• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

AOC nails it again

Feb 4, 2009
27,898
8,371
136

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
27,121
1,898
126
Jesus she's got game for days. Imagine if there were a whole congress full of people who asked meaningful, inquiring questions, and truly looked to serve the interests of the citizens of the US. What a fucking time that would be.

Also notice how Zuckerberg's answer was "well probably"
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
8,882
1,161
126
AOC will become YUGE in American politics. New to it, she was fairly wet behind the ears to say the least but I knew she would eventually change the game forever. As it should be.
All of the new rising stars will become game changers. The sad thing is republicans have no such talent on their side nor will the old white farts that run the party allow such to take place, so one day soon democrats will become cutting edge while republicans remain stuck in 1950's ideology i.e. the party of old fat white men.

I love how people fail to take AOC seriously nor believe AOC knows what she is doing. AOC knows exactly what she is doing. One day she will have everyones attention and no one on either side will dare dismiss her importance.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,073
9,946
136
For a lowly Congresswoman she already stands heads and shoulders above the orange cheeto
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
11,835
6,293
136
For a lowly Congresswoman she already stands heads and shoulders above the orange cheeto
I just discovered a roach in my garage. It crawled out from under the freezer unit. I'm quite confident it stands "head and shoulders" above Trump. OK, it didn't have "shoulders" per se, but if it did, I'm quite certain they would stand well above Trump's.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nickqt

dawp

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
10,311
1,523
126
facebook should be careful, there will not always be republicans in control to rubber stamp what corporations want.
 

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
11,504
2,713
136
I just discovered a roach in my garage. It crawled out from under the freezer unit. I'm quite confident it stands "head and shoulders" above Trump. OK, it didn't have "shoulders" per se, but if it did, I'm quite certain they would stand well above Trump's.

I have an even lower opinion of Trump. He is lower than cucaracha poop. Even lower than the bacteria that feeds on it and that's just based on his defective inhumane character traits. I wouldn't be able to describe how low he is in the food chain if I considered adding in his performance as the president.

edit - As for AOC, she sure does have a way of shining a nice bright light on the Repub's shenanigans while making them look like idiots for the crooked way they roll down Penn Ave.
 
Last edited:

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,654
2,167
126

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,026
2,581
126
One day she will have everyones attention and no one on either side will dare dismiss her importance.
The fact that she has done so well also means that she has a huge target on her back. Every conservative group, and some liberal ones that she is opposes, are looking for some dirt that will stick to her. They will eventually either find or invent something that will.
'The flame that burns twice as bright burns half as long'

AOC thinks a corporation should be in charge of establishing the veracity of their customers statements, and you fellows think that's a good idea?
It is a question. If not them then who? We already require truth in advertising, how is this any different?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
AOC thinks a corporation should be in charge of establishing the veracity of their customers statements, and you fellows think that's a good idea?
I think the far better answer is to break up Facebook than to regulate its advertising content. That being said, Facebook already has rules in place against running false advertisements, it simply decided not to enforce them for political ads. The most interesting question here is why they decided that political ads are the one place where the truth doesn't matter.

I think Facebook has done this for the express reason that Trump and his DOJ are threatening antitrust enforcement against them and Zuckerberg is trying to placate the government. It's another example of how badly our law enforcement has been corrupted by Trump and Barr.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,898
8,371
136
I think the far better answer is to break up Facebook than to regulate its advertising content. That being said, Facebook already has rules in place against running false advertisements, it simply decided not to enforce them for political ads. The most interesting question here is why they decided that political ads are the one place where the truth doesn't matter.

I think Facebook has done this for the express reason that Trump and his DOJ are threatening antitrust enforcement against them and Zuckerberg is trying to placate the government. It's another example of how badly our law enforcement has been corrupted by Trump and Barr.
I think it’s just an easy cop out answer.
Fake political ads will always result in one party being pissed off. There can be no compromise on stuff like this. One winnner one loser.
Easier for Zuck to say Facebook doesn’t want to be involved with reviewing political ads.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,026
2,581
126
I think the far better answer is to break up Facebook than to regulate its advertising content.
I don't even know how you would break up Facebook. Lets say we go the way of the Baby Bells, and split the company into 4. Pretty soon most people would have migrated to just one of those, because we all want to be on the one that has our friends, and none of us are going to want to have 2-3 different 'facebooks' installed on our phone. We want one place for all of it. Within probably 3 years we would be back to one company that is as big as Facebook is now.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
28,920
2,627
126
I think it’s just an easy cop out answer.
Fake political ads will always result in one party being pissed off. There can be no compromise on stuff like this. One winnner one loser.
Easier for Zuck to say Facebook doesn’t want to be involved with reviewing political ads.
Then the correct answer is to simply not accept political ads. If you can't be bothered to review them, then you're logical answer is to not allow them.
 
Feb 4, 2009
27,898
8,371
136
Then the correct answer is to simply not accept political ads. If you can't be bothered to review them, then you're logical answer is to not allow them.
I agree but I think there are federal laws regarding elections and selling of broadcasting
I think Zuck would prefer that too. Politics has ruined him acquiring younger users.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
I think it’s just an easy cop out answer.
Fake political ads will always result in one party being pissed off. There can be no compromise on stuff like this. One winnner one loser.
Easier for Zuck to say Facebook doesn’t want to be involved with reviewing political ads.
Facebook already fact checks political ads so if they were to say that they don't want to be involved in reviewing political ads they would be lying. Also, because they do fact check political ads that 'one winner one loser' thing already applies.

What Zuckerberg is saying is that if an interest group like the NRA posts something and it's found to be false it will be demoted or removed but if Trump posts the exact same thing it will not be. Why do you think Zuckerberg would adopt that stance?
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
28,920
2,627
126
I agree but I think there are federal laws regarding elections and selling of broadcasting
I think Zuck would prefer that too. Politics has ruined him acquiring younger users.
FB is dying on the vine anyways. As you said, no younger users use it. My kids are teenagers and they don't touch FB. Even Instagram is of minor concern to them.
Many adults I know have left FB as well. I use it 1/10th of what I use to. Its a garbage heap now.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,128
18,900
136
I don't even know how you would break up Facebook. Lets say we go the way of the Baby Bells, and split the company into 4. Pretty soon most people would have migrated to just one of those, because we all want to be on the one that has our friends, and none of us are going to want to have 2-3 different 'facebooks' installed on our phone. We want one place for all of it. Within probably 3 years we would be back to one company that is as big as Facebook is now.
The co-founder of Facebook thinks it should be broken up. As for how to do it, one easy way to start is to separate Facebook and Instagram again.

Simply put, Facebook has far, far too much power over the media landscape. It's best for the country that we break it up. If it re-forms again, just break it up again.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,763
1,920
126
AOC thinks a corporation should be in charge of establishing the veracity of their customers statements, and you fellows think that's a good idea?
Then I should be able to run an ad on my local radio station saying my competitor spits in his customers' food and kicks puppies for fun. The corporation shouldn't be in charge of establishing the veracity of my statement.
 

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,742
496
126
Hope she runs for pres one day. If only to see conservatives, deplorables, right wing medias ballistic reaction to her. :p
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,619
593
126
AOC thinks a corporation should be in charge of establishing the veracity of their customers statements, and you fellows think that's a good idea?
AOC and the rest of the Progressheviks are pushing for that because they have the list of approved fact checkers and what the "truth" should be.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,492
2,994
126
AOC thinks a corporation should be in charge of establishing the veracity of their customers statements, and you fellows think that's a good idea?
I think the key distinction here is, election campaigning.
And this nation already heavily regulates that in various ways.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY