Political Randomness

[Paingod]

Does anybody foresee a positive future for America say, three years from now?

Yes. As soon as Trump is out of office I think we'll see a relative return to "normal." I'm not saying the country won't still be bitterly divided along partisan lines, but we'll at least be back to Obama levels of normalcy.

I'd settle for George Bush Jr. levels of normalcy, and I thought he was a complete tit.

[LawBeefaroni]

Does anybody foresee a positive future for America say, three years from now?

Yes. As soon as Trump is out of office I think we'll see a relative return to "normal." I'm not saying the country won't still be bitterly divided along partisan lines, but we'll at least be back to Obama levels of normalcy.

In the White House maybe but everywhere else the damage will linger for decades. It's not like the US got the flu and will be fine again as long as we survive it. The US got into a car accident and will have permanent injuries. Whether it's a missing limb or "just" a gimpy walk and some nasty scars remains to be seen.

[Remus West]

Our ability to operate on the international level will return to normal in a few decades at best. Never is more likely. If you were another nation would you trust us again any time soon?

[Kraken]

Does anybody foresee a positive future for America say, three years from now?

Yes. As soon as Trump is out of office I think we'll see a relative return to "normal." I'm not saying the country won't still be bitterly divided along partisan lines, but we'll at least be back to Obama levels of normalcy.

In the White House maybe but everywhere else the damage will linger for decades. It's not like the US got the flu and will be fine again as long as we survive it. The US got into a car accident and will have permanent injuries. Whether it's a missing limb or "just" a gimpy walk and some nasty scars remains to be seen.

Yeah, things are never going back to the status quo ante Trump. We need to be thinking about how we can build a stable new order.

My fantasy goes something like this: Dems win the WH and Senate in 2020 and move aggressively to repair damage on all fronts and implement their own agenda, probably nuking the filibuster in order to force it through. Deplorables lose their minds over this, but President Warren's many plans address their complaints, too, whether they like it or not, even as Trump continues to sow dissent from his refuge in Moscow.

By 2024, the recession of '20 is over. Taxes went up on the wealthy and the markets crashed after the election, but they recovered, as markets eventually always do after a political sea change. Rural poverty is on the wane and Americans grudgingly admit that universal, "free" healthcare is working. The economy surges as healthcare costs (as a % of GDP) fall and massive investments in infrastructure and green energy pay off. Hate groups scurry back under their rocks, the GOP reforms as the center-right party it used to be, and liberals and conservatives work together to neutralize extremists on both ends. The next generation of leaders come forward to ensure that we never fall prey to that madness again.

Hey, I said it was a fantasy.

[Blackhawk]

Our ability to operate on the international level will return to normal in a few decades at best. Never is more likely. If you were another nation would you trust us again any time soon?

Never is a long time. We look on Germany and Japan favorably these days. But decades, absolutely. Bad laws can be repealed, executive orders can be reversed. Those things can happen in weeks. Things like trade agreements and treaties we've walked away from, though, are a different matter. We can't just undo the trade war with China, for instance, or jump back into Open Skies if Trump goes through with pulling us out.

[Remus West]

My fantasy goes something like this: Dems win the WH and Senate in 2020 and move aggressively to repair damage on all fronts and implement their own agenda, probably nuking the filibuster in order to force it through. Deplorables lose their minds over this, but President Warren's many plans address their complaints, too, whether they like it or not, even as Trump continues to sow dissent from his refuge in Moscow.

By 2024, the recession of '20 is over. Taxes went up on the wealthy and the markets crashed after the election, but they recovered, as markets eventually always do after a political sea change. Rural poverty is on the wane and Americans grudgingly admit that universal, "free" healthcare is working. The economy surges as healthcare costs (as a % of GDP) fall and massive investments in infrastructure and green energy pay off. Hate groups scurry back under their rocks, the GOP reforms as the center-right party it used to be, and liberals and conservatives work together to neutralize extremists on both ends. The next generation of leaders come forward to ensure that we never fall prey to that madness again.

Hey, I said it was a fantasy.

