Politics

[Legacy]

I enjoy looking through Governing's website and finding some interesting articles on state and local governing, ideas, initiatives, challenges. (Site linked)

Here's one:

Boulder County Adopts $433M Budget, Includes COVID Bonuses
The county approved the budget, which includes a one-time bonus of $1,000 per county employee to help offset the impacts of COVID-19. The county also focused funds on climate change measures.

 

[TorontoGold]

lol, so not only is the media ignoring the Cuomo news, even the fems aren't calling for his resignation. Just an apology... holy cow.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This would be a good time for <a href="https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NYGovCuomo</a> to apologize and prove he's going to do better by addressing systemic sexual harassment and enacting <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/OneFairWage?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#OneFairWage</a> cc <a href="https://twitter.com/onefairwage?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@onefairwage</a> <a href="https://t.co/dyj5s4Kqin">https://t.co/dyj5s4Kqin</a></p>— Shaunna Thomas (@SLThomas) <a href="https://twitter.com/SLThomas/status/1338549673502658567?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 14, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Andrew Cuomo is an absolute dink. If these are true, he should resign asap. Cynthia Nixon wouldn't have pulled this shit.

 

[Irish YJ]

Andrew Cuomo is an absolute dink. If these are true, he should resign asap. Cynthia Nixon wouldn't have pulled this shit.

IDK. Nixon is an absolute homer for the party. Doubt she'd call for the ouster of the Lib's NY hero.

Both Cuomos are dick knobs of the highest degrees. Not sure who is worse. Fredo probably is the most irritating, but Guido is pretty close.

 

[Irish#1]

Love Dungy. And he won't get attacked and canceled near as much by the lefty crowd.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I am a pro-choice pastor.</p>— Reverend Raphael Warnock (@ReverendWarnock) <a href="https://twitter.com/ReverendWarnock/status/1336490801413632002?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Rev Warner may be a pastor. My question would be “Is he a Christian?” That is, does he follow the teachings of Jesus and does he believe that the Bible is the absolute word of God? <a href="https://t.co/cabHEGB2XX">https://t.co/cabHEGB2XX</a></p>— Tony Dungy (@TonyDungy) <a href="https://twitter.com/TonyDungy/status/1336816523084754944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I would think it would be difficult for someone who believes that God sees us when we are in the womb (Psalm 139:13-16) to think that it is OK to choose not to bring that life to fruition.</p>— Tony Dungy (@TonyDungy) <a href="https://twitter.com/TonyDungy/status/1336824850430767106?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Please read Psalm 139:13-16. Then tell me if you think God puts babies in the womb or man does? If you believe they randomly get there then I have no argument. But if you believe God puts them there, then how does anyone have a right to “choose” which ones survive?</p>— Tony Dungy (@TonyDungy) <a href="https://twitter.com/TonyDungy/status/1337025477119258625?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">What if I was advocating for the right to kill someone who was already born? Would that be morally OK? Of course not. The only question in this debate is what we think of the unborn baby? Is it a life or is it not?</p>— Tony Dungy (@TonyDungy) <a href="https://twitter.com/TonyDungy/status/1337024220761628679?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 10, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Love Dungy. He's the man.

 

[TorontoGold]

IDK. Nixon is an absolute homer for the party. Doubt she'd call for the ouster of the Lib's NY hero.

Both Cuomos are dick knobs of the highest degrees. Not sure who is worse. Fredo probably is the most irritating, but Guido is pretty close.

She's certainly anti Trump and pretty progressive, was a pretty nasty primary IIRC.

Chris is grating sometimes but man his brother is actively bad.

 

[IrishLax]

I dont think the media fully understands how much of a beating their reputation has taken over the last decade or so.

There is a consistent theme of not challenging Democrat positions or politicians, attacking republican ones, etc.

Remember when it was taboo to look into Hunter Biden? Now we find out the Feds have been investigating him for years? Remember the fact checks saying that there would not be a vaccine this year?

I mean, we all know journalism as a field isn't going to attract smart people, but its wild to see how bad most of these people are at their job.

After 8 years of practically blowing Barack Obama, they decided to go after Trump and Pence for 4 years without shame. Remember when they claimed that Trump was going to end the internet as we know it and Pence was gonna electrocute all the gays?

Prepare for 2-3 years of softball questions for Joe and 4 years of fawning coverage of Kamala Harris. They will want to paint Joe's administration in a positive light if only so it can have a pleasant feeling when Kamala takes over or runs in 2024.

