Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

The Politics Thread

1537538540542543563

Comments

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    edited July 31
    This article is damning on a number of fronts, but most of all for this, which confirms what most being honest about this already knew: that the decision was made to let people in blue states die because they saw a potential political advantage. The alarms those of us sounded about the purposefully lackluster response to Puerto Rico and the California wildfire weren't paranoia, they were canaries in the coalmine. Murderous bastards:

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air

    Most troubling of all, perhaps, was a sentiment the expert said a member of Kushner’s team expressed: that because the virus had hit blue states hardest, a national plan was unnecessary and would not make sense politically. “The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy,” said the expert.

    Grond0ThacoBellDinoDin
  • WarChiefZekeWarChiefZeke Member Posts: 2,164
    edited July 31
    New set of Epstein documents released today. Some interview snippets below. It is really massive so I'm just getting what comes through my feed.

    The FBI comes out looking pretty bad. They had evidence for years and more or less sat on it, didn't try to reach out to all victims, a lot of serious negligence for such a massive crime.

    American institutions need a full cleansing.

    6rqtmtizeasm.jpg


    z9itpxf5fm9i.jpg

    smeagolheart
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    edited July 31
    She named the actual people she was trafficked to, which were former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew, along with two other names who apparently famous but I have never heard of. Maxwell "recruited" the girl from Trump's club where she was working as a 15-year old "locker room attendant" and can place Clinton as being frequently on the island. Neither the former President or the current one is named in criminal activity (and she had no trouble naming big names who were), but they were certainly right in the thick of Epstein's world.

    There isn't actually a ton new here. The rumors about the three aforementioned men procuring the young girls have been out there a long time, this just confirms it. We knew Clinton was on the flight logs, and there are scores of pictures of Trump with Maxwell and Epstein, but little concrete evidence showing anything more, at least from this witness.

    BallpointManDinoDin
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    edited July 31
    They are actively sabotaging the Post Office as we speak. It's pretty clear what the strategy is. They see no ACTUAL path to victory. The strategy is to now go to a full-on attack on mail-in ballots to call into question the results in advance, and paint any delays in valid ballots as proof of conspiracy. This is why Trump was quoted yesterday as saying the results must be known on Election Night, with no exceptions. The reason you know Republicans are certain their actual record can't stand on it's own when faced against the full vote of the public is by observing the extreme lengths they will go to to prevent that from happening. They have nothing left but to attack democracy itself:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-backlog-sparks-worries-that-ballot-delivery-could-be-delayed-in-november/2020/07/30/cb19f1f4-d1d0-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

    I swear to god this is not a drill. Whether he leaves in January is one matter. But we can be guaranteed IF he loses in November that the nearly 80 days in-between will possibly destroy whatever semblance of legitimacy our system has left. This could all go up in flames. The groundwork is being laid as we speak. Ignoring it is at our peril.

    semiticgodThacoBell
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,305
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    They are actively sabotaging the Post Office as we speak. It's pretty clear what the strategy is. They see no ACTUAL path to victory. The strategy is to now go to a full-on attack on mail-in ballots to call into question the results in advance, and paint any delays in valid ballots as proof of conspiracy. This is why Trump was quoted yesterday as saying the results must be known on Election Night, with no exceptions. The reason you know Republicans are certain their actual record can't stand on it's own when faced against the full vote of the public is by observing the extreme lengths they will go to to prevent that from happening. They have nothing left but to attack democracy itself:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-backlog-sparks-worries-that-ballot-delivery-could-be-delayed-in-november/2020/07/30/cb19f1f4-d1d0-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

    I swear to god this is not a drill. Whether he leaves in January is one matter. But we can be guaranteed IF he loses in November that the nearly 80 days in-between will possibly destroy whatever semblance of legitimacy our system has left. This could all go up in flames. The groundwork is being laid as we speak. Ignoring it is at our peril.

    So what exactly is it we're supposed to do. Send a harsh letter to our Congressperson?

  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,478
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    They are actively sabotaging the Post Office as we speak. It's pretty clear what the strategy is. They see no ACTUAL path to victory. The strategy is to now go to a full-on attack on mail-in ballots to call into question the results in advance, and paint any delays in valid ballots as proof of conspiracy. This is why Trump was quoted yesterday as saying the results must be known on Election Night, with no exceptions. The reason you know Republicans are certain their actual record can't stand on it's own when faced against the full vote of the public is by observing the extreme lengths they will go to to prevent that from happening. They have nothing left but to attack democracy itself:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/postal-service-backlog-sparks-worries-that-ballot-delivery-could-be-delayed-in-november/2020/07/30/cb19f1f4-d1d0-11ea-8d32-1ebf4e9d8e0d_story.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wp_main

    I swear to god this is not a drill. Whether he leaves in January is one matter. But we can be guaranteed IF he loses in November that the nearly 80 days in-between will possibly destroy whatever semblance of legitimacy our system has left. This could all go up in flames. The groundwork is being laid as we speak. Ignoring it is at our peril.

    So what exactly is it we're supposed to do. Send a harsh letter to our Congressperson?

    Yep. Through the mail. :lol:

    But it's actually be aware of the game plan (and try to make as many people aware of the game plan) so when they do start spouting this nonsense come election day.

    And Trump can scream about needing to know the election results on the evening but it should be stated by every honest media outlet, from this day forth, that the results of this election will not be known then and can take weeks if not a month to get a full count. Yes that's hard for the business that relies on clickbate ad revenue, but the myth of Americans must knowing the results that exact date needs to be dispelled. There is a reason why there is a two month transition period. The media should also not turn it into a circus (another hard thing for them to do) and let those who need to tabulate the votes do so.

    Balrog99ThacoBell
  • jonesr65jonesr65 Member Posts: 43
    How long did we have to wait for Florida to be recounted when Gore and Bush were the candidates back in 2000? Dec 12, 2000 not the next day.

    ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,478
    jonesr65 wrote: »
    How long did we have to wait for Florida to be recounted when Gore and Bush were the candidates back in 2000? Dec 12, 2000 not the next day.

    Truthfully, not long enough for them to actually count the ballots correctly and allow the media to turn it into a circus. You can thank the SCOTUS and Roger Stone respectively for that.

    Now times what happened in Florida by 50. The only difference is that the American public should see this coming prior to November and expect the delays to happen.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,305
    deltago wrote: »
    jonesr65 wrote: »
    How long did we have to wait for Florida to be recounted when Gore and Bush were the candidates back in 2000? Dec 12, 2000 not the next day.

    Truthfully, not long enough for them to actually count the ballots correctly and allow the media to turn it into a circus. You can thank the SCOTUS and Roger Stone respectively for that.

    Now times what happened in Florida by 50. The only difference is that the American public should see this coming prior to November and expect the delays to happen.

    Yeah, cuz the general public of the US is reasonable like that. 😒

    ThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,305
    edited July 31
    Ha! Some of the real protesters in Portland are getting pissed at the bored, white rich kids stirring up trouble with the cops (and Feds)...

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-race-protests-portland-activis/in-portland-some-black-activists-frustrated-with-white-protesters-idUSKCN24W2QD

    smeagolheart
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    jonesr65 wrote: »
    How long did we have to wait for Florida to be recounted when Gore and Bush were the candidates back in 2000? Dec 12, 2000 not the next day.

    Truthfully, not long enough for them to actually count the ballots correctly and allow the media to turn it into a circus. You can thank the SCOTUS and Roger Stone respectively for that.

    Now times what happened in Florida by 50. The only difference is that the American public should see this coming prior to November and expect the delays to happen.

    Yeah, cuz the general public of the US is reasonable like that. 😒

    Nowhere is it written we have to know a winner on election night. This time, we may not. The ballots are NEVER all counted when they make projections. It is simply based on a statistical certainty after a certain threshold is passed.

  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 6,305
    jjstraka34 wrote: »
    Balrog99 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    jonesr65 wrote: »
    How long did we have to wait for Florida to be recounted when Gore and Bush were the candidates back in 2000? Dec 12, 2000 not the next day.

    Truthfully, not long enough for them to actually count the ballots correctly and allow the media to turn it into a circus. You can thank the SCOTUS and Roger Stone respectively for that.

