And from an opinion article earlier this year from non-Trump FCC member Jessica Rosenworcel:

 

After reciting the legal parameters and history of the federal Communications Act that I quoted above, Rosenworcel explains:

 

Quote

 

That means if a sitting president wants to shut down the Internet or selectively cut off a social media outlet or other service, all it takes is an opinion from his attorney general that Section 706 gives him the authority to do so.

 

That’s alarming. Because if you believe there are unspoken norms that would prevent a U.S. president from using Section 706 this way, recent history suggests that past practice is no longer the best guide for future behavior. Norms are now broken all the time in Washington. 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-government-couldnt-shut-down-the-internet-right-think-again/2020/03/06/6074dc86-5fe5-11ea-b014-4fafa866bb81_story.html

 

4 hours ago, tropo said:

We are actually discussing a "fact check" on Trump's tweet.

 

It was not a "fact check", but an opinion and politically motivated.

 

Fact-checkers say there is no evidence that mail-in ballots are linked to voter fraud. This is a lie as there is evidence to back up the President's claim. It's a lie and political censorship.

 

 

What is this evidence?

18 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Examples of absentee ballot fraud, in cooperation with local officials. Here we're talking about national elections.

Are in the US mail in ballots and absentee ballots the same btw?

"Are in the US mail in ballots and absentee ballots the same btw?"

 

Effectively, yes.

 

Decades ago, when people didn't wander much and being immobile usually meant being dead, absentee ballots were for people who couldn't physically show up at their local polling stations to vote.  These people had to give good reason why they couldn't appear at their assigned polling stations during assigned hours on the first Tuesday in November.  Absentee ballots allowed military members and wandering businessmen to vote.

 

Now, as the elderly, handicapped, away at school and generally footloose in number have expanded, absentee ballot eligibility has been expanded to include all who have a legitimate excuse to not go to polling stations during normal business hours on the first Tuesday in November.  In some states absentee/mail-in ballots are the normal way to vote.

 

With a pandemic firmly in place and the US the clear world leader in deaths, and no guarantee things will be better in November, some people think it would be a good idea to encourage voting in a manner that doesn't endanger lives and promote an infectious disease. 

 

Seems like a no-brainer.  But there is this one party that thinks low voter turn-out works in its favor, and, well....

 

 

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Has it occurred to you that there are people here who stay informed by reading, instead of watching television?

 

My guess is that if you are a Trump supporter, you, like Trump, don't read and think 'reality" as presented by television is all there is.

Depends what they read.

Personally I rarely watch tv, but I do try to read two books a week.

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

And from an opinion article earlier this year from non-Trump FCC member Jessica Rosenworcel:

 

After reciting the legal parameters and history of the federal Communications Act that I quoted above, Rosenworcel explains:

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-government-couldnt-shut-down-the-internet-right-think-again/2020/03/06/6074dc86-5fe5-11ea-b014-4fafa866bb81_story.html

 

You may like to take into consideration the following which effectively enables Social Media platform companies to moderate content posted by third parties.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

 

 

Edited May 28, 20206 yr by simple1

57 minutes ago, heybruce said:

At the same time that Trump was denying calling her a "nasty women", recordings of him saying "I didn't know she was nasty" were being played.

 

"Speaking on "The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore" in 2016, Markle called Trump misogynistic and said his politics are divisive, saying she would move to Canada if he won the presidency.

Trump responded, "I didn't know that she was nasty. I hope she is OK. ...""   https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/31/politics/donald-trump-meghan-markle-nasty-boris-johnson-good-prime-minister/index.html

Well, you will agree then that he did not call her a nasty woman, and he was surprised that she was being nasty.

Edited May 28, 20206 yr by DoctorG

It really beggars belief...

 

Here's a guy who's spent the past three years of his presidency living on, and ruling by, Twitter. A constant, never ending stream of right-wing rubbish, conspiracy theories, fake news, ad hominem attacks, etc etc... Flooding the internet via Twitter and thus the entire daily news cycle with his Twitter torrents...

 

And now suddenly, Twitter is the partisan enemy of Trump and Republicans???   Just because Twitter finally flagged a couple of Trump tweets as being of dubious accuracy, when if they were serious about enforcing accuracy and some semblance of truth, they would have closed and revoked his Twitter account long ago.

 

4 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You may like to take into consideration the following...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act

 

 

 

I believe, that's the particular provision of federal law relating to social media platforms that Trump and Co. reportedly are mulling over attempting to repeal. At least, according to the latest news reports out on the subject today.

 

Quote

Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

 

3 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Depends what they read.

Personally I rarely watch tv, but I do try to read two books a week.

Some books are an easy read in a day, others take longer.  I won't offer examples, it would be a topic derailer.

 

To stay current, I go through the "Top Stories" of the BBC news app on most days, and read the "Economist" every week.  I also check interesting news links that I find on the internet if they come from credible sources.  I rarely watch news on television, it's too tedious.

5 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Well, you will agree then that he did not call her a nasty woman, and he was surprised that she was being nasty.

Is it your opinion that Trump assuming she is "nasty", and publicly stating so on an international news platform, is significantly different from calling her nasty?

 

If so, it seems like serious hair-splitting.

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Is it your opinion that Trump assuming she is "nasty", and publicly stating so on an international news platform, is significantly different from calling her nasty?

 

If so, it seems like serious hair-splitting.

Semantics are important. Trump often says seriously weird stuff; there is no need for media to twist what he actually says.

9 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Some books are an easy read in a day, others take longer.  I won't offer examples, it would be a topic derailer.

 

To stay current, I go through the "Top Stories" of the BBC news app on most days, and read the "Economist" every week.  I also check interesting news links that I find on the internet if they come from credible sources.  I rarely watch news on television, it's too tedious.

I will (almost ) ignore your slight on my reading choices.

BBC as with ABC (au) have a left bent which suits leftist readers. Nothing wrong with that as long as nobody pretends that they are not biased. Haven't read the Economist for years so don't know how they fly.

I do not have regular news readings but try to see articles from different sources, some good, some not so good.

8 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Semantics are important. Trump often says seriously weird stuff; there is no need for media to twist what he actually says.

In other words, you are doing some serious hair-splitting.

4 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

I will (almost ) ignore your slight on my reading choices.

BBC as with ABC (au) have a left bent which suits leftist readers. Nothing wrong with that as long as nobody pretends that they are not biased. Haven't read the Economist for years so don't know how they fly.

I do not have regular news readings but try to see articles from different sources, some good, some not so good.

I wasn't slighting anyone, I was stating the obvious.  "How to Lie with Statistics" was an easy one day read, "Les Miserables" took considerably longer.  Why are you so touchy?

 

"left" and "right" are subjective; I read sources that I trust to report important facts.

30 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

you will agree then that he did not call her a nasty woman

It's just trumpspeak. He's spent his whole life making ambiguity the default position (when he's not outright lying). One of his tactics is to contradict himself, then he can simply quote whichever phrase suits the moment.

 

This is probably the only skill he possesses - that and being able to entertain people with a very low IQ.

19 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

BBC as with ABC (au) have a left bent

That may have been true 10-20 years ago. The right (IPA in Australia) have been infiltrating both of these organisations for years. It wouldn't surprise me if they were both sold to Murdoch for a song.

Edited May 28, 20206 yr by teatime101

1 hour ago, tropo said:

I showed cases where people were caught and convicted. This is probably the tip of the iceberg... and with the level of hatred for Trump and desperation to remove him, it could be done at a very high level and change the balance in some close states.

 

 

 

Yes, only those that oppose Trump would commit voter fraud....the group that fears fact checking and wants to shut down social media if fact checking is allowed....those are the ones you should trust because obviously they are beyond reproach.

Edited May 28, 20206 yr by Tie Dye Samurai

1 hour ago, DoctorG said:

I will (almost ) ignore your slight on my reading choices.

BBC as with ABC (au) have a left bent which suits leftist readers. Nothing wrong with that as long as nobody pretends that they are not biased. Haven't read the Economist for years so don't know how they fly.

I do not have regular news readings but try to see articles from different sources, some good, some not so good.

Shows how far to the right you are if telling us the BBC has a left bent.

1 hour ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I believe, that's the particular provision of federal law relating to social media platforms that Trump and Co. reportedly are mulling over attempting to repeal. At least, according to the latest news reports out on the subject today.

Correct

9 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

I always liked Hee Haw....Buck Owens and The Buckaroos singing "Act Naturally" is awesome.

1 hour ago, Tie Dye Samurai said:

Yes, only those that oppose Trump would commit voter fraud....the group that fears fact checking and wants to shut down social media if fact checking is allowed....those are the ones you should trust because obviously they are beyond reproach.

Even voter fraud will not save the Democrats. They are already committing a kind of covert fraud... putting up a candidate that is not mentally up to the challenge... and then probably planning a switcheroo with whatever running mate he chooses. No one can genuinely believe he could handle a single term. Even that won't work because Biden will not get the votes. Once he comes out from hiding, his mouth will see to that.

 

I don't think Trump is concerned about the material presented in the "fact check" rather than the insult to actually fact check his Tweets using CNN and Washington Post as sources. People are fixated on this particular Tweet and fact check, but he has a long campaign to consider and what harm they could do going forward.

 

Twitter needs Trump and Trump needs Twitter. I believe this fact checking is either already over, or soon to be over.

9 hours ago, Tug said:

He’s having another tantrum he also needs to distract from the fact that over 100,000 Americans have died on his watch many of them due to his failure to properly deal with covid 19 he also doesent have the power to shut social media down but he might bulley them into submission I sincerely hope they don’t fold and continue to call out lies

Nonsense,  that he didn't properly deal with covid! God forbid he listens to the head of the NIH  that said there was no major threat to the USA  early on

https://techstartups.com/2020/04/03/coronavirus-not-major-threat-people-united-states-not-something-citizens-united-states-right-now-worried-dr-fauci-sai/

Edited May 28, 20206 yr by riclag

21 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Liars often get angry when their lies are called out.

 

Biden certainly does!

as usual,  no synchronization...   555

 

It only took two hours for Trump's administration to contradict his threat to shut down Twitter

Marianne Dodson

The WeekMay 28, 2020, 3:13 AM GMT+7

 

Pompeo sent out a tweet saying the U.S. "will not tolerate" government-imposed censorship or shutdowns.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/only-took-two-hours-trumps-201309129.html

33 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Even voter fraud will not save the Democrats. They are already committing a kind of covert fraud... putting up a candidate that is not mentally up to the challenge... and then probably planning a switcheroo with whatever running mate he chooses. No one can genuinely believe he could handle a single term. Even that won't work because Biden will not get the votes. Once he comes out from hiding, his mouth will see to that.

 

I don't think Trump is concerned about the material presented in the "fact check" rather than the insult to actually fact check his Tweets using CNN and Washington Post as sources. People are fixated on this particular Tweet and fact check, but he has a long campaign to consider and what harm they could do going forward.

 

Twitter needs Trump and Trump needs Twitter. I believe this fact checking is either already over, or soon to be over.

 

Fair points. Wouldn't be surprised if poor old dopey Joe is being used as a stalking horse. And then the DNC will fix the convention to suddenly spring a new candidate to fight Trump? 

 

If something is going to be fact checked, then that must apply to all posters and must have a wider check than two news organizations known for their strong political bias.

3 hours ago, tropo said:

I showed cases where people were caught and convicted. This is probably the tip of the iceberg... and with the level of hatred for Trump and desperation to remove him, it could be done at a very high level and change the balance in some close states.

 

 

 

Chris Wallace Demolishes Trump’s Mail-In Voting Lies: ‘No History of Fraud’

2 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

If something is going to be fact checked, then that must apply to all posters and must have a wider check than two news organizations known for their strong political bias.

Yes, Fox News and Breitbart certainly need their "facts" checking.

2 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Chris Wallace Demolishes Trump’s Mail-In Voting Lies: ‘No History of Fraud’

Wallace also mentioned that the most famous case of fraudulent “ballot harvesting” involved a Republican in North Carolina.

 

wonder what type of excuses the Trump lovers here will come up with 555

15 minutes ago, riclag said:

Nonsense,  that he didn't properly deal with covid! God forbid he listens to the head of the NIH  that said there was no major threat to the USA  early on

https://techstartups.com/2020/04/03/coronavirus-not-major-threat-people-united-states-not-something-citizens-united-states-right-now-worried-dr-fauci-sai/

Here is the full quote from his interview on January 21. He clearly said that "you need to take it seriously" and that citizen should not be worried "right now"

"Obviously, you need to take it seriously and do the kind of things the (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and the Department of Homeland Security is doing. But this is not a major threat to the people of the United States and this is not something that the citizens of the United States right now should be worried about."

 

Unlike Trump, who went on downplaying it until the last moment, Fauci' positions also evolved over time with the information available.

47 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

I don't think Trump is concerned about the material presented in the "fact check" rather than the insult to actually fact check his Tweets using CNN and Washington Post as sources. People are fixated on this particular Tweet and fact check, but he has a long campaign to consider and what harm they could do going forward.

 

Twitter needs Trump and Trump needs Twitter. I believe this fact checking is either already over, or soon to be over.

And again....yes he is afraid of fact checking to the point he is threatening social media outlets...it is gonna suck for him to not be able to lie and twitter is where he does his best presentation of alternate facts....and the only way to discredit facts is to go after the fact checker....or the whistle blowers...or the IGs...basically anybody that does not parrot...or in this case tweet....The MAGA Doctrine (Or The Donald's ever revolving spin of it based on what day it is and who he is mad at or has caught him in a lie). 

 

That is why you think it is already over....because you hope it is...it is all going to magically go away....does that sound familiar. And finally...to say Twitter needs Donald Trump.....LOL...do you know how many people around the world are on twitter and could give a rats ass if Trump is on there or not.

Edited May 28, 20206 yr by Tie Dye Samurai