Today is a historic day. President Donald Trump just became the third President in American History to have officially been impeached by the House of Representatives.
As of the moment this article was published, Donald Trump himself was still unaware of his impeachment, because he was in the middle of holding a rally to distract from the impeachment process.
If youâre not sure what this means or how the process continues from this point, check out CopyrightBroâs Impeachment Briefing.
Thereâs so much information about the impeachment of Donald Trump that itâs easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees given the constantly-bloated 24-hour news cycle that surrounds our President. There are a few important things that We The People need to understand at this point in the game: how the impeachment process works, what Trump is being accused of having done wrong, and how the political party machines will try to use the whole charade to their benefit. Once you understand those things in context, you can begin to form your own educated opinions about how our congressional leaders and executives are conducting themselves, and whether or not the President deserves to be impeached.
The most fundamental thing to understand is how the impeachment process works. I am no legal expert, but thereâs a common misconception that impeachment IS the act of removing a President from office, when in reality, impeachment is a step in a process that can lead to the removal of the President. The first step in the impeachment process is for the House of Representatives to conduct an investigation into whether the President (or other public officer) may have done something wrong. If they find evidence that he or she has done something wrong, whether it be a criminal act or behaving in a manner inconsistent with their office, the House Judiciary Committee will draft articles of impeachment.* The articles of impeachment are the legal documents asserting that the President has done something wrong, and explaining what they are being charged with. After these articles are drafted, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a vote to determine whether they should be advanced to the full HOR for consideration. If they vote no, the process is over, but if they vote yes, then the whole House will vote on whether or not to âimpeachâ the President. If they vote no, again, the process ends. If they vote yes (a simple majority is sufficient), the president will have been officially âimpeachedâ, but that doesnât mean that he will be removed from office, necessarily. If he is impeached, then the Senate takes over the process, because theyâre the chamber of Congress responsible for holding a trial of the President to determine whether he is guilty of what he is accused of in the articles of impeachment. After the trial, the full Senate will vote on whether or not the President is guilty and should be removed from office. A two-thirds majority is required to remove the President from office, at which point, the Vice President would become the President.
In the case of Donald Trump, the House Judiciary Committee has drafted two articles of impeachment, and this morning, the committee voted 23-17 to advance them to the full House of Representatives for consideration and a vote, which will likely take place next week. The two articles of impeachment against President Trump accuse him of âabuse of powerâ and âobstruction of congressâ, which are both offenses that can be categorized as âother high crimes and misdemeanorsâ. The articles of impeachment are freely available on the internet, and anyone who wants to discuss this impeachment process should read them. Click here to download a PDF version. Theyâre only 9 pages long, and thereâs really no excuse not to read them. Here is a summary of the contents and implications of each article, with necessary context:
Article One â The first article of impeachment brought against Trump charges him with with âabuse of powerâ. This is the article that defines the offense that kicked off this whole impeachment process. A lot of people probably assume that the impeachment has something to do with allegations of collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russian operatives who interfered in the 2016 election, but this is not the case. Article one is narrow in scope, focusing solely on the much more recent issue of Trumpâs call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. According to an anonymous whistleblower, Trump leveraged U.S. military aid to Ukraine (aid which weâve been providing for years) on Zelenskyâs willingness to open an investigation into the activities of Hunter Biden (the son of former Vice President and 2020 Presidential candidate, Joe Biden), whom Trump believed was guilty of corruption and a beneficiary of nepotism based on his position on the Board of Directors for a Ukrainian energy company called Burisma Holdings (Hunter Biden had no experience in the energy industry when he took the board seat). The concern here is that, even if Hunter Biden and Joe Biden were guilty of corruption, Presidents still arenât allowed to seek help from foreign governments in elections, which is likely the reason Trump wanted dirt on Biden (who is one of the top polling candidates who may oppose Trump in the 2020 general election). The benefit of the doubt, in this case, is fairly weak. That argument is that perhaps Trump was only interested in fighting corruption, but starting with his biggest political opponent seems like a convenient choice when Trump hadnât requested any other foreign governments to initiate investigations of any other potentially corrupt American citizens.
