained their emails improperly, and the Trump administration should have been able to decide which emails were relevant to Mueller's investigation.
Well, the last time law enforcement allowed a prominent politician to decide which emails were relevant and which were not, 30,000 of them got deleted.
Trump's lawyers have said that the FBI obtained their emails improperly, and the Trump administration should have been able to decide which emails were relevant to Mueller's investigation.
Well, the last time law enforcement allowed a prominent politician to decide which emails were relevant and which were not, 30,000 of them got deleted.
Mueller's investigation did not get them improperly. They were sent from a .gov email server domain, they should have no reasonable expectation of privacy. It is the same as people who send email from their work email addresses. Transition team employees signed a memo of understanding that stipulates that their devices could be monitored. Additionally, The GSA’s Rules of Behavior for Handling Personally Identifiable Information state that “a system manager may disclose your record without your consent under the Privacy Act when the disclosure is to a US law enforcement agency or instrumentality for a civil or criminal law enforcement purpose.”
This whole "illegally got the emails!" thing is rich for Republicans who spent years and millions of dollars on Hillary's emails on a PRIVATE email server. Now that they took over and used a GOVERNMENT email server they are like "omg it's private!" But the whole "illegally got mah emails!" thing is just an attack on Mueller and the FBI to rile up their base who will believe anything they say at this point.
Additionally, while Mueller has been sitting on these emails for months, he has made requests of people involved in the transition to turn over emails. I wonder if they left out the incriminating ones.
An update: Matthew Peterson, the grossly unqualified Trump judicial nominee, has withdrawn. Also, the head of the CDC has confirmed that they were not banned from using certain words.
An update: Matthew Peterson, the grossly unqualified Trump judicial nominee, has withdrawn. Also, the head of the CDC has confirmed that they were not banned from using certain words.
The 7 words were scrubbed and told not to use them to encourage conservative groups and conservatives in congress to fund them. These conservative groups wouldn't fund studies and whatnot if there were those words there. So they were "highly encouraged" not to use those words.
So it is a backdoor type ban basically. Conservatives in power are thought police. The words aren't technically banned but if they use those words then Conservatives won't fund them.
Considering Republicans refused to fund research into the Zika virus when the Obama Administration requested it, it's not even a remote stretch to think they may want to destroy the CDC from the inside as well. I can't think of a single organization that is in less need of this kind of political gamesmanship. The CDC is there so we don't end up like Europe during the Black Death, when 1/3rd of the population died.
Indeed. It's called "discussing what is really truly happening right now." In a nation awash with fake news from the political right, the right wing media, and the alt right, having someone (like @jjstraka34) tell the truth is refreshing.
Promoting every single news item from a corporate-run media which has a systemic bias for your political party of choice, because in fact many of the senior executives are intertwined with political parties, mostly the DNC nowadays, is hardly 'real news' and is more accurately termed 'propaganda' and is pretty much exactly how state-run media works.
And this isn't 'discussing', because discussing requires different points of view, which you don't get if your really just promoting the same viewpoints of the anti-trump side of the media.
You mean like how they abolished slavery even when a whole lot of people were against it and then we have had 200 years of a whole lot of people who don't want to accept it trying to push back through Jim Crow and the KKK and stuff like that? Gay marriage was made the law of the land and how Republicans don't accept it so they voted for a sexual assaulter who promised to put an anti-gay supreme court justice on the supreme court. FDR passed social security and it was so popular that Republicans were so reactionary that they are still trying to abolish it today if they could (Paul Ryan, Rand Paul)
This is a romantic view of the history of slavery, the general turning of the tide against slavery, at least in the West, was a combination of factors tied to the rise of the liberty movement in France, America always having a strong focus on freedom because of the English Monarchy, The English as well, numerous revolts which showed apart from the moral aspect, slavery is a ticking-time-bomb.
This is also not taking into account the Middle-Eastern slave trade, which was by far the biggest and longest in all of history, and that was actually ended by force by the European powers rather then some 'democratic' uprising in the middle-east.
It's ironic that in your post your only critical of the Republican party, because in fact the Republican party actually ended slavery? and the Democrat party is the party of the KKK?
But NOW all of a sudden on nearly EVERY issue that comes up, be it Net Neutrality or this, the GOP is attempting to usurp the rights of blue states on everything from gun and internet regulation to taxation on their own residents.
Net Neutrality has nothing to do with State rights, so this is a bizarre interpretation of the matter, Net Neutrality is giving power to a overarching government body to regulate ISP's.
Net neutrality, like Obamacare, sounds nice until you realize giving Government more control is never a good idea, at least if you care about quality, cost and efficiency.
Let's not get personal here, people. Criticizing public figures, trends, and ideas is fine, but per the Site Rules, your fellow forumites are off-limits.
The general fleeing of anyone with an 'alternate' point of view other then anti-Republican/Trump should have shown you something has gone wrong with this thread for a long time, the fact this hasn't been addressed despite hundreds of pages is startling itself.
There is nothing wrong with posters commenting on this, and you should take it seriously rather then defending what is obviously a downward trend in diverse discussion.
It is in fact quite brave of Ineth to actually post what everyone here knows is a big problem but no one really highlights.
Let's not get personal here, people. Criticizing public figures, trends, and ideas is fine, but per the Site Rules, your fellow forumites are off-limits.
The general fleeing of anyone with an 'alternate' point of view other then anti-Republican/Trump should have shown you something has gone wrong with this thread for a long time, the fact this hasn't been addressed despite hundreds of pages is startling itself.
There is nothing wrong with posters commenting on this, and you should take it seriously rather then defending what is obviously a downward trend in diverse discussion.
It is in fact quite brave of Ineth to actually post what everyone here knows is a big problem but no one really highlights.
If you want to introduce a viewpoint that hasn't been shown enough attention, great. I've been encouraging conservative posters to do exactly that for over a year now, because I've long wanted to see more diversity in this thread.
But that doesn't give anyone an excuse to break the Site Rules. Insulting other forumites is unacceptable no matter where you are on the political spectrum. There is a difference between saying the thread has a liberal bias, and saying something like
But the hate-boner for them that you and a few other commenters seem to have going on, and the constant demonization and jumping-on-every-little-news-bite-with-bad-faith-interpretations-and-outrage, with which you guys seem to have dominated this thread for hundreds of pages and counting, is really something else.
