***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[deuce king]

In large part because as a black man,

LOL.

 

[whywesteppin]

I assume the speech will go something like this:

"America is a great nation. Must respect our history. Let me tell you a story about a black cop. We need law and order. A nation without borders is no nation at all. My threats of military action ended the violent protests. Economy is great, best it has ever been. I had a historic victory in 2016 and will do it again. Press is the enemy of the people. Let me personally attack a dozen women and people-of-color by name now. Only 200k people are going to die from covid-19 before the fall wave hits. That's only 10x what I promised and still less than the 300 million needed to wipe out this country. Look at my African-American over there."

 

[DLF]

I assume the speech will go something like this:

"America is a great nation. Must respect our history. Let me tell you a story about a black cop. We need law and order. A nation without borders is no nation at all. My threats of military action ended the violent protests. Economy is great, best it has ever been. I had a historic victory in 2016 and will do it again. Press is the enemy of the people. Let me personally attack a dozen women and people-of-color by name now. Only 200k people are going to die from covid-19 before the fall wave hits. That's only 10x what I promised and still less than the 300 million needed to wipe out this country. Look at my African-American over there."

I just came

 

[IATT]

In large part because as a black man,

we the black delegation are currently in talks to move significant assets to move you, Candace Owens, Ben Carson, Tom Scott and terry crews

Addition by subtraction

 

[Belgium]

I’m not sure if this has been debated before but I presume most posters here are familiar with the recent fallout at the NYT regarding the op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton. The NYT later apologized for running the op-ed and the lobgtime opinion section editor was essentially forced out via resignation.
Sen. Cotton’s op-ed advocated for invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act to authorize active duty military troops to legally engage in law enforcement duties to quell civilians’ protests, riots, looting etc.

Here are the points I’ve selected for debate but feel free to expand upon them.
RustyShackleford
dwalk31
B boris
rexanglorum
whywesteppin

1. Do you agree or disagree with the publishing of Sen. Cotton’s op-ed?

2. For publishing the op-ed, do you think disciplinary action (in the form of being pressured to resign) is warranted or unwarranted?

3. In your own opinion, what is your view on the op-ed sections in the press? What do you see as the duty or duties of op-ed sections?

 

[IATT]

aepps20 you finally got your time to shine.. they put you front and center.. and he went and deleted this

we’re here for you.. if you wanna talk

 

[whywesteppin]

I’m not sure if this has been debated before but I presume most posters here are familiar with the recent fallout at the NYT regarding the op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton. The NYT later apologized for running the op-ed and the lobgtime opinion section editor was essentially forced out via resignation.
Sen. Cotton’s op-ed advocated for invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act to authorize active duty military troops to legally engage in law enforcement duties to quell civilians’ protests, riots, looting etc.

Here are the points I’ve selected for debate but feel free to expand upon them.
RustyShackleford
dwalk31
B boris
rexanglorum
whywesteppin

1. Do you agree or disagree with the publishing of Sen. Cotton’s op-ed?

2. For publishing the op-ed, do you think disciplinary action (in the form of being pressured to resign) is warranted or unwarranted?

3. In your own opinion, what is your view on the op-ed sections in the press? What do you see as the duty or duties of op-ed sections?

It's a tricky issue. There's no legal question here (unlike with twitter and how they censor or flag tweets), but it is similar in that it is a fine line.

I think they just need a clear guideline on what they publish as an op-ed. It's already clearly known that an op-ed will reflect the opinion of a contributor that the editorial board does not share. The question is how to handle potential op-ed's that veer into extremism. I would propose that publications should append (or, better yet, prepend) an explanation of the op-ed along with fact-checking and an explanation of the writer's background in any cases of a controversial article, if they choose to publish it at all.

To answer the questions: 1) disagree, unless they had prepended a paragraph explaining that Tom is a racist *******. 2) warranted. 3) op-ed is to share a view not shared by the editors as a way to foster debate and also to give a voice to people, but the duty of the op-ed editors is to give context to the op-eds, screen out disinformation and hate speech, and to offer context.

edit: On a somewhat related note, Devin Nunes, known for being a Republican congressman/Russian stooge who is hilariously trolled by both his cow and mom on twitter, is trying to sue to have the identity of these tweeters exposed (why would you sue your cow and your own mom?).

In a new filing to quash the subpoena, Parkhomenko’s attorney argues that the Twitter accounts’ language “does not constitute defamation” and that courts are tasked with protecting anonymous communications in the interest of freedom of speech.​

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article237802609.html

 

[RustyShackleford]

I think Trump's speech with be a mixed bag. Talking about law and order and agreeing to some basic reforms that they think they can push without getting backlash from the police groups that support them.

The bar will be so low that as long at it is coherent and not the dog whistling mess that people are worried it could be, people like Delk and Van Jones was fawn over Trump for "brining the nation together"

 

[whywesteppin]

Anything short of "I am a terrible person and I apologize for all the racist things I have done. I am resigning from the presidency and am turning over evidence to the authorities to indicate my involvement in a number of criminal enterprises along with ratting out all my co-conspirators" is too little too late.

 

[IATT]

 

[aepps20]

aepps20 you finally got your time to shine.. they put you front and center.. and he went and deleted this

we’re here for you.. if you wanna talk

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

I’m not sure if this has been debated before but I presume most posters here are familiar with the recent fallout at the NYT regarding the op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton. The NYT later apologized for running the op-ed and the lobgtime opinion section editor was essentially forced out via resignation.
Sen. Cotton’s op-ed advocated for invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act to authorize active duty military troops to legally engage in law enforcement duties to quell civilians’ protests, riots, looting etc.

Here are the points I’ve selected for debate but feel free to expand upon them.
RustyShackleford
dwalk31
B boris
rexanglorum
whywesteppin

1. Do you agree or disagree with the publishing of Sen. Cotton’s op-ed?

2. For publishing the op-ed, do you think disciplinary action (in the form of being pressured to resign) is warranted or unwarranted?

3. In your own opinion, what is your view on the op-ed sections in the press? What do you see as the duty or duties of op-ed sections?

The editor was not forced out just because he published a controversial Op-Ed though. He admitted he didn't even read the damn thing in a employee meeting. Clearly there was some sort of breakdown from the usual process. Dude's poor editing about a Sarah Palin article got the paper in court for defamation. The NYT has stood behind plenty of BS over the years, so for dude to be forced out it was mainly because he dropped the ball, not that he ran something controversial.

It was not just outcry from the public and readers. Hundreds of Times employees where pissed and fed up with dude. Others members of the Editorial staff had issue with what happened.

1. I disagree with them publishing it in the manner they did. If you are going to run something that is clearly off the wall, they should have published some sort of retort to it at the same time. Bennet's excuse that they published an article a day later that disagree with Cotton was insufficient imo. I think of this the same way as what happened with Andrew Sullivan when he was the editor at the New Republic and he wanted to run a piece about Charles Murray's Bell Curve. The backlash was so intense the magazine had to publish responses to Murray. Responses that rightfully pointed out about flawed and racist the arguments made in the book were. Well Cotton just like Murray was presenting a dangerous idea to the public, and the NYT should have presented a cogent response to it if they wanted to put it out in the wild.

2. Like I said, dude was incompetent. You are an editor, you should read the pieces, follow proper procedure. The has intentionally been courting more conservative views, which is whatever, but his job as an editor is to protect the integrity of the paper. Not only did the piece arguing for something unprecedented in modern times and dangerous, it was supposedly fact checked yet allowed Cotton to peddle whatever untrue nonsense about Antifa. The editor was reckless, and it bit him.

3. I am fine with Op-Eds, but not all idea are on the same level or deserve the same manner of respect. If something it treading into an area that is clearly racist/sexist/fascist that a paper that wants to protect its integrity, and its readers, and should do its due diligence to fact check the piece and present responses from experts. Hell they didn't even publish an editor's note with it.

Sure Op-Eds are suppose to me opinion pieces from "experts" that present different arguments on a subject. But there is no guarantee everyone is a good faith actor. Outlets need to be aware of that.

 

[storm2006]

Im headed out to Seattle. Oh ****.

 

[elpablo21]

He still mad Inslee wanted "Tom Brady"

 

[Nike Jordan]

Biden on The Daily Show.