Article Two â The second article of impeachment charges Trump with âobstruction of Congressâ, and relates to his conduct during the Houseâs investigation. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the âsole power of impeachmentâ, and under this constitutional power, they have to authority to subpoena witness testimony, records, and any other evidence that would be useful in determining whether to impeach the President. The White House, under Trumpâs authority, submitted a letter to the House leaders stating their unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation, saying that it was âillegitimateâ because the full House of Representatives didnât vote on whether or not to impeach the President before conducting their investigation. This seems (and is) ridiculous; it is the equivalent of asking for an indictment decision before the police officers/investigators are allowed to collect any evidence. Indeed, Trump did completely refuse to comply, handing over none of the requested documents and prohibiting those who work for him to testify, thereby infringing the HORâs Constitutional right to collect such evidence to conduct their âsole power of impeachmentâ.
Given that America is so divided over President Trump, itâs important to look at this from both sides.
While a lot of angry, ill-informed Democrats have been shouting âimpeachmentâ since Trump won the election, congressional Democrats were slow to actually initiate the impeachment process against President Trump. Of course, some will say this is because they had no concrete evidence, while others will say it was merely a strategic decision by Nancy Pelosi.
Of course, there is some degree of truth to both of those claims. Conclusive evidence that Trump colluded with the Russian operatives who influenced the 2016 election never surfaced. To many Trump supporters, in the wake of the long and unsuccessful campaign to oust him over the whole âRussian Collusionâ fiasco, the whole issue of him having allegedly abused his power in the Ukraine case feels like itâs been a blitz attack by Democrats, carried out swiftly and recklessly with the sole hope of removing him from office, regardless of the facts. However, anyone smart enough to have ended up in Congress can see how this is likely to play out: the House of Representatives will impeach Donald Trump, and then heâll be acquitted by the Senate. As far as the political fallout, it could really go either way. It could enrage Democrats and moderates who feel that the claims against Trump were unfairly dismissed, and drive them to vote in record numbers in 2020. It could also make Republicans and those who have always supported Donald Trump feel vindicated, and drive them to support him even more passionately.
However, the Democrats are rightly pointing out that even if you think youâve been unfairly charged with something, you donât get to just skip your court date and ignore subpoenas; I recently got a traffic ticket for making an illegal left turn in an intersection where there was no posted signage prohibiting my left turn. I think itâs extremely unfair, but I still have to go through the proper legal channels to prove my innocence, I canât simply refuse to participate in the legal process altogether, because those are crimes of their own, and in Trumpâs case, they directly impede the Houseâs âsole power of impeachmentâ. The biggest issue here is not what happened with Ukraine, though that is problematic, if true. The big issue here is that Trump, by refusing to cooperate with the legally conducted impeachment inquiry and instructing those beneath him to also refuse to cooperate, he is directly challenging the separation of powers and usurping power from the House of Representatives, regardless of whether the allegations from Article One were valid. This, if not punished, would set a dangerous precedent that gives the executive branch more power than the legislative branch, which is directly contrary to the form of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. When our Constitution was drafted, the authors sought to separate power equally between three distinct branches with a system of checks and balances so that no branch could amass more power than the two, because when that happens, the entire republic is placed on a slippery slope that can lead to dictatorship. That may sound dramatic, but let us not forget that Adolf Hitler rose to power by being elected democratically, and then usurping power by delegitimizing and weakening the German legislative body.
Next week, the full House of Representatives will vote on whether or not Trump should be formally charged with the offenses listed in the articles of impeachment. You may be wondering why the evidence against Trump isnât abundantly clear at this point, given that the HOR vote to impeach him is the next step in the process. To use the earlier analogy of a criminal trial, at this point in the process, evidence has been collected and weâre waiting on an indictment â evidence, in any legal case, impeachment or otherwise, wouldnât necessarily become public until it is brought up in the actual trial â so despite the fact that there seems to be little evidence in support of Article One, in fact we just donât know what that is, both because the Trump administration refused to provide any, and the small number of witnesses who testified to the House Judiciary Committee had no legal obligation to do so publicly. It is also worth noting that there is one piece of solid evidence which could immediately exonerate the President, though it has only been partially released. The White House, naturally, keeps records of all of Trumpâs phone calls, but so far they have only provided a ârough transcriptâ of his call with the Ukrainian President during which the alleged abuse of power occurred. Now, ârough transcriptâ is little more than an oxymoron: either the transcript provided is exact or it is a summary, there is no such thing as a ârough transcriptâ.