Objecting to the thread's liberal bent is a valid opinion. Insulting other forumites is not.
@ineth: To be clear, I don't mean to call you out by quoting this post; I'm just using it to put my other quote in context. I mention this because I don't want to make you feel like I'm hassling you over this comment. So I apologize in advance if I sound like I'm accusing you; that's not what I'm trying to do here.
I think everyone here is aware of the fact that most of the posts in this thread are left-leaning. No one is under any illusion that this thread is right-leaning or very centrist. But it's not like we've been ganging up on posters like @Balrog99 or @WarChiefZeke or trying to stop them from voicing their opinions. The liberal bent is largely due to @jjstraka34, who happens to post very often.
No one's stopping you from pointing out that the thread skews liberal. I don't view this as a problem in and of itself, but if you do see it as a problem that needs to be solved, you know there's only one solution:
If you want to introduce a viewpoint that hasn't been shown enough attention, great. I've been encouraging conservative posters to do exactly that for over a year now, because I've long wanted to see more diversity in this thread.
The problem isn't 'encouragement', the problem is posters posting in bad faith.
Flooding a thread with anti-republican/anti-trump articles quickly in succcession is posting in bad faith, because by sheer practicality its hard to discuss things when the discussion keeps being 3 pages back hidden under the next flood of posts, because of this type of behaviour.
In many other forums, this is actually considered spam.
And no one is under any illusion that this isn't purposefully done.
But that doesn't give anyone an excuse to break the Site Rules. Insulting other forumites is unacceptable no matter where you are on the political spectrum. There is a difference between saying the thread has a liberal bias, and saying something like
Forgive me if i consider the following of the site rules to be somewhat inconsistant when calling Republicans 'racist' or 'mostly 'racist' or claiming people in the south 'are mostly racist' gets a free pass for a long time, but if i generalized an ethnic minority i would be banned.
Calling out peoples post is hardly 'insulting', of course you can call it a 'obvious liberal bias', and some people would say its a hate-boner against Republicans, hardly much of a distinction when the posts are actually anti-republican rather then pro-liberal (as in real libertarianism).
Im actually surprised that is the content your disagreeing with, i was so perfectly fine with that part i thought you must have been upset by something else.
If people can voice their utter hatred, disdain and insult groups of people in society, i think its fair game that we can call each other out in this thread.
Otherwise you'd have to encourage a dry academic approach to all discussions, which i am totally fine with, but we both know the vast majority of posts would disqualify.
To be quite frank i'd suggest: -Splitting off another thread called 'criticism and why you hate Trump' so people can at least post in a thread that is honest with their intentions. -Start a new clean thread, because many people don't want to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole with its absurd bias, spam and tribal posting. -Stop participating in threads you moderate because you give the semblance of a conflict of interest -Tell people to knock off the obvious spam to evidently derail a thread so badly that literally no other other country or their politics has a chance of discussion because the intent is to flood it with so much anti-trump articles no one can read or talk about anything else.
The fact this has been going on as the norm for...a year, is amazing.
To be quite frank i'd suggest: -Splitting off another thread called 'criticism and why you ha at least post in a thread that is honest with their intentions. -Start a new clean thread, because many people don't want to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole with its absurd bias, spam and tribal posting. -Stop participating in threads you moderate because you give the semblance of a conflict of interest -Tell people to knock off the obvious spam to evidently derail a thread so badly that literally no other other country or their politics has a chance of discussion because the intent is to flood it with so much anti-trump articles no one can read or talk about anything else.
The fact this has been going on as the norm for...a year, is amazing.
So you want to frankly: - censor what opinions can be posted here
- many people don't touch this thread because politics can get heated. I personally am glad when others do stop in and talk about what is happening in their country but to suggest its due to the liberal bent is misleading. If you've personally heard from any one who would like to participate but are afraid to do so becuase they feel they'll be harassed feel free to have them message @JuliusBorisov
- once again, you are censoring a person's ability to participate.
- i do fondly remember another poster spamming this thead with roght leaning articles before trump got elected and slightly afterwards. I think that poster said he was just throwing out articles to see whay stuck. I do not see what is different about @jjstraka's posts and theirs. TBH, I mostly skim his and @smeagolheart's posts.
----
And welcome back.
I am curious to hear what you personally think os going to happen in about 5 years after net neutrality is disbanded.
The internet is typically controled by a few companies/corporations in each country, usually the ones who was able to set up the infrastruture to provide to the population. These companies tend to hold a monopoly on the internet which doesn't allow new businesses to set up shop and compete for business from consumers. This lack of competition forces prices up, not down.
With Net Neutrality as well, your internet provider can eliminate your way to shop for a replacement provider of you are unhappy with the service you are recieving.
It use to be similar here in Canada as well where there was two, equally despised companies that controlled internet, cable and cellular service. It was government intervention that opened up competition, regulated a standard of service which allowed smaller companies to start setting up shop.
The big two weren't happy, but it forced them to provide better services to the public and changed (some-what) how they treated their clients as the public had more options than two options.
So with net neutrality disbanding, do you honestly think consumers will recieve better service from their providers?
I've reached the height of my amusement. We are now seeing a call for a "fairness doctrine" in the thread, from the same political side that argues about PC culture. And apparently we should also now restrict talk of Trump to it's own thread. This is the lifeboats coming in. No one wants to take responsibility for a year of disaster, so Trump has to be viewed as "different" or "separate" from the Republican Party and normal politics. This is 2009 Tea Party 101.
It's not that hard to post frequently. We have computers and smart-phones. I write out everything I say in my head before I type it. I type fast. And I archive information I want to use in a debate. I manage to post this often while spending almost 45 hours a week at work. Not difficult.
As for other countries, I gladly participated in long discussions of the French and British elections. I ask questions of our Canadian posters. I enjoy it when our Polish poster chimes in. It's clear most posters are from the US, so US politics dominates. But yeah, by all means, let's divorce the President of the United States and the ruling party from that discussion. No liberal poster here has ever remotely suggested conservative views be thrown to a different thread. But WE'RE the ones who stifle speech and are overly poltically correct. Gotcha. Honestly, this made my day.
