Cont: The Biden Presidency (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aridas said:
What makes you think that this is the government deciding what qualifies as free speech? Nothing about what she sings or in the article even suggests that that's even in play.
Click to expand...

A Governance disinformation board? Why would that be needed at all? In what manner could that be trusted with the government running it?
 
DetectedMotion said:
A Governance disinformation board? Why would that be needed at all?
Click to expand...

Do you deny that significant harm is being done by disinformation? If so, there's honestly not much point in continuing discussion. If not, you've got your answer already.

DetectedMotion said:
In what manner could that be trusted with the government running it?
Click to expand...

What, specifically, would make it fundamentally untrustworthy? Republicans going out of their way to politicize and corrupt everything? Countering disinformation isn't exactly a novel government task, regardless, especially when the disinformation is harmful lies about current government policy.
 
Last edited:
DetectedMotion said:
A Governance disinformation board? Why would that be needed at all? In what manner could that be trusted with the government running it?
Click to expand...

Ummmm....because there's a crapload of disinformation being deliberately spewed about government policies, the pandemic, the election, etc., especially on the internet, by people and groups who are doing great harm?
 
You can make any policy initiative look scary if you assume the government is going to break laws to pursue it.

Not that the government should be trusted, but it's just not a useful tool for evaluating policy.
 
theprestige said:
David Brooks in the New York Times, about where the current crop of Democrats in power are at - and where he thinks they should be: Seven Lessons Democrats Need to Learn — Fast

The article is behind a paywall, but Ann Althouse summarizes the lessons thusly:

"It is possible to overstimulate the economy.... Law and order is not just a racist dog whistle.... Don’t politicize everything.... Border security is not just a Republican talking point.... 'People of color' is not a thing.... Deficits do matter.... The New Deal happened once."

She also provides a brief commentary.
Click to expand...

It's useful to see such opinions because no matter conservatively Democrats govern, they'll never get credit for it from the right.

The example of policing is a good one, because the Democratic party has done nothing but re-affirm their undying loyalty to cops over and over and over again, putting money where their mouths are, and the pundits still pretend that the party has adopted some radical abolitionist stance.

Likewise with border security. The mass incarcerations and refusals of desperate masses at the border continues uninterrupted from administration to administration, yet Democrats get lampooned as leaving the border wide open. Pure fantasy world.

No matter how much the Democratic party positions itself to be the Conservative-Lite party, they'll never get credit for it. They'll be endlessly caricatured as being some ultra-lefty radicals, getting all the blame for these imagined positions while garnering none of the good will that comes with adopting left-populist ideas.

A "heads we win, tails you lose" situation that the party seems determined to double down on at every opportunity.
 
Last edited:
DetectedMotion said:
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ummmm....because there's a crapload of disinformation being deliberately spewed about government policies, the pandemic, the election, etc., especially on the internet, by people and groups who are doing great harm?
Click to expand...

Sure Stacy nothing to worry about here, right?

https://youtu.be/rnzfhJExrkk
Click to expand...


Yes...there is something to worry about: the organized disinformation campaigns being spread on social media by various groups. Some are intentionally harmful like Russia's disinformation campaign to influence our elections. Others are by people who think they're right when they're not like people who claim they cause autism, that Covid vaccines alter your DNA, inject tracking devices, etc. And some are just by nut jobs like QAnon. Then there's the whole "rigged election" nonsense.

As usual, the GOP response is "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! They're going to take away our free speech! Our First Amendment rights! " when that's not the case at all.
The board, though, is an internal working group and doesn’t have operational authority, instead serving in a more advisory role. It’s intended to gather best practices and support counter-disinformation activities, not monitor Americans, Mayorkas said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

“It works to ensure that the way in which we address threats, the connectivity between threats and acts of violence that are addressed without infringing on free speech, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right of privacy,” Mayorkas said, conceding that the department could’ve done a better job of explaining the group’s role.
Click to expand...