If the full House of Representatives does vote to impeach, Donald Trump will become the third President in United States history to actually have been impeached.
A formal trial would then take place in the Senate. After both sides have had the opportunity to provide evidence and testimony, the Senate will vote on whether or not the President deserves to be removed from office based on the results of the trial they conduct. However, itâs very unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will conduct anything resembling a just trial. He has remarked that he wants the whole process to be very quick, allegedly for the sake of expediency, although it seems more likely that he hopes to prevent the President from digging himself into an even deeper hole during his testimony to the Senate. McConnell went so far as to state that allowing either side to call witnesses would be âmutually assured destructionâ.
Given the deep partisan divide in Congress right now and the fact that the Republicans have the majority (with 53 seats; the Democrats have 45, and there are two independents), it is highly unlikely that 20 Republicans (the number needed to reach the two-thirds majority needed to remove Trump, assuming all of the Democrats and independents vote for removal) would break rank with the rest of their (usually) pro-Trump party. However, this could serve as an out for a silent faction of Republican Senators who think Trump is doing irreparable damage to their party, and in that case, a landslide could happen quite suddenly. The odds are extremely low, but the political situation in America is so volatile that we would be remiss not to consider all possibilities.
At the end of the day, it is most likely that Donald Trump will be impeached but not removed, though that doesnât mean that the whole process will have been for naught. Donald Trump is a parasite to our nation, and historians will look back on this moment in history as a turning point, and they will place the blame at the feet of the Senators who refused to conduct a just trial and convict him for the offense(s) of which he is admittedly guilty, offenses which will lead to the destabilization of our federal government and the eventual collapse of our republic.
You donât even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role, because impeachment is not about punishment, impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.
â Lindsey Graham, 1998
Lindsey Graham explains that a president stonewalling Congressional oversight is an impeachable offense. pic.twitter.com/tv88AilKUJ
â Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) April 26, 2019
Despite that rock solid position he took the last time a President was facing impeachment, Graham seems to have no issue with the fact that Trump refused to comply with congressional subpoenas, directly impeding their constitutional power of impeachment, saying that the whole process is âillegitimateâ, and based on hearsayâ.
This is unabashed hypocrisy; Lindsey Graham is an embarrassment to the people of South Carolina, and his electorate â Democrats, moderates, and Republicans, alike â all deserve better. Anyone who voted for him, even just a handful of years ago, certainly shouldnât feel like theyâre being well represented; the man is flimsier and more of a flip flop than those pretend shoes women wear out of the salon after getting pedicures.
Iâm not even from South Carolina and this man makes my blood boil; itâs high time that he crawls into a hole in the ground. Speaking of which, the inside of a hole would at least be a nice change of scenery over the inside of the closet within which he has dug his heels. To be clear, I wonât ridicule him for his sexuality (which many presume is of the homosexual variety, despite his laughable insistence to the contrary), but I will ridicule him for being such a craven that flimsy political power granted by his homophobic base is enough for him to ignore the innate desire we all have to connect with other human beings on the most deeply personal level. What kind of unfeeling person would chose such a life? Not one I would chose to represent me, certainly, if he lacks the basic courage to lead an honest personal life. Lindsey, if youâre reading this: just go for it man, youâll feel much better, and Iâm sure there are plenty of conscience-lacking twinks out there who would jump at the chance to be your live-in boyfriend/sugar baby.
Further instances of Grahamâs cowardice and hypocrisy are not hard to find: take, for example, his complete switch from boisterous critic to unshakable supporter of our Commander in Cheeto. What has Trump threatened him with to inspire such a drastic change of opinion since 2016?
If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.
â Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) May 3, 2016
He was, at one point, a staunch critic of Trumpâs border wall and immigration plan, calling them âstupidâ, âillegalâ, and ânot practicalâ. Fast forward two years, and heâs telling Trump to proceed in building the wall without congressional approval:
Mr. President, the Democrats are not working in good faith with you.
â Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) January 11, 2019
Declare emergency, build the wall now.
Examples of Grahamâs hypocrisy regarding Donald Trump alone are plentiful, and while this certainly lends itself to the theory that Trump has him by the balls, the truth, most likely, isn't that Trump has dirt on Graham, but rather that Graham is just disgustingly committed to upholding the status quo. His short-lived run for President was a weak power grab, and evolved into a poor attempt to save the Republican establishment from Donald Trump. Now that Trump has entranced a large swath of Republican voters, Graham will say anything to remain in his good graces. He has no shame. He puts party above all else, no matter how the party shifts or how often it results in his foot in his mouth.