I'm not surprised it came to this, because it was entirely predictable. I'm actually rather delighted. It reveals the whole "free speech absolutism" as nothing but a cudgel to control debate. But when it's an away game against a strong opponent, it doesn't work, so the rules must be changed and goalposts moved out of the stadium.
If you're into sports, this is called "working the refs". When the game or debate swing a certain way, attack the rules themselves, and make THAT the issue. I should probably stop. I have no idea at what point this post becomes spam.
To be quite frank i'd suggest: -Stop participating in threads you moderate because you give the semblance of a conflict of interest
I am the mod of the current events/news/politics forum on a different board and I participate in *every* thread there. You may call it "conflict of interest" but I call it "engaging with posters". All things considered, this forum is quite fair and treats posters with respect. I have seen mods over at MTGSalvation lock threads and issue warnings simply because a poster stated an opinion with which the mod personally disagreed.
*************
Was it possible to use AT&T's Internet service to shop for service from a different provider before Net Neutrality? Yes? Then it will be possible to do so now that those regulations are no longer in place. This is what most people fail to understand--the Internet now will be like it was in 2014 before the rules were put in place: a few bad spots here and there but for the most part the providers didn't care what you were doing or where you were going as long as you paid your bill.
@vanatos Although @semitcgod is a moderator he is also subject to the forum rules. You may be sure there is no conflict of interest. He is not the only mod reading this thread, although not all of us participate in it, and if he breaks the rules he will be subject to the same rules everyone else is.
We never had to punish a moderator in this forum and I don't think @semitcgod would do anything to be the first.
To be quite frank i'd suggest: -Stop participating in threads you moderate because you give the semblance of a conflict of interest
I am the mod of the current events/news/politics forum on a different board and I participate in *every* thread there. You may call it "conflict of interest" but I call it "engaging with posters". All things considered, this forum is quite fair and treats posters with respect. I have seen mods over at MTGSalvation lock threads and issue warnings simply because a poster stated an opinion with which the mod personally disagreed.
*************
Was it possible to use AT&T's Internet service to shop for service from a different provider before Net Neutrality? Yes? Then it will be possible to do so now that those regulations are no longer in place. This is what most people fail to understand--the Internet now will be like it was in 2014 before the rules were put in place: a few bad spots here and there but for the most part the providers didn't care what you were doing or where you were going as long as you paid your bill.
As i said. I've heard the doom and gloom predictions but I haven't really heard the other side. I really can't wait to see what its like for the states in 5 years after this repeal.
As I said as well. Canada (Ontario) was controlled by a dualopy for a long time that stifled competition and robbed customers blind with their service. It wasn't until government intervention that things changed.
If you think a corporations have consumers best interest at heart instead of elected officials then go all for it. I have witnessed where it isn't and I think the states with this repeal will take a step backwards.
I am also failing to see what was actually broken that this had to be repealed. I can see how companies can use this repeal against their competition and not just at the provider level.
Like if this was to happen in Canada, I could see both Bell and Rogers throttle Netflix as Netflix has taken a huge chunk out of their cable subscriptions and they'd promote their own streaming service as faster. They could push Netflix out of the market if they were allowed to do this. Netflix wasn't as popular as it was in 2014 as it is now.
But we'll see. I am just glad my government isn't doing this.
If you think a corporations have consumers best interest at heart instead of elected officials then go all for it. I have witnessed where it isn't and I think the states with this repeal will take a step backwards.
The difference between corporations and governments is this: a corporation wants only your money while government wants your obedience. Giving away money to a corporation might sometimes hurt in the short term but at least there are ways of petitioning to have your money returned to you--return the good purchased, file a customer complaint, etc. Once you give away your obedience to a government, once you become its subject and/or servant, however...well, the only ways to recover your freedoms are difficult and often come with an extremely high price tag. Finally, a government can put a corporation in check with a majority vote of legislators but who can put a government in check?
The whole point is this: I don't necessarily trust corporations but I certainly don't trust governments. If you think governments have the best interest of their citizens at heart then you (not you, personally, but the generic "you") are dangerously naive.
If you think a corporations have consumers best interest at heart instead of elected officials then go all for it. I have witnessed where it isn't and I think the states with this repeal will take a step backwards.
The difference between corporations and governments is this: a corporation wants only your money while government wants your obedience. Giving away money to a corporation might sometimes hurt in the short term but at least there are ways of petitioning to have your money returned to you--return the good purchased, file a customer complaint, etc. Once you give away your obedience to a government, once you become its subject and/or servant, however...well, the only ways to recover your freedoms are difficult and often come with an extremely high price tag. Finally, a government can put a corporation in check with a majority vote of legislators but who can put a government in check?
The whole point is this: I don't necessarily trust corporations but I certainly don't trust governments. If you think governments have the best interest of their citizens at heart then you (not you, personally, but the generic "you") are dangerously naive.
But you are giving the obedience away to corporations as well.
You can not return a service. A company can also refuse to return a product as well. They have your money, they don't care. They care even less when they know you can not get the product or service anywhere else.
And who would you file the customer complaint against, if not a governing body that can regulate it?
At least in democratically elected governments, issues that society has needs to be addressed or the public will elect officials who will address them.
And once again; what was so bad about net neutrality that it needed to be repealed? How did it directly hinder the companies providing the service?
The reason there haven't been any major moves by the telcoms BEFORE 2015 is because they were waiting to see if it would be regulated under Title II (no point in pissing off customers anymore than they do if they are gonna have to walk it back). In 2015, the rules were laid out. The internet was designated like phone service, and while telcoms could provide your ability to connect to the internet, once you were on the web, it was your playground. Now the rules have been SPECIFICALLY changed so they can alter the playground. How fast streaming is on certain sites, whether you can access certain sites AT ALL without paying a premium fee is now up to their discretion. Moreover, language was put in place that seeks to prevent individual states from implementing their own regulations that mirror Net Neutrality. Comcast and Time Warner have near monopolies on internet access in some parts of the country. You do the math. They'll squeeze the public dry.
None of the other conservative posters have issued demands that I discourage liberals from speaking out about Trump. The correct approach is @WarChiefZeke's approach, which is to directly engage the subject matter and offer a counterpoint. @WarChiefZeke isn't afraid to voice his opinion here; why should anyone else be?
And no one is under any illusion that this isn't purposefully done.
If you think somebody is going out of their way to bully conservative posters, you can report it via the Flag button on the lower right corner of any post. Moderators make decisions based on specific posts; you'll need to point to an example of harassment for us to take action on it.
Forgive me if i consider the following of the site rules to be somewhat inconsistant when calling Republicans 'racist' or 'mostly 'racist' or claiming people in the south 'are mostly racist' gets a free pass for a long time, but if i generalized an ethnic minority i would be banned.
The Site Rules specify that "unapologetic bigotry" is not allowed on the forum. As it happens, we've had to crack down on posts that show bigotry against everyone from Muslims to Republicans. If you go through the thread, you can see me speaking in-thread multiple times against the generalization and/or demonization of conservatives.
-Splitting off another thread called 'criticism and why you hate Trump' so people can at least post in a thread that is honest with their intentions. -Start a new clean thread, because many people don't want to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole with its absurd bias, spam and tribal posting. -Stop participating in threads you moderate because you give the semblance of a conflict of interest -Tell people to knock off the obvious spam to evidently derail a thread so badly that literally no other other country or their politics has a chance of discussion because the intent is to flood it with so much anti-trump articles no one can read or talk about anything else.
For almost 400 pages, I've been encouraging (1) explicitly encouraging conservatives to post here, defending conservatives (2) as a group and (3) as individuals, and (4) I've personally expressed conservative viewpoints in this thread. What I will NOT do is abuse moderator privilege by cracking down on liberal posters.
Just because large numbers of people disagree with you doesn't mean they're out to get you. And if you want to change the course of the thread, make your own arguments about politics. Don't demand special treatment from moderators.
To quote former president Obama, "Don't boo. Vote."
But you are giving the obedience away to corporations as well.
You can not return a service. A company can also refuse to return a product as well. They have your money, they don't care. They care even less when they know you can not get the product or service anywhere else.
And who would you file the customer complaint against, if not a governing body that can regulate it?
At least in democratically elected governments, issues that society has needs to be addressed or the public will elect officials who will address them.
And once again; what was so bad about net neutrality that it needed to be repealed? How did it directly hinder the companies providing the service?
The first statement is wildly inaccurate because no one ever becomes obedient to a corporation. Once I buy a coffee I can walk out of the corporation's individual location and our interaction has reached its conclusion--if I never go back in to another one of their shops they cannot force me to do so and I am under no obligation to give them any more money. I can walk away and there is nothing they can do about it.
I agree--services cannot be returned, which is why I didn't say that. Usually, though, customer complaints begin with the customer service department of the corporation; some of them are really good about working with customers to make the situation right and others are horrible. Only when those options all fail--incidentally, I don't know where some people thought that calling the President of a company does any good, but it doesn't--do you sometimes have a government agency to which you may turn.
I suppose I should phrase the situation differently. When a corporation screws you over there are things you can do about it--try to get your money back, boycott the corporation, etc. When a government screws you over you are just screwed. If your grandfather's farm got bought because it sat where the right-of-way for the new high-speed rail line is going to be laid (in a few years...maybe) then your grandfather (or you, if you are in control of it because he died and left the land to you) is just out of luck--he has no choice but to take the money and he will never get that land back. The only "customer service" department the government has is the voting booth, but even then your concerns may still never be addressed if the majority of voters disagree with you.
*************
I never said that NN was bad and needed to be repealed. My only point about NN was that most people are *not* going to notice any difference now that the regulations are not in place. Besides, a future Administration can reinstate them as easily as they were struck down.
@vanatos Although @semitcgod is a moderator he is also subject to the forum rules. You may be sure there is no conflict of interest. He is not the only mod reading this thread, although not all of us participate in it, and if he breaks the rules he will be subject to the same rules everyone else is.
Mods participating in threads they moderate is a conflict of interest, and appears as a conflict of interest, this is one of the most basic guidelines of modding that its ridiculous to even argue it.
Especially in discussions relating to politics/religion.
It amuses me that this is defended since it is flat out incorrect, i don't care too much if SemiticGod participates since i'll call him out as a participant but this is such an obvious guideline is funny for you to defend it.
The proper honest reply is to admit it is a conflict of interest but its allowed anyway because we all want to have fun and have a casual atmosphere, not to try and say it isn't.
In the real world, this is a strong rule for virtually any cases where your in a position to put down rulings and judgements (ie judges, cops etc).
If you think somebody is going out of their way to bully conservative posters, you can report it via the Flag button on the lower right corner of any post. Moderators make decisions based on specific posts; you'll need to point to an example of harassment for us to take action on it.
I don't go for moderator reporting, because as you seem to suggest encouraging, we should participate in the thread heavily, therein you contradict your own approach.
Thats why it is wrong for you to call out Ineth as breaking site rules, there is Nothing wrong with highlighting someones posting as being heavily skewed towards being anti-republican when it is blatantly true to everyone.
As a moderator, you should publicly apologize because you are wrong, the problem isn't even that it is untrue, the problem is that you don't like its brutal honesty.
The correct approach is @WarChiefZeke's approach, which is to directly engage the subject matter and offer a counterpoint. @WarChiefZeke isn't afraid to voice his opinion here; why should anyone else be?
Correct, which means you admit you are wrong in this, because Ineth was posting a brutally obviously true obersvation. Offer a counter-point, don't try to come in and waive warnings of rule-breaking if your a participant of the thread as well, you don't get to do both without criticism.
And to close, jjstraka34 posts and articles he links is heavily anti-republican and he makes no effort to hide his hate-boner for that side, especially when there is a history of accusing them as 'racists' as well in this thread, Can you clarify if i broke the rules for this comment?
As it happens, we've had to crack down on posts that show bigotry against everyone from Muslims to Republicans. If you go through the thread, you can see me speaking in-thread multiple times against the generalization and/or demonization of conservatives.
