videos with subject matter more suited to d&d than everything else. to be discussed and / or debated, with offshot threads if discussion on a particular video or subject warrants it.
Pretty much. For doing the right thing, knowing it will put your career in jeopardy, since this particular cable news channel doesn't allow its talent to report anything resembling anti-right sentiment for fear of alienating its viewers.
See qaraq's post above.
I did look at qaraq's post. And in that WaPo article was a bit about Hannity's viewers also losing their collective shit over the him pulling his unconditional support for Moore which linked to another article that included all the nasty comments Fox News viewers (or Russian bots) had tweeted about Hannity giving Moore 24 hours to explain the "inconsistencies" of his story. Crazy conservatives are going to crazy.
Smith's job isn't in any danger. He pulls ratings that are similar to other mid-afternoon news programs.
And Smith serves an important function at Fox News. Because of him Fox can claim that they're not entirely a right-wing propaganda channel. And, more importantly, Smith plays the role of "liberal media" that all the old people watching him at 3PM can rage at while not actually turning the channel to CNN or MSNBC.
I thought Sarah Silverman did a great job addressing her friend Louis CK did.
I love this, but man America is so weird right now.
That video made me happy and sad at the same time.
BTW, nearly all of the Saoirse Ronan hosted SNL was fantastic. Only the final sketch was a bit sketchy.
Was this the Aer Lingus one? My sister works for the airline, Senior Cabin Staff, and it didn't go down well at all. I felt that Ronan could actually have turned the joke around on an American audience by showing how silly the stereotype is but instead she steered into it. We all still thinks she's a national treasure so we're not upset more disappointed.
The whole dog thing was weird, I have to say.
Was this the Aer Lingus one? My sister works for the airline, Senior Cabin Staff, and it didn't go down well at all. I felt that Ronan could actually have turned the joke around on an American audience by showing how silly the stereotype is but instead she steered into it. We all still thinks she's a national treasure so we're not upset more disappointed.
The whole dog thing was weird, I have to say.
Yeah, that's the one. It was on a whole different level from the rest of the show. Ronan did some great bits, from the goofy little song about how to pronounce her name (yeah, an obvious bit, but it played well), the Welcome to Hell song, the crazy girlfriend in the K-mart sketch, and a brief part in the bachelor auction.
There were a couple of second-tier bits, too. "Floribama Shore" wasn't great, but she was okay in it, and the classroom one suffered a bit from trying to cram everyone in there. The Aer Lingus one was just awful though. And yeah, what the hell with the dogs?
This is a long one, but in it Tim Snyder talks about 20 of his lessons from "On Tyranny," so you don't have to go out and buy the book. But you should anyway. At least, if you want to help return the US to a Constitutional Republic if not an actual Democracy.
Great book, and it's brief and to the point.
Trump's Opioid Plan Largely Skips Prevention. Sad.
How the slogan "America First" is a con.
The first "con" doesn't make any sense. While it's true that America First does try to use foreign policy (trade barriers) to influence domestic policy, that's nothing new - Presidents have been doing that since the country was founded, and in fact the Tariff Act of 1789 was the first legislation under the new Constitution. And while you might disagree with Trump's domestic policy, his administration definitely has one, is implementing it, and America First is part of it.
The second "con" isn't a con at all. It's extraordinarily beneficial to Americans (and everyone else) for the United States to stop being an international bully. To the extent that Trump pursues that policy, the world will be a much better place. Unfortunately, and contrary to Snyder, he doesn't seem very keen on implementing it. For example, we're raising troop levels in Afghanistan once again.
The actual con of "America First" is a lot simpler: trade barriers benefit small groups at the expense of everyone else. An obvious and immediate example is the solar panel tariffs and how they hurt solar panel installation companies and renewable energy projects in order to benefit a couple of companies that are failing to compete on the international market. When Snyder says that there is no policy, he's wrong. The policy is to damage trade in order to make money for politically-connected companies, and it's the kind of thing that can cause world-wide depressions. Imagine what would happen to the American economy today if we had a sudden 65% drop in foreign trade.
The first "con" doesn't make any sense. While it's true that America First does try to use foreign policy (trade barriers) to influence domestic policy, that's nothing new - Presidents have been doing that since the country was founded, and in fact the Tariff Act of 1789 was the first legislation under the new Constitution. And while you might disagree with Trump's domestic policy, his administration definitely has one, is implementing it, and America First is part of it.
The second "con" isn't a con at all. It's extraordinarily beneficial to Americans (and everyone else) for the United States to stop being an international bully. To the extent that Trump pursues that policy, the world will be a much better place. Unfortunately, and contrary to Snyder, he doesn't seem very keen on implementing it. For example, we're raising troop levels in Afghanistan once again.
