Can’t wait for a “world leader” to call this censorship when it happens to them, and demand twitter to remove the notice of face consequences.
If anything, the straw here was that Erdogan basically announced an ethnic cleansing on his Twitter account.
Speaking of which, Trump is now trying to negotiate a ceasefire to a conflict he essentially greenlighted by sending Pence (create a crisis and then try take credit for fixing it, except with thousands of lives being lost). Erdogan has said he won't even meet with Pence or Pompeo. What an absolute shit-show.
It more has to do with the adults in the room trying to clean up the mess the raging toddler made. EVERYONE besides Trump said this was the wrong move and he did it anyway.
The reason why Erdogan would only talk to trump was due to him knowing how to control Trump. He can’t control Pence or Pompeo, however, Erdogan has reversed his previous statement and will meet with them. Who knows what will come of it.
Having terms of service is has nothing to do with free speech. This forum is not "anti-free speech" because it has rules. The ONLY reason Twitter is being wishy-washy on the world leaders front is because of Trump, because he violates their terms of service on a regular basis. And the same people bitching about Twitter being authoritarian would lose their shit if Trump were banned. It's been said many times here before that if Trump was a poster of the Beamdog forums, the mods would have to ban him for conduct. Again, what does this have to do with free speech??
Any sane person would lose their shit if Trump was banned there, unless they would like private corporations to dictate world politics, of course. Besides, you'd think anyone would know by now to take anything Trump writes there with a grain of salt
In any case, rules indeed have nothing to do with free speech - if you ban for the speech you deem inappropriate, you are automatically authoritarian, there's no second guessing here. The difference is that some places are being honest about it and state openly they'll ban anyone they don't like just because they can, while others would instead try to justify themselves with morality. The funny thing here is, the first variety is usually far more liberal and tolerant than the second, even if they both claim otherwise.
I once posted a comment on a Blizzard Entertainment news site that called the author sycophantic. I got banned for it. I said something (my speech) they responded with their action (their speech). None of my rights were violated.
If you want to waive your rights, that's your choice.
Having terms of service is has nothing to do with free speech. This forum is not "anti-free speech" because it has rules. The ONLY reason Twitter is being wishy-washy on the world leaders front is because of Trump, because he violates their terms of service on a regular basis. And the same people bitching about Twitter being authoritarian would lose their shit if Trump were banned. It's been said many times here before that if Trump was a poster of the Beamdog forums, the mods would have to ban him for conduct. Again, what does this have to do with free speech??
Any sane person would lose their shit if Trump was banned there, unless they would like private corporations to dictate world politics, of course. Besides, you'd think anyone would know by now to take anything Trump writes there with a grain of salt
In any case, rules indeed have nothing to do with free speech - if you ban for the speech you deem inappropriate, you are automatically authoritarian, there's no second guessing here. The difference is that some places are being honest about it and state openly they'll ban anyone they don't like just because they can, while others would instead try to justify themselves with morality. The funny thing here is, the first variety is usually far more liberal and tolerant than the second, even if they both claim otherwise.
I once posted a comment on a Blizzard Entertainment news site that called the author sycophantic. I got banned for it. I said something (my speech) they responded with their action (their speech). None of my rights were violated.
If you want to waive your rights, that's your choice.
But that is what I'm saying, I didn't waive any "rights". If I want to stand outside on the sidewalk and spout crazy jibberish to everyone who walks by me, that is my right to do so. The only thing that is going to be affected is my reputation and other's perception of me. But if I walk into the cafe down the street and start doing the same thing to every customer who walks through the door, that is no longer just a "me" problem, I am now also the problem of the people running the cafe.
In the same way, I leave for work here in about 15 minutes. If I walk in this afternoon and start immediately calling all my female co-workers disparaging names, it is certainly my "right" to do so. I'm not going to get arrested for it. But I also wouldn't have a job 2 hours from now. I would be exercising my right to make misogynistic comments. My employer would then exercise their right to escort me out the door.
There are plenty of places on the internet where you can say basically anything you want (up to and including posting manifestos before gun massacres). However, some websites (most of which are businesses, all of which at the very least reflect on the operator or owner) choose to have certain standards that must be met, at least ostensibly. Of course, I am talking about the American version of "free speech" here, but even before all this nonsense about "PC culture" started, even from my teenage years I have never associated the concept with anything other than government regulation. I wrote a senior term paper on music censorship, and the reason that was an issue in regards to free speech was because it involved Congressional hearings on the matter that eventually led to a "voluntary" warning label (which, incidentally, did nothing more than increase the sales of those albums that had such a sticker).
I'm just grabbing pop-corn now. I'm really curious what's Putin gonna do when his best friends in the region are fighting.
Trump might've just done the smartest thing to remove himself from the area and let his opponent to take all the responsibility. Unless Putin can negotiate piece between Erdogan and Asad, his relations with one of them's gonna plummet.
Can’t wait for a “world leader” to call this censorship when it happens to them, and demand twitter to remove the notice of face consequences.
Twitter just shows its true face. Pretending to be a force of good and silencing free speech "for your own protection", but too afraid to bark at those with the power to make it face consequences. Typical authoritarian crap.
Having terms of service is has nothing to do with free speech. This forum is not "anti-free speech" because it has rules. The ONLY reason Twitter is being wishy-washy on the world leaders front is because of Trump, because he violates their terms of service on a regular basis. And the same people bitching about Twitter being authoritarian would lose their shit if Trump were banned. It's been said many times here before that if Trump was a poster of the Beamdog forums, the mods would have to ban him for conduct. Again, what does this have to do with free speech??
I once posted a comment on a Blizzard Entertainment news site that called the author sycophantic. I got banned for it. I said something (my speech) they responded with their action (their speech). None of my rights were violated. Life moved on. Incidentally, I just noticed recently this particular author got a job at Blizzard, so I may have been more on the mark than I even realized, but that is neither here nor there.
Sure, right now it's legally okay for private entities to manipulate the world stage, because so much of it is dependant on their platforms. But should they? Why on Earth would anyone want that.
I feel like this article makes a good case for why we need to expand free speech rights to account for new methods of communication.
Of course it has ramifications. I abandoned Facebook about a half decade before the more recent uproar about them. There are two lines of thought about this prevalent in actual corridors of power in terms of lawmakers right now in regards to social media. Elizabeth Warren wants to hit them from an anti-trust perspective in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt. Conservative politicians want to haul them before committees because they believe they don't sufficiently bend the knee to their viewpoint. Given the amount of time I spend on YouTube and Twitter, I find this idea that conservatives are being systematically silenced to be absolute lunacy. Both are essentially the wild west.
YouTube's algorithms will assign you political content opposite your typical viewpoint even if you simply watch another video that is responding or criticizing one from the other side. The algorithm is totally manipulative, but it certainly isn't hiding anything from anyone. Not in my experience.
Dunn's parents met President Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which he tried to "ambush" them into meeting Sacoolas, who was waiting next door, the family said. The family claimed that Trump had several photographers waiting nearby to capture their meeting whille the the White House said that's "fake news" because there was only one photographer.
The UK has cancelled Sacoolas' diplomatic immunity, which means that if she returned to the UK she could face prosecution.
What's the end game there? A headline of "Grieving Family Assaults Their Child's Killer Egged on by The President"
Dunn's parents met President Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which he tried to "ambush" them into meeting Sacoolas, who was waiting next door, the family said. The family claimed that Trump had several photographers waiting nearby to capture their meeting whille the the White House said that's "fake news" because there was only one photographer.
The UK has cancelled Sacoolas' diplomatic immunity, which means that if she returned to the UK she could face prosecution.
What's the end game there? A headline of "Grieving Family Assaults Their Child's Killer Egged on by The President"
I mean, assuming the family is telling the truth (and why wouldn't they be) that is essentially doing a Candid Camera segment, but by surprising the targets with their child's killer as the punchline. It reminds me of a Chappelle's Show sketch called "Zapped" where two parents coordinate with a hospital to convince their children they were killed in a car crash on a date night and wait until they are distraught and in tears to reveal themselves.
Dunn's parents met President Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which he tried to "ambush" them into meeting Sacoolas, who was waiting next door, the family said. The family claimed that Trump had several photographers waiting nearby to capture their meeting whille the the White House said that's "fake news" because there was only one photographer.
The UK has cancelled Sacoolas' diplomatic immunity, which means that if she returned to the UK she could face prosecution.
What's the end game there? A headline of "Grieving Family Assaults Their Child's Killer Egged on by The President"
I mean, assuming the family is telling the truth (and why wouldn't they be) that is essentially doing a Candid Camera segment, but by surprising the targets with their child's killer as the punchline.
The UK has cancelled Sacoolas' diplomatic immunity, which means that if she returned to the UK she could face prosecution.
There's a bit more to it. The diplomatic immunity was the result of being in the UK. Now that she's left the UK she no longer has that immunity and the UK have said they want to extradite her. The UK view of the extradition treaty with the US is that there would be no right to refuse extradition in this case and that view seems to be shared by US officials. However, it currently appears that the administration will refuse it anyway.
Rikers might get shut down! There's a new plan to close the facility and relocate the prisoners to new prisons.
The conditions in Rikers have been infamously inhumane for years. The plan could still be thwarted, but if the prisoners get relocated and conditions improve, we could see a huge decrease in human suffering, a lot of saved taxpayer money, and safer neighborhoods in New York.
I only stumbled onto it by chance, but it sounds like there's some amount of movement on the Brexit situation. It sounds like the Johnson government and the EU commission are making some serious progress in redesigning a Brexit deal to put to Parliament before the upcoming October 31st deadline.
I had been under the impression that the EU wasnt going to budge on their original deal offered to Theresa May, but I'm guessing that this might have changed (How? I dont know. I think I read that Ireland is softening its position a little, which probably gives the EU more wiggle room in negotiations relating to the backstop?).
In either case, it'll still need to go through his cabinet and then through Parliament before the deal is accepted. I dont know if the math has changed in Parliament enough for that to be the case.
We don't know the exact deal yet, Boris & chums appeared to have shifted a little bit but until we see the text we won't know for certain. The basic issue on Ireland is this, if the UK leaves the EU, where will the border between the UK and the single market be for the next few years while the future relationship is negotiated? There are three basic choices:
a) Between Ireland and Northern Ireland, meaning a hard border: Contrary to Good Friday Agreement, not acceptable to EU or Ireland due to risk of violence, bad for NI.
b) Between NI and the rest of Britain: not acceptable to unionists, Scottish people also will be asking why they can't have that deal.
c) The whole of the UK adheres to EU regulations for now, no border: Good for UK economy, but greatly reduces ability of EU to diverge from EU regulations. Unpopular with Brexiters.
Theresa May went for c), but Boris is now shifting towards b). He is trying to placate unionists and hardcore Brexiters who prefer to jump off a cliff with no-deal. Getting the necessary number of votes in parliament may also require him to put pledges about environmental standards and workers rights into the deal as well, to get some Labour votes. The only way that he'll get a deal through is if he can convince the headbangers on the Brexit side that a watered version of Brexit is the only thing on the menu, or if he agrees to attach a confirmatory referendum to the deal.
There is also the slight possibility that he decides to give up on the deal and tries to get an election again, saying that he needs a mandate to deal with those awful EU bullies. The more he tries to negotiate the less tenable the tough man approach becomes though. My expectation would be that he is forced to get an extension beyond October 31st in any case, as the EU can't approve a deal quickly enough. Just translating it for heads of state to approve eats up a ton of time!
(On the podcast front, two of my favourites are "Brexit Republic" - for the Irish point of view- and the Guardian's monthly "Brexit means....")
Trump released a letter after his unhinged meeting. Media had to confirm it wasn't a joke. It's completely a joke this man representing America.
Actual Trump letter to Turkish President: "Let's work out a good deal! ... [Kurdish] General Mazloum is willing to make concessions that they would never have made in the past ... History will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don't happen. Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool! I will call you later."
So presumably he's planning another call to hide from the public on a code word level server.
When I first looked at it I assumed it was a joke. Nearly everyone did. But no. They actually handed this out at a meeting with Congressional leaders this after noon that went off the rails because Trump was PROUD of this letter. I don't know why he didn't just commit 100% and write the whole thing in crayon while signing his name by making letters with spaghetti noodles on the paper. This lunatic imbecile controls the nuclear codes. The US military had to bomb one it's own bases today. Well, most of them anyway. Not the 50 bombs that are now being essentially held hostage by Turkey. Quote of the year so far from the White House meeting today:
Schumer to Trump: "Is your plan to rely on the Syrians and the Turks?"
Trump: "Our plan is to keep the American people safe."
Pelosi: "That's not a plan. That's a goal."
A bet - Trump goaded Turkey into action, so that he can be a good guy when pressuring Erdogan into submission and severing his strengthening ties with Putin.
Trump released a letter after his unhinged meeting. Media had to confirm it wasn't a joke. It's completely a joke this man representing America.
Actual Trump letter to Turkish President: "Let's work out a good deal! ... [Kurdish] General Mazloum is willing to make concessions that they would never have made in the past ... History will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don't happen. Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool! I will call you later."
So presumably he's planning another call to hide from the public on a code word level server.
I only stumbled onto it by chance, but it sounds like there's some amount of movement on the Brexit situation. It sounds like the Johnson government and the EU commission are making some serious progress in redesigning a Brexit deal to put to Parliament before the upcoming October 31st deadline.
I had been under the impression that the EU wasnt going to budge on their original deal offered to Theresa May, but I'm guessing that this might have changed (How? I dont know. I think I read that Ireland is softening its position a little, which probably gives the EU more wiggle room in negotiations relating to the backstop?).
In either case, it'll still need to go through his cabinet and then through Parliament before the deal is accepted. I dont know if the math has changed in Parliament enough for that to be the case.
(Side note - I've started listening to a British politics podcast, "Talking Politics" - it's fascinating).
I agree with the options set out by @Mantis37 and that Johnson is attempting to get option b) with a customs border in the Irish Sea between NI and the rest of the UK. I said previously the jury was out whether Johnson was seriously trying to get a deal. I think he has been trying to do that recently and that's still not impossible - but the odds are stacked against it.
What seems to have been done (though no details have been released yet) is that Boris has accepted everything in Theresa May's previous deal, except the proposed solution for NI. On that he wants NI to be part of the UK for customs purposes, but to adopt essentially all the rules of the single market on goods. There would be some sort of consent mechanism to avoid NI being left indefinitely in that position against their will.
