Politics-What's on your mind?

[~ocean]

Barrett seems sneaky as all hell. Her voice is shrilling , untrustworthy. Barrett gets a look in her eye's that says crazy ~ Houston we have a problem. ~

[homoe]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

Barrett seems sneaky as all hell. Her voice is shrilling , untrustworthy. Barrett gets a look in her eye's that says crazy ~ Houston we have a problem. ~

...


She steamed rolled over Diane Einsteinium and her questions but come tomorrow, I doubt she'll be able to do that with Sheldon Whitehouse after the foundation he laid out today!

[~ocean]

Originally Posted by homoe

...


She steamed rolled over Diane Einsteinium and her questions but come tomorrow, I doubt she'll be able to do that with Sheldon Whitehouse after the foundation he laid out today!

^5 on that !!!

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

Barrett seems sneaky as all hell. Her voice is shrilling , untrustworthy. Barrett gets a look in her eye's that says crazy ~ Houston we have a problem. ~

She definitely has crazy eyes. I guess she thinks she is on a mission from God to save the unborn so it's okay for her to lie through her teeth.

[homoe]

Originally Posted by BullDog

She definitely has crazy eyes. I guess she thinks she is on a mission from God to save the unborn so it's okay for her to lie through her teeth.

She's a slippery one that's for damn sure!

EVEN when there is a constitutional answer to a question she's being asked, she won't commit to quoting and giving it!

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by homoe

She's a slippery one that's for damn sure!

EVEN when there is a constitutional answer to a question she's being asked, she won't commit to quoting and giving it!

I have only watched bits and pieces but the only straightforward answer I have seen is when Cory Booker asked if she condemned white supremacy and she did say yes.

Feinstein asked her if the president could delay the election under any circumstances. The answer is absolutely not, but Barrett wouldn't answer.

Klobuchar asked if it was illegal to intimidate voters at the polls. Of course, it is but she wouldn't answer, so Amy cited the specific law.

She is basically not answering any question at all.

I don't know much about originalism but times change lady. "All men are created equal" means something different now than it did in the 18th century. It's a crock of shit.

I thought Kamala Harris was outstanding yesterday.

Barret absolutely sucks. The worst hypocrite ever. If she really was a moral, honest person she would not agree to be shoved through during an election where people are already voting.

[homoe]

~~
Oh, because her decisions could effect the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ issues, and Roe Vs Wade, I'm watching all of it either live or taped!

I can't wait to see how she does today when Sheldon Whitehouse has at her!

[homoe]

Originally Posted by homoe

~~
Oh, because her decisions could effect the Affordable Care Act, LGBTQ issues, and Roe Vs Wade, I'm watching all of it either live or taped!

I can't wait to see how she does today when Sheldon Whitehouse has at her!

Boy her body language changed as soon as it was Senator's Whitehouse turn to question her!

She straightened up, sat back, as almost arming herself for battle! The great thing way, he wasn't even up for a battle! He informed her and he gave her several things to think about once she was a Supreme Court member!

[homoe]

All 83 ethics complaints against Brett Kavanaugh dismissed....

The big picture:

The complaints included allegations that Kavanaugh made false and partisan statements during his confirmation hearings, lacked judicial temperament and disrespected members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The panel of federal judges behind the decision called the complaints against Kavanaugh "serious," but said the cases had to be dismissed given Supreme Court justices are not bound by the same code of conduct that dictates the process for pursuing complaints against other judges.

Sidebar: I'm posting this because it was a concern that was brought up at today's confirmation hearing in case you missed it.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by BullDog

I don't know much about originalism but times change lady. "All men are created equal" means something different now than it did in the 18th century. It's a crock of shit.

Conservative Supreme Court Justices choose what works for their agenda. They claim to believe in originalism but when it won't work for a particular issue they are happy to switch gears and favor a little something called common good constitutionalism. Which is really just living constitutionalism dressed up in nasty. I have no respect for individuals with changeable morality like that. I believe this reflects a lack of commitment at best and at worse it shows a desire to put a specific agenda, for many conservatives it is religion, above any truth or honor. That is the heart of the matter.