    Now times what happened in Florida by 50. The only difference is that the American public should see this coming prior to November and expect the delays to happen.

    Yeah, cuz the general public of the US is reasonable like that. 😒

    Nowhere is it written we have to know a winner on election night. This time, we may not. The ballots are NEVER all counted when they make projections. It is simply based on a statistical certainty after a certain threshold is passed.

    Well they haven't been wrong since "Dewey defeats Truman" at least.

  • jmerryjmerry Member Posts: 1,017
    Note that mail-heavy elections are particularly susceptible to having results shift as more votes are counted. The first ballots counted are often not anything close to a representative sample of the whole.

    For example, Washington has had all-mail elections for a while now, with ballots merely needing to be postmarked by election day. There's a first batch of results released on election night, based on counting ballots that were already there - and then more ballots come in over the next few days. Newly counted ballots are added to the total each day over a week or two.

    Those late-arriving ballots have consistently shown a strong leftward bias, enough to shift the overall numbers several points from where they were on election night. If a race in WA was 51-49 to the conservative candidate on election night, I'd call it for the liberal. This has nothing to do with regional differences in how fast votes get counted; it applies even to races like Seattle's city council.

    California is transitioning to this same election model, and the late vote shift has shown up there. As mail-dominated elections spread across the country, I'd expect miscalls to be made as media outlets encounter this effect for the first time. And in the current political climate, Republicans screaming about "fraud" and trying to delegitimize the results as the leads they thought they had vanish.

    Grond0BallpointManThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    edited August 1
    jmerry wrote: »
    Note that mail-heavy elections are particularly susceptible to having results shift as more votes are counted. The first ballots counted are often not anything close to a representative sample of the whole.

    For example, Washington has had all-mail elections for a while now, with ballots merely needing to be postmarked by election day. There's a first batch of results released on election night, based on counting ballots that were already there - and then more ballots come in over the next few days. Newly counted ballots are added to the total each day over a week or two.

    Those late-arriving ballots have consistently shown a strong leftward bias, enough to shift the overall numbers several points from where they were on election night. If a race in WA was 51-49 to the conservative candidate on election night, I'd call it for the liberal. This has nothing to do with regional differences in how fast votes get counted; it applies even to races like Seattle's city council.

    California is transitioning to this same election model, and the late vote shift has shown up there. As mail-dominated elections spread across the country, I'd expect miscalls to be made as media outlets encounter this effect for the first time. And in the current political climate, Republicans screaming about "fraud" and trying to delegitimize the results as the leads they thought they had vanish.

    This is precisely what they are counting on. Slow the mail to a crawl to either prevent the ballots from reaching voters in time or at all, and being returned in the same manner. Get the base revved up about "fraud" months (really years) in advance and tell them only liberals are voting by mail. Disproportionate number of red voters vote in person on election day, and may have better numbers the night of than what the final tally is, and declare that anything that comes in after election night is the result of ballot stuffing from some amphormous authorities. This is their gambit. Bank on it.

    Don't believe me?? Check out the new poll today. 55% of Republicans don't believe the election will be legitimate if Trump loses and mail in ballots are in widespread use. They believe this 3 months in advance of it taking place. Why?? Because he said so. All he has to do is make something up. It's that easy.

    They're simply echoing what he has now said for TWO elections in a row, on the record. Which is that he will NOT commit to accepting a result where he isn't the winner.

    Say what you want about Hillary. She conceded the next morning, attended the inauguration, and walked away. Because that's the only way the entire thing doesn't break down. Trump has already dismantled every norm we thought was a rule, but was really just guidelines both sides had abided by. Why wouldn't he obliterate the final one??

    Grond0ThacoBellsemiticgod
  • ilduderinoilduderino Member Posts: 627
    Hopefully he loses “so big” that these games are a non starter - he doesn’t seem to have the courts or the military on side either

    smeagolheart
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,425
    ilduderino wrote: »
    Hopefully he loses “so big” that these games are a non starter - he doesn’t seem to have the courts or the military on side either

    The supreme court seems to lean to him more than anyone else (gee, I wonder why?) and congress has already sold their (hypothetical) souls to him.

    smeagolheart
  • ilduderinoilduderino Member Posts: 627
    edited August 2
    The courts are a worry but there have been some surprising anti trump decisions recently. Also those that back him now should start to distance themselves when he looks like a sinking ship. Maybe I’m naive but as an observer in GB you seem much closer to getting rid of these guys than we are

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 11,425
    ilduderino wrote: »
    The courts are a worry but there have been some surprising anti trump decisions recently. Also those that back him now should start to distance themselves when he looks like a sinking ship. Maybe I’m naive but as an observer in GB you seem much closer to getting rid of these guys than we are

    My understanding is that the decisions that ran against Trump was because of precedent (which RULES the US "justice" system), rather than an ideological difference with Trump. I hope you're right though, these 4 years have been disaster after disaster.

  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    On the FIRST day of reopened school in Indiana, a student tests positive. I give it a week before everyone is sent back home. Multiple staff at a high school in same state have as well. It's been a couple of days. This isn't going to work. Sports, school, a return to restaurants.......those are all things that are akin to a kid getting a reward for having a good report card at the end of the quarter. Guess what?? We got straight F's all the way down. Thus, we won't get any of the rewards, even though we're demanding them. How long will this magical thinking go on for??

    ThacoBellsmeagolheart
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,478


    So what’s interesting about this graph isn’t that 10 red states are propping up the COVID numbers, it’s the massive drop that happened in Florida after the HSS took over the numbers from the CDC.

    I’d add Arizona to that as well, but it looks like they have been dropping for quite some time.

    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    deltago wrote: »


    So what’s interesting about this graph isn’t that 10 red states are propping up the COVID numbers, it’s the massive drop that happened in Florida after the HSS took over the numbers from the CDC.

    I’d add Arizona to that as well, but it looks like they have been dropping for quite some time.

    Even the fudged numbers are horrible compared to nearly everywhere else on Earth. I haven't trusted the CDC site since March. Worldtracker, COVID-19 Tracking, and Johns Hopkins are the reliable sources. And they all say the same thing, which is that barring some miracle, nearly a quarter million will be dead by election day.

    smeagolheartThacoBell
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,705
    Trump victory over ramp song

    Grond0
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    edited August 4
    I just love how an organization like CBS News will continue to buy into this narrative that there is a Republican Healthcare plan. It's beyond Lucy and the football at this point. We need an entirely new analogy. Even Charlie Brown wouldn't keep falling for this. There is no spoon:


    Does anyone in the media give ANY pushback on shit like this in real-time?? All they have to do to prove it's a complete fabrication is go ask a couple of GOP Senators about how the "healthcare legislation" is coming along. Or their Democratic counterparts in the House. This isn't happening, this isn't even in the stages of cursory planning. This isn't reporting, it's stenography.

    ThacoBellsemiticgodilduderino
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,435
    edited August 4
    Trump's business 'acumen' is on show again in relation to the potential TikTok deal. That deal is only being talked about as a result of Trump's threat to close down their business in the US, but now he's said: "The United States should get a very large percentage of that price, because we're making it possible. It would come from the sale, which nobody else would be thinking about but me, but that's the way I think, and I think it's very fair."

    One of the reasons he has such a poor business record is that very few people agree with Trump about what he considers fair - not even Trump himself. I think we all know perfectly well how he would react if China required Microsoft to sell their business at cut-price rates or be refused permission to continue operating in the country - and then demanded a slice of the action themselves ...

    I am aware by the way that China create their own share of difficulties for foreign investors, which the US have been complaining about for years. I don't see this though as part of a Trump strategy to address those issues, but just an indication of someone who can't resist grabbing at any cash he sees whether he has a legitimate interest in that or not.

    Post edited by Grond0 on
    ilduderinoThacoBell
  • ilduderinoilduderino Member Posts: 627
    edited August 4
    In the U.K. we have a whole range of disastrous responses to the virus which have killed thousands unnecessarily and put the health service and economy under terrible strain, including a failure to lockdown quickly, failure to protect care homes, failure to invest over the last ten years and senior government figures failing to follow advice like not shaking hands and breaching lockdown in a one rule for us, one rule for the plebs manner that destroyed faith in the system.

    Today after months and years of being told it is “project fear” to point out the very real disastrous consequences of Brexit, we are now told that the deal the government negotiated and forced through without scrutiny is flawed due to “small print” and medicine supplies should be stockpiled due to the threat of a no deal Brexit (despite being told a deal was “oven ready” in the last election). Sadly our first past the post political system means a deeply unpopular party in many areas of the country can get as little as 37% of the national vote (let alone of the population) and get an overwhelming absolute majority to govern, with no congress to check them (the HoL is undemocratic and not very effective). This is all supported by the press - somehow the guys that own the ritz hotel and control bits of the press, as well as a very senior government adviser whose father in law lives in an actual castle to name just a few examples, have persuaded people that they are the anti elite.

    If anyone in any other job was a quarter as dishonest and incompetent as this government they would be fired and struggle to find work again. A number of the cabinet have been fired in the past for various acts of dishonesty and incompetence but they are loyal to Brexit. Dishonest and incompetent makes for a bad government at any time, let alone in a time of crisis.

    Post edited by ilduderino on
    Grond0dunbarThacoBellBallpointMan
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,127
    The problem with brexit is that it was done for an statistically insignificant majority of the country. Huge changes such as this should require a 2/3 majority of voters, or should be interpreted as advisory referenda. Getting 51% majority when only 72% of voters showed up is not a majority. The old government was stupid to accept it as such.

    Moreover, looking at results, the bigger cities voted to stay or were at 51% leave while most of the English countryside and elderly voted to leave. It would have been better to see if the issues from the countryside and elderly could have been solved in a different manner which would not take 4 years to come to fruition, whichever fruition that may even be (does anyone even know?).

    ilduderinoThacoBelldunbar
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,478
    Grond0 wrote: »
    Trump's business 'acumen' is on show again in relation to the potential TikTok deal. That deal is only being talked about as a result of Trump's threat to close down their business in the US, but now he's said: "The United States should get a very large percentage of that price, because we're making it possible. It would come from the sale, which nobody else would be thinking about but me, but that's the way I think, and I think it's very fair."

    One of the reasons he has such a poor business record is that very few people agree with Trump about what he considers fair - not even Trump himself. I think we all know perfectly well how he would react if China required Microsoft to sell their business at cut-price rates or be refused permission to continue operating in the country - and then demanded a slice of the action themselves ...

    I am aware by the way that China create their own share of difficulties for foreign investors, which the US have been complaining about for years. I don't see this though as part of a Trump strategy to address those issues, but just an indication of someone who can't resist grabbing at any cash he sees whether he has a legitimate interest in that or not.

    He doesn't want TikTok to sell. It isn't visual enough to sell to his base. Banning a $75 billion company who's (allegedly) spying on all its users for the Chinese government plays nicely into the antagonistic nature of his base and something he can promote at all of his rallies "I banned TikTok," sounds much better than "I helped secure the transfer of a company that was allegedly spying on it's users on behalf of the Chinese government to a soulless American corporation that will allegedly use the program to spy on its users for its own personal gain."

    The only reason why he is allowing the sale to happen was party pressure saying the move isolates young voters. He's just attempting to either poison the sale so it doesn't happen by the deadline, or have something else to prop up to his base instead (Making China pay for it's access to the American market).

    I am also wondering if Tiktok (and then a lesser extent all the media giants) can then sue the government off of First Amendment Rights if it does get banned. The spying allegations have never been proven, and outright banning the platform could be seen as censoring one's right to free speech and assembly (albeit the assembly is happening online, but in today's digital world that is where most assembly starts.

    ThacoBell
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 8,756
    edited August 4
    The idea that a President can just "ban" a company and insist that the government get a portion of any sale of the company independent from legitimate taxes is just further proof that every so-called conservative principle has been completely abandoned. If Obama suggested anything approaching what Trump is doing here, he'd be called nothing less than a tyrant, and was, for far less.

