Potential TikTok Ban

[BobDole]

Sounds like all of our great congressmen and women are up in arms about "the children" and want to ban TikTok. Don't mind that they all are paid off heavily by Zuckerburg and Google. They make it sound like China is stealing the data they already got from Facebook and Google, but there is much more to it.

Funny how both sides are "agreeing" on this and yet most of the old fogies in congress don't even have a basic understanding of technology.

[Plasmodium]

37 minutes ago, BobDole said:

Sounds like all of our great congressmen and women are up in arms about "the children" and want to ban TikTok. Don't mind that they all are paid off heavily by Zuckerburg and Google. They make it sound like China is stealing the data they already got from Facebook and Google, but there is much more to it.

Funny how both sides are "agreeing" on this and yet most of the old fogies in congress don't even have a basic understanding of technology.

Lol watching Zuckerberg explain the facebook business model to your colleague Leahy was cringe AF!

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, BobDole said:

Sounds like all of our great congressmen and women are up in arms about "the children" and want to ban TikTok. Don't mind that they all are paid off heavily by Zuckerburg and Google. They make it sound like China is stealing the data they already got from Facebook and Google, but there is much more to it.

Funny how both sides are "agreeing" on this and yet most of the old fogies in congress don't even have a basic understanding of technology.

If we only allowed congress to act on things they understood, they'd get nothing done.  Actually that's not such a bad idea.

Almost as bad as old fogies who don't understand "technology" is the youngins who equate TikTok with technology.  I'd kinda say TikTok would be the pimple on technology's azz.

[Nailbender]

56 minutes ago, BerniePragle said:

If we only allowed congress to act on things they understood, they'd get nothing done.  Actually that's not such a bad idea.

Almost as bad as old fogies who don't understand "technology" is the youngins who equate TikTok with technology.  I'd kinda say TikTok would be the pimple on technology's azz.

I would be ecstatic if your first paragraph came true.

[BobDole]

1 hour ago, BerniePragle said:

If we only allowed congress to act on things they understood, they'd get nothing done.  Actually that's not such a bad idea.

Almost as bad as old fogies who don't understand "technology" is the youngins who equate TikTok with technology.  I'd kinda say TikTok would be the pimple on technology's azz.

You're right TikTok isn't technology, it's just an app that has a really good algorithm. Big words they don't understand scare boomers. Richard Hudson of North Carolina trying to figure out how Wi-Fi works and how phones access it was comical and cringeworthy at the same time. Greg Pence also was asking why he wasn't getting any money, he's about as dense as his brother.

[VakAttack]

They need to institute an age limit on Congresspersons' able to deal w/ technology, because watching some of these folks try to navigate even basic stuff is cringeworthy.  This should obviously apply to the Senate which I would reasonably guess skews even older.  Just have a committee, nobody over 50 allowed.

[Plasmodium]

17 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

They need to institute an age limit on Congresspersons' able to deal w/ technology, because watching some of these folks try to navigate even basic stuff is cringeworthy.  This should obviously apply to the Senate which I would reasonably guess skews even older.  Just have a committee, nobody over 50 allowed.

Not bad.  AOC and Granny Lauren locked in a room all by themselves.  Frankly, dubious whether they are better versed at technology than Leahy was.  Still, get the cameras rolling.

[LJB]

[BerniePragle]

1 hour ago, Nailbender said:

I would be ecstatic if your first paragraph came true.

I have long thought that the vast majority of the laws that needed to be made were made in the first 20 or so years this country existed.  You don't murder someone, you don't steal someone's property, etc, etc.  Anymore I think their primary objective is screwing the middle class by implementing all sorts of legal(?) shenanigans.  I've long thought "we" would be better off electing representatives that couldn't find their way to Washington, than electing the same turds that we elect over and over.

Technology laws are no different than nearly all laws coming out of Washington.  I think it's generally accepted that our representatives in Washington know very little about the laws they make.  They are written and worded by lobbyists who work at the behest of corporations who benefit from the laws being made.  Who would be naive enough to believe these clowns know the nuts-and-bolts about the economy, finance, science (of which "technology" as used here is only a small sub-set)?

