Don’t elect populists, for a start.
You may be desiring it, but it’s not happening. As can be seen right now - the POTUS is saying to a widower that his dead wife who died of a heart attack was banging her boss who later killed her.
What is the response from the GOP?
His ties to Obama.
Everything here is equally applicable to Trump, with the possible exception of dementia (which was already debated and I don’t want to get into).
Is it your contention that they are both unfit then?
Say, when you put it that way…
I didn’t create the binary system I referenced in my first post today, but will follow its logic.
I voted 3rd party several Prez elections (out of 10 times) and don’t regret those choices. I simply don’t plan on it this time.
Do you think these are things that are going to happen if Biden is President? Because I don’t. Sure he may have said some things to secure a nomination that he doesn’t fully agree with but even if so how likely does this batch happen. Isn’t some of the input into the coffers outlines as higher taxes on the very wealthy or big corporations? Even if you oppose that it seems to make more fiscal sense than spending anyways while cutting taxes for those people.
What’s odd to me is that if I was a full throated conservative, Trump’s full hard on for approval would scare the shit out of me. We know that Trump himself likely isn’t opposed to any of the stuff you mentioned. Is it crazy to think of a Trump who doesn’t have to worry about re-election doing a complete turn to increase approval and working with the Dems on some of these? And with Republicans essentially scared to death to cross him them coming along for the ride?
Republicans will have no problem being a unit of opposition on a Democrat President, even a moderate one. But they have shown they won’t be a unit of opposition against the President. Knowing the President is obsessed with what the talk about him is and not principled against anything like government spending or limits on power isn’t this a possibility?
Which items do you consider Trump to be doing that are different from GOP positions?
Right now I would say Trump’s positions are GOP positions even as often as they change. I think the GOP if they wake up to news that Trump is now for (or against) something that is what they are now for or against.
Considering the way the GOP acted during Barack Obama’s presidency did you ever think they would elect someone who was in many ways farther left than him?
But as I said that’s talking about past positions. I think the positions Trump takes now and moving forward largely will become the positions of the GOP.
Can you explain how this is not a form of publishing and/or editorializing, in simple terms?
Doesn’t the presence of a fact check on one poster (Trump, for example) but the absence of a fact check on another (Xi Jinping, for example) endorse Xi’s tweet as factual, with no need for further scrutiny? And remember, we’re still just on Twitter. We haven’t gotten to YouTube or Facebook yet.
This seems like a clear breach of U.S. Code 230, at least in practical terms. I’m certain there are lawyers who can argue otherwise, but I’m talking about a plain-English good faith reading of the law, it’s stated concerns and objectives. The policy aims of that law seem to have been achieved, as well. At the time they were worried about these guys being able to put roots down and sprout. Mission accomplished.
Also, I’m sorry I didn’t respond right away, but I wanted to think this through a bit.
I agree that it is, at minimum, unfair, and the best theoretical way to correct any bad idea is by shining a light on it. That’s precisely the problem, because we have a small handful of transnational tech companies who just so happen to control what videos show up in your feed, those that don’t, the search results you see, the search results you don’t, the tweets that require "fact checks (done by partisans at CNN), and those that don’t.
There are, of course, communication and ideas that are shared outside of the influence of tech giants, but the significance of that grows smaller with each passing year. The percentage of information that is shared through these platforms is tremendous, and they all have opportunities to both actively and passively shape people’s opinions in a powerful way. We just saw a silly but perfectly valid example of that where one of our posters believed that conservatives who don’t like college kids dancing not only exist, but are common.
Meaningful competition is years or possibly even decades away, and that’s if the hypothetical Twitter competitor rolls a really long string of double-sixes and everything goes their way. If my great-grandfather wanted to compete with Standard Oil, all he needed was an oil supply and a buyer. It’s not quite that simple and there were obviously a lot of government regulations specifically designed to prevent that, but that’s why a stuffy old Republican had to come along and remind everyone that it sometimes takes a little bit of bold governance to un-do the meek governance of the past.
I don’t have a raw economic comparison between the market situations of Rail and Oil trusts compared to Social Media titans, but these situations seem quite similar to me. The barriers to entry seem higher because the nature of these products is so very different. In short, social media’s position is entrenched in a way that isn’t simply a matter of offering a better product at a lower cost.
So much of their power comes from the existing user bases and the social networks they’ve already captured. These were captured by out-competing the other guys under a legal framework that allowed it to happen. That’s fine by me, by the way. Facebook is a genius product, after all. I use it as an online family photo album and I’ve even bought products they advertised to me that weren’t even on my radar before.
That’s how you end up with really smooth balls and no nicks at all, fellas. Thanks Facebook!
And the uncertainty of what an “unbridled” Trump will entail is quite frankly frightening, @H_factor .
Will he try to solidify his place in history with more “traditional” Presidential ambitions (e.g. things like post-Presidential initiatives and using his bully-pulpit for good)?
Or will his second Term we one of vindictiveness; tribalism and revenge? (Which have proven to be his basic instincts).
I have no idea.
It really is up to Trump.
@ treco:
One could only answer that question pre-Trump vs. post-Trump.
Right now Trump and much of the GOP are in lock-step, because many are scared shitless to go counter to his desires, (Which has proven to be political suicide),
Ask Jeff Sessions.
No. Also, a fact check does not imply it is false.
Those words have definitions. A fact check, by definition, is not editorializing. Editorializing is opinion based, not fact.
Lest we forget, @zecarlo…
There are “alternative facts”.
Editorializing would mean the inclusion of commentary. These words have established meanings. The question that the defenders of Trump avoid, or one of the question they avoid, is why would a president be so against citizens fact checking him?
We all know, no matter how much they would deny it, that if this happened to Obama, they would be all for it. The thing is, Obama probably wouldn’t have reacted like Trump.
A point I emphasize so much @zecarlo that I sometimes make myself sick…
Which brings us right back to this question, Mr. Logic.
What is the presence of a fact check on one account’s tweets contrasted against the absence of a fact check on another account’s tweets?
Is it not a commentary from the platform on what they believe requires further scrutiny, from the people they choose to scrutinize it?
You just answered that in your question. One has a fact check, one doesn’t.
No, it is not a commentary. Have they stated any opinions? No.
Twitter does include fact checking with other accounts. Trump is not the first and only person to get fact checked.
I will admit I’m not familiar with this really. Has Twitter said they are only going to fact check the President?
It would seem that if you wanted to start making sure things were accurate on a site with as many posts as twitter or YouTube starting with the people with the most followers makes sense. If I have one follower and spread misinformation it’s limited to who it may influence. The President has millions.
But I also don’t know the full policy or how it’s implemented. Again even if one thinks it’s fucked up it seems to me like at least some of the focus should be on the simple fact that it’s necessary so often for the President. Seems like if he considered what he said and checked things for himself this wouldn’t even be an issue?
No. They have said, and done, the opposite.
The answer to this is: But, but, Hillary.
@zecarlo You are either being deliberately obtuse or completely misunderstanding my question. I’m not sure which.
It also seems like you are operating under the assumption that a “fact check” is inherently neutral. Do you believe it is possible that a “fact check” might be biased or misleading somehow, or does labeling it a “fact check” grant itself immunity from scrutiny?
No no no. Not at all.
Broadly speaking, I want them to get out of that game entirely. Provide a neutral platform for content in easily-agreed upon terms, not unlike what they did for many years.
I’m not comfortable with our communication titans getting into the activist game.
Facts are.
Fact checker, or where you get facts?
Let me make it clear; suggesting to someone they do some research on a Tweet, if considered an opinion, is an opinion on what they should do, not what they should believe.