There will be all sorts of profiles of her that attempt to make her look like both a YAS QUEEN pop culture icon, a tough but fair prosecutor, and a savvy politician when it's safe to say none of those are remotely true.

American media is awful.

Let's pump the breaks here and not pretend that Trump has absolutely tried to alter the internet as we know it. He tried, he just hasn't succeeded. I'm not even talking about the slippery slope of net neutrality, this past week he threatened to veto a bill to pay our military unless it was amended to include demolition of Section 230 which would fundamentally change the internet and destroy free speech.

Finally, Kayleigh McEnany is a lot of things but she isn't some hero crusading for truth and justice. Above everything she is a propagandist and unapologetic liar. She knowingly spreads disinformation and falsehoods on a daily basis. There are too many examples to name them all, but my favorites are the needless, meaningless lies... like claiming emphatically that Trump doesn't use the term "kung flu" for COVID when he is on tape doing so and lying that Paw Patrol had been cancelled because it had a cartoon cop dog on it. Why the Press Secretary of the United States feels the need to go up there and lie about COVID nicknames and Nickelodeon shows is beyond me. The much more damaging lies are the ones she has told about COVID, healthcare, and the election but those are less fun to unpack.

You can't complain about "the media" being biased against Trump without acknowledging that his media liaison traffics in misinformation, or without acknowledging that for every MSNBC there is a Newsmax or OANN. For every Mother Jones there is Breitbart. There are very few reputable publications left like the National Review, Reuters, etc.

 

[RDU Irish]

I remember when John Edwards was hiding from the National Enquirer back in the day. Big Media tried to squash it as tabloid trash hit piece. Maybe if Facebook was the primary news source back then they could have throttled that story out of existence.

It has been a long time since major media has done any real investigative journalism. Not quite as long as it has been since politicians didn't lie. Lying about Paw Patrol and lying about keeping your doctor are slightly different though. JFC, Chase is more important to your generation than blowing up the Middle East on the reg.

 

[NorthDakota]

Let's pump the breaks here and not pretend that Trump has absolutely tried to alter the internet as we know it. He tried, he just hasn't succeeded. I'm not even talking about the slippery slope of net neutrality, this past week he threatened to veto a bill to pay our military unless it was amended to include demolition of Section 230 which would fundamentally change the internet and destroy free speech.

Finally, Kayleigh McEnany is a lot of things but she isn't some hero crusading for truth and justice. Above everything she is a propagandist and unapologetic liar. She knowingly spreads disinformation and falsehoods on a daily basis. There are too many examples to name them all, but my favorites are the needless, meaningless lies... like claiming emphatically that Trump doesn't use the term "kung flu" for COVID when he is on tape doing so and lying that Paw Patrol had been cancelled because it had a cartoon cop dog on it. Why the Press Secretary of the United States feels the need to go up there and lie about COVID nicknames and Nickelodeon shows is beyond me. The much more damaging lies are the ones she has told about COVID, healthcare, and the election but those are less fun to unpack.

You can't complain about "the media" being biased against Trump without acknowledging that his media liaison traffics in misinformation, or without acknowledging that for every MSNBC there is a Newsmax or OANN. For every Mother Jones there is Breitbart. There are very few reputable publications left like the National Review, Reuters, etc.

Lololol is this serious?

We were told ending net neutrality would basically end the world...and it did nothing. Internet is faster than ever today. And comparing MSNBC to OAN or Newsmax? Really? We gonna do that?

 

[drayer54]

Lololol is this serious?

We were told ending net neutrality would basically end the world...and it did nothing. Internet is faster than ever today. And comparing MSNBC to OAN or Newsmax? Really? We gonna do that?

The Net Neutrality fear-mongering was worse than the Trump vaccine lies provided by the media.

 

[IrishLax]

Lololol is this serious?

We were told ending net neutrality would basically end the world...and it did nothing. Internet is faster than ever today. And comparing MSNBC to OAN or Newsmax? Really? We gonna do that?

They were stopped from doing more because Trump didn’t have the political capital to do more (see: hamfisted attempt to get rid of Section 230 that he can’t get enough Republicans to support). By the way, as much as Trump wants you to believe that Section 230 protects “big tech” what it actually does is allow for user free speech on everything from Facebook to IrishEnvy without the “publisher” having to worry about getting sued for what users post. Without it, the internet would cease to exist as we know it as sites would have to heavily police all user generated content less they be found liable for it.

 

[NorthDakota]

They were stopped from doing more because Trump didn’t have the politics capita to do more (see: hamfisted attempt to get rid of Section 230 that he can’t get enough Republicans to support). By the way, as much as Trump wants you to believe that Section 230 protects “big tech” what it actually does is allow for user free speech on everything from Facebook to IrishEnvy without the “publisher” having to worry about getting sued for what users post. Without it, the internet would cease to exist as we know it as sites would have to heavily police all user generated content less they be found liable for it.

No one cares about Trump/Section 230. Like, at all. This was a weak attempt to change the subject. You even admit nothing is going to happen there.

 

[TorontoGold]

Lololol is this serious?

We were told ending net neutrality would basically end the world...and it did nothing. Internet is faster than ever today. And comparing MSNBC to OAN or Newsmax? Really? We gonna do that?

Honestly, Lax was being generous comparing MSNBC to OANN. Take a look at both front pages https://www.msnbc.com/ and https://www.oann.com/ - tell me that these are somehow equal.

OANN is running a front page story about how Pelosi is the devil for enacting a mask mandate for the house. They are citing Majoree Taylor Greene QAnon truther as a republican that is against the mandate! Literal anti-science and giving a voice to a fucking nutjob. There's another piece on "The election is far from over!". This is cancerous garbage.

MSNBC is partisan and opinion piece central but they are not anti-science and running QAnon truthers out there.

 

[Irish YJ]

Honestly, Lax was being generous comparing MSNBC to OANN. Take a look at both front pages https://www.msnbc.com/ and https://www.oann.com/ - tell me that these are somehow equal.

OANN is running a front page story about how Pelosi is the devil for enacting a mask mandate for the house. They are citing Majoree Taylor Greene QAnon truther as a republican that is against the mandate! Literal anti-science and giving a voice to a fucking nutjob. There's another piece on "The election is far from over!". This is cancerous garbage.

MSNBC is partisan and opinion piece central but they are not anti-science and running QAnon truthers out there.

My take,,, OANN put out garbage and partisan, MSNBC suppresses truth and partisan.

Neither are journalism, and both are cancerous.

 

[TorontoGold]

My take,,, OANN put out garbage and partisan, MSNBC suppresses truth and partisan.

Neither are journalism, and both are cancerous.

Yeah I guess, honestly I naively had no idea how partisan MSNBC was till I looked at their site. Holy hell lmao

 

[IrishLax]

No one cares about Trump/Section 230. Like, at all. This was a weak attempt to change the subject. You even admit nothing is going to happen there.

It's not changing the subject, it's literally in the post of mine that you quoted. Trump has been rage tweeting about Section 230 for weeks and just threatened to veto an incredibly important, bipartisan bill about funding the military if it didn't include eliminating Section 230.

Trump being really bad at politics doesn't mean that he didn't absolutely try multiple times over the past four years to alter how the internet functions.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yeah I guess, honestly I naively had no idea how partisan MSNBC was till I looked at their site. Holy hell lmao

It's really sad that there is almost zero non partisan sources right now. Reuters, which I loved for many many years, has even taken a turn left.

It's all propaganda at best now.

 

[IrishLax]

Honestly, Lax was being generous comparing MSNBC to OANN. Take a look at both front pages https://www.msnbc.com/ and https://www.oann.com/ - tell me that these are somehow equal.

OANN is running a front page story about how Pelosi is the devil for enacting a mask mandate for the house. They are citing Majoree Taylor Greene QAnon truther as a republican that is against the mandate! Literal anti-science and giving a voice to a fucking nutjob. There's another piece on "The election is far from over!". This is cancerous garbage.

MSNBC is partisan and opinion piece central but they are not anti-science and running QAnon truthers out there.

Yeah, I was. MSNBC is very partisan and very biased but still operates under the guise of opinionated journalism. OANN and Newsmax are flat out propaganda/entertainment networks who know exactly who their audience is.

 

[Irish YJ]

It's not changing the subject, it's literally in the post of mine that you quoted. Trump has been rage tweeting about Section 230 for weeks and just threatened to veto an incredibly important, bipartisan bill about funding the military if it didn't include eliminating Section 230.

Trump being really bad at politics doesn't mean that he didn't absolutely try multiple times over the past four years to alter how the internet functions.

Well, in general, the internet functions pretty badly already all by itself.

Fvck big tech.

 

[Irish YJ]

Yeah, I was. MSNBC is very partisan and very biased but still operates under the guise of opinionated journalism. OANN and Newsmax are flat out propaganda/entertainment networks who know exactly who their audience is.