I can assure everyone that the representative here in NYS-23 for way too long never received my vote.  He's only gone now because he resigned over an admitted sexual assault during an official function.  He now works as a lobbyist in Washington.  Great system, huh?  If you'd like Nailbender, I can tell you what party he represented, how he kept getting elected, and the resumes of a couple of the candidates of the other party that he defeated over the years.  However, you won't like it.

[Nailbender]

8 hours ago, BerniePragle said:

I have long thought that the vast majority of the laws that needed to be made were made in the first 20 or so years this country existed.  You don't murder someone, you don't steal someone's property, etc, etc.  Anymore I think their primary objective is screwing the middle class by implementing all sorts of legal(?) shenanigans.  I've long thought "we" would be better off electing representatives that couldn't find their way to Washington, than electing the same turds that we elect over and over.

Technology laws are no different than nearly all laws coming out of Washington.  I think it's generally accepted that our representatives in Washington know very little about the laws they make.  They are written and worded by lobbyists who work at the behest of corporations who benefit from the laws being made.  Who would be naive enough to believe these clowns know the nuts-and-bolts about the economy, finance, science (of which "technology" as used here is only a small sub-set)?

I can assure everyone that the representative here in NYS-23 for way too long never received my vote.  He's only gone now because he resigned over an admitted sexual assault during an official function.  He now works as a lobbyist in Washington.  Great system, huh?  If you'd like Nailbender, I can tell you what party he represented, how he kept getting elected, and the resumes of a couple of the candidates of the other party that he defeated over the years.  However, you won't like it.

I don't care about the details. I still don't like it. You and I got off to a bad start. Now I'm drunk and we don't seem so different. Funny how that works.

[Mike Parrish]

The US needs its own version of the GPDR

https://gdpr-info.eu/

[Plasmodium]

2 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I don't care about the details. I still don't like it. You and I got off to a bad start. Now I'm drunk and we don't seem so different. Funny how that works.

Cheers!

[BerniePragle]

8 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I don't care about the details. I still don't like it. You and I got off to a bad start. Now I'm drunk and we don't seem so different. Funny how that works.

I'm quite sure that our core values are pretty similar, even when you're sober, lol.  I suspect that when it comes to our principles and what we value in life and other people, we're very similar.  I've told many people, that I differ politically with, that exact same thing.  I've also said on here that BOTH political parties have successfully divided us over issues that are not terribly important to me in order to stay in power and fill their pockets with money, and their benefactors' pockets with money.
Politically, I'm quite sure we're different.  I guess you have a party that's doing what you want in Washington.  For me, they both are bought-and-paid-for, with zero integrity.

Maybe the late Senator @BobDole would like the details.  They sure help explain his problem with technological boobs representing us in DC.  This is but one situation.  I'm sure there are many others from "both sides".

Tom Reed was a staunch Republican, which served him well here in rural Upstate NY, representing NYS-23 (where my wife and I live) from 2010 to 2022, when he resigned over an admitted sexual assualt during an official function.  His go-to move was to paint his opponents as "Extreme Ithaca Liberals", even if they were not from Ithaca.  (You kind of have to know this area to understand.)   https://www.ithaca.com/news/reed-campaign-revives-ithaca-liberal-tag-in-new-ad-campaign/article_4f27ce4a-1f2b-11e8-9ff2-3f1430282a8f.html

He of course pounded the "They're gonna take your guns" drum.  Those two moves were pretty much all he needed.  BTW, he was Trump's relection campaign manager (just for this area?).  He owned a medical debt collection agency, which he later turned over to his wife to get around conflict of interest problems.  He now is a lobbyist in Washington.  Cool, huh?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Reed_(politician)

His last two Democrat opponents were:

 Tracy Mitrano, a computer science professor at Cornell
https://www.linkedin.com/in/mitranoassociates/

John Plumb, BS, MS Physics; PhD Aerospace Engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Plumb

The difference in integrity between Reed and Mitrano or Plumb could be subjective (not by me though).  The difference in technical competence is not.