I like your world and would like a ticket the next time you take the transuniversal express to get there, please.

[Dogstar]

My fantasy goes something like this: Dems win the WH and Senate in 2020 and move aggressively to repair damage on all fronts and implement their own agenda, probably nuking the filibuster in order to force it through. Deplorables lose their minds over this, but President Warren's many plans address their complaints, too, whether they like it or not, even as Trump continues to sow dissent from his refuge in Moscow.

By 2024, the recession of '20 is over. Taxes went up on the wealthy and the markets crashed after the election, but they recovered, as markets eventually always do after a political sea change. Rural poverty is on the wane and Americans grudgingly admit that universal, "free" healthcare is working. The economy surges as healthcare costs (as a % of GDP) fall and massive investments in infrastructure and green energy pay off. Hate groups scurry back under their rocks, the GOP reforms as the center-right party it used to be, and liberals and conservatives work together to neutralize extremists on both ends. The next generation of leaders come forward to ensure that we never fall prey to that madness again.

Hey, I said it was a fantasy.

I like your world and would like a ticket the next time you take the transuniversal express to get there, please.

+1000

[Kraken]

My fantasy goes something like this: Dems win the WH and Senate in 2020 and move aggressively to repair damage on all fronts and implement their own agenda, probably nuking the filibuster in order to force it through. Deplorables lose their minds over this, but President Warren's many plans address their complaints, too, whether they like it or not, even as Trump continues to sow dissent from his refuge in Moscow.

By 2024, the recession of '20 is over. Taxes went up on the wealthy and the markets crashed after the election, but they recovered, as markets eventually always do after a political sea change. Rural poverty is on the wane and Americans grudgingly admit that universal, "free" healthcare is working. The economy surges as healthcare costs (as a % of GDP) fall and massive investments in infrastructure and green energy pay off. Hate groups scurry back under their rocks, the GOP reforms as the center-right party it used to be, and liberals and conservatives work together to neutralize extremists on both ends. The next generation of leaders come forward to ensure that we never fall prey to that madness again.

Hey, I said it was a fantasy.

I like your world and would like a ticket the next time you take the transuniversal express to get there, please.

+1000

Basically, I want to go right to Reconstruction without fighting a civil war first.

Two major concerns from random recent reading:

MA's public schools are bringing back civics education, which dropped by the wayside with the stampede to STEM and omission from the standardized test. It turns out that today's middle school students don't have any idea how government works, or think they should care. That's unsurprising; even though I had a civics class, I paid government little heed until I was old enough to vote, and never really worried about it until Reagan was elected. What nags at me is this part:

Swan strolls around the classroom, dropping envelopes before small groups of students. Inside each envelope are slips of paper with societal virtues on them — democracy, equality, tolerance — 10 in all. “These are values that are all important,” Swan says. “But what are the top three, the middle three, the bottom three?”

The students get to work. Lee’s partner is 13-year-old Sandy Skinner, a self-described politics aficionado. The two boys shuffle the values around on a white mat. Lee puts equality, justice, and happiness at the top and tells Skinner that democracy should be last “because we’re not old enough to vote.” Skinner pushes for democracy in the middle group because “democracy means we can actually decide who our leader is.”

Skinner argues that even in contentious times like today, democracy should work in our favor. “Even if we’re divided and some people really hate our leader now, we won’t end up with someone god-awful who literally could be worse,” he says, adding that in his opinion “it definitely could be worse” than President Trump.

Skinner’s logic may be optimistic — democracy does not guarantee good candidates. But it sways his partner. The two rank tolerance last on their list.

Kids don't value democracy, or really even understand what it is. I worry that it's in the "don't know what you've got til it's gone" category. It's sort of like the girls who take a dim view of feminism because they don't understand what the country was like before it.

My other concern comes from a story about a New Yorker who went back to her rural red-state home where the library was in danger of closing. The low-income area had enjoyed a brief oil boom and overspent, and now they couldn't afford to hire a head librarian at $42,000 per year, which they thought was an extravagant salary. I can't find the story again to quote it, but the gist of the author's conclusion is that Trumpsters don't want government help for themselves or anyone else because they always suspect that they're the ones paying for it, and that undesirable elements are getting more than they are. They'd rather lose the library, and most other government services, than risk benefiting brown people in big cities. Democrats have nothing to offer people who would prefer no government at all.

