|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Democrats would have to maintain a majority in the House + win a simple majority in the Senate (I think they need 52 or 53 seats since some Blue Dog Dem senators already said they'd vote against changing the filibuster) + get the presidency + immediately eliminate or modify the filibuster to what it was decades ago so everything couldn't be stopped up in the Senate by a single Repub and THEN the Dems would have to do stuff (at a minimum) like get the Fairness Doctrine reinstated. The fairness doctrine would be absolutely horrible and only give credence to insane right wing theories on the regular news
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 08:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The fairness doctrine would be absolutely horrible and only give credence to insane right wing theories on the regular news Fox and others are already giving considerable credence to insane right wing theories on regular news though. With the Fairness Doctrine back in place they'd also be required to present real information in a fair manner too which Fox viewers aren't watching at this point which is a big part of the problem. If you want to argue that the Fairness Doctrine is imperfect than I won't disagree with you (I have my own ideas too) but its the easiest most clear cut legalistic way (since it used to be a thing) that a Dem controlled govt could do in a short period of time and still have significant beneficial effect.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 09:10
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The fairness doctrine would be absolutely horrible and only give credence to insane right wing theories on the regular news For an example of how this works in practice, look at the BBC, which is pretty much Conservative Party state media now
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
Venomous posted:For an example of how this works in practice, look at the BBC, which is pretty much Conservative Party state media now Or you could you know look at what things were like prior to Reagan and the elimination of the fairness doctrine. No system is perfect but there is a definite reason why the Right attacked it in the first place and the results (along with lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws and limits on media concentration) are a huge part of the reason we're in the mess that we're in today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Skex posted:Or you could you know look at what things were like prior to Reagan and the elimination of the fairness doctrine. No system is perfect but there is a definite reason why the Right attacked it in the first place and the results (along with lack of enforcement of anti-trust laws and limits on media concentration) are a huge part of the reason we're in the mess that we're in today. I don't think much of that has to do with the Fairness Doctrine. It's mostly to do with the penetration of cable television and the plethora of channels available, and then the internet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:24
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:I don't think much of that has to do with the Fairness Doctrine. Yes there were a number of factors involved but the Right went after the fairness doctrine for a reason so yeah it definitely had something to do with it. Admittedly more of it was likely due to media consolidation but part of the rational behind the fairness doctrine in the first place was that due to a limited number of information (news) sources it would be too easy to lock out competing ideas from a conversation. The fairness doctrine at least ensured that one party couldn't come out and just give a completely bullshit narrative without their opponents having the opportunity to respond. Part of the argument against it was that there was enough diversity in ownership that the competition would ensure that one side couldn't monopolize the news. However since there was a simultaneous attack on anti-trust enforcement and the rules on media ownership were whittled away we ended up in a situation where there is no effective countering force to the bias of media ownership. This is exacerbated by the silo'ing of people into their own distinct media echochambers which is why you really need to both re-institute the fairness doctrine (and let's be honest here right wing media would be the only media that would effect as most of the corporate media already give's the Right plenty of airtime) and then start dismantling these media empires. Think about how different this would have all played out if Fox, Clear Channel and Sinclair had to give Democrats equal time to make their case for impeachment? You really can't even begin to fix what ails us unless we can break through those information bubbles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
The fairness doctrine is terrible and would only legitimize what right wing idiots preach by giving them platforms other than their own. It’s not like people in the bubble aren’t capable of looking elsewhere for information. They chose not to and they’d continue to choose to believe their side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Most of the blatant right wing stuff. Fox News, OANN, etc, is on cable. The Fairness Docreine applied to broadcast TV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:The fairness doctrine is terrible and would only legitimize what right wing idiots preach by giving them platforms other than their own. It’s not like people in the bubble aren’t capable of looking elsewhere for information. They chose not to and they’d continue to choose to believe their side. Sure that's totally why it was the Right who wanted to remove it in the first place. Epicurius posted:Most of the blatant right wing stuff. Fox News, OANN, etc, is on cable. The Fairness Docreine applied to broadcast TV. So apply it to all Cable News as well. The reason it was applied to broadcast TV was because the airwaves are considered public property, well I promise you that zero cable operators own all of the property that their lines run through/across and even then they all use Satellites for distribution and that uses public airwaves as well. It's not like there is any technical reason why it should only be applied to Broadcast TV. It would also shove a lot of the kookier stuff out of the mainstream because of the requirement to give equal time would discourage many media outfits from giving the loons access in the first place so they'd get siloed back to the access TV channels and other low traffic holes where they belong. That said the more important part is breaking up the media empires which are the real problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2019 23:25
|
|
|
Skex posted:Sure that's totally why it was the Right who wanted to remove it in the first place. Things are far more sophisticated now than they were back then in terms of how things can be 'balanced'. And of course we have all of these wonderful judicial slots filled with people who would say that 'Psycho Right' and 'Evil Right' hours means that the station is giving equal time to two views.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 00:31
|
|
|