It must be nice at times, not having a spine; you could weasel your way into all sorts of dark, uncomfortable places. If youâve got some extra cash laying around, throw it at Jaime Harrison, a South Carolinian running a strong campaign for Grahamâs Senate seat in 2020.
John Bowden, writing for The Hill:
President Trump's reelection campaign on Thursday tweeted an edited cover of Time magazine's "Person of the Year" issue that depicted the president's head on the shoulders of Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old climate change activist.
Is their whole reelection campaign plan to just keep poorly photoshopping Trumpâs face onto images of other people? Play to your audience, I guess.
This one was weird, though:
House Democrats can push their sham impeachment all they want.
â Trump War Room (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@TrumpWarRoom) December 10, 2019
President Trump's re-election is đśđťđ˛đđśđđŽđŻđšđ˛. pic.twitter.com/O7o02S26nS
I hope they realize that Thanosâs character arc was defined by dictatorship and mass murder, not to mention the fact that he died twice in that movie.
See also: Clearly jealous, Trump makes fun of Greta Thunberg (who is 16 years old) after TIME names her âPerson of the Yearâ.
Kamala got a lot of attention too early. Iâm afraid the same will likely be said for Pete Buttigieg, as well. I thought she was a contender for a while, and Iâm surprised that she dropped out as early as she did and was the first big name to do so, but Iâm not surprised that she didnât make it. I think this is for the best.
While she originally seemed fresh, that didnât last long, and I think people fell swiftly out of love with her during the debates. Her attitude was sometimes off-putting for someone hoping to be the leader of our country, and I personally wasnât a fan of her presumptive demeanor when she delivered what she thought was a zinger on stage. Additionally, as pointed out by Tulsi Gabbard, Kamalaâs record is one with quite a few dark spots, and some of them are hard to overlook.
I think Kamala is best suited for Congress. Sheâs smart, bold, and calculating; she was really in her element when she was grilling Brett Kavanaugh last year. We need more senators like her.
See also: her brilliant response to Trumpâs sarcastic farewell tweet.
Itâs rare that President Trump deserves praise, but I felt it was in order when he announced that he was banning flavored cigarettes. As it turns out, he isnât banning them because it wasnât politically popular and he doesnât have a fucking spine. From the New York Times:
Under pressure from his political advisers and lobbyists to factor in the potential pushback from his supporters, Mr. Trump has resisted moving forward with any action on vaping.
I find this supremely annoying. Everyone with a brain can piece together how vaping isnât good for you, and Trumpâs proposed ban wouldâve been an excellent way to dial down the attractiveness of the practice to those who arenât using it as an alternative to smoking.
Trumpâs supporters will probably try to play this as a win for civil liberties, but then why werenât they expressing concerns about civil liberties in September when the ban was announced? I donât think thatâs where their concerns truly lie; the truth is that vaping is simply popular enough among Trump supporters that cracking down on it would lead to unavoidable political fallout:
[Trump] is concerned about his chances in 2020, and allies working for the vaping industry have told Mr. Trump of battleground state polling of his own voters that showed the issue costing him support. [âŚ] The poll, which surveyed battleground state voters who vape, showed negative results for Mr. Trump if he went ahead with a ban.
Itâs pretty sad that this is the issue upon which Trump fans would be willing to withdraw their support. If I didnât know better, Iâd say itâs almost as if theyâre easily hoodwinked by powerful people who donât have their best interests at heart, and boy, do they have options.
There are many displays of patriotism that occur during a football game (which often border on nationalism and militarism), and I've always assumed they were the prerogative of the NFL and therefore funded by the league. I was shocked to learn that our military actually foots the bill for these demonstrations, such as when the flag is stretched across the field before games and during halftime, special events like flyovers, and most recently, all the desert brown âSalute to Serviceâ hoodies worn by players on the sidelines of last Sundayâs games.
As a patriot, I was outraged upon learning this information; Iâve written to my legislators to express my disapproval of the practice, and I recommend that anyone who supports our troops do the same. Iâm a big football fan and I love going to games, but weâve got to be honest with ourselves â the NFL is frivolous compared to the military â thereâs absolutely no reason for us to divert funds which could be used to improve facilities and increase pay for our service members to finance wasteful and unnecessary marketing ploys for an organization made up of millionaires. While this is obviously a case of mismanaged tax dollars, I believe itâs symptomatic of a deeper problem in our society.
