America - The Official Thread

[McLaren]

Interesting that The Hill is considered skewed right. I see it sourced quite a bit more often on left-leaning subreddits than I do right-leaning (although the right-leaning ones tend to mainly like Daily Wire & Gateway Pundit which hilariously fall way down the order).

 

[polysmut]

View attachment 963249
Thoughts?

Do you know how measurements were taken for that?

 

[Blitz24]

It looks about right except I would probably rate MSNBC and Washington Examiner a little more reliable and WSJ as quite a bit more right. Also, I'm dubious about how high OAN & the Blaze are in the reliable axis...higher than Fox News? Yeah right...

edit: The Root should be pegged out to the left...

Agreed on WSJ being slightly more right. I view it as the more eloquent version of the New York Post (which is tabloid fodder).
The Root and most of G/O Media's remains have see-sawed back and forth from just to the left to solidly left.

 

[ryzno]

Do you know how measurements were taken for that?

No. They do give a website in the bottom of the post. I just happened to see this on a friends page. He's more of an NPR kinda guy. Just wanted to see if y'all agreed with the chart.

 

[Danoff]

So what do you folks think about term limits for Supreme Court Justices? I think I'm in favor. I've seen 18 year terms thrown around, such that a new SC justice is appointed every 2 years, one confirmation by each senate. Some people were talking about phasing this in slowly, as SC justices leave. Actually I think naming an end date for each one up front would be a better move, so that it really does reflect a 2 year confirmation cycle.

So Clarence Thomas would be up immediately (presumably in Janauray, since I'd imagine this requires a joint act of congress and executive). He'd have 29 years. Followed by Breyer after the midterms (28 years). Next up would be roberts in 2024. That would give him 19 years. After that would be Alito in 2026, giving him 20 years. After that would be Sotomayor in 2028, giving her 19 years. Kagan in 2030, giving her 20 years. Gorsuch in 2032, giving him 15 years (less than the promised 18, but oh well). And then Kavanaugh in 2034, giving him 16 years (again, oh well), followed by (presumably) Barrett in 2036, giving her 16 years.

Edit:

While we're at it, caps on the number of terms for a senate or house seat.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Stephen Miller has Covid.

Really professional organization we've got at the top of our government. I mean, not as good as, like, the NBA or the Tour De France organizers, or...most employers...but you know there will probably be some people in the White House who don't get Covid.

 

[Lain]

No. They do give a website in the bottom of the post. I just happened to see this on a friends page. He's more of an NPR kinda guy. Just wanted to see if y'all agreed with the chart.

I think it’s accurate enough, at least in the sense that sources outside of that green dotted line should be avoided (or at the very least should be taken with an extra large pinch of salt).

 

[UKMikey]

So what do you folks think about term limits for Supreme Court Justices? I think I'm in favor. I've seen 18 year terms thrown around, such that a new SC justice is appointed every 2 years, one confirmation by each senate. Some people were talking about phasing this in slowly, as SC justices leave. Actually I think naming an end date for each one up front would be a better move, so that it really does reflect a 2 year confirmation cycle.

As I understand it the idea of life terms was that Supreme Court Justices would take the long view and not be beholden to one particular administration's point of view. How has that worked out so far? I'm not familiar with the situation.

I think the Dems would have had more chance of pushing this idea through when they had a majority in at least one of the legislative houses. But I'm not sure how anyone could argue against such a move without displaying at least a degree of naked self- (or party) interest.

 

[Blitz24]

So what do you folks think about term limits for Supreme Court Justices? I think I'm in favor. I've seen 18 year terms thrown around, such that a new SC justice is appointed every 2 years, one confirmation by each senate. Some people were talking about phasing this in slowly, as SC justices leave. Actually I think naming an end date for each one up front would be a better move, so that it really does reflect a 2 year confirmation cycle.

So Clarence Thomas would be up immediately (presumably in Janauray, since I'd imagine this requires a joint act of congress and executive). He'd have 29 years. Followed by Breyer after the midterms (28 years). Next up would be roberts in 2024. That would give him 19 years. After that would be Alito in 2026, giving him 20 years. After that would be Sotomayor in 2028, giving her 19 years. Kagan in 2030, giving her 20 years. Gorsuch in 2032, giving him 15 years (less than the promised 18, but oh well). And then Kavanaugh in 2034, giving him 16 years (again, oh well), followed by (presumably) Barrett in 2036, giving her 16 years.

Edit:

While we're at it, caps on the number of terms for a senate or house seat.

Caps on Senate/House seats is a must. It MIGHT actually lead to some progress in terms of activity.

 

[McLaren]

I remember Trump talking about term limits as one of his campaign promises, & something was eventually proposed as two terms for senators & six terms for House members. Made a tweet about some meeting he had with lawmakers, and I don't think another peep was ever made about it.

 

[Danoff]

As I understand it the idea of life terms was that Supreme Court Justices would take the long view and not be beholden to one particular administration's point of view. How has that worked out so far? I'm not familiar with the situation.

Not great. The 9 mostly stick to political ideology, sometimes we get small shifts over time. The thing is, since they'd never be running for office, term limits actually don't make them any more beholden to any particular administration.

 

[Sander 001]

Finally some good news

 

[ryzno]

I'm still trying to figure out what QAnon is. Guess I'm a little late to the party.

 

[TheCracker]

I'm still trying to figure out what QAnon is. Guess I'm a little late to the party.

It's just like Antifa but with more white faces.

*edit* and a bit more basement-dwelling conspiracy theory believing.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'm still trying to figure out what QAnon is. Guess I'm a little late to the party.

8chan IRL

 

[UKMikey]

Finally some good news

I posted this yesterday.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-theories-thread.290602/page-43#post-13251767

I'm not sure whether they're the entirety of Trump's base but they're certainly on his side.

*edit* and a bit more basement-dwelling conspiracy theory believing.

A lot more, I would say. They think the left is run by a conspiracy of satanic paedophiles and Trump is the only person who is fighting them.

 

[Biggles]

I'm still trying to figure out what QAnon is. Guess I'm a little late to the party.

Think of Dotini ... on steroids!

People who have discovered the "Great Awakening". Once they catch a whiff of conspiracy (by "researching" on the internet) they just chase it down multiple rabbit holes. If anything - like facts or logic - appears to disagree with the conspiracy theories ... it's further proof of the conspiracies!

 

[Jezza819]

Qanon should have been brought up to Trump in the debate to see what he would have said about them. If he would denounce them or even acknowledge their existence.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Finally some good news

This may sound controversial, but I actually think that banning/deplatforming Qanon accounts simply because they have obscene views is a bad idea. Because it's a slippery slope from there. How would you feel if facebook and other platforms started purging staunch socialist/leftist/anti-capitalist accounts because they also have views considered as controversial and are a threat to the status quo? As crazy as it may sound, it's something that could actually happen. It's no secret that leftism is the enemy of power structures in this country. Does it honestly sound logical that the social media accounts will ban right-wing accounts for being controversial but not left-leaning ones? I stand by my belief that the only reason why someone should be banned/deplatformed is either for explicit calls for violence, or signaling for calls for violence. Having controversial/ridiculous views isn't enough, and I say this as a vehement hater of Qanon. There is a free marketplace of ideas and if you think an ideology is crazy or conspiratorial, or even if it's downright false (like Qanon), just ignore it and move on.

Also, banning Qanon/other conspiracy theorist accounts only give more validation to them. What did Alex Jones, Richard Spencer, Stefan Molyneux, and all these other right-wing crazies all say when they got banned? "They want to silent us. They're banning us because they know we're right and they don't want people to know the truth". Qanon supporters already have this mindset. Simply banning controversial figures/ideologies doesn't just cause their supporters to abandon them; rather, the opposite happens.

 

[Famine]

This may sound controversial, but I actually think that banning/deplatforming Qanon accounts simply because they have obscene views is a bad idea. Because it's a slippery slope from there. How would you feel if facebook and other platforms started purging staunch socialist/leftist/anti-capitalist accounts because they also have views considered as controversial and are a threat to the status quo?

Nobody should care - either way. Facebook is a private company. They can ban whatever they want.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

This may sound controversial, but I actually think that banning/deplatforming Qanon accounts simply because they have obscene views is a bad idea. Because it's a slippery slope from there. How would you feel if facebook and other platforms started purging staunch socialist/leftist/anti-capitalist accounts because they also have views considered as controversial and are a threat to the status quo? As crazy as it may sound, it's something that could actually happen. It's no secret that leftism is the enemy of power structures in this country. Does it honestly sound logical that the social media accounts will ban right-wing accounts for being controversial but not left-leaning ones? I stand by my belief that the only reason why someone should be banned/deplatformed is either for explicit calls for violence, or signaling for calls for violence. Having controversial/ridiculous views isn't enough, and I say this as a vehement hater of Qanon. There is a free marketplace of ideas and if you think an ideology is crazy or conspiratorial, or even if it's downright false (like Qanon), just ignore it and move on.

In addition to what Famine said, they are not being banned for obscenity, they are being banned for spreading misinformation. QAnon is a lot different than general political philosophy - they are verging on domestic terrorism and indeed are being watched by the FBI. Banning QAnon from Facebook doesn't cause their supporters to abandon them, but it does significantly reduce their reach on a universal platform. Put another way, QAnon would still be fairly limited if it had been constrained to 8chan, we wouldn't be looking at having one of them being elected to congress like we are now if they never had access to the largest platform on the internet.

Also, banning Qanon/other conspiracy theorist accounts only give more validation to them. What did Alex Jones, Richard Spencer, Stefan Molyneux, and all these other right-wing crazies all say when they got banned? "They want to silent us. They're banning us because they know we're right and they don't want people to know the truth". Qanon supporters already have this mindset. Simply banning controversial figures/ideologies doesn't just cause their supporters to abandon them; rather, the opposite happens.

