Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
So, a friend of mine is currently freaking out about this story
about Russia state television instructing it’s citizens to prepare for nuclear war.
Is this a likely possibility, or just fear-mondering or what have you?
Oh God! Natural light!I see.
Would I be right to say that Russia state television has done this sort of thing before?
Oh God! Natural light!Given the military situation in Syria, if we're going to strike it should be soon. I expected an announcement indicating plans for a strike around now, but it's possible that's been pushed back after Trump's tweet. Under the assumption that's the route the administration has decided to take, let's hope it hasn't been screwed up too badly by Trump. If we wait too long we'll lose the window of opportunity on this one. We need to strike before Assad and Russia dig themselves in too deeply or have a chance to move their assets out of the country like Russia has already begun to do.
As usual, it's still not particularly worth worrying about nuclear war.
They should have sent a poet.Speaking of Paul Ryan's retiring, the Onion caption
is just amazing.
So Sanders/other WH sources were talking about Trump's plans to "help" the Republicans retain the House, namely by campaigning heavily himself. Considering his unpopularity in States with competitive districts, this might be a good thing.
edited 11th Apr '18 2:19:17 PM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.As Zuck testifies to Senate, Democrats propose tough opt-in privacy law
:
The proposed law would protect customers' Web browsing and application usage history, private messages, and any sensitive personal data such as financial and health information.
"The avalanche of privacy violations by Facebook and other online companies has reached a critical threshold, and we need legislation that makes consent the law of the land," Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in an announcement.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is testifying today in a Senate hearing. Facebook recently acknowledged that the private data of up to 87 million Facebook users was improperly shared with Cambridge Analytica, a firm that did consulting work for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
FURTHER READING Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, explained [Updated] While Zuckerberg has promised to do a better job protecting Facebook users' privacy, Markey said that "voluntary standards are not enough; we need rules on the books that all online companies abide by that protect Americans and ensure accountability."
Markey teamed with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) to propose the Customer Online Notification for Stopping Edge-provider Network Transgressions (CONSENT) Act. You can read the full legislation here.
"Edge providers" refers to websites and other online services that distribute content over consumer broadband networks. Facebook and Google are the dominant edge providers when it comes to advertising and the use of customer data to serve targeted ads. No current law requires edge providers to seek customers' permission before using their browsing histories to serve personalized ads.
The online advertising industry uses self-regulatory mechanisms in which websites let visitors opt out of personalized advertising based on browsing history, and websites can be punished by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) if they break their privacy promises.
The Markey/Blumenthal bill's stricter opt-in standard would require edge providers to "obtain opt-in consent from a customer to use, share, or sell the sensitive proprietary information of the customer." Edge providers would not be allowed to impose "take-it-or-leave-it" offers that require customers to consent in order to use the service. The FTC and state attorneys general would be empowered to enforce the new opt-in requirements.
God that last paragraph. If that could act get passed it would be huge. Naturally that means it won't but... I can dream.
Read my stories!
x5
I really hope he does, anything that re-enforces the connection between Trump and the Republican Party is a good thing for Democrats.
Probably won't pass now but after a likely Blue Wave, who knows....
edited 11th Apr '18 3:02:25 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangThe report of Missouri Governor Greitens dropped.
He needs to be in prison. The man is a fucking rapist.
Relevant passages:
22. Upon entering the basement, Witness 1 testified that Greitens taped her hands to pull-up rings with “this gauzed tape stuff” and then put a blindfold on her. Witness 1 testified that these items were laying on a “workout bench right there, and that’s where he had that stuff.' Witness 1 explained her reaction:
I just stood there, because I was like What the fuck? He doesn’t have feelings for me, he just wants to fuck me. So anyways, I was completely silent. I didn’t say anything, especially – so I didn’t even – my husband traveled for a living, and I didn’t even let him get pictures of me. So I just stood there quietly, and then he came up close to me and he said, Are you going to say anything? Are you going to mention my name? Of course, in my head, I was screaming, Fuck, all I want to do is tell people right now. I’m dying. This is the most embarrassing thing that’s ever happened to me. So I just didn’t answer at all, and then he spanked me and said, Are you going to mention my name? And I said – I just gritted through my teeth and I said, No. And he’s like Good – now that’s a good girl and was, like, back in his – whatever – you know, the thing that he had in his mind, the thing that he was going to do with me.40 I’m bawling my eyes out. Yeah, so I’m still crying. And then he’s like – I can tell he’s still, like, in it – he’s still in this – in this thing that he’s got in his mind of whatever he’s doing, and he’s still like messing with me.
He starts undoing his pants, and he takes his penis out and puts it, like, near where my face is. And I’m like – so this guy literally just wants me for this, and this is all he wants, and then he’ll let me – because at this point, too, I also know I have to be at work, and he’s not going to let me leave, because he’s obviously still horny. So I gave him oral sex at this point.
edited 11th Apr '18 3:30:02 PM by Lightysnake
At this point it's just tiresome non-news that serve only to provoke a reaction of an exasperated "So what?". Statements made on Twitter are not official policy and shouldn't be treated as anything othar than Trump's personal musings until they start appearing in legislation or are backed up by actions. At this point, seeing reports every day of whatever stupid, self-contradictory nonsense Trump haphazardly wrote on his wall on the front page of every news outlet is tandamount to having a camera in his bathroom and making extensive reports on every time he goes in there to take a shit.
edited 11th Apr '18 3:32:27 PM by DrDougsh
Ok this is objectively wrong, statements on Twitter by the President of the United States are not mere personal musings. I understand if you're tired of them but as long as he's President they will absolutely matter and thus should receive at-least *some* media time.