Evidently ineffective since that has been the norm throughout the entire thread and hasn't abated, i especially don't recall moderator actions when the postings turned to calling Republicans racist, it fell to posters calling people out repeatedly publicly, which is no different to what Ineth is doing.
There aren't nearly as many staunchly liberal posters here as is made out. 4 as far as I can tell: me, @smeagolheart, @BelleSorciere, and @BillyYank . @Mathsorcerer is an analytical libertarian. @deltago and @Grond0 offer a range of opinions. @WarChiefZeke represents the faction of the right disgusted by liberalism. @Balrog99 is conservative and has gone so far as to invite me to Michigan for a beer, and praised the tolerant atmosphere compared to most of the web. We even have a Communist who chimes in once a month about revolution. There are clearly others, but 90% of the posts come from these people and the moderator. Moreover, it only stands to reason those on the left will post more, since they are out of power and have more to complain about. If this thread had taken off during the Obama years, the opposite may have been true.
I suppose I should phrase the situation differently. When a corporation screws you over there are things you can do about it--try to get your money back, boycott the corporation, etc. When a government screws you over you are just screwed. If your grandfather's farm got bought because it sat where the right-of-way for the new high-speed rail line is going to be laid (in a few years...maybe) then your grandfather (or you, if you are in control of it because he died and left the land to you) is just out of luck--he has no choice but to take the money and he will never get that land back. The only "customer service" department the government has is the voting booth, but even then your concerns may still never be addressed if the majority of voters disagree with you.
@Mathsorcerer this doesn't ring true to me. That may be partly due to differences between the UK and US, but I think even in the US you're being too pessimistic. The 'government' is not one monolithic entity, but a whole range of them set up with the intention of having a balance of powers - local / national, executive / judicial / legislative. As an example, if your farm were compulsorily purchased, then there could be potential redress from the legal system (for instance if the purchase were motivated by malice or corruption or procedures had not been properly followed).
That doesn't mean I think appealing against a government decision is a simple thing to do, but neither is appealing against a corporate decision. Walking away is certainly an easy option if you're talking about buying coffee from a particular shop in a city. It's not so easy though if there is no other source for the service you want in your area (which is more like the situation @deltago was describing).
By your standards of course I am dangerously naive as I do believe that my government generally does have the best interests of its citizens at heart . As I work for a local authority I am, in a very small way, part of that government. I think the idea of a 'public service ethos' has weakened during my working lifetime, but I still have absolutely no doubt that the majority of people who work for the government would genuinely say they are trying to help people.
I am curious to hear what you personally think os going to happen in about 5 years after net neutrality is disbanded.
The internet is typically controled by a few companies/corporations in each country, usually the ones who was able to set up the infrastruture to provide to the population. These companies tend to hold a monopoly on the internet which doesn't allow new businesses to set up shop and compete for business from consumers. This lack of competition forces prices up, not down.
With Net Neutrality as well, your internet provider can eliminate your way to shop for a replacement provider of you are unhappy with the service you are recieving.
It use to be similar here in Canada as well where there was two, equally despised companies that controlled internet, cable and cellular service. It was government intervention that opened up competition, regulated a standard of service which allowed smaller companies to start setting up shop.
The big two weren't happy, but it forced them to provide better services to the public and changed (some-what) how they treated their clients as the public had more options than two options.
So with net neutrality disbanding, do you honestly think consumers will recieve better service from their providers?
Thanks,
What will happen with net neutrality disbanded, nothing? the internet was fine before it (actually free-er) and it will be fine after it.
The notion of ISP's throttling you in some way is simply an argument of bad service, it is retarded to even consider the natural solution is brutal government intervention when we already know the proper solution in virtually every other industry and market is to promote competition so consumers have choices they can go to if ISP's throttle you in some way.
In this scenario is really a classic case of different ideological approaches to handling goods and services, do you lean towards the free market or towards complete Government control?
I prefer free market mainly, and Government Control for extreme and rare cases.
Consumer redress as a separate issue doesn't even need Government intervention either, nominally consumer redress can easily, and should be dealt with by the courts because it becomes a natural civil case, Government bodies as watchdogs merely exist (ideally) as proactive enforcement, and it almost never works out that way either as they become bloated or corrupted, and consumer-groups have traditionally filled that role anyway.
The issue of some countries having only a few ISP's therefore there exists i suppose a duopoly as a counter-point is actually wrong, virtually all instances of this is exactly because of the problem of Government intervention in some way which causes a 'monopoly', which causes said problem, so promoting more Government intervention doesn't even make sense and only logically means you would be promoting the problem instead of solving it.
I'm not surprised it came to this, because it was entirely predictable. I'm actually rather delighted. It reveals the whole "free speech absolutism" as nothing but a cudgel to control debate. But when it's an away game against a strong opponent, it doesn't work, so the rules must be changed and goalposts moved out of the stadium.
Free speech doesn't relate to spamming threads on an internet forums, and theres never been a case of "free speech absolutism" anywhere, because no society has ever tolerated giving your war plans to the enemy for 'free speech'.
I imagine your making up an imaginary case of your oppositional side to argue against.
And you have been spamming this entire thread with consistently anti-trump and anti-republican articles, that has been fairly obvious to everyone.
Glad to have you back! I think the problem you are addressing is just due to the fact that there a more than average number of liberal thinkers posting on this thread. I've never felt bullied or intimidated by this however so I do think @semiticgod is doing a good job moderating. I don't mind him posting either. I like hearing other people's views and generally don't feel threatened by them unless I'm being bullied (even then I don't really take cyberbullying all that seriously - I'm old enough to remember what physical bullying felt like). I'm not enough of a Trump fan to put up much of a fight here myself, but I'll welcome you back to the fray. It'll be nice to get your viewpoint again so I'll eagerly await your insights...
I think @semiticgod is doing a good job too generally, but i do call him out in emphasis merely because i hold moderators to a high standard above everyone else.
I DEFY you to find even ONE link to an article or tweet I have posted all year that didn't have a personal addendum.
The problem is that this thread isn't about solely America or Trump even if they are prominent, but it is pretty clear to everyone that the total spamming of anti-trump/Republican articles has one-sided this entire thread that discussions of other countries and their politics is rare to nonexistent.
And you honestly have been spamming this for quite awhile, it wasn't long ago that you consistently linked his tweets and peoples anti-tweets on top of your typical hyper-partisan anti-trump articles, even if you sometimes link genuinely interesting things, admittedly thats being pretty spammy.
As an observer, the unfortunate effect is the railroading of the thread.
There aren't nearly as many staunchly liberal posters here as is made out. 4 as far as I can tell: me, @smeagolheart, @BelleSorciere, and @BillyYank . @Mathsorcerer is an analytical libertarian. @deltago and @Grond0 offer a range of opinions. @WarChiefZeke represents the faction of the right disgusted by liberalism. @Balrog99 is conservative and has gone so far as to invite me to Michigan for a beer, and praised the tolerant atmosphere compared to most of the web. We even have a Communist who chimes in once a month about revolution. There are clearly others, but 90% of the posts come from these people and the moderator. Moreover, it only stands to reason those on the left will post more, since they are out of power and have more to complain about. If this thread had taken off during the Obama years, the opposite may have been true.
I agree with this. I don't think the overall tone of the thread is as skewed as has been recently suggested, though I would certainly welcome a wider spectrum of views. I don't personally identify with any UK political party, let alone any US one, and it's not surprising therefore that I don't necessarily agree with @jjstraka34's interpretation of events. On occasion I have posted rebuttals to such interpretations, but that's been rare - and the reason for that is that his posts are normally both well-argued and about important issues. They are most certainly not spam.
It would be good to see more discussion about other countries, but I don't think it's surprising that there has been so much concentration on the US. That's not solely to do with the nationality of posters, it also reflects that talking about Trump (love him or hate him) is just more interesting than most leaders . Crucially, a lot of the topics being talked about are also of international interest. Off the top of my head examples include: - climate change - international co-operation through UN / NATO etc - trade policy and the move to a more protectionist approach - nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea - intervention by one country in another country's political process - separation of arms of government - health policy - taxation policy - combating terrorism (often conflated with religious issues) These are not minor issues, but things that will affect most people in the world in the coming years. While some discussions in the thread (like the ins and outs of Congress members) may largely pass me by, there's been plenty of coverage in the thread of issues of major concern to me and others with no direct stake in the US political process.
The concentration of Trump and the US is a direct result of media partisanship on overdrive and people identifying and supporting that, tribalism really.
Trumps tweets have generated more controversy then all of Obama attacking and destroying Libya combined, so the response is hardly due to any rational conclusion.
Comments
Well, the last time law enforcement allowed a prominent politician to decide which emails were relevant and which were not, 30,000 of them got deleted.
This whole "illegally got the emails!" thing is rich for Republicans who spent years and millions of dollars on Hillary's emails on a PRIVATE email server. Now that they took over and used a GOVERNMENT email server they are like "omg it's private!" But the whole "illegally got mah emails!" thing is just an attack on Mueller and the FBI to rile up their base who will believe anything they say at this point.
Additionally, while Mueller has been sitting on these emails for months, he has made requests of people involved in the transition to turn over emails. I wonder if they left out the incriminating ones.
So it is a backdoor type ban basically. Conservatives in power are thought police. The words aren't technically banned but if they use those words then Conservatives won't fund them.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/health/cdc-trump-banned-words.html
And this isn't 'discussing', because discussing requires different points of view, which you don't get if your really just promoting the same viewpoints of the anti-trump side of the media. This is a romantic view of the history of slavery, the general turning of the tide against slavery, at least in the West, was a combination of factors tied to the rise of the liberty movement in France, America always having a strong focus on freedom because of the English Monarchy, The English as well, numerous revolts which showed apart from the moral aspect, slavery is a ticking-time-bomb.
This is also not taking into account the Middle-Eastern slave trade, which was by far the biggest and longest in all of history, and that was actually ended by force by the European powers rather then some 'democratic' uprising in the middle-east.
It's ironic that in your post your only critical of the Republican party, because in fact the Republican party actually ended slavery? and the Democrat party is the party of the KKK? Net Neutrality has nothing to do with State rights, so this is a bizarre interpretation of the matter, Net Neutrality is giving power to a overarching government body to regulate ISP's.
Net neutrality, like Obamacare, sounds nice until you realize giving Government more control is never a good idea, at least if you care about quality, cost and efficiency. The general fleeing of anyone with an 'alternate' point of view other then anti-Republican/Trump should have shown you something has gone wrong with this thread for a long time, the fact this hasn't been addressed despite hundreds of pages is startling itself.
There is nothing wrong with posters commenting on this, and you should take it seriously rather then defending what is obviously a downward trend in diverse discussion.
It is in fact quite brave of Ineth to actually post what everyone here knows is a big problem but no one really highlights.
But that doesn't give anyone an excuse to break the Site Rules. Insulting other forumites is unacceptable no matter where you are on the political spectrum. There is a difference between saying the thread has a liberal bias, and saying something like Objecting to the thread's liberal bent is a valid opinion. Insulting other forumites is not.
@ineth: To be clear, I don't mean to call you out by quoting this post; I'm just using it to put my other quote in context. I mention this because I don't want to make you feel like I'm hassling you over this comment. So I apologize in advance if I sound like I'm accusing you; that's not what I'm trying to do here.
I think everyone here is aware of the fact that most of the posts in this thread are left-leaning. No one is under any illusion that this thread is right-leaning or very centrist. But it's not like we've been ganging up on posters like @Balrog99 or @WarChiefZeke or trying to stop them from voicing their opinions. The liberal bent is largely due to @jjstraka34, who happens to post very often.
No one's stopping you from pointing out that the thread skews liberal. I don't view this as a problem in and of itself, but if you do see it as a problem that needs to be solved, you know there's only one solution:
Join in.
Flooding a thread with anti-republican/anti-trump articles quickly in succcession is posting in bad faith, because by sheer practicality its hard to discuss things when the discussion keeps being 3 pages back hidden under the next flood of posts, because of this type of behaviour.
In many other forums, this is actually considered spam.