 

[IATT]

 

[Nike Jordan]

Columbus didn't discover ****.

 

[dwalk31]

I’ll start off by noting that nothing in my post prevented you from answering my question.
I simply asked how you’d describe your expectations of Trump’s upcoming speech on race-relations, given that Miller is drafting it.
You just ignored the question to ask somethinc that bears no relevance to what I asked. It is what it is with you so I’ll ask again.

As for your response question:
Not 100%.
I assume Stephen Miller’s speech on race-relations is probably destined for a rally. On Fox News, Ben Carson hinted that it would be coming in the next 1-2 weeks.
A Trump rally would be ideal for Trump to make that speech as there will be no dissent, no questions from reporters, ...

Everyone knows that unity simply isn’t in Trumps playbook, let alone the ability to adequately speak on race issues. Hence why I figure he’ll probably make the speech where he is most comfortable, which would be at a rally due to rallies being vast echochamber safespaces that cheer every word no latter how far across the line it is.

I didn’t Ignore your question.

The premise of your question relied on an assumption.

One you now admit that you have no clue if it is the case.

By saying “given that Stephen Miller is writing it,” I’d have had to provide an answer to a faulty premise.

To answer your question directly, I have no expectations, but I would hope that it addresses the points I discussed earlier.

 

[dwalk31]

My point is that he had the option of endorsing Bernie Sanders, he chose to endorse Biden. So he didn't do it just because Biden became the presumptive nominee like you claimed.

I never claimed this.

You should re-read the posts.

 

[storm2006]

I never claimed this.

You should re-read the posts.

You claimed support for Roy Moore.

You should re-evaluate your moral compass.

 

[dwalk31]

I’m not sure if this has been debated before but I presume most posters here are familiar with the recent fallout at the NYT regarding the op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton. The NYT later apologized for running the op-ed and the lobgtime opinion section editor was essentially forced out via resignation.
Sen. Cotton’s op-ed advocated for invoking the 1807 Insurrection Act to authorize active duty military troops to legally engage in law enforcement duties to quell civilians’ protests, riots, looting etc.

Here are the points I’ve selected for debate but feel free to expand upon them.
RustyShackleford
dwalk31
B boris
rexanglorum
whywesteppin

1. Do you agree or disagree with the publishing of Sen. Cotton’s op-ed?

2. For publishing the op-ed, do you think disciplinary action (in the form of being pressured to resign) is warranted or unwarranted?

3. In your own opinion, what is your view on the op-ed sections in the press? What do you see as the duty or duties of op-ed sections?

1. I see no issue with it being published as an op-ed.

2. If he was forced out for the op-ed, that is unwarranted.

3. I think that op-eds are fine from either side of the aisle. As long as it’s clear who the author is, it is actually a disservice to silence one side/viewpoint.

 

[dwalk31]

I think Trump's speech with be a mixed bag. Talking about law and order and agreeing to some basic reforms that they think they can push without getting backlash from the police groups that support them.

The bar will be so low that as long at it is coherent and not the dog whistling mess that people are worried it could be, people like Delk and Van Jones was fawn over Trump for "brining the nation together"

Seems you’ve got high hopes for the speech

 

[Magic33]

They had a segment on CNN yesterday about how Faux News is promoting the unrest from last week as being more widespread and current.

Doing what they do best, scaring their base. Attacking democrats, and trying to get people to vote Republican.

 

[balldontlie206]

I live in Seattle and that tweet made me laugh at first... The Cap Hill Autonomous Zone is peaceful. Where protesters have "taken over" aka no police presence or car traffic, is only over a span of a couple blocks. Much of what is going on is pretty incredible given the circumstances. 99% of the city is living its quarantined life as usual.

Local leaders have been trash in this moment though. Inslee was asked the question about if he knew about this zone yesterday and was clueless. The mayor hasn't been able to wrangle the police in the city (unless its to remove them from CHAZ) and the optics of her leadership through the protests have been awful.

If we, the states are supposed to "figure it out" on our own when it comes to ventilators and PPE, this clown can let the people figure it out when it comes to our cities and states. Thats what our people are doing. Sending boots on the ground here might elevate this to a new level.