Mayorkas has also asked the bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory Council to recommend ways DHS can address disinformation while “protecting free speech and other fundamental rights,” according to the fact sheet.
Click to expand...
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/politics/dhs-disinformation-board/index.html
 
Stacyhs said:
Others are by people who think they're right... like people who claim they cause autism, that Covid vaccines alter your DNA, inject tracking devices, etc. And some are just by nut jobs
Click to expand...
They are all nutjobs, deliberately spreading harmful misinformation to bolster their own egos. This is no different to shouting Fire! in a crowded theater. Not all 'free' speech is protected - for good reason.

As usual, the GOP response is "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! They're going to take away our free speech! Our First Amendment rights! " when that's not the case at all.
Click to expand...
They are also nutcases. Why should we have to put up with their ravings?
 
Stacyhs said:
You asked me


I replied:


(You asked me questions based on a position I had not taken. I never discussed the older Congress members refusing to 'give up the torch' or refusing to 'fight for issues important' to you.)

You replied:


I replied:


(Being asked what 'gerontocracy' means does not address the issue that you asked me to basically defend things I'd never argued in the first place.)

You replied:


(I put those words in quotes because I was quoting your words. I didn't ignore your question which was obviously rhetorical; not really meant to be answered. What should also be obvious is that I know what a 'gerontocracy' is from the context of my posts. Exactly what 'strawman' are you talking about?)

I said:


You said:


I don't understand what your point here is. It doesn't make any sense to me. Did I ever say I hadn't responded to you? What I said was that you still weren't addressing my point that you were asking me to basically defend something I'd never argued in the first place.

You said:


You really do seem to have a bee up your butt with a very black and white view of Boomers/Gen.X's. You lump us all into one basket as if we all think the same. We don't. It's also very convenient for you to have someone to blame for everything...which was my original point. Have you ever considered that B & W view is part of the problem? You want everything you want without compromise which is exactly the problem with the right-wingers. But politics don't work that way in the real world whether you like it or not. And that's a reality that we 'old farts' have learned through experience.
Click to expand...

Every generation likes to blame the previous generation for all it's problems.
When they take power, they find out things are not that simple.
Of couruse Bellezy greatly oversetimates the number of hard left votes out there....the old "lost tribe" political theory.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
They are all nutjobs, deliberately spreading harmful misinformation to bolster their own egos. This is no different to shouting Fire! in a crowded theater. Not all 'free' speech is protected - for good reason.



They are also nutcases. Why should we have to put up with their ravings?
Click to expand...
The "fire in a crowded theatre" example is a terrible one to cite.

It was an analogy used to quash legitimate free speech and the precedent was reversed and disavowed.
 
dudalb said:
Every generation likes to blame the previous generation for all it's problems.
When they take power, they find out things are not that simple.
Of couruse Bellezy greatly oversetimates the number of hard left votes out there....the old "lost tribe" political theory.
Click to expand...

True.
 
"eelzebuddy's Evil Plan to Save America
Take a pen and paper.
Give them to AOC.
Do everything she says."


ANybody see why this is a stupid idea?
hint: subsitute Trump for AOC.
 
dudalb said:
"eelzebuddy's Evil Plan to Save America
Take a pen and paper.
Give them to AOC.
Do everything she says."


ANybody see why this is a stupid idea?
hint: subsitute Trump for AOC.
Click to expand...
Yes, shutting out charismatic, passionate young party members on the off chance people will end up liking them more than you is a much more sensible approach.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Yes, shutting out charismatic, passionate young party members on the off chance people will end up liking them more than you is a much more sensible approach.
Click to expand...

I just can't understand why AOC threatens them so much. I guess it is because they are uncomfortable with her not toeing the Republican Lite line of her more geriatric colleagues.
 
I believe the idea behind the objection must have been that the "do whatever (s)he says" part sounds like a dictatorship, if taken too literally. I took it as a metaphor for "get the government, through the standard legal processes, to enact her ideas", not a complete replacement of form of government. But I understand that, for some people, turning everything you read into the worst thing you can possibly come up with for it (especially if you're in one party and the thing you're looking at is from or about the other party) is a habitual pastime.
 
Delvo said:
I believe the idea behind the objection must have been that the "do whatever (s)he says" ....
Click to expand...

The problem is that, this interpretation of Beelzebuddy's stance seems to be a product of the poster's paranoid fantasy more than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom