US Politics 3

Grumpy David wrote:The military aid bill to Ukraine has passed.

And the Tik Tok ban bill is moving through to the Senate, strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

112 Republicans still voted against the Ukraine bill (with 102 voting for it) showing just how much control Russia have of the party now.

Tomous wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:The military aid bill to Ukraine has passed.

And the Tik Tok ban bill is moving through to the Senate, strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

112 Republicans still voted against the Ukraine bill (with 102 voting for it) showing just how much control Russia have of the party now.

It's easy to understand the arguments against the aid - the money could be spent at home in America. That opinion doesn't necessarily show Russian control, but rather reflect a core rightwing belief that individual responsibility creates a greater total outcome. The philosophy really has limitations in this scenario though (among many others). Ukraine will never outspend Russia, as a much smaller country & therefore a more leftwing approach is required (stronger when working together as a collective).

The question for Republicans should be, 'is this a worthwhile investment?' Of course, those who do not want to take action will likely convince themselves that it is not worth the spend. I firmly believe that it is, with a Russian victory much more costly to the world than the cost of aid to Ukraine.

Whilst it is great that much needed aid has finally been agreed, the delay in providing it has only benefited Putin and no doubt cost many lives in Ukraine. I wonder if one more aid deal will be signed off before the next election, or whether further aid is fully dependent on who wins the next election.

Imagine going back to 1984 and explaining to Reagan's Republican Party that one day they would all be supporting a Russian dictatorship that's run by an ex-KGB officer.

Grumpy David wrote:And the Tik Tok ban bill is moving through to the Senate, strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

The TikTok ban has nothing to do with the CCP (though it is a very convenient excuse) and everything to do with the fact that it's the only major social media platform not under American control. It might be the fastest and easiest means of disseminating information to a mass audience we've ever had, and they hate that.

Millions also depend on it for their livelihoods, for it to get the word out about their work. But "NaTiOnAl SeCuRiTy". Yeah no. It's information control.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:And the Tik Tok ban bill is moving through to the Senate, strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

The TikTok ban has nothing to do with the CCP (though it is a very convenient excuse) and everything to do with the fact that it's the only major social media platform not under American control. It might be the fastest and easiest means of disseminating information to a mass audience we've ever had, and they hate that.

Millions also depend on it for their livelihoods, for it to get the word out about their work. But "NaTiOnAl SeCuRiTy". Yeah no. It's information control.

There wouldn’t be strong bipartisan support for the ban if it was a Canadian company.

Monkey Man wrote:A lot of other stuff going on -

The dodgy $175m bond -

AG James has filed her opposition to KSIC's defense of its bond.

Three main grounds of opposition:
1) insufficient evidence of "sufficiently secure and ascertainable collateral backing the bond"
2) insufficient KSIC surplus to justify the bond (because they offload their liabilities to the Cayman Islands to make their US balance sheet look good)
3) KSIC is shady AF "in violation of federal law on multiple occasions within the past several years"

Monday is going to be a busy day. Criminal trial starts at 9:30, this bond hearing starts 10:00. It'll be a battle.

---------------------------

twitter.com/ABC/status/1781342552299282534

----------------------------------

twitter.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1781390284573544942

--------------------------------------

twitter.com/williamlegate/status/1781342024693596589

----------------------

twitter.com/Acyn/status/1781373546297749865

Even worse, he's probably just crapping himself.

He's been rumoured to be incontinent for a number of years due to drug misuse and wears diapers. There have been multiple reports that he literally stinks of gooseberry fool.

Now this is a smear

President Dump.

Grumpy David wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:And the Tik Tok ban bill is moving through to the Senate, strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

The TikTok ban has nothing to do with the CCP (though it is a very convenient excuse) and everything to do with the fact that it's the only major social media platform not under American control. It might be the fastest and easiest means of disseminating information to a mass audience we've ever had, and they hate that.

Millions also depend on it for their livelihoods, for it to get the word out about their work. But "NaTiOnAl SeCuRiTy". Yeah no. It's information control.

There wouldn’t be strong bipartisan support for the ban if it was a Canadian company.