Sport has always been closely associated with masculinity, and football â a very physical competition between men wherein success is dependent upon the teamâs ability to work together using strength, agility, and strategy to accomplish a goal â can be seen as a manifestation of masculinity.
Unfortunately, masculinity in America has recently been receiving a lot of criticism, because itâs become interwoven with a violent brand of militarism (see: Masculinity and Militarism). The NFL realizes this and theyâre using it to their advantage: their marketing team is savvy enough to see that drawing on the militaristic aspects of sport and trumping them up through the aforementioned displays creates a spectacle capable of engaging millions of men for whom football fulfills a need to connect with a more deeply masculine side of their identity, further ensnaring them in the idea of a masculinity that is predicated on militarism, which in the current political climate, can be easily mistaken for nationalist aggression.
Perhaps Iâm wrong, but in that case, I find it puzzling that sporting events (which, as mentioned previously, possess an inherent masculinity) are the only types of large public events where these overly patriotic displays occur. If they were truly about celebrating our country and reverence for those who serve, why would these displays not occur at other events that ARENâT inherently masculine, like fairs, concerts, or parades? The key here is that the NFL knows there is a financial benefit to taking advantage of the militarized perversion of masculinity that many have been hoodwinked into accepting.
Iâm not arguing that itâs bad for men to engage with or celebrate their masculinity, nor am I arguing that patriotic displays have no place in sport. In fact, I think we should take more opportunities to elevate favorable manifestations of masculinity, as well as to participate in patriotic displays which serve as reminders that we're ALL Americans with a shared set of values. The two are not mutually exclusive: as an Eagle Scout, I feel qualified to say that Boy Scouting is a good example of a program that celebrates masculinity and incorporates mildly militaristic practices that instill a deep respect for country (and actually leads many young men to serve) without conflating the two or perverting either.
The bottom line is this: if the NFL wants to have these displays, they should have to pay for them. Itâs not the tax payerâs responsibility to buy âsalute to serviceâ hoodies for the millionaire athletes on the sidelines of a football game, and if theyâre going to capitalize on the sacrifices made by our troops, they should at least have the dignity not to take money from those same troops to finance their disrespectful and socially detrimental marketing ploys.
President #DonaldTrump holds notes while speaking to the media before departing the White House for Texas đˇ: Mark Wilson #QuidProQuo pic.twitter.com/9Ee3tqKL8Z
— Getty Images News (@GettyImagesNews) November 20, 2019
I just hope theyâre giving him the washable Crayola markers.
Matt Egan, reporting for CNN Business:
Heliogen, a clean energy company that emerged from stealth mode on Tuesday, said it has discovered a way to use artificial intelligence and a field of mirrors to reflect so much sunlight that it generates extreme heat above 1,000 degrees Celsius.
Essentially, Heliogen created a solar oven â one capable of reaching temperatures that are roughly a quarter of what you'd find on the surface of the sun.
The breakthrough means that, for the first time, concentrated solar energy can be used to create the extreme heat required to make cement, steel, glass and other industrial processes. In other words, carbon-free sunlight can replace fossil fuels in a heavy carbon-emitting corner of the economy that has been untouched by the clean energy revolution.
Seems like this could be a real game changer. I donât mean to sound uneducated, but my only concern is that a fourth of the temperature of the sunâs surface sounds a bit warm; are we sure thatâs not gonna cause any unintended global heating?
Rudy Giuliani, President Trumpâs Cybersecurity Advisor, apparently had to go to the Apple Store to have his iPhone unlocked after he forgot his passcode. Giuliani confirmed this account, reported by NBC Newsâ Rich Schapiro, on his Twitter.
Forgive me for believing that nobody who is seventy five years old should be in any sort of IT or cybersecurity position. This gets right back to the issue of boomers not quite understanding whatâs happening around them, yet remaining as cocky as ever.
As a former Apple Store Specialist, this was always the most annoying sort of customer to deal with, because in almost all cases, they knew nothing about the technology upon which they relied, other than that they could shuffle into an Apple Store to demand some person younger than them make it start working again after theyâd forgotten something as elementary as a four-digit PIN. I can also vouch for the legitimacy of the photos presented by NBC: that really is what the internal system looks like on the iPad for technicians handling Genius Bar appointments.