It boggles my mind that the government mandating what the press can report and how they can report on it is a serious point of discussion in this thread. The fairness doctrine is gone for a reason. It’s terrible. Who cares who initially pushed for it to be gone? This isn’t team sports. The media landscape and the news industry were completely different. It was terrible then and it would be terrible now. Anyone that wants it back is 100% wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 01:43
|
|
|
There’s a weird belief that everyone at heart is actually 100% leftist, and only if we forced people to hear the right arguments then they’d suddenly remove the scales from their eyes and we’d get Full Gay Space Communism now. It’s not a leftist thing, either; I’ve had communists, libertarians, racists (but I repeat myself), conservatives (again), and “truth is in the middle” types all tell me that the non-voting public 100% agrees with them and are just waiting for the movement to happen publicly to join in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:There’s a weird belief that everyone at heart is actually 100% leftist, and only if we forced people to hear the right arguments then they’d suddenly remove the scales from their eyes and we’d get Full Gay Space Communism now. "So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:06
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:There’s a weird belief that everyone at heart is actually 100% leftist, and only if we forced people to hear the right arguments then they’d suddenly remove the scales from their eyes and we’d get Full Gay Space Communism now. Can’t remember where I just saw this, but about 25% of the population describes themselves as conservative and 8% describes themselves as progressive, and the other 2/3 are in the middle to some degree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
I would put regulations on the word "News" and much like there's a legal limit to what you can label as "cheese" and "beef" a Sean Hannity would force your network to drop "news" from the name.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
Skex posted:So apply it to all Cable News as well. The reason it was applied to broadcast TV was because the airwaves are considered public property, well I promise you that zero cable operators own all of the property that their lines run through/across and even then they all use Satellites for distribution and that uses public airwaves as well. It's not like there is any technical reason why it should only be applied to Broadcast TV. It would also shove a lot of the kookier stuff out of the mainstream because of the requirement to give equal time would discourage many media outfits from giving the loons access in the first place so they'd get siloed back to the access TV channels and other low traffic holes where they belong. The justification behind the Fairness Doctrine wasn't that airwaves are private property, but that airwaves are, out of necessity, a limited resource. As Red Lion put it: Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC posted:It quickly became apparent that broadcast frequencies constituted a scarce resource whose use could be regulated and rationalized only by the Government. Without government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacaphony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard. That sort of logic makes a lot less sense in the context of cable broadcasting, and while the FCC can regulate cable, its not the same standard it regulates broadcast. Any attempt to extend the Fairness Doctrine to cable is going to come up against Turner v FCC (1994) quote:Because the must-carry provisions impose special obligations upon cable operators and special burdens upon cable programmers, heightened First Amendment scrutiny is demanded. The less rigorous standard of scrutiny now reserved for broadcast regulation, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, should not be extended to cable regulation, since the rationale for such review-the dual problems of spectrum scarcity and signal interference-does not apply in the context of cable. I just don't think you can do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 03:09
|
|
|
If the Dems ever get the Presidency + House + Senate they should immediately move to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and to give DC Senate voting rights. Instant +4 Dem senators right there. Keep adding new leftist states as needed 
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 10:09
|
|
|
skeleton warrior posted:There’s a weird belief that everyone at heart is actually 100% leftist, and only if we forced people to hear the right arguments then they’d suddenly remove the scales from their eyes and we’d get Full Gay Space Communism now. i think millenials are probably pretty progressive for the most part. like like one of my best friend who is pretty non political is a sanders or warren or bust dude because he works as a nurse and is also pretty progressive in general. i think what we will see is the "non political" types shift from quiet conservatives/centrists to some sort of progressive. but like i said in here and other threads, i think the silent majority dislikes/hates trump though not because they are secret progressives but because he is a loud embarrassing rear end in a top hat who pushes politics into their daily lives and the various blue waves in the country keep showing that. will they last beyond 2020, hopefully but idk and thats for another thread to scream about. personally i doubt we will see some great socialist state in america during out lifetimes, more likely, we will hopefully become like other advanced countries and make essential rights actual loving rights like healthcare and such. hopefully better in the future though. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 14:20 on Nov 29, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 14:17
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:i think millenials are probably pretty progressive for the most part. like like one of my best friend who is pretty non political is a sanders or warren or bust dude because he works as a nurse and is also pretty progressive in general. i think what we will see is the "non political" types shift from quiet conservatives/centrists to some sort of progressive. but like i said in here and other threads, i think the silent majority dislikes/hates trump though not because they are secret progressives but because he is a loud embarrassing rear end in a top hat who pushes politics into their daily lives and the various blue waves in the country keep showing that. will they last beyond 2020, hopefully but idk and thats for another thread to scream about. personally i doubt we will see some great socialist state in america during out lifetimes, more likely, we will hopefully become like other advanced countries and make essential rights actual loving rights like healthcare and such. hopefully better in the future though. This would be the future in which the earth is slowly (then not so slowly) becoming inhospitable to human life?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 15:14
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1200418059175022594 The "no quid pro quo" call appears not to have been asscovering but instead to have been the same call that set off the panic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 15:44