Off the top of my head, some of the serious problems with trying to get that through in time to leave the EU on 31st October as promised are:
- no-one trusts Johnson. That means a full legal text will be needed and very, very few people have seen any draft of that yet. That makes it unlikely that it will be agreed at the EU summit today and tomorrow or by Parliament on Saturday. In both cases though it would be just about possible to arrange later approval arrangements still in time for 31/10.
- the DUP (unionist) have said they don't accept the principles of the agreement (their line is that NI cannot be treated differently from the rest of the UK). Although there only 10 of them, their view will be persuasive with a number of other MPs - particularly the more radical Brexiteers. In those circumstances it's hard to see how the deal can get through Parliament. Johnson set out from the beginning to position himself as a hard-line Brexiteer, effectively making it impossible for the Labour party to support him. He's drawn back from that position sufficiently to cause concerns with the Brexiteers, but not enough to get more than a bare handful of votes from MPs of other parties.
- leaks suggest that the deal is largely agreed between the EU and UK negotiating teams. That surprises me as there are real technical challenges over how to apply custom arrangements other than at a border - leading to a potentially significant problem of smuggling into the EU single market. I find it hard to imagine those challenges have been solved at this stage, so if the EU is agreeing to move forward now I think that must be on the proviso that work continues on solving them during a transitional period. That would represent a major concession from the EU's previous position that there would have to be a backstop in case arrangements could not be agreed during a transitional period. Such a concession seems odd to me given they must know there is not much chance of the deal actually being approved by the UK. I'll wait and see on this one whether the extent of agreement really is as great as is being suggested ...
If the deal really did go through that would provide a boost for the Scottish nationalists, who are already calling for another referendum on independence for Scotland next year. Polls suggest the result of that would be very evenly balanced, but giving NI some special status with the EU - but not offering that to Scotland - would be expected to aid those wanting independence. On a similar tack, I can't see any consent process in NI working without raising the prospect of a referendum for a united Ireland.
If you're interested in Brexit, you could give the Brexitcast podcast a try - that's be serious journalists, but takes a generally light-hearted approach to the issues.
Edit: a revised withdrawal agreement has now been published by the EU. That does indeed leave details about how customs arrangements will work to be resolved during the transitional period, confirming that the EU has agreed a major concession from its previous position. The statement also confirms that all aspects of the previous agreement, other than Ireland, are essentially unchanged.
Edit2: briefly checking on the summit I see Juncker (EU Commission President) has said the EU don't want to give a further extension. The decision on that is up to EU national leaders, not him, but it's still a strong indication of how they're feeling. The French have been suggesting that enough is enough for a while and this suggests that view may be predominating. If MPs in Parliament are really faced with a limited choice of this deal or no deal, that could result in some changes of mind.
Not trying to wax poetic, because politicians die all the time, but there was not a more beloved member of Congress across the partisan spectrum than Elijah Cummings. He and John Lewis have been the heart and soul of the Democratic caucus for decades, because in their lives, they walked the walk. Cummings was assaulted at 11 for being one of the children who integrated a pool in South Baltimore in the '60s. Lewis was almost killed on the bridge in Selma.
Here's the real reason the Democrats need to impeach Trump. And no, I don't think for a minute that this can't happen. None of the Dems candidates seem to be exciting anybody. More is not better when it comes to candidates. Historically favorable conditions for the Democrats? Not seeing it so far...
Whenever I see a metric that says they have predicted the last "insert number" Presidential elections, I feel like people act like it's some kind of oracle-like talent. Since 1980, there have been 3 elections that were even remotely close, which were 2000, 2004, and 2016 (and in the last case, only in the Electoral College). Everything else has been a blow-out across the board. Predicting any of the others would be like predicting the Patriots would beat the Dolphins a few weeks ago. 1980 isn't even really correct. The last close election before the turn of the millennium was Kennedy/Nixon in 1960.
Whenever I see a metric that says they have predicted the last "insert number" Presidential elections, I feel like people act like it's some kind of oracle-like talent. Since 1980, there have been 3 elections that were even remotely close, which were 2000, 2004, and 2016 (and in the last case, only in the Electoral College). Everything else has been a blow-out across the board. Predicting any of the others would be like predicting the Patriots would beat the Dolphins a few weeks ago. 1980 isn't even really correct. The last close election before the turn of the millennium was Kennedy/Nixon in 1960.
Well, to be fair, 1992 would probably have been close if Ross Perot hadn't intervened.
Here's the real reason the Democrats need to impeach Trump. And no, I don't think for a minute that this can't happen. None of the Dems candidates seem to be exciting anybody. More is not better when it comes to candidates. Historically favorable conditions for the Democrats? Not seeing it so far...
Here's the real reason the Democrats need to impeach Trump. And no, I don't think for a minute that this can't happen. None of the Dems candidates seem to be exciting anybody. More is not better when it comes to candidates. Historically favorable conditions for the Democrats? Not seeing it so far...
She is not shutting it down. This vote is not about impeaching. It's about having a vote to have an impeachment INVESTIGATION. And they aren't having it because their is absolutely no constitutional requirement they do so. The investigation will take place and then they will have the vote on whether to send it to a trial in the Senate. The investigation is taking place as we speak. People are giving testimony on a nearly daily basis. I'm not even going to go over the swings in the polls with you. You can quantify what 15-20 point swings on the issue mean on your own, and rationalize why it proves "normal people" are against it. They aren't having an official vote on starting an investigation because it a.) superfluous and b.) allows less chances for Republicans to hijack the process for nightly highlights on FOX News.
Sure, it's not a complete shut-down in and out itself, but given Pelosi's history on the question and the current reporting on the subject, I think it's pretty clear her motivations for not holding the vote have something to do with the vulnerability of Democrat seats in moderate and swing districts.
She doesn't want another spectacle. People are tired of it, and the more they make their case the more they will lose.
"Pelosi privately told other Democrats she was "agnostic" on the issue, said a Democratic aide.
During Tuesday's meeting, Pelosi told her colleagues that she "only has license this caucus gives me," meaning she wouldn't pressure her rank-and-file to hold the vote.
House Democratic leaders also quietly reached out to the most vulnerable members of their caucus to gauge whether they would support a formal vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry against Trump, according to multiple Democratic aides.
The response was "pretty strongly no," said an aide close to the issue. The idea has met with anxiety among some of the battleground Democrats, who fear it could distract from the rest of their agenda, according to multiple aides.
Several “Frontliners” in key districts raised concerns as well, including freshman Reps. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.).
Brindisi pointed out that there's no constitutional requirement for such a vote, while pointing out that he hadn't backed an impeachment inquiry publicly yet. Just six other Democrats have yet to endorse the inquiry.
"You said it perfectly," Pelosi responded.
Houlahan asked if Democrats "were being fair" to Republicans, while Spanberger urged members to talk about anything other than impeachment while they're on TV. "
I don't know the specifics of state by state polling so i'm speculating here, but this is probably a question that is very politically polarizing, and the less extreme your district is the more likely people are to be wary of it. Pelosi probably sees what I see, something that will fire up the voters in guaranteed-blue districts but that leaves them vulnerable in any area where seats are hotly contested. Do they need more support in California, or do they need more support in Pennsylvania?
"You said it perfectly," Pelosi responded.
Houlahan asked if Democrats "were being fair" to Republicans, while Spanberger urged members to talk about anything other than impeachment while they're on TV. "
I think this has more to do to combat the “Do Nothing Democrats” speaking point than impeachment itself.
Voters want to know that there is more being discussed that effects their daily lives more than who is sitting in the White House.
I don't know the specifics of state by state polling so i'm speculating here, but this is probably a question that is very politically polarizing, and the less extreme your district is the more likely people are to be wary of it. Pelosi probably sees what I see, something that will fire up the voters in guaranteed-blue districts but that leaves them vulnerable in any area where seats are hotly contested. Do they need more support in California, or do they need more support in Pennsylvania?
I dont think this is wrong, but it's basically why Pelosi is so politically savvy. The senate will not convict, and that's despite the fact that his chief of staff essentially said that there was a prid-pro-quo today on the question of aid to Ukraine.
So why give Trump any kind of win over this, when you can lay a political siege.
Even if she does formalize an impeachment process, over 50% of registered voters current support impeachment and removal. Its hard to imagine any of those voters would ever move to voting for Trump. He's probably looking to stop them from voting in general.
Even if she does formalize an impeachment process, over 50% of registered voters current support impeachment and removal. Its hard to imagine any of those voters would ever move to voting for Trump. He's probably looking to stop them from voting in general.
Over 50% of voters didn’t vote for Trump either.
@WarChiefZeke is right, it’s about select battleground districts who want to know that impeaching trump isn’t the only thing the government is working on, and IMO, they are right to think that way.
Even if she does formalize an impeachment process, over 50% of registered voters current support impeachment and removal. Its hard to imagine any of those voters would ever move to voting for Trump. He's probably looking to stop them from voting in general.
Over 50% of voters didn’t vote for Trump either.
@WarChiefZeke is right, it’s about select battleground districts who want to know that impeaching trump isn’t the only thing the government is working on, and IMO, they are right to think that way.
Yeah, because it's crazy to be concerned about a guy who will literally reward the G7 Summit to his own resort, where every drink, appetizer and room rental will go straight into the pockets of his family in DIRECT violation of an entire clause of the Constitution. And if anyone is buying the line being served up that Trump "won't make dime" off this event, I will bet anyone right now $1000 straight-up that within 90 days of that event taking place it will turn out to be total bullshit and that the family pocketed every penny. But hey, only pinko-commie hippies care about what is essentially a royal family literally robbing taxpayers and sticking the money in their own pocket. Real Americans only care about such things when money is being spent on healthcare or poor people.
Comments
It more has to do with the adults in the room trying to clean up the mess the raging toddler made. EVERYONE besides Trump said this was the wrong move and he did it anyway.
The reason why Erdogan would only talk to trump was due to him knowing how to control Trump. He can’t control Pence or Pompeo, however, Erdogan has reversed his previous statement and will meet with them. Who knows what will come of it.
In any case, rules indeed have nothing to do with free speech - if you ban for the speech you deem inappropriate, you are automatically authoritarian, there's no second guessing here. The difference is that some places are being honest about it and state openly they'll ban anyone they don't like just because they can, while others would instead try to justify themselves with morality. The funny thing here is, the first variety is usually far more liberal and tolerant than the second, even if they both claim otherwise.
If you want to waive your rights, that's your choice.
But that is what I'm saying, I didn't waive any "rights". If I want to stand outside on the sidewalk and spout crazy jibberish to everyone who walks by me, that is my right to do so. The only thing that is going to be affected is my reputation and other's perception of me. But if I walk into the cafe down the street and start doing the same thing to every customer who walks through the door, that is no longer just a "me" problem, I am now also the problem of the people running the cafe.
In the same way, I leave for work here in about 15 minutes. If I walk in this afternoon and start immediately calling all my female co-workers disparaging names, it is certainly my "right" to do so. I'm not going to get arrested for it. But I also wouldn't have a job 2 hours from now. I would be exercising my right to make misogynistic comments. My employer would then exercise their right to escort me out the door.
There are plenty of places on the internet where you can say basically anything you want (up to and including posting manifestos before gun massacres). However, some websites (most of which are businesses, all of which at the very least reflect on the operator or owner) choose to have certain standards that must be met, at least ostensibly. Of course, I am talking about the American version of "free speech" here, but even before all this nonsense about "PC culture" started, even from my teenage years I have never associated the concept with anything other than government regulation. I wrote a senior term paper on music censorship, and the reason that was an issue in regards to free speech was because it involved Congressional hearings on the matter that eventually led to a "voluntary" warning label (which, incidentally, did nothing more than increase the sales of those albums that had such a sticker).
Sure, right now it's legally okay for private entities to manipulate the world stage, because so much of it is dependant on their platforms. But should they? Why on Earth would anyone want that.
I feel like this article makes a good case for why we need to expand free speech rights to account for new methods of communication.
Sites like Twitter and Facebook, population in the billions, are unlike the Beamdog Forums in many ways to make such a comparison untenable. Communications by world leaders, important breaking stories and journalism, and more are all dependant in large part on these platforms. Manipulation on their end has political and social ramifications.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/in-the-age-of-socia-media-first-amendment/
YouTube's algorithms will assign you political content opposite your typical viewpoint even if you simply watch another video that is responding or criticizing one from the other side. The algorithm is totally manipulative, but it certainly isn't hiding anything from anyone. Not in my experience.
(*spies wife, not clear there)
Then the diplomat's wife, Anne Sacoolas, fled the UK.
Well the parents kid murdered by hit and run have come to the US to seek justice for their child.
And Trump promised to meet them.
Can you imagine what happened next? Did he promise to allow extradition of the murderer? Did he offer condolences?
Of course not. Imagine the worst thing possible from the reality TV show president and that's what happened.
https://www.insider.com/trump-ambush-harry-dunn-parents-anne-sacoolas-photo-call-2019-10
Dunn's parents met President Donald Trump on Wednesday, during which he tried to "ambush" them into meeting Sacoolas, who was waiting next door, the family said. The family claimed that Trump had several photographers waiting nearby to capture their meeting whille the the White House said that's "fake news" because there was only one photographer.
The UK has cancelled Sacoolas' diplomatic immunity, which means that if she returned to the UK she could face prosecution.
What's the end game there? A headline of "Grieving Family Assaults Their Child's Killer Egged on by The President"
I mean, assuming the family is telling the truth (and why wouldn't they be) that is essentially doing a Candid Camera segment, but by surprising the targets with their child's killer as the punchline. It reminds me of a Chappelle's Show sketch called "Zapped" where two parents coordinate with a hospital to convince their children they were killed in a car crash on a date night and wait until they are distraught and in tears to reveal themselves.
Worst episode of Punk'd ever.
There's a bit more to it. The diplomatic immunity was the result of being in the UK. Now that she's left the UK she no longer has that immunity and the UK have said they want to extradite her. The UK view of the extradition treaty with the US is that there would be no right to refuse extradition in this case and that view seems to be shared by US officials. However, it currently appears that the administration will refuse it anyway.
The conditions in Rikers have been infamously inhumane for years. The plan could still be thwarted, but if the prisoners get relocated and conditions improve, we could see a huge decrease in human suffering, a lot of saved taxpayer money, and safer neighborhoods in New York.