Sahil Kapur, quoting Nancy Pelosi in a Bloomberg* article:
âWhat works in San Francisco does not necessarily work in Michigan,â Pelosi said at a roundtable of Bloomberg News reporters and editors on Friday. âWhat works in Michigan works in San Francisco â talking about workersâ rights and sharing prosperity.â [âŚ]
âAs a left-wing San Francisco liberal I can say to these people: What are you thinking?â Pelosi said. âYou can ask the left â theyâre unhappy with me for not being a socialist.â
Pelosi has a good point here, that points to a larger problem in American politics. Yes, someone needs to get Donald Trump out of the White House, but weâre never going to heal the divide between the left and right if we donât stop the pendulum of political power and public opinion from swinging so wildly, back and forth every few years. Installing an anti-Trump âsaviorâ wonât necessarily make things better, it will just swap the roles of which group gets to be the indignant victims and which gets to be the vindicated idiots. Weâve got to collectively take steps toward one another, not run in opposite directions.
Facebook has long been a bit vague when it comes to laying out their political leanings. That seems to be coming to a calculated end.
This excellent piece from Popular Information illustrates a case where Facebook is breaking their own rules, seemingly, for political reasons. In this instance, theyâre refusing to enforce a rule that bans networks of political ânewsâ pages that work together but donât acknowledge that theyâre affiliated. It seems that most whoâve read this piece are, understandably, perceiving it as a threat because of the massive power Facebook demonstrably holds over the American electorate, which is a valid concern. However, I donât believe that Facebookâs decision to allow one very successful, very political network of allegedly unaffiliated pages to continue operating was made for the sake of promoting a political agenda; no, this is an exercise in self preservation.
Facebookâs malfeasance is one rare topic upon which liberals and conservatives generally agree. There have been many calls for Facebook to be more heavily regulated from Republican and Democratic legislators alike, however I believe that the Democrats have slightly outpaced Republicans in calling for Facebook to be dealt with, despite the fact that the notion of privacy as a civil liberty seems to fall slightly more in line with traditional conservatism. This trend can likely be attributed to the fact that Democrats and their elected officials tend to be a bit younger than Republicans, and thus more in tune to issues of this nature.
Given the extreme political division our country is experiencing (which Facebook has cultivated for monetary gain), the fact that their deservingness of punishment is one topic most people can agree upon puts Facebook in a very dangerous position, not to mention the fact that the drum beat is growing ever louder, and more and more people are tugging at the curtain.
One solution to that looming threat? Take a side, and further capitalize upon the division youâve sewn by allowing that side to defend you to the death. Give one side or the other a couple free passes, have a few chats with the right folks, and then step back while that side begins to see you as one of their own, and then youâre good to go. It honestly doesnât matter which side Facebook takes, because taking either side would all but ensure that party's loyalty, not only because they donât want to upset Facebook and have their reach limited, but because both parties are so committed to doing the opposite of what the other party wants.
Now, in this case, Facebook seems to have chosen to ally themselves with the Republicans, but again, which side they pick doesnât really make a difference. In defense of the Republicans, Facebook just as easily couldâve jumped on the left-bound bandwagon â a few public statements in support of people with confusing genders and a few removed Trump ads, and theyâd have them in their pocket, too. I believe this choice was made out of convenience; as mentioned above, slightly fewer conservative law makers have gone after Facebook.
If youâre a Republican, this should offend your sensibilities. As stated previously, privacy is a civil liberty that has long been a value of traditional conservatives, and Facebook is the biggest threat to personal privacy our country has ever seen. True conservatives should be outraged that Facebook is even trying to get in bed with them, and that their purported reason for doing so is their mutual support of free speech â what Facebook is trying to paint as free speech (political advertisements that include false statements of fact), isnât. Itâs paid speech, itâs false advertising, and itâs speech that presents a clear and present danger â itâs NOT protected by the First Amendment. In any case, free speech is a patently American value, not a partisan one.
Facebook worked hard for a long time to avoid taking a side, and we should enforce that hard earned neutrality by refusing to allow the public perception of Facebook to shift. They do not deserve to be seen as a company guided by any sort of moral compass or political agenda, because in reality, their chief motivators are, and have always been, financial.