[Daehawk]

Even if Trump is gone in 2020 the shit he has done and left behind will be blamed on the next President.

[Jaymann]

Even if Trump is gone in 2020 the shit he has done and left behind will be blamed on the next President.

Especially those pesky alligators and snakes.

[malchior]

Kids don't value democracy, or really even understand what it is. I worry that it's in the "don't know what you've got til it's gone" category. It's sort of like the girls who take a dim view of feminism because they don't understand what the country was like before it.

I think that is part of it but I think we have to have context here. For example, my parents were born in the late 40s and early 50s and grew up in a healthy democracy. I suspect you did as well. I on the other hand graduated in the mid-90s from high school and happened to be well positioned to watch as the political system of this country started its spiral down the drain.

Someone could rightly say there have always been problems; it's true. No system is perfect but only recently has it gone so far off course that the scales are finally starting to falling off the eyes of the steadfast older centrists to the enormity of how dysfunctional it is. In comparison, these kids have never known a stable center. These children have only known a sick dying system. If you are a millennial you grew up with the Clinton scandals, terrorist attacks, a ruinous invasion of Iraq, the near collapse of the economy, the political class bending over backwards to save the financial class and blame it all on everyone else, and the GOP increasingly going crazy. They've seen the only moral leader in their lifetime have to deal with racism and an angry white backlash intent on erasing his legacy for stiggint sake. And that is a severely cut down list. I'd say they have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of democracy. To the younger, it is even worse. They've only grown up in the politicsball era. They have no idea what a democracy should be like.

My other concern comes from a story about a New Yorker who went back to her rural red-state home where the library was in danger of closing. The low-income area had enjoyed a brief oil boom and overspent, and now they couldn't afford to hire a head librarian at $42,000 per year, which they thought was an extravagant salary. I can't find the story again to quote it, but the gist of the author's conclusion is that Trumpsters don't want government help for themselves or anyone else because they always suspect that they're the ones paying for it, and that undesirable elements are getting more than they are. They'd rather lose the library, and most other government services, than risk benefiting brown people in big cities. Democrats have nothing to offer people who would prefer no government at all.

This is definitely a part of the math. A major factor is they were left behind by our policy makers. Our political leadership pursued policy that enriched very few people at the expense of the many. This is a pretty predictable cross of good old American independence values crossing with the very real need to squabble over table scraps.. In some ways, this is where Bernie is right. His cures are wrong but he is at least on the right track about the underlying malaise.

[Isgrimnur]

The alternative of a benevolent dictator doesn't seem to be the trend we're going for, though.

[stessier]

Kids don't value democracy, or really even understand what it is. I worry that it's in the "don't know what you've got til it's gone" category. It's sort of like the girls who take a dim view of feminism because they don't understand what the country was like before it.

I think that is part of it but I think we have to have context here. For example, my parents were born in the late 40s and early 50s and grew up in a healthy democracy. I suspect you did as well. I on the other hand graduated in the mid-90s from high school and happened to be well positioned to watch as the political system of this country started its spiral down the drain.

Someone could rightly say there have always been problems; it's true. No system is perfect but only recently has it gone so far off course that the scales are finally starting to falling off the eyes of the steadfast older centrists to the enormity of how dysfunctional it is. In comparison, these kids have never known a stable center. These children have only known a sick dying system. If you are a millennial you grew up with the Clinton scandals, terrorist attacks, a ruinous invasion of Iraq, the near collapse of the economy, the political class bending over backwards to save the financial class and blame it all on everyone else, and the GOP increasingly going crazy. They've seen the only moral leader in their lifetime have to deal with racism and an angry white backlash intent on erasing his legacy for stiggint sake. And that is a severely cut down list. I'd say they have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of democracy. To the younger, it is even worse. They've only grown up in the politicsball era. They have no idea what a democracy should be like.