Well no, because by now it most probably would've been eaten up by Amazon or Meta, or some other megacorp. And just like everywhere else in Social Media Land, the left would be being suppressed, fascism would be promoted all over it, with Nazi astroturfing that dominates every other platform and comments section.

And it still might end up that way - Zuckerberg, a key voice against TikTok, has been hosting American politicians at some fancy place in Hawaii, buying their support for his bid to buy it. A lot of them have bought Meta stocks in anticipation of the windfall they'd make if he is successful, and if he gets that algorithm, you can bet he'd weaponize it in exactly the way he and others claim China does/will. And then he'd sell our data to China anyway, because he's a banana split.

79 US senators voted to ban it. They can't get 60 votes for a minimum wage hike, they can't address climate change or Christian nationalism or corruption or kids being shot in school, but they can recruit a ton of Democrats to destroy their own best messaging system.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:And the Tik Tok ban bill is moving through to the Senate, strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

The TikTok ban has nothing to do with the CCP (though it is a very convenient excuse) and everything to do with the fact that it's the only major social media platform not under American control. It might be the fastest and easiest means of disseminating information to a mass audience we've ever had, and they hate that.

Millions also depend on it for their livelihoods, for it to get the word out about their work. But "NaTiOnAl SeCuRiTy". Yeah no. It's information control.

There wouldn’t be strong bipartisan support for the ban if it was a Canadian company.

Well no, because by now it most probably would've been eaten up by Amazon or Meta, or some other megacorp. And just like everywhere else in Social Media Land, the left would be being suppressed, fascism would be promoted all over it, with Nazi astroturfing that dominates every other platform and comments section.

And it still might end up that way - Zuckerberg, a key voice against TikTok, has been hosting American politicians at some fancy place in Hawaii, buying their support for his bid to buy it. A lot of them have bought Meta stocks in anticipation of the windfall they'd make if he is successful, and if he gets that algorithm, you can bet he'd weaponize it in exactly the way he and others claim China does/will. And then he'd sell our data to China anyway, because he's a banana split.

79 US senators voted to ban it. They can't get 60 votes for a minimum wage hike, they can't address climate change or Christian nationalism or corruption or kids being shot in school, but they can recruit a ton of Democrats to destroy their own best messaging system.

So my original point isn't actually disputed then? Strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

Polarisation (probably exacerbated by constant Internet access / algorithms tailoring content) of American politics wasn't anywhere near as bad during Cold War I and now that we're in Cold War II, policies that get strong bipartisan support are related to the goal of winning.

Grumpy David wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:And the Tik Tok ban bill is moving through to the Senate, strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

The TikTok ban has nothing to do with the CCP (though it is a very convenient excuse) and everything to do with the fact that it's the only major social media platform not under American control. It might be the fastest and easiest means of disseminating information to a mass audience we've ever had, and they hate that.

Millions also depend on it for their livelihoods, for it to get the word out about their work. But "NaTiOnAl SeCuRiTy". Yeah no. It's information control.

There wouldn’t be strong bipartisan support for the ban if it was a Canadian company.

Well no, because by now it most probably would've been eaten up by Amazon or Meta, or some other megacorp. And just like everywhere else in Social Media Land, the left would be being suppressed, fascism would be promoted all over it, with Nazi astroturfing that dominates every other platform and comments section.

And it still might end up that way - Zuckerberg, a key voice against TikTok, has been hosting American politicians at some fancy place in Hawaii, buying their support for his bid to buy it. A lot of them have bought Meta stocks in anticipation of the windfall they'd make if he is successful, and if he gets that algorithm, you can bet he'd weaponize it in exactly the way he and others claim China does/will. And then he'd sell our data to China anyway, because he's a banana split.

79 US senators voted to ban it. They can't get 60 votes for a minimum wage hike, they can't address climate change or Christian nationalism or corruption or kids being shot in school, but they can recruit a ton of Democrats to destroy their own best messaging system.

So my original point isn't actually disputed then? Strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

But it's not really about tackling China, or the new Cold War, at all - that's just how they sell it in the press, how the Democrats are able to justify betraying their voters - many of whom are avid TikTok users. It's all about money and power, and about controlling the ability of the American people (and whoever the lobbyists also hate) to communicate.