Don't you suppose that if we voted more for people with a background like John Plumb and less for the same old medical debt collector that gets dangled in front of us time and again, we may have less of a back-biting $hitstorm in DC?  Certainly, we'd have less blank stares when technical issues were being discussed.  Again, don't equate technology with social media and such nonsense.  There are many, many technical issues that have little to nothing to do with the public's use of computers.

[BobDole]

1 hour ago, BerniePragle said:

Don't you suppose that if we voted more for people with a background like John Plumb and less for the same old medical debt collector that gets dangled in front of us time and again, we may have less of a back-biting $hitstorm in DC?  Certainly, we'd have less blank stares when technical issues were being discussed.  Again, don't equate technology with social media and such nonsense.  There are many, many technical issues that have little to nothing to do with the public's use of computers.

Unfortunately the two party system has been the demise of the country. It's an "either/or" scenario with both parties and too many people are one or two issue voters. Both parties are great at instilling fear in their side and then capitalizing on it. If you are worried about your guns you better vote Republican or the big bad libs are going to come dressed in drag and take them away! 

[El Luchador]

1 minute ago, BobDole said:

Unfortunately the two party system has been the demise of the country. It's an "either/or" scenario with both parties and too many people are one or two issue voters. Both parties are great at instilling fear in their side and then capitalizing on it. If you are worried about your guns you better vote Republican or the big bad libs are going to come dressed in drag and take them away! 

You say that sarcastically but there is no doubt if Biden or Obama has the ability they would. They will continue incrementally as aggressively as they can until they meet that goal. 

[Nailbender]

Alright, I'm sober...ish. I still feel the same way.

[Plasmodium]

36 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

You say that sarcastically but there is no doubt if Biden or Obama has the ability they would. They will continue incrementally as aggressively as they can until they meet that goal. 

IF they did such a thing  - It would be legal, so that would make it right.  It would also be insulated from reprisal as that would be much, much worse, at least in the view of liberals. 

All the liberals need to accomplish this feat in one fell swoop is a properly packed court. McConnell provided the ethical cover to pack it, so let the chips fall where they may!

[El Luchador]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

IF they did such a thing  - It would be legal, so that would make it right.  It would also be insulated from reprisal as that would be much, much worse, at least in the view of liberals. 

All the liberals need to accomplish this feat in one fell swoop is a properly packed court. McConnell provided the ethical cover to pack it, so let the chips fall where they may!

Putting people on the court with an agenda to change the constitution from it historical application and plain text meaning would not make it legal.  It would just be activism. 

[Mike Parrish]

4 hours ago, BobDole said:

Unfortunately the two party system has been the demise of the country. It's an "either/or" scenario with both parties and too many people are one or two issue voters. Both parties are great at instilling fear in their side and then capitalizing on it. If you are worried about your guns you better vote Republican or the big bad libs are going to come dressed in drag and take them away! 

I'd take that further.

The two party primary system is what's propelling more and more extreme candidates into office.

 

[Mike Parrish]

2 hours ago, El Luchador said:

Putting people on the court with an agenda to change the constitution from it historical application and plain text meaning would not make it legal.  It would just be activism. 

Hobbs would like a word.

[El Luchador]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

Hobbs would like a word.

I need more information. Hobbs rings a bell but not everything is firing today.  

Edited March 25, 2023 by El Luchador

[Mike Parrish]

The decision overturning Roe v Wade.

Also, look up stare decisis.

[El Luchador]

6 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

The decision overturning Roe v Wade.

Also, look up stare decisis.

Roe was an example of judicial activism. Legal experts said all along that constitutionally it was unsubstantiated.  The right to life is much more constitutional than the right to an abortion. Especially since one is actually in the construction and the other is not.

[Mike Parrish]

3 minutes ago, El Luchador said:

Roe was an example of judicial activism. Legal experts said all along that constitutionally it was unsubstantiated.  The right to life is much more constitutional than the right to an abortion. Especially since one is actually in the construction and the other is not.

Watch for Loving and Obergfell to fall next.

[El Luchador]

8 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Watch for Loving and Obergfell to fall next.

Who is challenging Loving? That's just stupid.