Politics-What's on your mind?

[BullDog]

I am thinking about the voters.

Thank you to everyone who has voted so far, especially those who have had to wait in line. Please everyone else vote as soon as you can!

Yesterday was the first day of early voting in Georgia. They set a record with over 125,000 early votes and people waited hours and hours in line. You have my utmost respect and thanks.

I have never had to stand in line for hours to vote, but if I ever need to I certainly will.

VOTE!

Go Blue!

[Cin]

Looking at the reality of the Supreme Court for a generation I can only say it is bleak. I stumbled across this article in the Atlantic that was published in April. It's very interesting not that it matters a whit really unless something changes. However I always found originalism vs living constituionalism interesting. The way the conservative justices usually do it is originalism for issues for which it is convenient and common good constitutionalism (aka conservative living constitutionalism) when originalism won't get the results they seek. Anyway I found the article interesting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...tution/609382/

[~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!

[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.

[~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 !!!

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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]

"Under committee rules, at least two members of the minority party must be present for a vote to take place. But on Thursday morning, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the only Democrat in attendance, Graham moved forward with a motion setting Barrett's Judiciary Committee vote for 1:00 pm ET on October 22."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...e-vote-barrett

So rules are only rules if you chose to obey them? If you don't feel like it you just ignore the rules and apparently there are no consequences. We may has well have anarchy if that's how our government can conduct itself.

[BullDog]

Originally Posted by Cin

"Under committee rules, at least two members of the minority party must be present for a vote to take place. But on Thursday morning, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) the only Democrat in attendance, Graham moved forward with a motion setting Barrett's Judiciary Committee vote for 1:00 pm ET on October 22."

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...e-vote-barrett

So rules are only rules if you chose to obey them? If you don't feel like it you just ignore the rules and apparently there are no consequences. We may has well have anarchy if that's how our government can conduct itself.

Unfortunately, that appears to be the case. When I was reading up on how Democrats could try to stall the process, I read several times that a lot of the rules could be ignored or changed by the Chairman (Graham) or McConnell whenever they wanted to, including the quorum. Why they would even have rules if they don't need to be followed is truly beyond me.

The Democrats can't stop this. The only thing that will is if 2-4 Republican Senators (depending on how much you trust Collins and Murkowski to vote No) actually die before the vote is taken. Contracting coronavirus is definitely not enough because they will just wheel their infected bodies onto the Senate floor to vote.

If the Democrats win the Presidency and Senate, during the first 2 years they need to pass as much significant legislation as possible that will really make a difference

Get rid of the fillibuster. Yes, it could bite us in the ass later. Harry Reid changed the rules on federal judges so you didn't need 60 votes because the Republicans were blocking all of Obama's appointees and then McConnell did it on the Supreme Court Justices. That's how these Trump appointees are getting through to the Supreme Court without needing 60 votes. Break or ignore any rules if need be and act like the majority. The House has passed a lot of bills already so the Senate has plenty to work with. Basically, the way it works now is you have to be in the majority and then use brute power.

[homoe]

~~~
Begging again for money on Fox news this morning.....