I know the "both parties equally bad" rhetoric is nonsense, and they really aren't the same, but in some respects, at some times, like this, they're only slightly different shades of the same foul and fetid color.

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:
79 US senators voted to ban it. They can't get 60 votes for a minimum wage hike, they can't address climate change or Christian nationalism or corruption or kids being shot in school, but they can recruit a ton of Democrats to destroy their own best messaging system.

So my original point isn't actually disputed then? Strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

But it's not really about tackling China, or the new Cold War, at all - that's just how they sell it in the press, how the Democrats are able to justify betraying their voters - many of whom are avid TikTok users. It's all about money and power, and about controlling the ability of the American people (and whoever the lobbyists also hate) to communicate.

I know the "both parties equally bad" rhetoric is nonsense, and they really aren't the same, but in some respects, at some times, like this, they're only slightly different shades of the same foul and fetid color.

It doesn't need to be really tackling the CCP (although I think it is since it has got cross party support), if you can spin legislation as being tough on the CCP, you can get strong bipartisan support for legislation.

I've assumed most Tik Tokkers are too young to vote so there isn't a betrayal of voters? And it's not really a ban either, Tik Tok can just be legally separated from Bytedance so long as the new owners are not beholden to the CCP, problem solved. How does the end user get impacted by this change in ownership?

Grumpy David wrote:

I've assumed most Tik Tokkers are too young to vote so there isn't a betrayal of voters?

Biden is actively courting Tik Tokkers (Labour plan on doing the same)

While the administration has been publicly casting TikTok as a grave threat to American security, the White House has quietly hosted a number of influencers to pitch them on pro-Biden content.

“Don’t jump, I need you!” Biden joked to a group of TikTok influencers as he walked by the group standing on the White House balcony on his way to deliver his State of the Union speech earlier this year.

Each of these TikTokkers’ meetings was coordinated by White House deputy director of partnerships, Morgan MacNaughton, who herself has a background with the company. She was hired away last year from Palette, a social media talent management company that specializes in TikTok personalities. While there, MacNaughton helped found the political group “TikTok for Biden” (since renamed “Gen-Z for Change”). Many of the TikTok users who visited the White House are themselves represented by Palette.

https://theintercept.com/2024/04/23/tik ... -campaign/

Grumpy David wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:
79 US senators voted to ban it. They can't get 60 votes for a minimum wage hike, they can't address climate change or Christian nationalism or corruption or kids being shot in school, but they can recruit a ton of Democrats to destroy their own best messaging system.

So my original point isn't actually disputed then? Strong bipartisan support seems to only exist when it comes to tackling the Chinese Communist Party & winning Cold War II.

But it's not really about tackling China, or the new Cold War, at all - that's just how they sell it in the press, how the Democrats are able to justify betraying their voters - many of whom are avid TikTok users. It's all about money and power, and about controlling the ability of the American people (and whoever the lobbyists also hate) to communicate.

I know the "both parties equally bad" rhetoric is nonsense, and they really aren't the same, but in some respects, at some times, like this, they're only slightly different shades of the same foul and fetid color.

It doesn't need to be really tackling the CCP (although I think it is since it has got cross party support), if you can spin legislation as being tough on the CCP, you can get strong bipartisan support for legislation.

I've assumed most Tik Tokkers are too young to vote so there isn't a betrayal of voters? And it's not really a ban either, Tik Tok can just be legally separated from Bytedance so long as the new owners are not beholden to the CCP, problem solved. How does the end user get impacted by this change in ownership?

The majority of tik tok users are adults and at least 18.

A quick Google search suggests in the US only 20% of users are under 18.

Adult Tik Tokkers are a sizable thing?

Not sure how a Tik Tok forced sale vs keep but banned in the USA is a betrayal though? I can't remember if Biden ran in 2020 on a platform of not forcing ByteDance to sell Tik Tok? Is the betrayal that the Democrats are pursuing a policy Trump originally advocated for?

Amusingly Trump no longer wants Tik Tok banned (putting his hatred of Facebook over national security). His reasoning sounds like a more conspiratorial version of Alvin's earlier post:

Trump on Truth Social wrote:“[Biden] is the one pushing it to close, and doing it to help his friends over at Facebook become richer and more dominant, and able to continue to fight, perhaps illegally, the Republican Party,” Trump said Monday.