I disagree. Time and distance will bring perspective on all things. Things will be different in the future, but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be worse.

Let's see - off the top of my head for a kid being born into your "healthy democracy" and hitting the job market in the early 70s, they had -

• Passage of a Constitutional Amendment to prevent another FDR
• A ruinous war in Korea
• McCarthy-ism
• A ruinous war in Vietnam
• A ruinous Cold War and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation
• The recessions of '53, '58, '60, '69, '73
• A President who was assasinated
• A Presidential candidate who was assasinated
• A President forced to resign

These are not little things. These were also seen as end time things. The Republic survived. It was hard, but changes were made. It will happen again. Because we don't give up on a vision worth fighting for.

[hepcat]

What stessier said. I think you underestimate just how many crises our democracy has faced over its long history.

[malchior]

Kids don't value democracy, or really even understand what it is. I worry that it's in the "don't know what you've got til it's gone" category. It's sort of like the girls who take a dim view of feminism because they don't understand what the country was like before it.

I think that is part of it but I think we have to have context here. For example, my parents were born in the late 40s and early 50s and grew up in a healthy democracy. I suspect you did as well. I on the other hand graduated in the mid-90s from high school and happened to be well positioned to watch as the political system of this country started its spiral down the drain.

Someone could rightly say there have always been problems; it's true. No system is perfect but only recently has it gone so far off course that the scales are finally starting to falling off the eyes of the steadfast older centrists to the enormity of how dysfunctional it is. In comparison, these kids have never known a stable center. These children have only known a sick dying system. If you are a millennial you grew up with the Clinton scandals, terrorist attacks, a ruinous invasion of Iraq, the near collapse of the economy, the political class bending over backwards to save the financial class and blame it all on everyone else, and the GOP increasingly going crazy. They've seen the only moral leader in their lifetime have to deal with racism and an angry white backlash intent on erasing his legacy for stiggint sake. And that is a severely cut down list. I'd say they have plenty of reasons to be skeptical of democracy. To the younger, it is even worse. They've only grown up in the politicsball era. They have no idea what a democracy should be like.

I disagree. Time and distance will bring perspective on all things. Things will be different in the future, but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be worse.

Let's see - off the top of my head for a kid being born into your "healthy democracy" and hitting the job market in the early 70s, they had -

• Passage of a Constitutional Amendment to prevent another FDR
• A ruinous war in Korea
• McCarthy-ism
• A ruinous war in Vietnam
• A ruinous Cold War and the constant threat of nuclear annihilation
• The recessions of '53, '58, '60, '69, '73
• A President who was assasinated
• A Presidential candidate who was assasinated
• A President forced to resign

These are not little things. These were also seen as end time things. The Republic survived. It was hard, but changes were made. It will happen again. Because we don't give up on a vision worth fighting for.

I take your point but believe the reality in front of us is truly quite different. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the 'steadfast centrists'. People *still want to believe* that things have been bad and we'll get through this. I get the hope but it is completely irrational in the face of the evidence now.

But to give it a fair shake I think anyone would agree that yes the 60s were bad. There was massive civil unrest with riots across the nation. However, those riots in retrospect were never a real threat to the stability of the nation. They just led to crime and poverty that still have echoes to this day. FDR was never going to be a dictator for life. He still had to deal with a functional Congress. And the system decided to self-correct after that to be sure.
McCarthyism was ugly but never was a threat to democracy. Nixon eventually was forced by his party to resign and the government reformed oversight of the President.

I take the point that it was thought to be bleak and the end of it all. However, I'll argue that this time is truly different. It isn't written yet but the danger is extreme. Entire portions of the political spectrum essentially yell at each other every day. The President is claiming he is above the law, can't be investigated, and can't be stopped. Congress will not cooperate on about anything. The GOP has stolen power and shattered norms left and right. Norms that I'll point out pretty much survived through *every thing above*.

I challenge anyone who thinks this is comparable to challenges we've face in the last century to read the letter from the WH to Congress last night. Read it and think about what they are claiming. It is insane to believe this is just something akin to anything above. The other day, the DOJ literally sent people to argue that the Nixon era judicial decisions releasing evidence to Congress were wrongly decided. They were laughed out of court but that is because the courts are about the only function holding at the moment. We are in the middle of the worst Constitutional crisis since the civil war. You can choose to not believe it but the reality has been unfolding in sharp contrast to any vision of hope.

What stessier said. I think you underestimate just how many crises our democracy has faced over its long history.

I'm quite aware. I just think that anyone who thinks these are anything like those are delusional or wearing very, very rose colored glasses at this point. The experts on fascism have been hanging off the alarm bells for a reason. It isn't a matter of how many we've weathered. It is a matter that institutions have never crumbled in such short order and with so much chaos. The only thing holding is the courts. You could argue the House but it is pretty clear they have little actual ability to do anything in the face of a committed dictator wannabe. In any case, I was talking about why kids don't believe in democracy. Is anyone really going to argue that the system has been functioning anything like it did during all the crises above? We're the boiled frogs and we still don't even agree that we are boiled. I don't even know anymore what evidence is required to convince people that we are on the edge of disaster.

[hepcat]

What stessier said. I think you underestimate just how many crises our democracy has faced over its long history.

I'm quite aware. I just think that anyone who thinks these are anything like those are delusional or wearing very, very rose colored glasses at this point. The experts on fascism have been hanging off the alarm bells for a reason. It isn't a matter of how many we've weathered. It is a matter that institutions have never crumbled in such short order and with so much chaos. The only thing holding is the courts. You could argue the House but it is pretty clear they have little actual ability to do anything in the face of a committed dictator wannabe. In any case, I was talking about why kids don't believe in democracy. Is anyone really going to argue that the system has been functioning anything like it did during all the crises above? We're the boiled frogs and we still don't even agree that we are boiled. I don't even know anymore what evidence is required to convince people that we are on the edge of disaster.

Not so much rose colored glasses or delusion, but more of a realization that it's easy to panic when you're in the midst of a storm. In this case, to the point that you downplay all other storms that have occurred before. We'll talk again in 10 years, at which point I'm pretty sure we'll either be in the midst of another unprecedented threat to democracy, or discussing how this was just as bad as Watergate, the Civil Rights movement, Vietnam, Benghazi or any other instance in which democracy was tested by acrimonious partisanship and a political party that felt it could do whatever it wanted without oversight.

Is it bad now? Yes. But every now and again this experiment we call democracy gets tested. And she's yet to be broken. I doubt an idiot with half the country hating his guts will achieve anything beyond becoming a cautionary tale in our history books. So let's avoid elevating Trump to evil genius status just yet. He's not Hitler, he's not Stalin. He's just a pathetic little man with dangerously low self esteem that cares more about his image than he does anything else...including political power.

[YellowKing]

Yeah, I think we tend to underestimate just how much of an aberration Trump is. He truly does have mental issues which allow him to operate in a state that the VAST majority of human beings (let alone politicians) don't operate in. This is what has allowed the behavior that has led to our current crisis.

Remove Trump from the equation (which will happen one way or the other), and you remove a great deal of the boundary-testing that has strained the system to its breaking point.

I'm not saying that when Trump is gone the GOP is going to magically be restored to a party who doesn't lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. But Trump has provided a cover for that behavior that they're likely not going to have in the future.

[Holman]

I don't really know know to compare eras. I do know that any comparison stumbles on the fact that we don't know how our crisis ends.

One thing it's easy for relatively affluent whites to forget is that the USA wasn't a democracy at all until the civil rights movement. The system that apparently functioned so efficiently (crises and all) for all those generations did so on the basis of ignoring the concerns of large numbers of Americans. Their lack of political power meant that they were irrelevant.

It may be that the real story is that American democracy was only fully realized in 1964. It grew during the 1970s, but it has been under siege ever since the 1980s, when a backlash conservative movement matured into its strength. That movement has been growing ever since, and it has now found a leader willing to use any and all means to put an end to the experiment.

[malchior]

Is it bad now? Yes. But every now and again this experiment we call democracy gets tested. And she's yet to be broken. I doubt an idiot with half the country hating his guts will achieve anything beyond becoming a cautionary tale in our history books. So let's avoid elevating Trump to evil genius status just yet. He's not Hitler, he's not Stalin. He's just a pathetic little man with dangerously low self esteem that cares more about his image than he does anything else...including political power.

I think people give too much credit to this state to Trump. He has certainly accelerated it but the GOP has been smashing norms for 20+ years. For example, many people have forgetten the Brooks Bros. riot in Miami. It was one of the events that openly showed the start of the Republican party not recognizing the legitimacy of the system and more importantly two party rule. They've been going off the rails a long-time. McConnell grabbed power over and over in the Senate. In other words, Trump came to power and has abused power because the system was already sick. He just is stressing it more. I think it is beyond naive to think this system is going to return to any semblance of a working democracy after he is gone because it wasn't one before him.

I'm not saying that when Trump is gone the GOP is going to magically be restored to a party who doesn't lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. But Trump has provided a cover for that behavior that they're likely not going to have in the future.

You mean like stealing a Supreme Court seat? I just don't understand how people overlook that the GOP has been rampaging through the system for years before Trump.

[YellowKing]

You mean like stealing a Supreme Court seat? I just don't understand how people overlook that the GOP has been rampaging through the system for years before Trump.

I'm not overlooking it, but addressing specifically the current "constitutional crisis" state of affairs. As reprehensible as stealing a Supreme Court seat was, it's an example of one party in one branch of government pulling shenanigans on another. It's not the entire system of checks and balances breaking down.

[Daehawk]

Clinton-email critics pull a role reversal as Trump administration draws fire for private phone use

Sickening scum of the F'n Earth.

On Tuesday, lawmakers said that President Trump’s top envoys for Ukraine and the European Union used personal phones and an encrypted messenger app as they conducted U.S. policy on Ukraine, a matter that was revealed during House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry.

Source: https://pressfrom.info/us/news/politics ... e-use.html

The most vocal defenders of the Trump administration’s actions include some of the most aggressive critics of Clinton’s handling of sensitive information, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R) of Ohio, Rep. Mark Meadows (R) of North Carolina and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who as a Kansas congressman had attacked Clinton by underscoring the solemn role of soldiers in defending U.S. secrets.

Source: https://pressfrom.info/us/news/politics ... e-use.html

We have soldiers today in the field, fighting to protect classified information from getting out . . . [risking] a lot of their lives to keep the information safe. And Secretary Clinton handled this in a very different way,” Pompeo told a television host in February 2016, adding that she had violated “multiple laws.”

On Tuesday, Meadows dismissed concerns about the communications of the two diplomats, Kurt Volker and Gordon Sondland, saying their use of personal phones or encrypted apps was acceptable because they ultimately handed over their correspondence to the State Department.

“Based on what I’ve seen, I have no concerns,” he said in an interview.

The State Department has not responded to questions about the diplomats’ handling of information, but Pompeo has broadly defended his subordinates, saying “each of the actions that were undertaken by State Department officials was entirely appropriate.

Source: https://pressfrom.info/us/news/politics ... e-use.html

[Zarathud]

Trump and the conservatives in control of the GOP believe that Nixon was wrongly impeached only because Republicans failed to rally around their leader.

Trump’s approach is informed by his legal mentor Roy Cohn. Roger Stone. Barr. Mitch. They all reinforce the idea that if the President does it, it’s not illegal. Unless the President is a Democrat, of course.

[Remus West]

The issue people seem to lose sight of is that when tRump is gone we still have many many issues that predate him. Removing him just removesthe fever not the illness. Moscow Mitch openly celebrates as his most proud accomplishment refusing to do his job and hold confirmation hearings to alter the make up of the Supreme Court. Newt openly proclaimed that there would be no compromise - a concept that Democracy requires to survive. Neither is vilified and in fact their methods are celebrated. tRump is the high fever that may kill us but bringing him down doesn't make our survival certain by any means.