I heard clips of the hearing on other people's computers and one of the things I heard sounded like questions about the right to vote. It sounded like people were talking as though the right to vote is constitutional. It is not. There's is no right to vote in the constitution or the Bill of Rights. The 15th Amendment guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied on account of race. But that still didn’t recognize a right to vote – only the right of equal treatment. The 19th Amendment banned voting discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not recognize an inherent right to vote. The 2 amendments I would love to see added to the constitution is the right to vote and an abolishment of the doctrines of corporate personhood and of money equaling political speech (Citizens United).

[Vincent]

Originally Posted by Cin

Conservative Supreme Court Justices choose what works for their agenda. They claim to believe in originalism but when it won't work for a particular issue they are happy to switch gears and favor a little something called common good constitutionalism. Which is really just living constitutionalism dressed up in nasty. I have no respect for individuals with changeable morality like that. I believe this reflects a lack of commitment at best and at worse it shows a desire to put a specific agenda, for many conservatives it is religion, above any truth or honor. That is the heart of the matter.

I heard clips of the hearing on other people's computers and one of the things I heard sounded like questions about the right to vote. It sounded like people were talking as though the right to vote is constitutional. It is not. There's is no right to vote in the constitution or the Bill of Rights. The 15th Amendment guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied on account of race. But that still didn’t recognize a right to vote – only the right of equal treatment. The 19th Amendment banned voting discrimination on the basis of sex, but did not recognize an inherent right to vote. The 2 amendments I would love to see added to the constitution is the right to vote and an abolishment of the doctrines of corporate personhood and of money equaling political speech (Citizens United).

Wow
I didn't know that the right to vote was not enshrined in a law.

Here we have compulsery voting,you get fined if you don't
Our problem is the media and ignorance
truth is 98% of Australians are as dumb as a box of rocks,and have an attitude of "what's in it for me"It's also 98% white
when my ex from the US came here,she asked"where are all your POC"

my answer
we kill them,or work them to death...............bit of an exageration,but its very white here.

the sad thing is even our first nation look white,as rape was a form of genicide,if you dilute Aboriginal blood,you look white.

mt g grandfather was Aboriginal,but I look totally white

[Kätzchen]

Originally Posted by BullDog

I have only watched bits and pieces but the only straightforward answer I have seen is when Cory Booker asked if she condemned white supremacy and she did say yes.

Feinstein asked her if the president could delay the election under any circumstances. The answer is absolutely not, but Barrett wouldn't answer.

Klobuchar asked if it was illegal to intimidate voters at the polls. Of course, it is but she wouldn't answer, so Amy cited the specific law.

She is basically not answering any question at all.

I don't know much about originalism but times change lady. "All men are created equal" means something different now than it did in the 18th century. It's a crock of shit.

I thought Kamala Harris was outstanding yesterday.

Barret absolutely sucks. The worst hypocrite ever. If she really was a moral, honest person she would not agree to be shoved through during an election where people are already voting.

I tend to agree with you, Bulldog, especially with your assessment about her: "if she was an honest, moral person she would not agree to be shoved through".

I have watched some of the televised proceedings today. As a communications scholar, I find situations like this is rich with tell-tale non-verbal cues.

I think she is hyper focused on controlling her facial expressions, as well as not giving clear, concise messages orally.

But ... which way are her feet pointing?

Lol, sometimes it is feet which betrays the real message intended for the listener or viewing audience.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

Barrett seems sneaky as all hell. Her voice is shrilling , untrustworthy. Barrett gets a look in her eye's that says crazy ~ Houston we have a problem. ~

Houston says "YOU SURE DO!! WE ARE HERE TO HELP, THOUGH!!!"