And no one is under any illusion that this isn't purposefully done. Forgive me if i consider the following of the site rules to be somewhat inconsistant when calling Republicans 'racist' or 'mostly 'racist' or claiming people in the south 'are mostly racist' gets a free pass for a long time, but if i generalized an ethnic minority i would be banned.
Calling out peoples post is hardly 'insulting', of course you can call it a 'obvious liberal bias', and some people would say its a hate-boner against Republicans, hardly much of a distinction when the posts are actually anti-republican rather then pro-liberal (as in real libertarianism).
Im actually surprised that is the content your disagreeing with, i was so perfectly fine with that part i thought you must have been upset by something else.
If people can voice their utter hatred, disdain and insult groups of people in society, i think its fair game that we can call each other out in this thread.
Otherwise you'd have to encourage a dry academic approach to all discussions, which i am totally fine with, but we both know the vast majority of posts would disqualify.
To be quite frank i'd suggest:
-Splitting off another thread called 'criticism and why you hate Trump' so people can at least post in a thread that is honest with their intentions.
-Start a new clean thread, because many people don't want to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole with its absurd bias, spam and tribal posting.
-Stop participating in threads you moderate because you give the semblance of a conflict of interest
-Tell people to knock off the obvious spam to evidently derail a thread so badly that literally no other other country or their politics has a chance of discussion because the intent is to flood it with so much anti-trump articles no one can read or talk about anything else.
The fact this has been going on as the norm for...a year, is amazing.
- censor what opinions can be posted here
- many people don't touch this thread because politics can get heated. I personally am glad when others do stop in and talk about what is happening in their country but to suggest its due to the liberal bent is misleading. If you've personally heard from any one who would like to participate but are afraid to do so becuase they feel they'll be harassed feel free to have them message @JuliusBorisov
- once again, you are censoring a person's ability to participate.
- i do fondly remember another poster spamming this thead with roght leaning articles before trump got elected and slightly afterwards. I think that poster said he was just throwing out articles to see whay stuck. I do not see what is different about @jjstraka's posts and theirs. TBH, I mostly skim his and @smeagolheart's posts.
----
And welcome back.
I am curious to hear what you personally think os going to happen in about 5 years after net neutrality is disbanded.
The internet is typically controled by a few companies/corporations in each country, usually the ones who was able to set up the infrastruture to provide to the population. These companies tend to hold a monopoly on the internet which doesn't allow new businesses to set up shop and compete for business from consumers. This lack of competition forces prices up, not down.
With Net Neutrality as well, your internet provider can eliminate your way to shop for a replacement provider of you are unhappy with the service you are recieving.
It use to be similar here in Canada as well where there was two, equally despised companies that controlled internet, cable and cellular service. It was government intervention that opened up competition, regulated a standard of service which allowed smaller companies to start setting up shop.
The big two weren't happy, but it forced them to provide better services to the public and changed (some-what) how they treated their clients as the public had more options than two options.
So with net neutrality disbanding, do you honestly think consumers will recieve better service from their providers?
It's not that hard to post frequently. We have computers and smart-phones. I write out everything I say in my head before I type it. I type fast. And I archive information I want to use in a debate. I manage to post this often while spending almost 45 hours a week at work. Not difficult.
As for other countries, I gladly participated in long discussions of the French and British elections. I ask questions of our Canadian posters. I enjoy it when our Polish poster chimes in. It's clear most posters are from the US, so US politics dominates. But yeah, by all means, let's divorce the President of the United States and the ruling party from that discussion. No liberal poster here has ever remotely suggested conservative views be thrown to a different thread. But WE'RE the ones who stifle speech and are overly poltically correct. Gotcha. Honestly, this made my day.
I'm not surprised it came to this, because it was entirely predictable. I'm actually rather delighted. It reveals the whole "free speech absolutism" as nothing but a cudgel to control debate. But when it's an away game against a strong opponent, it doesn't work, so the rules must be changed and goalposts moved out of the stadium.
If you're into sports, this is called "working the refs". When the game or debate swing a certain way, attack the rules themselves, and make THAT the issue. I should probably stop. I have no idea at what point this post becomes spam.
*************
Was it possible to use AT&T's Internet service to shop for service from a different provider before Net Neutrality? Yes? Then it will be possible to do so now that those regulations are no longer in place. This is what most people fail to understand--the Internet now will be like it was in 2014 before the rules were put in place: a few bad spots here and there but for the most part the providers didn't care what you were doing or where you were going as long as you paid your bill.
We never had to punish a moderator in this forum and I don't think @semitcgod would do anything to be the first.
As I said as well. Canada (Ontario) was controlled by a dualopy for a long time that stifled competition and robbed customers blind with their service. It wasn't until government intervention that things changed.
If you think a corporations have consumers best interest at heart instead of elected officials then go all for it. I have witnessed where it isn't and I think the states with this repeal will take a step backwards.
I am also failing to see what was actually broken that this had to be repealed. I can see how companies can use this repeal against their competition and not just at the provider level.
Like if this was to happen in Canada, I could see both Bell and Rogers throttle Netflix as Netflix has taken a huge chunk out of their cable subscriptions and they'd promote their own streaming service as faster. They could push Netflix out of the market if they were allowed to do this. Netflix wasn't as popular as it was in 2014 as it is now.
But we'll see. I am just glad my government isn't doing this.
The whole point is this: I don't necessarily trust corporations but I certainly don't trust governments. If you think governments have the best interest of their citizens at heart then you (not you, personally, but the generic "you") are dangerously naive.
You can not return a service. A company can also refuse to return a product as well. They have your money, they don't care. They care even less when they know you can not get the product or service anywhere else.
And who would you file the customer complaint against, if not a governing body that can regulate it?
At least in democratically elected governments, issues that society has needs to be addressed or the public will elect officials who will address them.
And once again; what was so bad about net neutrality that it needed to be repealed? How did it directly hinder the companies providing the service?
Just because large numbers of people disagree with you doesn't mean they're out to get you. And if you want to change the course of the thread, make your own arguments about politics. Don't demand special treatment from moderators.
To quote former president Obama, "Don't boo. Vote."
I agree--services cannot be returned, which is why I didn't say that. Usually, though, customer complaints begin with the customer service department of the corporation; some of them are really good about working with customers to make the situation right and others are horrible. Only when those options all fail--incidentally, I don't know where some people thought that calling the President of a company does any good, but it doesn't--do you sometimes have a government agency to which you may turn.
I suppose I should phrase the situation differently. When a corporation screws you over there are things you can do about it--try to get your money back, boycott the corporation, etc. When a government screws you over you are just screwed. If your grandfather's farm got bought because it sat where the right-of-way for the new high-speed rail line is going to be laid (in a few years...maybe) then your grandfather (or you, if you are in control of it because he died and left the land to you) is just out of luck--he has no choice but to take the money and he will never get that land back. The only "customer service" department the government has is the voting booth, but even then your concerns may still never be addressed if the majority of voters disagree with you.
*************
I never said that NN was bad and needed to be repealed. My only point about NN was that most people are *not* going to notice any difference now that the regulations are not in place. Besides, a future Administration can reinstate them as easily as they were struck down.
Especially in discussions relating to politics/religion.
It amuses me that this is defended since it is flat out incorrect, i don't care too much if SemiticGod participates since i'll call him out as a participant but this is such an obvious guideline is funny for you to defend it.
The proper honest reply is to admit it is a conflict of interest but its allowed anyway because we all want to have fun and have a casual atmosphere, not to try and say it isn't.
In the real world, this is a strong rule for virtually any cases where your in a position to put down rulings and judgements (ie judges, cops etc). I don't go for moderator reporting, because as you seem to suggest encouraging, we should participate in the thread heavily, therein you contradict your own approach.
Thats why it is wrong for you to call out Ineth as breaking site rules, there is Nothing wrong with highlighting someones posting as being heavily skewed towards being anti-republican when it is blatantly true to everyone.
As a moderator, you should publicly apologize because you are wrong, the problem isn't even that it is untrue, the problem is that you don't like its brutal honesty. Correct, which means you admit you are wrong in this, because Ineth was posting a brutally obviously true obersvation.
Offer a counter-point, don't try to come in and waive warnings of rule-breaking if your a participant of the thread as well, you don't get to do both without criticism.
And to close, jjstraka34 posts and articles he links is heavily anti-republican and he makes no effort to hide his hate-boner for that side, especially when there is a history of accusing them as 'racists' as well in this thread,
Can you clarify if i broke the rules for this comment? Evidently ineffective since that has been the norm throughout the entire thread and hasn't abated, i especially don't recall moderator actions when the postings turned to calling Republicans racist, it fell to posters calling people out repeatedly publicly, which is no different to what Ineth is doing.
That doesn't mean I think appealing against a government decision is a simple thing to do, but neither is appealing against a corporate decision. Walking away is certainly an easy option if you're talking about buying coffee from a particular shop in a city. It's not so easy though if there is no other source for the service you want in your area (which is more like the situation @deltago was describing).
By your standards of course I am dangerously naive as I do believe that my government generally does have the best interests of its citizens at heart
What will happen with net neutrality disbanded, nothing? the internet was fine before it (actually free-er) and it will be fine after it.
The notion of ISP's throttling you in some way is simply an argument of bad service, it is retarded to even consider the natural solution is brutal government intervention when we already know the proper solution in virtually every other industry and market is to promote competition so consumers have choices they can go to if ISP's throttle you in some way.
In this scenario is really a classic case of different ideological approaches to handling goods and services, do you lean towards the free market or towards complete Government control?
I prefer free market mainly, and Government Control for extreme and rare cases.
Consumer redress as a separate issue doesn't even need Government intervention either, nominally consumer redress can easily, and should be dealt with by the courts because it becomes a natural civil case, Government bodies as watchdogs merely exist (ideally) as proactive enforcement, and it almost never works out that way either as they become bloated or corrupted, and consumer-groups have traditionally filled that role anyway.
The issue of some countries having only a few ISP's therefore there exists i suppose a duopoly as a counter-point is actually wrong, virtually all instances of this is exactly because of the problem of Government intervention in some way which causes a 'monopoly', which causes said problem, so promoting more Government intervention doesn't even make sense and only logically means you would be promoting the problem instead of solving it. Free speech doesn't relate to spamming threads on an internet forums, and theres never been a case of "free speech absolutism" anywhere, because no society has ever tolerated giving your war plans to the enemy for 'free speech'.
I imagine your making up an imaginary case of your oppositional side to argue against.
And you have been spamming this entire thread with consistently anti-trump and anti-republican articles, that has been fairly obvious to everyone.
Glad to have you back! I think the problem you are addressing is just due to the fact that there a more than average number of liberal thinkers posting on this thread. I've never felt bullied or intimidated by this however so I do think @semiticgod is doing a good job moderating. I don't mind him posting either. I like hearing other people's views and generally don't feel threatened by them unless I'm being bullied (even then I don't really take cyberbullying all that seriously - I'm old enough to remember what physical bullying felt like). I'm not enough of a Trump fan to put up much of a fight here myself, but I'll welcome you back to the fray. It'll be nice to get your viewpoint again so I'll eagerly await your insights...
And you honestly have been spamming this for quite awhile, it wasn't long ago that you consistently linked his tweets and peoples anti-tweets on top of your typical hyper-partisan anti-trump articles, even if you sometimes link genuinely interesting things, admittedly thats being pretty spammy.
As an observer, the unfortunate effect is the railroading of the thread.
It would be good to see more discussion about other countries, but I don't think it's surprising that there has been so much concentration on the US. That's not solely to do with the nationality of posters, it also reflects that talking about Trump (love him or hate him) is just more interesting than most leaders
- climate change
- international co-operation through UN / NATO etc
- trade policy and the move to a more protectionist approach
- nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea
- intervention by one country in another country's political process
- separation of arms of government
- health policy
- taxation policy
- combating terrorism (often conflated with religious issues)
These are not minor issues, but things that will affect most people in the world in the coming years. While some discussions in the thread (like the ins and outs of Congress members) may largely pass me by, there's been plenty of coverage in the thread of issues of major concern to me and others with no direct stake in the US political process.
Trumps tweets have generated more controversy then all of Obama attacking and destroying Libya combined, so the response is hardly due to any rational conclusion.