[malchior]

The issue people seem to lose sight of is that when tRump is gone we still have many many issues that predate him. Removing him just removesthe fever not the illness. Moscow Mitch openly celebrates as his most proud accomplishment refusing to do his job and hold confirmation hearings to alter the make up of the Supreme Court. Newt openly proclaimed that there would be no compromise - a concept that Democracy requires to survive. Neither is vilified and in fact their methods are celebrated. tRump is the high fever that may kill us but bringing him down doesn't make our survival certain by any means.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Trump was able to seize power over the Republican party because it was diseased and broken. The real challenge is that a return to functional government after he is gone is extremely challenging. You can't bring the GOP into rationality. They are overall evil, rabid, and twisted. That is why we have discussions about court packing and eliminating the filibuster happening now. And the challenge will be how will the Democrats govern excluding the GOP and retain legitimacy. Assuming Trump leaves without a fight if and when he loses next year, he will still be out there shaking the ground. It is going to be very difficult.

What happens if we have a major crisis over the next year? That is why the danger is extreme now. We are at massive risk of continuing systemic failure and I don't think many people get it. Experts in authoritarian regimes (Sarah Kendzior is a name that springs immediately to mind) has been banging the drum explaining how each piece of the end of democracy in America has been built on the last by Trump and the GOP before Trump.

[Smoove_B]

I know there's a lot going on, but we should probably all know about the Republican public official in Arizona that's been charged with human trafficking (and more). I'm not sure if any pizzerias are involved:

An Arizona elected official ran a human smuggling scheme that promised pregnant women thousands of dollars to lure them from a Pacific Island nation to the U.S., where they were crammed into houses to wait to give birth, sometimes with little to no prenatal care, prosecutors allege.

Paul Petersen, the Republican assessor of Arizona's most populous county, was charged in Utah, Arizona and Arkansas with counts including human smuggling, sale of a child, fraud, forgery and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

The charges span about three years and involve some 75 adoptions. Investigators also found eight pregnant women from the Marshall Islands in raids of his properties outside Phoenix, and several more are waiting to give birth in Utah, authorities said.

I mean, really.

[Isgrimnur]

Anchor baby outrage isn't going to stoke itself.

[Holman]

Holy Shit.

I saw the headline and assumed the guy was involved in moving money and maybe sponsoring visas on false pretenses or something. But housing imported pregnant women on his property?

That is some Handmaid's Tale shit right there. WTF?

[Daehawk]

They've decided to grow their own party members for the future.

[Pyperkub]

Holy Shit.

I saw the headline and assumed the guy was involved in moving money and maybe sponsoring visas on false pretenses or something. But housing imported pregnant women on his property?

That is some Handmaid's Tale shit right there. WTF?

It's as if the usual GOP accusation against Dems is actually true of the GOP again. In this case, it's Pizzagate.

[LawBeefaroni]

Holy Shit.

I saw the headline and assumed the guy was involved in moving money and maybe sponsoring visas on false pretenses or something. But housing imported pregnant women on his property?

That is some Handmaid's Tale shit right there. WTF?

He evidently got away with it for longer than 3 years.

A judge flagged Paul Petersen's alleged adoption scheme in 2006.

As usual, this level of shit doesn't happen without at least a few blind eyes.

[Kurth]

How Trump is winning the fight on 'baseless' ads: Democrats say online platforms are once again ignoring their own policies on targeted harassment when it comes to the president.

Should social media platforms be removing ads like the one in question — ”Biden Corruption” — because they contain false and misleading information? Is that their proper role?

So far, they are not playing ball and are taking the position that the ad, regardless of its truthfulness or lack thereof, complies with YouTube policy. The Biden campaign has come our swinging and demanded that the ad be removed on the basis of defamation. Social media platforms are not blinking.

Thoughts?

[LordMortis]

Thoughts?