MSNBC is not the bolded too?

 

[RDU Irish]

They were stopped from doing more because Trump didn’t have the politics capita to do more (see: hamfisted attempt to get rid of Section 230 that he can’t get enough Republicans to support). By the way, as much as Trump wants you to believe that Section 230 protects “big tech” what it actually does is allow for user free speech on everything from Facebook to IrishEnvy without the “publisher” having to worry about getting sued for what users post. Without it, the internet would cease to exist as we know it as sites would have to heavily police all user generated content less they be found liable for it.

You really don't see it? Twitter, Facebook, etc are all innocents who just provide a platform? LOL man. I have seen for years how comments get suppressed and feeds are manipulated. Holy sheep, Batman. If its not in my Twitter/Facebook feed or my non-Faux News channel it didn't happen! Just, wow.

 

[NorthDakota]

It's not changing the subject, it's literally in the post of mine that you quoted. Trump has been rage tweeting about Section 230 for weeks and just threatened to veto an incredibly important, bipartisan bill about funding the military if it didn't include eliminating Section 230.

Trump being really bad at politics doesn't mean that he didn't absolutely try multiple times over the past four years to alter how the internet functions.

No one cares about the 230 stuff because it isn't going anywhere. If they ever did do something about it, well hopefully they would put a structure in place that protected forums like IE and what not. But when Trump and his people got rid of net neutrality, the journos told us it was the end of internet as we know it, that the poors were gonna all but die, and none of that came close to happening.

The media either lied to try and incite a reaction or was too partisan to see that their fear porn was an outlandish idea of what the result would be. So its pretty hard to trust them on what the result would be if 230 went away too. They simply aren't reliable or trustworthy in that field.

 

[Irish#1]

Honestly, Lax was being generous comparing MSNBC to OANN. Take a look at both front pages https://www.msnbc.com/ and https://www.oann.com/ - tell me that these are somehow equal.

OANN is running a front page story about how Pelosi is the devil for enacting a mask mandate for the house. They are citing Majoree Taylor Greene QAnon truther as a republican that is against the mandate! Literal anti-science and giving a voice to a fucking nutjob. There's another piece on "The election is far from over!". This is cancerous garbage.

MSNBC is partisan and opinion piece central but they are not anti-science and running QAnon truthers out there.

Face masks or not, that is spot on.

 

[IrishLax]

You really don't see it? Twitter, Facebook, etc are all innocents who just provide a platform? LOL man. I have seen for years how comments get suppressed and feeds are manipulated. Holy sheep, Batman. If its not in my Twitter/Facebook feed or my non-Faux News channel it didn't happen! Just, wow.

Reading comprehension is a struggle, huh? "The internet" doesn't only mean "Facebook and Twitter boggiemen." The funniest part is that getting rid of Section 230 would actually lead to more censorship on Facebook/Twitter... Trump and his ilk are just too stupid to realize that.

 

[Irish YJ]

Reading comprehension is a struggle, huh? "The internet" doesn't only mean "Facebook and Twitter boggiemen." The funniest part is that getting rid of Section 230 would actually lead to more censorship on Facebook/Twitter... Trump and his ilk are just too stupid to realize that.

If you don't think Twitter, FB, Google, and some others aren't a real problem, not sure what to tell you. And in a lot more ways than just censorship. I'm not saying we should end 230, but it would open them up to legal ramification, which would likely wither reign them in, or at minimum, drastically weaken them. Regardless, something absolutely needs to be done.

 

[NorthDakota]

Reading comprehension is a struggle, huh? "The internet" doesn't only mean "Facebook and Twitter boggiemen." The funniest part is that getting rid of Section 230 would actually lead to more censorship on Facebook/Twitter... Trump and his ilk are just too stupid to realize that.

You are basically telling people that literally ARE censored, "wow if you get your way, we will all be censored, is that what you want?"

Well yes and no. No, censorship is bad. (Insert every standard argument against censorship).

But also yes, the way rules are applied now, one side is censored. If they apply to one side, then they should apply to every side. If Notre Dame has been called for 15 penalties and the other team has been called for 0, I will settle for 1 of 2 outcomes, either they need to quit calling penalties period or they need to give ND some makeup calls.

The answer would literally never be "well if they call penalties on the other team too that'd lead to more penalties total and because my ideal football game has fewer penalties I should just sit here and be happy that the officials are only calling them on one team, even if it is my team."

 

[IrishLax]

If you don't think Twitter, FB, Google, and some others aren't a real problem, not sure what to tell you. And in a lot more ways than just censorship. I'm not saying we should end 230, but it would open them up to legal ramification, which would likely wither reign them in, or at minimum, drastically weaken them. Regardless, something absolutely needs to be done.

I've actually said on here repeatedly that they are, but sure.

My point is that you have to be a total mouth breathing idiot to think that "REPEAL SECTION 230!!!" is going to lead to less censorship or solve literally any of the current problems. It's topic du jour for the absolute dumbest subsection of society, and it was birthed out of Alex Jones and Laura Loomer types being mad about being banned from social media.

 

[TorontoGold]

I've actually said on here repeatedly that they are, but sure.

My point is that you have to be a total mouth breathing idiot to think that "REPEAL SECTION 230!!!" is going to lead to less censorship or solve literally any of the current problems. It's topic du jour for the absolute dumbest subsection of society, and it was birthed out of Alex Jones and Laura Loomer types being mad about being banned from social media.

If FB/Twitter get censored how will I send my death threats?!?!

 

[Irish YJ]

I've actually said on here repeatedly that they are, but sure.

My point is that you have to be a total mouth breathing idiot to think that "REPEAL SECTION 230!!!" is going to lead to less censorship or solve literally any of the current problems. It's topic du jour for the absolute dumbest subsection of society, and it was birthed out of Alex Jones and Laura Loomer types being mad about being banned from social media.

That's just it (Dakota makes a solid point). Right now, one side is getting censored. I want both sides to be treated the same and fairly. I don't want censorship period, but right now, it's pretty partisan. I'll take more censorship on those platform if it means both sides are getting the hammer with the same frequency.

At the end of the day, the cultures at those places are beyond any rational hope of coming to the middle and being fair. What are the other choices? I'm open to realistic alternatives, I just don't see one. Status quo is simply not acceptable.

 

[IrishLax]

You are basically telling people that literally ARE censored, "wow if you get your way, we will all be censored, is that what you want?"

Well yes and no. No, censorship is bad. (Insert every standard argument against censorship).

But also yes, the way rules are applied now, one side is censored. If they apply to one side, then they should apply to every side. If Notre Dame has been called for 15 penalties and the other team has been called for 0, I will settle for 1 of 2 outcomes, either they need to quit calling penalties period or they need to give ND some makeup calls.

The answer would literally never be "well if they call penalties on the other team too that'd lead to more penalties total and because my ideal football game has fewer penalties I should just sit here and be happy that the officials are only calling them on one team, even if it is my team."

There are a lot of problems with Big Tech, and exactly none of them are solved by repealing Section 230. You repeal Section 230, and "conservatives" will be censored/banned at a much higher rate than they are currently. Donald Trump would not be able to post the kind of things he does on Twitter without Section 230, period.

The best ways to address Big Tech issues is with antitrust litigation and passing new laws that strengthen 1st Amendment style protections. But instead of talking sensibly about that, many of the absolute worst people alive have decided that the answer is somehow to allow websites to get sued over user generated content or banning people. It goes without saying that this is beyond stupid and will ruin everything from Reddit to IrishEnvy to Discord. It is a total nonstarter.

 

[IrishLax]

That's just it (Dakota makes a solid point). Right now, one side is getting censored. I want both sides to be treated the same and fairly. I don't want censorship period, but right now, it's pretty partisan. I'll take more censorship on those platform if it means both sides are getting the hammer with the same frequency.

At the end of the day, the cultures at those places are beyond any rational hope of coming to the middle and being fair. What are the other choices? I'm open to realistic alternatives, I just don't see one. Status quo is simply not acceptable.

I think you're underestimating what will happen if Section 230 is repealed. There are hundreds of "activists" that Twitter would be forced to ban overnight. For example, literally anyone participating in #StopTheSteal which has led to death threats against poll workers, technicians, and election officials would have to be banned by Twitter less Twitter get sued over the consequences of permitting their speech on their platform. All companies will look to cover their asses and err on the side of caution which means bans and ubiquitous censorship of any topic their lawyers feel gives them exposure. Is there comparable content on the left right now? The closest thing would be ANTIFA + property destruction.

People like Ben Shapiro, who don't push libelous or dangerous talking points, will be fine regardless of what happens with Section 230. Marjorie Taylor Greene will not. There are a lot more of her than there are of Ben. You will see widespread deplatforming of right wing social media accounts without Section 230... and worse, there will be no option to form an alternative (e.g. Parler) because the alternative would get sued and shut down as soon as they moved there.