US Politics Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
gordondaviesmoustache said:
And it sort of is about Trump, given his exclusion from Twitter is the primary source of this debate.
Click to expand...
Yes I find his insistence that it’s nothing to do with Trump kind of odd. It’s only about Trump. I also find it odd that Russ isn’t even aware of the tweets that finally saw Trump banned permanently.

1: “Dave’s been given a life prison sentence”

2: “That’s fucking appalling, a complete joke the judge gave him that”

1: “You heard what he was found guilty of though?”

2: “Nah I’m not interested in that, but it’s still a joke of a decision”
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Which quite simply, is what companies do.

Loving the gratuitous use of the word 'titty' btw, bob.
Click to expand...

Can never have too many titties and that is a hill I’m prepared to die on.

And, yes, these companies will always be looking at the political landscape and adapting to, and influencing it, to their best advantage. It would be remiss of them not to do so.
 
DrBlueBob said:
To be fair, Bob, the last two paragraphs are in your opinion. I doubt that you would swayed from said opinion but, nonetheless it is in your opinion. Much the same with @Rascal who has heartfelt views. Not everyone agrees.
Vis a vis the convenient timing, my take is that it's a case of enough is enough.
All about opinions though.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an opinion and as I said a cynical one at that, but both things can be true, it can be a case of enough is enough and a line has to be drawn (you will get no argument from me on that), but also allow you to prudently reposition your business to fall on the side of the angels before a new administration with control of the House and the Senate takes over.
 
Did Trump think the military and police would back up his coup attempt or something?
Otherwise I don't see the point of what his mob did on Wednesday.
 
Rascal said:
The Social media platforms have been banning political expression for a while though.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? So they have banned speech that does not violate their code of conduct, but for its political content? Can you point out some specific examples of this? I’d especially like to see an email post from a Facebook or a Twitter that says, “Yo, we took down your post. You didn’t violate our code of conduct at all — we just don’t agree with it.”

Worried about it happening is one thing. Saying it’s been happening for a while is quite another.
 
Last edited:
kaz7 said:
A large amount of the police did , letting them in at the barriers and taking selfies
Click to expand...
The inquest will be interesting to see if they were complicit, were ordered or were still awaiting instructions. Facing that mob would have been extremely intimidating, to handle it properly needed leadership and "backing down" could have been a tactic, so I'd be wary of jumping to conclusions from the video alone. One thing we do know is that it was a cock-up at leadership levels.
 
TheRemainsOfTheDave said:
The inquest will be interesting to see if they were complicit, were ordered or were still awaiting instructions. Facing that mob would have been extremely intimidating, to handle it properly needed leadership and "backing down" could have been a tactic, so I'd be wary of jumping to conclusions from the video alone. One thing we do know is that it was a cock-up at leadership levels.
Click to expand...
taking selfies is very damning and opening the gates when there was no crush situation is also daming , of the few videos of the police trying to force them back a tiny police woman was at the front doing her bit , there are whilte police in that trump group
 
kaz7 said:
taking selfies is very damning and opening the gates when there was no crush situation is also daming , of the few videos of the police trying to force them back a tiny police woman was at the front doing her bit , there are whilte police in that trump group
Click to expand...
I guess I'm hoping that there'll be an acceptable reason they did that - but not very confident of it to be fair. Sad times.
 
DrBlueBob said:
To be fair, Bob, the last two paragraphs are in your opinion. I doubt that you would swayed from said opinion but, nonetheless it is in your opinion. Much the same with @Rascal who has heartfelt views. Not everyone agrees.
Vis a vis the convenient timing, my take is that it's a case of enough is enough.
All about opinions though.
Click to expand...
Yes, in a way it's based on a belief about what goes on behind closed doors. I agree with Bob, however I would point to the impending moves to pass legislation aimed at imposing regulation similair to that affecting the press and TV. Both parties have signalled their intent to pass such legislation.

I see it as the natural lifecycle of these companies. The business models effectively exploit gaps in legislation. There is a distinct lack of regulation compared to existing mass media. At the moment, they have successfully argued that they are merely portals, not publishers or broadcasters. So they operate in an area somewhere between telecoms companies and mass media.

It takes several years for legislatures to react and take action to bring any new market/technology under the same level of scrutiny as existing sectors/industries. That time is used by these firms to establish the dominant/monopolistic position. Then they look to protect that interest by co-operating and pre-empting formal statutory and regulatory controls.

I mean, that is how it appears to be working, and how things generally have worked in the past.

There's nothing cynical in saying they operate in a legal space subject to new legislation, and that is the domain of politicians.

And we know Zuckerberg had meetings with Trump.
 
BobKowalski said:
Yes, it is an opinion and as I said a cynical one at that, but both things can be true, it can be a case of enough is enough and a line has to be drawn (you will get no argument from me on that), but also allow you to prudently reposition your business to fall on the side of the angels before a new administration with control of the House and the Senate takes over.
Click to expand...
I approve of this, Bob. Not that you seek my approbation but you have it, nonetheless.
 
BobKowalski said:
Can never have too many titties and that is a hill I’m prepared to die on.

And, yes, these companies will always be looking at the political landscape and adapting to, and influencing it, to their best advantage. It would be remiss of them not to do so.
Click to expand...
Eccentrica galumbits says hi.
 
BobKowalski said:
Can never have too many titties and that is a hill I’m prepared to die on.

And, yes, these companies will always be looking at the political landscape and adapting to, and influencing it, to their best advantage. It would be remiss of them not to do so.
Click to expand...
And equally remiss of lawmakers not to constrain them and reign them in.
 
SWP's back said:
2nd point stating that gay marriage runs counter to the Constitution shows that whoever wrote that is a fucking ****.
Click to expand...

Its just insane. McCain known for serious wrongdoing during his military career!? Not only is it bollocks but if it were true then why did literally the same people writing this elect him senator for 30 years?

I think the most telling bit is this "erroneously placed behaviours ahead of presidential results"

They have become a party of extremists. Nothing matters except being in power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top