Of course they would say this. But what's even worse is for them to be perceived as "normal" which is what a functioning presence on Facebook gives. I can promise you that Alex Jones would much rather be on Facebook than be an outcast from it, because without that platform normal people can easily write him off as a kook. I don't care what other kooks think, it's the potential of kooks to reach "normal" people that is damaging for society. The only way these conspiracy groups can grow is for them to reach a mainstream audience because most people are not trawling 8chan. Keeping them out of the mainstream is more important than questions of validating their presence by banning them.

 

[GranTurNismo]

they are being banned for spreading misinformation.

This is precisely the problem. Quite a lot of people on social media are spreading misinformation. The president does it. Mainstream media does it. Celebrities do it. Your angry reactionary grandpa who thinks Joe Biden is a Marxist does it. Even well-meaning posters on this very forum including myself will do it from time to time without realizing. And yes, Qanon and other extremist conspiracy supporters will do it. Where do we draw the line, is what I'm saying? There are times when spreading false information (especially falsehoods that are explicitly bigoted/hateful) can be very influential and damaging, and many other times when this is not the case.

QAnon is a lot different than general political philosophy - they are verging on domestic terrorism and indeed are being watched by the FBI.

Any account (yes, even Left ones) that promotes terrorism/violence should be banned, no exceptions. I was under the impression that FB was purging all Qanon accounts regardless of how they get their point across and what they're advocating for.

Banning QAnon from Facebook doesn't cause their supporters to abandon them, but it does significantly reduce their reach on a universal platform.

Fair enough.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Where do we draw the line? Well that's not up to us, it's up to Facebook. Apparently Zuck, per his own judgement, felt that QAnon was on the other side of the line in a way that other groups are not. It's a judgement - there is no formula for determining the line. A reasonable person could say that QAnon should be banned from Facebook (they've been linked to murder, a train derailment, multitudes of threats, etc) where other groups should not be banned at this time.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Where do we draw the line? Well that's not up to us, it's up to Facebook. Apparently Zuck, per his own judgement, felt that QAnon was on the other side of the line in a way that other groups are not. It's a judgement - there is no formula for determining the line. A reasonable person could say that QAnon should be banned from Facebook (they've been linked to murder, a train derailment, multitudes of threats, etc) where other groups should not be banned at this time.

Okay, that's fair. I guess my question is this: should all accounts that show support for Qanon be banned, or only those that are encouraging political violence/making threats?

 

[Sander 001]

This may sound controversial, but I actually think that banning/deplatforming Qanon accounts simply because they have obscene views is a bad idea. Because it's a slippery slope from there. How would you feel if facebook and other platforms started purging staunch socialist/leftist/anti-capitalist accounts because they also have views considered as controversial and are a threat to the status quo? As crazy as it may sound, it's something that could actually happen. It's no secret that leftism is the enemy of power structures in this country. Does it honestly sound logical that the social media accounts will ban right-wing accounts for being controversial but not left-leaning ones? I stand by my belief that the only reason why someone should be banned/deplatformed is either for explicit calls for violence, or signaling for calls for violence. Having controversial/ridiculous views isn't enough, and I say this as a vehement hater of Qanon. There is a free marketplace of ideas and if you think an ideology is crazy or conspiratorial, or even if it's downright false (like Qanon), just ignore it and move on.

Also, banning Qanon/other conspiracy theorist accounts only give more validation to them. What did Alex Jones, Richard Spencer, Stefan Molyneux, and all these other right-wing crazies all say when they got banned? "They want to silent us. They're banning us because they know we're right and they don't want people to know the truth". Qanon supporters already have this mindset. Simply banning controversial figures/ideologies doesn't just cause their supporters to abandon them; rather, the opposite happens.

I think they are making the case that QaQ are causing physical harm to many people. Not only thru violence but also disinformation which has prevented better containment of lethal viruses.

 

[McLaren]

Qanon should have been brought up to Trump in the debate to see what he would have said about them. If he would denounce them or even acknowledge their existence.

TMK, there's still 2 debates left. It could very well pop up since the first one addressed a lot of current issues.

 

[UKMikey]

Fat chance of any kind of denouncement of the WWG1WGA loons from Trump.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...piracy-believers-love-our-country/3359614001/

"Well I don't know much about the movement, other than I understand they like me very much, which I appreciate," Trump told reporters during a White House briefing. "These are people that don't like seeing what's going on in places like Portland, Chicago and New York and other cities and states. ... I've heard these are people that love our country and they just don't like seeing it."

 

[Imari]

Where do we draw the line, is what I'm saying?

Somewhere. You draw the line somewhere. And you probably get it wrong, and make a correction and try again. And again. And you keep doing your best, knowing that you're probably never going to get it right but at least you're having a go at making the world a better place.

Something being hard is not a reason not to try at all.

 

[Danoff]

Somewhere. You draw the line somewhere. And you probably get it wrong, and make a correction and try again. And again. And you keep doing your best, knowing that you're probably never going to get it right but at least you're having a go at making the world a better place.

Something being hard is not a reason not to try at all.

Another option, since we're talking about Facebook, is to say you draw the line wherever you want.

 

[Tornado]

There's something darkly hilarious about a person that Trump may have personally infected with Covid trying to throw shade at Biden for failing to contain a pandemic.