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
No it requires putting their point of view across, as long as the way that’s done is fair and acurate it’s all good.
A fair and acurate representation of the KKK isn’t what they want, because it consists of pointing out how they’re wrong and delusional.
Nothing requires that the groups be allowed to put their point of view across, just that it is given time and considered in a fair and acurate way.
It would be fair and acurate to have a climate scientist explain how climate deniers are wrong and not let a climate denier on air, that’s a fair and acurate representation of their views.
Yes they’d have to mention the contrasting view, they’d also have to explain how it’s wrong.
edited 22nd Apr '18 5:04:15 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran
That. A fair and accurate rendering of a position does not imply a soapbox, or giving any credibility to that position-simply stating that position accurately. IE, run a story on climate deniers, where you lay out their claims-then spend the rest of the segment having their moronic claims comprehensively dismantled by actual experts via easily digested explanations.
A) The times tried that with Nazis, and it was rightfully pointed out that it is way too humanizing for them, I remember the whole reaction people had here.... the fairness doctrine WOULD help them because the reality is for the most part these horrible fucking people live relatively normal lives.
B) It does not any where in the doctrine say that they have to be presented factually, nor that you could just call them wrong..... Infact you cant do that because it requires "Equitable, and balanced. " and going "They are wrong and I am right" isn't equitable or balanced.
C) Even if it did, the alt right could still abuse it with "facts" like how that "Despite making up 12% of the population, Black people are convicted of 40% of the violent crime".
It is WAY too abusable as it was.
![]()
![]()
At which point it is no longer the same law.
Something needs to be done though. Politifact
does a good job of what would be ideal, since even attempts to abuse the system are acounted for, but the problem is putting it in at a national level, or how to implement it into programing.
edited 22nd Apr '18 5:25:24 PM by Imca
Like Imca and others are saying, it's not enough to just bring back the old rules. Things have gotten to the point where we have to more actively regulate what gets called "news and journalism".
On top of that we also need to hope that said new regulations don't get struck down on First Amendment Freedom of Speech grounds (or perhaps being unconstitutionally vague), of which I'm not sure how likely that would be but something tells me that it would likely happen with this Supreme Court.
I'm with Imca here, the alt-right tends to beat their First Amendment rights in to keep people from so much as entertaining the idea of arguing against them so, while well-intended, the Fairness Doctrine's vague wording is easily abusable and could only serve to exacerbate Fox's grip on its audience. I don't have any doubt they'd take full advantage of something that reinforces their "I have a right to think the way I do without being told off" line of thinking.
Maybe a law that'd force the news to separate interviews or discussions from actual reporting (such that they can't occupy the same timeslot or try to pass themselves as direct complements of each other) could serve well? It doesn't really help with the aforementioned issue of Fox only reporting certain things and greatly exaggerating details, but it'd keep the news from intermingling with the... Fox-iness? and accordingly be a step in keeping them from seeping into the minds of anyone who just wants to keep up with what's happening in the world.
edited 22nd Apr '18 5:30:50 PM by NesClassic
🏳️⚧️she/her | Vio Rhyse AlberiaSo apparently we're bringing back to Abstinence-Only education. Because that totally worked out the last time, right?
(Using Late Show clip, because Steven Colbert is really good at expressing just how dumb these ideas are.)
edited 22nd Apr '18 6:33:51 PM by megaeliz
If we can't bring back the Fairness Doctrine, we could have a 'Bias Warning' before every news hour that basically says 'This Show deals with Real World Subjects and Facts, but also presents opinions that are not factual or final' (I'd have them do it in both written form and spoken word). We could also maybe force News companies to clearly divide between factual news, and opinions.
![]()
It's almost sad how few real ideas the Republicans have, they're just mindlessly bleating the old concepts (plutocracy and theocracy) that they've so desperately anchored themselves to. This is not a recipe for success with a extremely unpopular President and a rising generation that are not able or willing to tolerate the old status-quo.
edited 22nd Apr '18 6:28:36 PM by Fourthspartan56
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangGuys you do realise that the fairness doctoring wouldn’t be enforced by the courts right? Assuming it’s not struck down the actual enforcement of breaches of it isn’t determined by the courts (where exact wording of the act can really matter a lot and loopholes can be found) it will be done by the FCC, who if given a proper head aren’t going to let fox play loophole games with it.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
They should listen to Bob Dylan I think.
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.
edited 22nd Apr '18 6:44:36 PM by megaeliz
Michael Cohen case shines light on Sean Hannity's property empire
[1]
“I’ve said many times on my radio show: I hate the stock market, I prefer real estate. Michael knows real estate,” Hannity said on television, a few hours after the dramatic hearing in Manhattan, where Cohen is under criminal investigation.
Hannity’s chosen investment strategy is confirmed by thousands of pages of public records reviewed by the Guardian, which detail a real estate portfolio of remarkable scale that has not previously been reported.
The records link Hannity to a group of shell companies that spent at least $90m on more than 870 homes in seven states over the past decade. The properties range from luxurious mansions to rentals for low-income families. Hannity is the hidden owner behind some of the shell companies and his attorney did not dispute that he owns all of them.
Dozens of the properties were bought at a discount in 2013, after banks foreclosed on their previous owners for defaulting on mortgages. Before and after then, Hannity sharply criticised Barack Obama for the US foreclosure rate. In January 2016, Hannity said there were “millions more Americans suffering under this president” partly because of foreclosures.
Hannity, 56, also amassed part of his property collection with support from the US Department for Housing and Urban Development (Hud), a fact he did not disclose when praising Ben Carson, the Hud secretary, on his television show last year.
Christopher Reeves, Hannity’s real estate attorney, said in an email he would “struggle to find any relevance” in Hannity’s property holdings, which he said were highly confidential.
“I doubt you would find it very surprising that most people prefer to keep their legal and personal financial issues private,” said Reeves. “Mr Hannity is no different.”
The real estate holdings linked to Hannity are spread across more than 20 shell companies formed in Georgia. Each of the companies uses a variant of the same name, which combines the initials of Hannity’s children. Public records show the companies have bought up dozens of properties in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Texas and Vermont.
Among the most valuable are two large apartment complexes in Georgia that Hannity bought in 2014 for $22.7m. The developments are in the cities of Perry and Brunswick, which have higher poverty rates and lower median incomes than the US averages. One- and two-bedroom units in Hannity’s apartment complexes are available to rent for $735 to $1,065 per month, according to brochures.
The Georgia purchases were funded with mortgages for $17.9m that Hannity obtained with help from Hud, which insured the loans under a program created as part of the National Housing Act. The loans, first guaranteed under the Obama administration, were recently increased by $5m with renewed support from Carson’s department.
Hannity, who is reportedly paid $36m per year for his television and radio shows, was criticised this week following Cohen’s court hearing, after it became clear he had defended Cohen and Trump on the air without disclosing that he also consulted Cohen for legal services.
He also declined to note his financial interest when he hosted Carson on Fox News last June for a discussion about Hud and housing. Hannity praised privatisation plans pushed by Trump and Carson.
“I know you’ve done a good job,” Hannity told Carson.
Hannity complained during the discussion that home ownership in the US was at a 51-year low – a false claim he has made several times on air – and criticised the state of public housing.
“I like the idea of them owning the place,” Hannity said of people who receive housing assistance. “Well, that’s the real ideal,” said Carson.
Lako recently wrote an article for the show’s website berating Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating ties between Trump’s 2016 election campaign and Russia, without noting his ties to Hannity. He did not respond to an email.
When Lako appeared on Hannity’s radio show last month, Hannity disclosed that he was a Henssler client. He joked to Lako that the company took him on as a “charity case” when he worked in Georgia, but “now I’m the best client you have”.
The Georgia mortgages supported by Hud were guaranteed as part of a program aimed at protecting investors such as Hannity who buy rental apartment buildings. The government promises to cover losses if borrowers default on their mortgages. Borrowers pay an insurance premium to Hud in return. Bigger loan guarantees are available if the building houses low-income families.
Paperwork relating to the agreements with Hud, which was filed to county authorities, named Hannity as the principal of the shell companies used to buy the apartment complexes and to borrow the funds. Hannity personally signed several of the documents. A Hud source said Hannity was identified in non-public filings as the 100% owner of the apartment complexes.
Late last month, Hannity’s mortgages were replaced with loans for $22.9m that were rewritten with Carson’s Hud and a new bank. There was no indication that Carson was personally involved in the process. Carson does, however, have the authority to allow Hannity from 2019 to convert the rental complexes into condominiums for sale, which could be lucrative for the television host.
The shell companies used to buy the properties are limited liability companies (LL Cs). Like in most states, they are not required to disclose their owners to Georgia regulators. LL Cs are popular among well-known figures such as Hannity who wish to keep their business arrangements private.
But the Guardian obtained records in which Hannity signed deeds and other documents on behalf of four of the LL Cs, sometimes being named as principal or manager. Four more of the shell companies have owned properties in which public records say Hannity or members of his family have lived.
Hannity also uses a separate company with a similar name to handle contracts relating to his syndicated radio show, according to records filed in two federal court cases. Georgia records say Hannity was chief executive, chief financial officer and secretary of this company before Lako took over the titles during 2016.
In other cases, only the relevant LLC’s name and a contact at Henssler Financial were identified in the real estate paperwork, meaning that it could not be confirmed whether Hannity was the hidden owner.
The list of properties bought by the Hannity-linked companies includes multimillion-dollar homes used by Hannity. It also features single-family units priced as low as $50,000 in relatively poor suburbs. In at least two cases, batches of homes were bought simultaneously at a discount, after they were repossessed by banks from their previous owners in foreclosure proceedings.
The entire portfolio connected to Hannity comprises at least 877 residential units, which were bought for a total of just under $89m. Another seven properties bought by the companies over recent years have subsequently been sold on for more than $4m, according to public records.
When Hannity this week stressed that his business relationship with Cohen related to real estate, he pointedly denied that it involved any financial settlements with other people.
Cohen previously arranged for a $130,000 payment to Stephanie Clifford, the pornographic actor known as Stormy Daniels, who alleged she had sex with Trump. Cohen also helped Elliott Broidy, a prominent Republican fundraiser, pay $1.6m to a woman who said she had become pregnant during an affair.
Hannity said he had only “occasional brief conversations” with Cohen. He made varying statements about whether Cohen was compensated, initially stating that he had not been billed but later saying: “I might have handed him 10 bucks."
In footage unearthed this week that was broadcast on Fox News in January last year, Hannity mentioned having discussed an unidentified $2bn property venture in Dubai with Cohen.
“I said, ‘I’m interested in that deal myself,’” said Hannity.
edited 22nd Apr '18 7:11:52 PM by megaeliz
What makes this story potentially significant is that he was the only other client Cohen has had for years, and Cohen is no ordinary Lawyer.
And just to finish my daily Trump Tweets:
A complete Witch Hunt!
Funny how all of the Pundits that couldn’t come close to making a deal on North Korea are now all over the place telling me how to make a deal!
Kim Strassel of the WSJ just said, after reviewing the dumb Comey Memos, “you got to ask, what was the purpose of the Special Counsel? There’s no there there.” Dan Henninger of the WSJ said Memos would show that this would be one of the weakest obstruction cases ever brought!
Nixon insisted the charges against him were a "Witch Hunt" too, you know.
edited 22nd Apr '18 7:28:01 PM by megaeliz
Roger Ebert pointed out the Klan didn't want themselves pointed out as normal. One of the big complaints against David Duke was by his fellow Klansmen for trying to make themselves look too mainstream.
The Klan wants to appeal to Armchair Military would be psychopaths and criminals who think it's criminal and terrifying.
I think a lot of people have this weird idea everyone wants to be mainstream when groups like the Hell's Angels (white supremecists themselves) thrive on the appeal to edgy.
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.As with any group that has more than twenty people in it, even the white supremacists aren't a monolith. Some of them do want to be normalized, to have the veneer of respectability and normalcy. It makes them look credible. And some of them just revel in edgelordism as if that makes them cool somehow. Those guys don't care about looking credible so much as "winning" by their bog low standards.
And many have a deliberate strategy of appearing “normal” just so they have an easier time sticking a knife in the back of everyone that they hate and want to destroy.
With some of these people, the groups of people that they hate and want to stick a knife in might as well be everyone.
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
It depend of what group you are taking about, standar neo nazis, skinheads and klasman want to be see as what they are: a terror group.
But other like the alt right need to be normal because they as a group fucking suck at violence as charleston ville show up, The alt right sell less as ideology and more a white supreacy version of a teenager rebelion: half of "FUCK THE MEN" other half "YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ME!".
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"The more devious white supremacists are kinda like the Gigglepies from The Fairly OddParents!. The forms they take are designed to look appealing in such a way that you don't notice they're bringing the entire country to ruin.
i'm tired, my friendLatest John Oliver is about the Iran Deal
, which Trump will probably cancel because he is listening to Sean Hannity, 'nuff said, and John Bolton, who wants to INVADE Iran by 2019. (vomit)
edited 23rd Apr '18 7:00:02 AM by speedyboris
This is from the latest episode of "Mueller, She Wrote"
so I don't have an actual source for it, but seems to support something Imve been suspecting.
Remember how AG Schneiderman requested that state lawmakers close a loophole in state law that a stopped the state from prosecuting state crimes, if they had been pardoned for the same federal Crimes, right?
One of the implications of this that people aren't talking about, is that Mueller is almost certainly deliberately holding back charges, that he likely has enough evidence to charge, that Schneiderman can proscute under New York's stricter Double Jeopardy laws. Schneiderman asking for the loophole to be changed would allow Mueller to go after all charges without having to worry about pardons.
Either way, neither of them are not playing around, and #MuellerIsComing #SchneidermanIsComing
edited 23rd Apr '18 8:06:08 AM by megaeliz

Also, restrictions against lying wouldn't do much to help, because Fox News usually doesn't lie; it just chooses to emphasize the details that make their side look good.