Houston/Harris County had double the number of early voters today as we had on the first day of voting in 2016. AND THOSE ARE MAJORITY DEMOCRAT!

The Tea Party live in the sticks and don't vote with us!

[Orema]

On Facebook, Misinformation Is More Popular Now Than in 2016
By Davey Alba


People are engaging more on Facebook today with news outlets that routinely publish misinformation than they did before the 2016 election. Credit...Josh Edelson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

During the 2016 presidential election, Russian operatives used Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other social media platforms to spread disinformation to divide the American electorate. Since then, the social media companies have spent billions of dollars and hired tens of thousands of people to help clean up their act.

But have the platforms really become more sophisticated at handling misinformation?

Not necessarily.

People are engaging more on Facebook today with news outlets that routinely publish misinformation than they did before the 2016 election, according to new research from the German Marshall Fund Digital, the digital arm of the public policy think tank. The organization, which has a data partnership with the start-up NewsGuard and the social media analytics firm NewsWhip, published its findings on Monday.

In total, Facebook likes, comments and shares of articles from news outlets that regularly publish falsehoods and misleading content roughly tripled from the third quarter of 2016 to the third quarter of 2020, the group found.

About two thirds of those likes and comments were of articles published by 10 outlets, which the researchers categorized as “false content producers” or “manipulators.” Those news outlets included Palmer Report and The Federalist, according to the research.

The group used ratings from NewsGuard, which ranks news sites based on how they uphold nine journalistic principles, to sort them into “false content producers,” which repeatedly publish provably false content; and “manipulators,” which regularly present unsubstantiated claims or that distort information to make an argument.

“We have these sites that masquerade as news outlets online. They’re allowed to,” said Karen Kornbluh, director of GMF Digital. “It’s infecting our discourse and it’s affecting the long-term health of the democracy.”

Andy Stone, a Facebook spokesman, said that analyzing likes, shares and comments to draw conclusions was “misleading” because the data does not capture what most people see on Facebook. The social network does not make other data, such as the reach of posts, publicly available; engagement data is the only information it provides.

Ms. Kornbluh said Facebook users engaged more with articles from all news outlets this year because the coronavirus pandemic forced people to quarantine indoors. But the growth rate of likes, shares and comments of content from manipulators and false content producers exceeded the interactions that people had with what the researchers called “legitimate journalistic outlets,” such as Reuters, Associated Press and Bloomberg.

Ms. Kornbluh said social media firms face a conundrum because their businesses rely on viral content to bring in users, who they can then show ads to. Tamping down on misinformation “just runs against their economic incentives,” she said.

Davey Alba is a technology reporter covering disinformation. In 2019, she won a Livingston Award for excellence in international reporting and a Mirror Award for best story on journalism in peril.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/t...gtype=Homepage

[Orema]

One of things I like seeing two weeks before the election are the “big guns” who come out front and center to campaign for the party’s elected person. This year for the dems it would normally be the Obamas, previous Presidents and their spouses (Clintons, Carters), previous VPs and their families, the opponents (Sanders), etc.

For the repubs it would be the same (Reagan children, Bush, McCain family, Bob Dole’s old ass, current senior Senators, etc).

But not this year. The dems have big guns but we look desperate, as we are, and the repubs have none. Just Trump, his family, and the Justice Dept.

I don’t think things will ever be the same. Future Presidents, dems and repubs, will use some of the dirty tricks used by Trump.

Guess I should get used to it.

[theoddz]

Originally Posted by Orema

One of things I like seeing two weeks before the election are the “big guns” who come out front and center to campaign for the party’s elected person. This year for the dems it would normally be the Obamas, previous Presidents and their spouses (Clintons, Carters), previous VPs and their families, the opponents (Sanders), etc.

For the repubs it would be the same (Reagan children, Bush, McCain family, Bob Dole’s old ass, current senior Senators, etc).

But not this year. The dems have big guns but we look desperate, as we are, and the repubs have none. Just Trump, his family, and the Justice Dept.