I think that people should be able to sue for slander and that media in all it's forms should be allowed to be named for advancing and profiting from slander. Which is not to say they should be culpable is they can show due diligence that could reasonably believe the lies are true. And I don't think that is just for the like of youtube. For profit protected speech over common media should scrutinize both propagandist and the medium with which they distribute.

[LawBeefaroni]

The options are beat them or join them. Either stop false ads or start making your own. Do we want a social media world filled not only with tripe but also unchecked falsifications and slander?

*shrugs*

[Smoove_B]

Should social media platforms be removing ads like the one in question because they contain false and misleading information? Is that their proper role?

I think we've moved waaaaay beyond the point where the barn door needs to be closed. When social media can be used to promote anything that's intentionally false, misleading or harmful (outside of politics, I'll just pick anti-vaccination propaganda), that's a huge problem. How exactly you deal with monitoring that and then squashing it? I have no idea. But I do think the platforms should be held responsible for allowing these types of things to be hosted/shared/spread via their systems.

[El Guapo]

How Trump is winning the fight on 'baseless' ads: Democrats say online platforms are once again ignoring their own policies on targeted harassment when it comes to the president.

Should social media platforms be removing ads like the one in question — ”Biden Corruption” — because they contain false and misleading information? Is that their proper role?

So far, they are not playing ball and are taking the position that the ad, regardless of its truthfulness or lack thereof, complies with YouTube policy. The Biden campaign has come our swinging and demanded that the ad be removed on the basis of defamation. Social media platforms are not blinking.

Thoughts?

On balance Facebook's stance here is probably correct. I'm sympathetic to the argument that Facebook should take down ads that contain information that is provably false (e.g., "Joe Biden is only two feet tall"). However, going beyond that to stuff that is implausible / farcical but difficult to directly disprove (e.g., "Joe Biden is secretly in communication with our lizard overlords!") is going to be difficult to enforce and, more to the point, is going to be subject to abuse by unserious people (e.g., legions of Trumpists and Russian bots flooding Facebook with complaints about claimed inaccuracies in left-leaning posts).

I think the harms of getting Facebook involved in this stuff outweigh the likely benefits.

[malchior]

I disagree. Newspapers have a responsibility to not print ads that have provably false claims. As do tv networks. If Facebook is going to get paid money to run an ad then they have the same responsibility in my mind. However people or bots posting random things? Sure that is pretty hard to enforce but not impossible. I think there should be a public discussion about how far they *should go* to police this content considering their platform was used by a foreign power to influence an election.

[Isgrimnur]

Political speech has always had a lower bar than other speech in terms of being protected.

[YellowKing]

A newspaper is quite different from a social media site, however. The former is based (at least in theory) on journalistic integrity, whereas a social media platform has no such responsibility.

I don't know what the "right" answer is, but I lean towards agreeing with Facebook on this one.

[El Guapo]

I disagree. Newspapers have a responsibility to not print ads that have provably false claims. As do tv networks. If Facebook is going to get paid money to run an ad then they have the same responsibility in my mind. However people or bots posting random things? Sure that is pretty hard to enforce but not impossible. I think there should be a public discussion about how far they *should go* to police this content considering their platform was used by a foreign power to influence an election.

Commercial ads, sure. Political ads...this ad doesn't seem too different than a ton of other misleading political ads that I've seen on TV.

Again, I don't necessarily disagree that Facebook should refuse ads that have outright false information on them. It's just that the scope of that 'falsity' review has to be fairly limited or it's going to get into problematic territory.

[stessier]

How Trump is winning the fight on 'baseless' ads: Democrats say online platforms are once again ignoring their own policies on targeted harassment when it comes to the president.

Should social media platforms be removing ads like the one in question — ”Biden Corruption” — because they contain false and misleading information? Is that their proper role?

So far, they are not playing ball and are taking the position that the ad, regardless of its truthfulness or lack thereof, complies with YouTube policy. The Biden campaign has come our swinging and demanded that the ad be removed on the basis of defamation. Social media platforms are not blinking.

Thoughts?

Facebook is bad at lots of things. I do not want them judging what is defamation and what is not. There is a legal process for the Biden camp to challenge the ads. They should use it.