Re: Trump's tweets
Don’t take their every word literally.
They should really just ask this guy
. He's apparently known several Narcissist, and so far has been probably the most accurate predictor and interpreter of Trump's behavior, I've come across.
edited 11th Apr '18 3:58:28 PM by megaeliz

From a few days ago, but I just found this guardian article
. Here are some of the more relevant parts.
Sinclair TV chairman to Trump: 'We are here to deliver your message
David D Smith, whose company has been criticised for making its anchors read a script echoing Trump’s attacks on the media, said he briefed officials last year on a system that would enable authorities to broadcast direct to any American’s phone.
“I just wanted them to be aware of the technology,” Smith said in an interview. He also recalled an earlier meeting with Trump during the 2016 election campaign, where he told the future president: “We are here to deliver your message.”
Sinclair is the biggest owner of local TV in the US, and may soon reach 72% of American households if a proposed $4bn takeover of a rival is approved by federal regulators. It is accused by critics of having a conservative bias, which it denies.
The company has been a driving force in the development of a new broadcasting standard known as Next Gen TV, and is one of the first involved in making chips for televisions, cellphones and other devices to receive the new transmissions.
A broadcasting industry group, of which Sinclair is a prominent member, lobbied federal authorities last year to force manufacturers to incorporate the chips in all new devices. This would have created orders for millions of chips and probably new revenues for Sinclair.
Smith said his White House meeting was not financially motivated. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decided last November to make incorporating chips voluntary. Sinclair had itself stopped short of calling for compulsory installation but said the government might need to consider this in the future.
“I was pissed off,” said Smith, who denied giving Trump’s team a special arrangement.
“I asked [Trump], ‘Would you like us to embed with you during your campaign?’,” said Smith. “And he brought a bunch of people in the room, and he said, ‘Well, whatever’. And I said: ‘We are here to deliver your message. Period.’”
Smith denied that this amounted to Sinclair acting as a mouthpiece for Trump. He said it meant only that Trump could be interviewed by Sinclair whenever he chose. Smith said a similar offer was extended to Hillary Clinton by letter but was not taken up by the Democratic nominee.
“What I get out of it is access to a guy who’s running for president,” said Smith. “Or a guy who’s running for US senator, or governor, or anything else. As any other news organisation does. You want to be on TV? Sure, we’d like to have you on TV.”
Describing the controversy as “the most absurd thing I’ve ever seen in my life”, Smith claimed rank-and-file Sinclair staff who had been expressing dismay to media reporters did not understand that the scripted segments were in their own interest.
“If people believe you more than they believe somebody else, they’re more likely to watch you,” he said. “And you know what that means? We might get a higher rating. And you know what that means? We will therefore make our spots worth more. And you know what that means? That means I will make more money, which means I can pay you more money.”
Despite multiple detailed accounts finding that Sinclair’s news coverage is skewed politically to the right, Smith insisted that his news output was not biased. “If anybody can show me otherwise, in the context of any local news that works for me, then show me,” he said.
Smith said he had “zero tolerance” for “political spin” of any kind, and even said he had fired staff in the past after they displayed bias in their coverage, though he said he could not recall any specific examples.
“If you believe philosophically, so strongly, that you can’t just stand in the centre and tell the truth, then go work someplace else,” said Smith. “I don’t care.”
Smith professed to have “no interest in politics” and even suggested that his reputation as a backer of Republicans was inaccurate. “I probably give more money to Democrats than I give to anybody,” he said.
Smith also defended Sinclair’s strident news analysis segments hosted by Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump adviser. Epshteyn’s so-called “must run” segments, which Sinclair headquarters instructs local stations to show during news bulletins, have generated controversy for laundering White House talking points.
“Boris Epshteyn does not do news,” said Smith. “He does commentary, and it is defined as commentary throughout.” Epshteyn has latterly spoken in front of a logo that includes “Commentary” in a smaller typeface. During some earlier editions, he was introduced by anchors as a commentator but then spoke without an onscreen commentary label.
Smith said Epshteyn’s output was more clearly labelled than the work of opinionated Fox News hosts such as Sean Hannity. He spoke more favourably of Hannity’s primetime colleague, Tucker Carlson, who is renowned for heated disputes with his guests.
“I like to watch people argue, and the people he brings on are good at it,” said Smith.
As for the current argument about his company’s news broadcasts, Smith declared himself the winner and said he would not make concessions. “I don’t know what I would change,” said Smith, “because everything that we’ve done is absolutely unassailable under any circumstances.”
This sounds shady.
edited 11th Apr '18 1:49:57 PM by megaeliz