“It’s called ELECTION INTERFERENCE!” he continued. “Young people, and lots of others, must remember this on November 5th, ELECTION DAY, when they vote! They also must remember, more importantly, that he is destroying our Country, and is A MAJOR THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!”

How would the end user experience change if a different company to ByteDance owned Tik Tok? Is the assumption that the algorithms would push different content?

I'm suprised anyone thinks there is any single form of social media that has less than half over 18s.

Grumpy David wrote:How would the end user experience change if a different company to ByteDance owned Tik Tok? Is the assumption that the algorithms would push different content?

I don't know what stuff the TikTok algorithms currently push but despite my very left leaning politics I am regularly pushed:

Transphobic/Homophobic stuff
Anti-green content
Stuff by Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool, Jordan Peterson
Misogynistic content
Racist stuff

Twitter/X became unusable. I'm only sticking with Facebook because I have no other way of staying in touch with friends overseas otherwise the content would be driving me away. I stick with Youtube because I get a lot out of it but the algorithm usually goes like this: Watches video about anti-fascist movements or lgbt support groups or mental health support - Youtube - "Here's some videoes about nazis why you're an evil member of the lgbt community and also weak because real men don't have depression". I'm constantly curating stuff to try to stop seeing gooseberry fool like this but it's always a short term solution

Like I said, I don't know what currently gets pushed on TikTok but if Facebook, Google or X get their hands on it then I can't see them altering their approach about what gets pushed.

Outrunner wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:How would the end user experience change if a different company to ByteDance owned Tik Tok? Is the assumption that the algorithms would push different content?

I don't know what stuff the TikTok algorithms currently push but despite my very left leaning politics I am regularly pushed:

Transphobic/Homophobic stuff
Anti-green content
Stuff by Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool, Jordan Peterson
Misogynistic content
Racist stuff

Twitter/X became unusable. I'm only sticking with Facebook because I have no other way of staying in touch with friends overseas otherwise the content would be driving me away. I stick with Youtube because I get a lot out of it but the algorithm usually goes like this: Watches video about anti-fascist movements or lgbt support groups or mental health support - Youtube - "Here's some videoes about nazis why you're an evil member of the lgbt community and also weak because real men don't have depression". I'm constantly curating stuff to try to stop seeing gooseberry fool like this but it's always a short term solution

Like I said, I don't know what currently gets pushed on TikTok but if Facebook, Google or X get their hands on it then I can't see them altering their approach about what gets pushed.

It's so annoying how this happens. I am repeatedly 'removing' content from my feed, even from the same providers that I will be marking as 'I don't want to see content from this provider' multiple times a week. Why the strawberry float do they keep pushing it at me . I only use Facebook and Twitter, and I'd say both of them are just as bad as each other for it.

I've ditched twitter and Facebook, it's beautiful. I've never used tick tock or Instagram so thankfully I don't have that gooseberry fool in my life.

Outrunner wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:How would the end user experience change if a different company to ByteDance owned Tik Tok? Is the assumption that the algorithms would push different content?

I don't know what stuff the TikTok algorithms currently push but despite my very left leaning politics I am regularly pushed:

Transphobic/Homophobic stuff
Anti-green content
Stuff by Ben Shapiro, Tim Pool, Jordan Peterson
Misogynistic content
Racist stuff

Twitter/X became unusable. I'm only sticking with Facebook because I have no other way of staying in touch with friends overseas otherwise the content would be driving me away. I stick with Youtube because I get a lot out of it but the algorithm usually goes like this: Watches video about anti-fascist movements or lgbt support groups or mental health support - Youtube - "Here's some videoes about nazis why you're an evil member of the lgbt community and also weak because real men don't have depression". I'm constantly curating stuff to try to stop seeing gooseberry fool like this but it's always a short term solution

Like I said, I don't know what currently gets pushed on TikTok but if Facebook, Google or X get their hands on it then I can't see them altering their approach about what gets pushed.

Sounds like Tik Tok is already a shitshow. Hard to see how a change in ownership would make it worse for you? The worst case scenario is the status quo whilst potentially there is huge room for improvement.