I don’t think things will ever be the same. Future Presidents, dems and repubs, will use some of the dirty tricks used by Trump.

Guess I should get used to it.

I think (IMHO) that a real pivot point that began this trend of "gloves off" politics was when President Obama realized that he couldn't be decent and optimistic about dealing with the GOP anymore. They mistook his kind, humble, honest decorum and "when they go low, we go high" with perceived weakness. The GOP, most definitely, were the ones who brought this style of open, hostile confrontation to our political system. I believe that the rest of it has to do with greed, meanness and all of the rest of humankind's worst inclinations. I also think that there are so many negative aspects of human nature that have fed into the general frustration that there is no one simple answer to why things have evolved this way. There have been books written, saying that this is the "arse end" of capitalism, democracy, and well, this is just "what happens" with the impending collapse of democratic societies.

I have yet another theory to add. When I was just starting my adult life, in my early 20's, I asked my father why it seemed that so many people, society in general, were just becoming plain MEAN. Pop told me that there had been a scientific experiment conducted on mice to try to examine what happens in a community when resources become increasingly scarce, while the population steadily increases (think about the wealth inequality that exists now in the U.S.). A group of mice were placed in a container with a limited amount of food and water. Gradually, more mice were added while incremental amounts of food and water were withheld. The mice became increasingly hostile and aggressive. The conclusion?? High population and limited resources = Increasing aggression and hostile behaviors. So, with our current situation of wealth inequality, imagine that 99 of those 100 "mice" are able to see a container next to their crowded, under-resourced box, that is oversupplied with food and water, but with only 1 mouse in that box......and it is dramatically overfed!!! I have thought about how Pop explained that to me so many years ago. He was so right. Pop was a research scientist (phD Entomologist), and he was an excellent critical thinker. I can't help but know, for sure, that if he were still alive today, he would be absolutely floored at how bad things have gotten, just in the past 7 years since he has been gone.

RIP, Dad. You were so very, very right about so many, many things.

~Theo~

[homoe]

NBC was kind enough to broadcast to the world, yet again, that the President of the United States is completely insane. At one point during a town hall in Miami on Thursday night, Donald Trump explained that he shared a conspiracy theory with his 87 million Twitter followers alleging Joe Biden helped orchestrate the killing of Seal Team 6 members—to cover up that the Osama bin Laden assassination was, in this formulation, faked—on the following basis:

TRUMP: That was a retweet. That was an opinion of somebody. And that was a retweet. I put it out there, people can decide for themselves.

Sure! Just send it out there to millions of people. Who cares whether it has any relationship to reality? Who cares how many lives get ground up and discarded along the way? It might, in this deeply depressing view of the human race, get you a few votes.

Moderator Savannah Guthrie, doing what she could with a poisoned chalice of an assignment, had an apt response.

GUTHRIE: You're the president. You're not, like, someone's crazy uncle who can retweet whatever.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/nbc-...024800314.html

[Cin]

This is what a normal, sane, presidential candidate sounds like. We are so used to the shit show of Donald Trump we have forgotten what the priority of a president should be and what a little humility in our leader might sound like. "Asked by Stephanopoulos what Biden thinks it would say about the state of the country if he didn't win this election, Biden said, "Well, it could say that I'm a lousy candidate and I didn't do a good job."

But what he hoped a Biden loss wouldn't say was "that we are as racially, ethically, and religiously at odds with one other as it appears the president wants us to be."

The former vice president said Trump's strategy is to "divide and conquer," but he, on the other hand, thinks people need hope."
"I'm going to take care of those who voted against me as well as those who voted for me. For real. That's what presidents do. We've got to heal this nation," Biden said

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/key-...bEUZeTJ3h2bKM4

[Cin]

Originally Posted by theoddz

I have yet another theory to add. When I was just starting my adult life, in my early 20's, I asked my father why it seemed that so many people, society in general, were just becoming plain MEAN. Pop told me that there had been a scientific experiment conducted on mice to try to examine what happens in a community when resources become increasingly scarce, while the population steadily increases (think about the wealth inequality that exists now in the U.S.). A group of mice were placed in a container with a limited amount of food and water. Gradually, more mice were added while incremental amounts of food and water were withheld. The mice became increasingly hostile and aggressive. The conclusion?? High population and limited resources = Increasing aggression and hostile behaviors. So, with our current situation of wealth inequality, imagine that 99 of those 100 "mice" are able to see a container next to their crowded, under-resourced box, that is oversupplied with food and water, but with only 1 mouse in that box......and it is dramatically overfed!!!
~Theo~

It has always puzzled me how people, or mice apparently, turn on each other when they are all in the same boat instead of banding together to tackle the problem. I thought it was something the power elite did to keep us divided, teaching us to look below us on the socio economic scale for the reasons for our problem so we don't have the power of being united against those who keep all the resources and wealth, along with keeping alive the myth of the American dream that we can all be successful and achieve wealth if we just try and also by convincing us all that there is scarcity when the reality is that they have hoarded everything for themselves. But maybe it's just something in animal nature that the power elite have learned to manipulate. Instead of getting aggressive with each other why didn't 99 mice band together and try to reach that container with only one mouse and tons of food and water? Why don't humans?

[theoddz]

Originally Posted by Cin

It has always puzzled me how people, or mice apparently, turn on each other when they are all in the same boat instead of banding together to tackle the problem. I thought it was something the power elite did to keep us divided, teaching us to look below us on the socio economic scale for the reasons for our problem so we don't have the power of being united against those who keep all the resources and wealth, along with keeping alive the myth of the American dream that we can all be successful and achieve wealth if we just try and also by convincing us all that there is scarcity when the reality is that they have hoarded everything for themselves. But maybe it's just something in animal nature that the power elite have learned to manipulate. Instead of getting aggressive with each other why didn't 99 mice band together and try to reach that container with only one mouse and tons of food and water? Why don't humans?

You know, the truth is, I really don't know why. I think the answer may lie in the individual's self serving human survival instinct (human nature) that is focused inward instead of to the group. They say that the difference between humans and animal beings "lower" on the scale is our (humans') ability to think critically and reason out problems. I would almost venture to think that our inclination to lash out/place blame on others in our same situation is probably linked to Darwin's theory involving the survival of the fittest amongst us. It's already been established that, on the whole, all too many have lost the ability (or have never had it) to think critically. For critical thinking to exist, one must be able to see the circumstances, situations and truth/fact that surround them and be able to evaluate these factors to find root causes and begin the solving process. I don't know when the schools stopped teaching our children to think critically, but it's my opinion that a lot of it probably originates with this and was deliberately planned and executed. When people cannot use the power of intellect and reason and observation, they resort to decisions made based on ignorance, malfeasance and emotional manipulation of the truth. In short, they are "easily led". That's why Trump was able to get elected in the first place. In recent years, many people have largely ignored the political climate in this country. Too many are too reliant on others to tell them what to think that they've become totally unable to know how to think. Have you noticed how many young people these days no longer read a book, or newspapers?? Too many of our countrymen/women/people cannot even tell you the names of their congressional representatives and Senators. You'd better believe that they can name the characters on reality television and figures in pop culture. It is absolutely head spinning and just plain disgusting, really.

There is a quote from the famous philosopher, Plato, and it says “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”

Now, if Trump, McConnell, Barr and the likes of enablers like Lindsay Graham can manage to keep us looking the other way with pop culture, video games, reality shows and other such bullsh1t, they can continue to sit in their own private little boxes and eat up all of the food and water while we, the 99% of "the others" will be entertained and distracted.....all the way to our impoverished graves.

I'm sorry I rambled on. I hope my general idea came across through all of this!!

Thanks for bearing with me.

~Theo~