The (Current year) General Political/Salma Hayek discussion Thread Part V

[nonobaddog]

If it's for exposing hypocrisy, it's not whataboutism. If it's for exposing a flaw in one's argument, it's not whataboutism. If it is to deflect the argument from having to confront the truth about something, that's whataboutism.

ETA: whataboutism is a kind of logical fallacy. It's trying to say that because someone else did the same thing, the thing I (or someone I support) did is therefore dismissed.

That is all true and I agree with it. However when hypocrisy is exposed that way it is called whataboutism - usually by the hypocrite.

 

[jamil]

That is all true and I agree with it. However when hypocrisy is exposed that way it is called whataboutism - usually by the hypocrite.

If you're using it legitimately, you can always put it back on the hypocrite..

 

[Super Bee]

Hope returns to the White House.

I have to admit, this White House has its share of very attractive women. Melania, Ivanka, Hope and Kimbery Guilfoyle ( well, she visits ). Of course someone will ***** about that sooner or later.


https://news.yahoo.com/hope-hicks-r...r-adviser-150100866--abc-news-topstories.html

 

[printcraft]

Hope returns to the White House.

I have to admit, this White House has its share of very attractive women. Melania, Ivanka, Hope and Kimbery Guilfoyle ( well, she visits ). Of course someone will ***** about that sooner or later.

https://news.CNN.com/PresidentTrumps-misogynist-whitehouse-promotes-unrealistic-beauty-standards-for-women.html

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Attorney General Bill Barr tells ABC News “the president has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case”—but should stop tweeting about the Justice Dept. because his tweets “make it impossible for me to do my job.”

 

[nonobaddog]

https://news.CNN.com/[strike]PresidentTrumps-misogynist-whitehouse-promotes-unrealistic-beauty-standards-for-women[/strike] Promotes-Fake-News.html

Fixy

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Since when does YouTube get to decide what is and isn't appropriate to air on the Senate Floor? This is actual political censorship. What's said in the Senate is of interest to all Americans.

YouTube Removes Clip of Rand Paul Speaking on Senate Floor, Citing Concern He Named Ukraine Whistleblower

 

[Kutnupe14]

John Kelly on-

Trump and North Korea:

“He will never give his nuclear weapons up,” Kelly said. “Again, President Trump tried—that’s one way to put it. But it didn’t work. I’m an optimist most of the time, but I’m also a realist, and I never did think Kim would do anything other than play us for a while, and he did that fairly effectively.”

Pardoning the SEAL:

“The idea that the commander in chief intervened there, in my opinion, was exactly the wrong thing to do,” Kelly said. “Had I been there, I think I could have prevented it.”

On Vindemann:

“He did exactly what we teach them to do from cradle to grave.” “He went and told his boss what he just heard.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...exander-vindman-north-korea-and-trump/606496/


Obviously, this guy is a never Trumper, Deep State operative who is just one of many who is trying to get back at Trump.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Since when does YouTube get to decide what is and isn't appropriate to air on the Senate Floor? This is actual political censorship. What's said in the Senate is of interest to all Americans.

YouTube Removes Clip of Rand Paul Speaking on Senate Floor, Citing Concern He Named Ukraine Whistleblower

Since the founding of their private business? Kinda goes with the territory. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand why its their right to do so.

 

[Ingomike]

Since the founding of their private business? Kinda goes with the territory. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand why its their right to do so.

And they can only do this because of the internet exemption law. The law needs a simple revision, if the company engages in any kind of editorial judgment, they lose the exemption. They have it both ways right now and I do not understand why conservatives that complain about this do not just fight to change the law.

It should be very simple, all traffic that is legal flows on the network, illegal can be knocked down, we the citizens give an exemption for any responsibility for the content of that traffic, i.e. FB not responsible for a defamatory post.

If the network decides what can and cannot be the on their network, they are responsible for what is on their network, i.e. FB responsible for a defamatory post...

 

[Ingomike]

Since the founding of their private business? Kinda goes with the territory. You don't have to like it, but you do have to understand why its their right to do so.

And at some point, they become a public utility and or monopoly at must be reined in...

We are at that point...

 

[Kutnupe14]

And at some point, they become a public utility and or monopoly at must be reined in...

We are at that point...

That is essentially punish success. Further, forcing a private entity to adhere to rules originally intended for government, is nationalization (by default), and certainly socialist. As long as a business works within it's private mandate, and does not erect barriers to competition (and being the preferred forum doesn't apply), then it should be left along.

 

[nonobaddog]

And they can only do this because of the internet exemption law. The law needs a simple revision, if the company engages in any kind of editorial judgment, they lose the exemption. They have it both ways right now and I do not understand why conservatives that complain about this do not just fight to change the law.

It should be very simple, all traffic that is legal flows on the network, illegal can be knocked down, we the citizens give an exemption for any responsibility for the content of that traffic, i.e. FB not responsible for a defamatory post.

If the network decides what can and cannot be the on their network, they are responsible for what is on their network, i.e. FB responsible for a defamatory post...

This! Agree.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yeah, I'm not saying they can't do it. I know they can do whatever they want. I'm saying they shouldn't have decided to do it, as it seems ethically wrong.

 

[Ingomike]

That is essentially punish success. Further, forcing a private entity to adhere to rules originally intended for government, is nationalization (by default), and certainly socialist. As long as a business works within it's private mandate, and does not erect barriers to competition (and being the preferred forum doesn't apply), then it should be left along.

They have erected barriers to competition and I see little difference between the Standard Oil and Bell breakups and where we are now. The biggest difference is SO and Bell did not have a direct instantaneous communication with the people, way better than the politicians that would need to use the very channels they seek to break up to reach the citizens. That sentence sums up that they are too powerful and need to be split up into multiple channels, not one.

Things that should have never been allowed, not a complete list just a couple off the top of my head.

Google buys Waze, takes the best mapping competitor out of the market, instead of competing with their own Google maps.

FB buys Instagram rather than compete with their own product, a product that in the right hands might have evolved into a total FB competitor.

When we only had three TV networks were you against the regulation of them? We are at that point...

 

[Kutnupe14]

They have erected barriers to competition and I see little difference between the Standard Oil and Bell breakups and where we are now. The biggest difference is SO and Bell did not have a direct instantaneous communication with the people, way better than the politicians that would need to use the very channels they seek to break up to reach the citizens. That sentence sums up that they are too powerful and need to be split up into multiple channels, not one.

Things that should have never been allowed, not a complete list just a couple off the top of my head.

Google buys Waze, takes the best mapping competitor out of the market, instead of competing with their own Google maps.

FB buys Instagram rather than compete with their own product, a product that in the right hands might have evolved into a total FB competitor.

When we only had three TV networks were you against the regulation of them? We are at that point...

Buying competitors isn't erecting a barrier. In most cases the less known entity is seeking to become part of the larger one. Example? In the early days of Netflix, the owners tried to sell to Blockbuster.... Blockbuster laughed them off. Obviously an EPIC mistake.

 

[nonobaddog]

Some people do not understand monopolies.

 

[actaeon277]

YouTube claims they can't be sued for content, because they are only a "provider", not a "publisher". They can't be responsible because they can't censor everything.
Seem to me, they're censoring.
So, then it follows, they can be legally responsible for content.

 

[Ingomike]

Buying competitors isn't erecting a barrier. In most cases the less known entity is seeking to become part of the larger one. Example? In the early days of Netflix, the owners tried to sell to Blockbuster.... Blockbuster laughed them off. Obviously an EPIC mistake.

Neither BN or NF are or were near monopoly status.

Buying out competition is a barrier, to the market. A barrier to the consumer looking for options. Building a better mousetrap is part of the market, buying a competing mousetrap maker to reduce competition is anti-market...

 

[Alpo]

My o My. Conservatives arguing for restriction of free-market capitalism.