I had been under the impression that the EU wasnt going to budge on their original deal offered to Theresa May, but I'm guessing that this might have changed (How? I dont know. I think I read that Ireland is softening its position a little, which probably gives the EU more wiggle room in negotiations relating to the backstop?).
In either case, it'll still need to go through his cabinet and then through Parliament before the deal is accepted. I dont know if the math has changed in Parliament enough for that to be the case.
@Grond0 @Mantis37
Does that sound about right?
(Side note - I've started listening to a British politics podcast, "Talking Politics" - it's fascinating).
a) Between Ireland and Northern Ireland, meaning a hard border: Contrary to Good Friday Agreement, not acceptable to EU or Ireland due to risk of violence, bad for NI.
b) Between NI and the rest of Britain: not acceptable to unionists, Scottish people also will be asking why they can't have that deal.
c) The whole of the UK adheres to EU regulations for now, no border: Good for UK economy, but greatly reduces ability of EU to diverge from EU regulations. Unpopular with Brexiters.
Theresa May went for c), but Boris is now shifting towards b). He is trying to placate unionists and hardcore Brexiters who prefer to jump off a cliff with no-deal. Getting the necessary number of votes in parliament may also require him to put pledges about environmental standards and workers rights into the deal as well, to get some Labour votes. The only way that he'll get a deal through is if he can convince the headbangers on the Brexit side that a watered version of Brexit is the only thing on the menu, or if he agrees to attach a confirmatory referendum to the deal.
There is also the slight possibility that he decides to give up on the deal and tries to get an election again, saying that he needs a mandate to deal with those awful EU bullies. The more he tries to negotiate the less tenable the tough man approach becomes though. My expectation would be that he is forced to get an extension beyond October 31st in any case, as the EU can't approve a deal quickly enough. Just translating it for heads of state to approve eats up a ton of time!
(On the podcast front, two of my favourites are "Brexit Republic" - for the Irish point of view- and the Guardian's monthly "Brexit means....")
Actual Trump letter to Turkish President: "Let's work out a good deal! ... [Kurdish] General Mazloum is willing to make concessions that they would never have made in the past ... History will look upon you forever as the devil if good things don't happen. Don't be a tough guy. Don't be a fool! I will call you later."
So presumably he's planning another call to hide from the public on a code word level server.
Schumer to Trump: "Is your plan to rely on the Syrians and the Turks?"
Trump: "Our plan is to keep the American people safe."
Pelosi: "That's not a plan. That's a goal."
I had to write better letters when I was in high school, let alone college. That letter would have been an F.
I agree with the options set out by @Mantis37 and that Johnson is attempting to get option b) with a customs border in the Irish Sea between NI and the rest of the UK. I said previously the jury was out whether Johnson was seriously trying to get a deal. I think he has been trying to do that recently and that's still not impossible - but the odds are stacked against it.
What seems to have been done (though no details have been released yet) is that Boris has accepted everything in Theresa May's previous deal, except the proposed solution for NI. On that he wants NI to be part of the UK for customs purposes, but to adopt essentially all the rules of the single market on goods. There would be some sort of consent mechanism to avoid NI being left indefinitely in that position against their will.
Off the top of my head, some of the serious problems with trying to get that through in time to leave the EU on 31st October as promised are:
- no-one trusts Johnson. That means a full legal text will be needed and very, very few people have seen any draft of that yet. That makes it unlikely that it will be agreed at the EU summit today and tomorrow or by Parliament on Saturday. In both cases though it would be just about possible to arrange later approval arrangements still in time for 31/10.
- the DUP (unionist) have said they don't accept the principles of the agreement (their line is that NI cannot be treated differently from the rest of the UK). Although there only 10 of them, their view will be persuasive with a number of other MPs - particularly the more radical Brexiteers. In those circumstances it's hard to see how the deal can get through Parliament. Johnson set out from the beginning to position himself as a hard-line Brexiteer, effectively making it impossible for the Labour party to support him. He's drawn back from that position sufficiently to cause concerns with the Brexiteers, but not enough to get more than a bare handful of votes from MPs of other parties.
- leaks suggest that the deal is largely agreed between the EU and UK negotiating teams. That surprises me as there are real technical challenges over how to apply custom arrangements other than at a border - leading to a potentially significant problem of smuggling into the EU single market. I find it hard to imagine those challenges have been solved at this stage, so if the EU is agreeing to move forward now I think that must be on the proviso that work continues on solving them during a transitional period. That would represent a major concession from the EU's previous position that there would have to be a backstop in case arrangements could not be agreed during a transitional period. Such a concession seems odd to me given they must know there is not much chance of the deal actually being approved by the UK. I'll wait and see on this one whether the extent of agreement really is as great as is being suggested ...
If the deal really did go through that would provide a boost for the Scottish nationalists, who are already calling for another referendum on independence for Scotland next year. Polls suggest the result of that would be very evenly balanced, but giving NI some special status with the EU - but not offering that to Scotland - would be expected to aid those wanting independence. On a similar tack, I can't see any consent process in NI working without raising the prospect of a referendum for a united Ireland.
If you're interested in Brexit, you could give the Brexitcast podcast a try - that's be serious journalists, but takes a generally light-hearted approach to the issues.
Edit: a revised withdrawal agreement has now been published by the EU. That does indeed leave details about how customs arrangements will work to be resolved during the transitional period, confirming that the EU has agreed a major concession from its previous position. The statement also confirms that all aspects of the previous agreement, other than Ireland, are essentially unchanged.
Edit2: briefly checking on the summit I see Juncker (EU Commission President) has said the EU don't want to give a further extension. The decision on that is up to EU national leaders, not him, but it's still a strong indication of how they're feeling. The French have been suggesting that enough is enough for a while and this suggests that view may be predominating. If MPs in Parliament are really faced with a limited choice of this deal or no deal, that could result in some changes of mind.
Overnight Elijah Cummings passed away.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/elijah-cummings-house-oversight-committee-dies-dle/index.html
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/44531EFA-EF6A-11E9-8AF6-F82CD7A7229C
Well, to be fair, 1992 would probably have been close if Ross Perot hadn't intervened.
I doubt it will happen. Pelosi has always been wary of it, and she shut it down yet again.
She's smarter than the rest of em, i'll admit. I'm sure she understands how bad this makes them look to normal, moderate people.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/465960-pelosi-no-house-vote-on-impeachment-inquiry
She is not shutting it down. This vote is not about impeaching. It's about having a vote to have an impeachment INVESTIGATION. And they aren't having it because their is absolutely no constitutional requirement they do so. The investigation will take place and then they will have the vote on whether to send it to a trial in the Senate. The investigation is taking place as we speak. People are giving testimony on a nearly daily basis. I'm not even going to go over the swings in the polls with you. You can quantify what 15-20 point swings on the issue mean on your own, and rationalize why it proves "normal people" are against it. They aren't having an official vote on starting an investigation because it a.) superfluous and b.) allows less chances for Republicans to hijack the process for nightly highlights on FOX News.
She doesn't want another spectacle. People are tired of it, and the more they make their case the more they will lose.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/15/house-democratic-leaders-impeachment-vote-047136
"Pelosi privately told other Democrats she was "agnostic" on the issue, said a Democratic aide.
During Tuesday's meeting, Pelosi told her colleagues that she "only has license this caucus gives me," meaning she wouldn't pressure her rank-and-file to hold the vote.
House Democratic leaders also quietly reached out to the most vulnerable members of their caucus to gauge whether they would support a formal vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry against Trump, according to multiple Democratic aides.
The response was "pretty strongly no," said an aide close to the issue. The idea has met with anxiety among some of the battleground Democrats, who fear it could distract from the rest of their agenda, according to multiple aides.
Several “Frontliners” in key districts raised concerns as well, including freshman Reps. Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.).
Brindisi pointed out that there's no constitutional requirement for such a vote, while pointing out that he hadn't backed an impeachment inquiry publicly yet. Just six other Democrats have yet to endorse the inquiry.
"You said it perfectly," Pelosi responded.
Houlahan asked if Democrats "were being fair" to Republicans, while Spanberger urged members to talk about anything other than impeachment while they're on TV. "
I think this has more to do to combat the “Do Nothing Democrats” speaking point than impeachment itself.
Voters want to know that there is more being discussed that effects their daily lives more than who is sitting in the White House.
I dont think this is wrong, but it's basically why Pelosi is so politically savvy. The senate will not convict, and that's despite the fact that his chief of staff essentially said that there was a prid-pro-quo today on the question of aid to Ukraine.
So why give Trump any kind of win over this, when you can lay a political siege.
Even if she does formalize an impeachment process, over 50% of registered voters current support impeachment and removal. Its hard to imagine any of those voters would ever move to voting for Trump. He's probably looking to stop them from voting in general.
Over 50% of voters didn’t vote for Trump either.
@WarChiefZeke is right, it’s about select battleground districts who want to know that impeaching trump isn’t the only thing the government is working on, and IMO, they are right to think that way.
Yeah, because it's crazy to be concerned about a guy who will literally reward the G7 Summit to his own resort, where every drink, appetizer and room rental will go straight into the pockets of his family in DIRECT violation of an entire clause of the Constitution. And if anyone is buying the line being served up that Trump "won't make dime" off this event, I will bet anyone right now $1000 straight-up that within 90 days of that event taking place it will turn out to be total bullshit and that the family pocketed every penny. But hey, only pinko-commie hippies care about what is essentially a royal family literally robbing taxpayers and sticking the money in their own pocket. Real Americans only care about such things when money is being spent on healthcare or poor people.