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:If the Dems ever get the Presidency + House + Senate they should immediately move to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and to give DC Senate voting rights. Instant +4 Dem senators right there. Keep adding new leftist states as needed Scotland and Labour constituencies post Brexit are good for at least a couple states
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 15:48
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1200418059175022594 Arrest Gordon Sondland for perjury
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 15:52
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Arrest Gordon Sondland for perjury Absolutely zero chance. quote:SONDLAND: By the way I still cannot find a record of that call because the State Department or The White House cannot locate it. But I’m pretty sure I had the call on that day. This is enough to ensure no guilty verdict, barring plantoperjuremyself.txt popping up somewhere. Proving a misstatement was intentional instead of bad memory or misspeaking is, uh, challenging. His public testimony was clear throughout that he cannot recall with certainty which date. And that his recollection is hampered by White House/State refusing him access to records. Amusingly, as the article notes: quote:Sondland’s testimony about the White House’s inability to locate records of this call is also curious. On the one hand, the failure to preserve such critical records might appear to be something like obstruction, if not the outright destruction of evidence. On the other hand, the White House informing Sondland that it “cannot locate” a record of the September 9th call makes perfect sense – if in fact no call occurred at all between Sondland and Trump on September 9th.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Arrest Gordon Sondland for perjury I'm sure the DoJ will get right on that referral
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
u brexit ukip it posted:If the Dems ever get the Presidency + House + Senate they should immediately move to grant statehood to Puerto Rico and to give DC Senate voting rights. Instant +4 Dem senators right there. Keep adding new leftist states as needed Did yo7 borrow this from pro slavers 1800-1861
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 19:39
|
|
WAR CRIME GIGOLO posted:Did yo7 borrow this from pro slavers 1800-1861 didn't the anti-slavery people have the same idea new anti-slavery states getting added to the union was one of the main reasons for Bleeding Kansas
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
It was something the South was very worried if because most of the western expansion area was not good plantation ground so ill suited for slavery.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:didn't the anti-slavery people have the same idea https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:It was something the South was very worried if because most of the western expansion area was not good plantation ground so ill suited for slavery. To the point that southern politicians kept supporting attempts to annex territories in the Caribbean and Central America, including Cuba and Nicaragua.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 02:02
|
|
|
The Democrats need to prioritize PR statehood the second they control the WH and Congress. It's two more senators that are much more likely to be Democrats and any pushback from the GOP can easily be framed as racism
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 04:44
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:The Democrats need to prioritize PR statehood the second they control the WH and Congress. It's two more senators that are much more likely to be Democrats and any pushback from the GOP can easily be framed as racism I mean, this is assuming that PR officially petitions for statehood, which is not a guarantee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 05:20
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I mean, this is assuming that PR officially petitions for statehood, which is not a guarantee.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 05:41
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I mean, this is assuming that PR officially petitions for statehood, which is not a guarantee. I'm from that area. PR statehood is a contentious issue down there, it's not like everyone's clamoring for it. There's a sizeable portion of Puerto Rico that doesn't want to take on the responsibilities and extra scrutiny required for statehood. Plus the island is super corrupt, like all US territories in the Caribbean. What you'r seeing with Trump is pretty standard for down there, just not as dumb (though believe me, it gets close). I wouldn't hold your breath for it, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:I mean, this is assuming that PR officially petitions for statehood, which is not a guarantee. Didnt obama want to statehood PR early in 2008
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
Would the Senate need 51 or 60 votes to admit Puerto Rico? Because I don’t see it getting to 60 without a lot of work, but 51 would be easy if we can keep up momentum in 2020 and 2022.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:17
|
|
|
Slowpoke! posted:Would the Senate need 51 or 60 votes to admit Puerto Rico? Because I don’t see it getting to 60 without a lot of work, but 51 would be easy if we can keep up momentum in 2020 and 2022. The Constitution does not specify a required level of Congressional approval so it's 60 with the filibuster, 51 without. Perhaps significantly, it's also only up to Congress, the president and other states do not have a role.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:The Democrats need to prioritize PR statehood the second they control the WH and Congress. It's two more senators that are much more likely to be Democrats and any pushback from the GOP can easily be framed as racism Don't forget DC. It has a population larger than Wyoming and has no representation in congress past a fig leaf non-voting member. PR and DC getting statehood destroys the senate rural advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
Can the US just cut PR loose? IE: submit a petition for state hood before 2022 or congratulations you are now your own country?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Can the US just cut PR loose? We need to keep PR to ensure carribean dominance
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 14:03 |
|
|
Numlock posted:Can the US just cut PR loose? Congress could, yes. Congress has sole sovereignty over territories except insofar as they decide to cede sovereignty to territorial governance via legislation, and except insofar as constitutional protections apply to their citizens (which is "mostly" in incorporated territories and "not very much" in unincorporated territories". Congress could unilaterally give sovereignty of any territory to a foreign nation, or grant independence by terminate it's territorial status. Heck, so far as I can tell there's nothing preventing Congress from unilaterally admitting a territory as a state regardless of it's inhabitants' wishes. Should they do any that? Emphatically no. It would be a terrible violation of human rights and the right to self-determination that our territories (obtained via American Imperialism) should posses but our lovely system fails to recognize. Stickman fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Nov 30, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2019 21:05
|
|