The actual con of "America First" is a lot simpler: trade barriers benefit small groups at the expense of everyone else. An obvious and immediate example is the solar panel tariffs and how they hurt solar panel installation companies and renewable energy projects in order to benefit a couple of companies that are failing to compete on the international market. When Snyder says that there is no policy, he's wrong. The policy is to damage trade in order to make money for politically-connected companies, and it's the kind of thing that can cause world-wide depressions. Imagine what would happen to the American economy today if we had a sudden 65% drop in foreign trade.
Did we watch the same video? The first two "cons" are that "America First" isn't a real policy, it's an idea, and it barely functions as foreign policy, but it used as it it were a full both foreign and domestic policy.
Did we watch the same video? The first two "cons" are that "America First" isn't a real policy, it's an idea, and it barely functions as foreign policy, but it used as it it were a full both foreign and domestic policy.
And I'm refuting Snyder's argument that America First isn't a policy by pointing out that not only is it a real policy, it's not even new - and it's extraordinarily dangerous for the economic health of the country. It was the policy of the Federalists, the Whigs, and later the Republicans in the 19th century, as well as both parties at times in the early 20th century (Hoover and FDR, primarily). It focuses on raising tariffs to restrict trade, focusing federal revenue on "internal improvements" (funneling money to favored people and corporations), and a belligerent foreign stance.
The effects of the policy are easy to see. I already mentioned the solar panel tariff, so you can add the accompanying tariff on washers. Trump's withdrawals from the Paris Accords and the TPP were also facets of this policy. He's threatened to withdraw from KORUS, our free trade agreement with South Korea.
In short, Trump's policy is entirely focused on economics, for better or worse. Trump has pointed out that the United States spends a lot of money defending other rich countries, and that needs to stop - which is the one facet of his policy that actually makes sense, though he hasn't really done anything to fix the problem. For example, South Korea's economy is 36 times larger than North Korea's - why do they need U.S. troops for defense?
This policy has both domestic and foreign effects, and the parallel to the 19th century has been noticed elsewhere. Snyder is unhappy because Trump seems to more-or-less ignore domestic entitlement spending, which is true but doesn't indicate the absence of a policy, but rather a policy of maintaining the domestic status quo. Trump's only domestic policy that is significantly different from past presidents is his more aggressive persecution of immigrants, and sadly that isn't new either - but it *is* a policy.
In short, because Snyder doesn't seem to put any weight on economics, he doesn't see the effects - or the dangers - of Trump's policies.
Obligatory current events video. (NSFW)
Not exactly a video, but I think people here might enjoy the Lawfare National Security Law podcast.
https://lawfareblog.com/topic/nation...
There is a lot of gory, lawyery detail about recent events involving Trump, Russia, and the investigations. Plus other news related to terrorism cases and whatnot. Great analysis.
This is sick Orwellian shit. Actually, Orwell himself couldn’t have dreamed of this kleptocratic nightmare.
ruhk wrote:This is sick Orwellian shit. Actually, Orwell himself couldn’t have dreamed of this kleptocratic nightmare.
The United States' largest owner of television stations, Sinclair Broadcast Group, mandated that its outlets run a segment on the so-called deep state that was produced by a former reporter for the Russian propaganda outlet RT, according to a new report.
The "must-run" piece aired on March 21 and featured Sebastian Gorka, the former adviser to President Donald Trump, lamenting the existence of a deep state—a popular conspiracy theory in some circles that longtime career public servants in the government are working to subvert the U.S. government. Trump has repeatedly complained about such a mysterious rogue network.
Sinclair national correspondent Kristine Frazao produced the segment. Before joining Sinclair in 2013, she was an anchor/correspondent at RT, formerly Russia Today, for more than three years, according to her LinkedIn page. RT is an international television network funded by the Russian government. The Columbia Journalism Review called it "the Kremlin's propaganda outlet."
The deep state segment reported that 74 percent of respondents to a March 19 Monmouth University Poll said they believed the secret bloc exists—but only after the term was defined "as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy." Before respondents were offered that description, 63 percent of respondents said they were not familiar with the term, while just 13 percent said they were very familiar with it.
The same day the Sinclair piece aired, Politico published an article titled "Why Steve Bannon Wants You to Believe in the Deep State." "Like the Death Star, the American Deep State does not, of course, exist," it reported.
Sinclair has come under fire for employing its "must-run" practice, forcing its stations to air segments of often conservative commentary. The media giant is now taking another step in orchestrating what its stations report, according to Seattlepi.com, an online news outlet that has a content-sharing agreement with the local Sinclair-owned station KOMO.
And Sinclair's trying to buy Tribune Media, a deal that would beam their 'news' into 72% of American households.
The deal needs both FCC and DoJ approval.
FCC is expected to approve the deal, especially considering that FCC chairman Ajit Pai personally led the charge for the agency to approve rules that allowed TV broadcasters to greatly increase the number of stations they own (that rule capped ownership at 39% of households). Critics say that Pai effectively changed the rules to benefit one company--Sinclair--and that Pai was in contact with Sinclair executives throughout the process.
Ajitprop Pai
(I stole that from Reddit)
Pages