    ThacoBell
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,435
    deltago wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    Trump's business 'acumen' is on show again in relation to the potential TikTok deal. That deal is only being talked about as a result of Trump's threat to close down their business in the US, but now he's said: "The United States should get a very large percentage of that price, because we're making it possible. It would come from the sale, which nobody else would be thinking about but me, but that's the way I think, and I think it's very fair."

    One of the reasons he has such a poor business record is that very few people agree with Trump about what he considers fair - not even Trump himself. I think we all know perfectly well how he would react if China required Microsoft to sell their business at cut-price rates or be refused permission to continue operating in the country - and then demanded a slice of the action themselves ...

    I am aware by the way that China create their own share of difficulties for foreign investors, which the US have been complaining about for years. I don't see this though as part of a Trump strategy to address those issues, but just an indication of someone who can't resist grabbing at any cash he sees whether he has a legitimate interest in that or not.

    He doesn't want TikTok to sell. It isn't visual enough to sell to his base. Banning a $75 billion company who's (allegedly) spying on all its users for the Chinese government plays nicely into the antagonistic nature of his base and something he can promote at all of his rallies "I banned TikTok," sounds much better than "I helped secure the transfer of a company that was allegedly spying on it's users on behalf of the Chinese government to a soulless American corporation that will allegedly use the program to spy on its users for its own personal gain."

    The only reason why he is allowing the sale to happen was party pressure saying the move isolates young voters. He's just attempting to either poison the sale so it doesn't happen by the deadline, or have something else to prop up to his base instead (Making China pay for it's access to the American market).

    I am also wondering if Tiktok (and then a lesser extent all the media giants) can then sue the government off of First Amendment Rights if it does get banned. The spying allegations have never been proven, and outright banning the platform could be seen as censoring one's right to free speech and assembly (albeit the assembly is happening online, but in today's digital world that is where most assembly starts.

    If it's a choice between cock-up or conspiracy, I tend to favor cock-up ...

    Balrog99
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,478
    Grond0 wrote: »
    deltago wrote: »
    Grond0 wrote: »
    Trump's business 'acumen' is on show again in relation to the potential TikTok deal. That deal is only being talked about as a result of Trump's threat to close down their business in the US, but now he's said: "The United States should get a very large percentage of that price, because we're making it possible. It would come from the sale, which nobody else would be thinking about but me, but that's the way I think, and I think it's very fair."

    One of the reasons he has such a poor business record is that very few people agree with Trump about what he considers fair - not even Trump himself. I think we all know perfectly well how he would react if China required Microsoft to sell their business at cut-price rates or be refused permission to continue operating in the country - and then demanded a slice of the action themselves ...

    I am aware by the way that China create their own share of difficulties for foreign investors, which the US have been complaining about for years. I don't see this though as part of a Trump strategy to address those issues, but just an indication of someone who can't resist grabbing at any cash he sees whether he has a legitimate interest in that or not.

    He doesn't want TikTok to sell. It isn't visual enough to sell to his base. Banning a $75 billion company who's (allegedly) spying on all its users for the Chinese government plays nicely into the antagonistic nature of his base and something he can promote at all of his rallies "I banned TikTok," sounds much better than "I helped secure the transfer of a company that was allegedly spying on it's users on behalf of the Chinese government to a soulless American corporation that will allegedly use the program to spy on its users for its own personal gain."

    The only reason why he is allowing the sale to happen was party pressure saying the move isolates young voters. He's just attempting to either poison the sale so it doesn't happen by the deadline, or have something else to prop up to his base instead (Making China pay for it's access to the American market).

    I am also wondering if Tiktok (and then a lesser extent all the media giants) can then sue the government off of First Amendment Rights if it does get banned. The spying allegations have never been proven, and outright banning the platform could be seen as censoring one's right to free speech and assembly (albeit the assembly is happening online, but in today's digital world that is where most assembly starts.

    If it's a choice between cock-up or conspiracy, I tend to favor cock-up ...

    The two go hand and hand with Trump.

    His public excuse for banning TikTok resides with the conspiracy that it is used by the Chinese government to spy on its users. His private cock-up is to use it as leverage when negotiating with the Chinese in a trade deal but having the company attempt to sell its US part so it can no longer be leveraged.

    ThacoBell
Sign In or Register to comment.