TL,DR: Facebook is picking a political side so that their own regulation will become a partisan issue, and therefore never actually gain enough traction for any meaningful legislation to pass.
Wow. I donât know how much evidence there is for these claims, but theyâre certainly bold; calling for Hillary to join the race â Tulsi is not holding back.
In case you missed it, Facebook has updated their advertising policy to make it easier for people, companies, and campaigns to publish ads that contain false or misleading statements, a move which ought to be condemned equally from conservatives and liberals.
The old rule was that you couldnât publish ads that contained such statements, but the protections were rolled back last week to allow any statement that hasnât been proven to be false by an independent fact checking organization, and even that flimsy rule doesnât apply to politicians, so they can, in theory and in practice, publish ads on Facebook that contain completely false information with no repercussions. Even before this rule change, misinformation campaigns on Facebook led to the extreme political division our country is experiencing, and significantly influenced several high profile elections around the world. I recognize that thatâs a lofty claim â if you donât believe me, check out this piece I wrote about a film called âThe Great Hack,â and then watch it for yourself on Netflix.
Hereâs a fun exercise, letâs see how two of the biggest news outlets in the country, one stereotypically more liberal and the other stereotypically more conservative, chose to represent the same story. Given Zuckerbergâs actual quote and the unpartisan nature of this issue, this should be a fairly straightforward chance to identify potential bias. Letâs get started.
Lest we judge too soon, itâs important to know what Mark Zuckerberg actually said, so that we can draw reasonable conclusions about how the news outlets are presenting it. In an interview that covered censorship and in the wake of Facebookâs recent policy change that allows politicians to publish ads with Information that is known to be false, Zuckerberg said âmy belief is that in a democracy, I donât think that we want private companies censoring politicians in the news.â
Here were the headlines of the stories from CNN and Fox News which covered that interview.
CNN: âFacebook's Mark Zuckerberg: Private companies should not censor politiciansâ
Fox News: âFacebook's Mark Zuckerberg rejects calls for Trump's social media to be shut down in exclusive interviewâ
This is only one example, so perhaps itâs just a misrepresentation, but based on this exercise alone, âfair and balancedâ seems like a stretch.
This has been quite a week for everyoneâs favorite lifeless-eyed big tech CEO. First he got into it with Elizabeth Warren over whether or not politicians should be able to publish ads that contain lies, and now this. Iâm glad to see that Washington is starting to recognize what an enormous enemy of democracy Facebook truly is.
In an interview with Fox Newsâ Dana Perino, he was asked a question about the disagreement between Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris during the fourth Democratic debate over whether Donald Trumpâs Twitter account should be suspended. Zuckerberg responded by saying âmy belief is that in a democracy, I donât think that we want private companies censoring politicians in the news.â Of course he doesnât want to censor what politicians say in their ads. The more ads they sell, the more money they make. The more sensational those ads are, the more engagement they deliver, and thus, the more money Facebook makes.
No, Mark Zuckerberg doesnât want to censor politicians, in fact, he wants them to publish the most ridiculous ads possible. Then heâll just censor all the people talking about those politicians to effectively gerrymander opinions, enabling companies like Cambridge Analytica to publish their own sensational ads (which are personally targeted to undecided voters, whose information theyâve collected and analyzed without consent), effectively allowing them to sell out major elections to the highest bidder.
Heâs trying to pass this off as a free speech issue, to seem like heâs making the tough decision now that will seem like the right one in the long run. He cites his confidence in people as a reason that the truth will prevail despite this inconvenient but necessary decision to allow the erosion of truth in our society. Fortunately, Iâm not the only one seeing through Zuckerbergâs bullshit here; CNBCâs Steve Kovach had a similar take:
While thereâs almost no human involvement in deciding what to pump into your Facebook feed, there is an algorithm thatâs making those decisions. In general, that algorithm is designed to keep users sucked in, and the best way to do that is showing them stuff that will engage, enrage or feed their biases. Truth doesnât matter to an algorithm. But when youâre delivering news and information at a massive scale, you also carry the responsibility to get it right. Facebook is doing that on a scale never seen before in human history. And its leader admitted on Thursday that it wants no part in playing the role of fact-checker. In fact, in the case of false political advertisements, itâs willing to get paid to spread those falsehoods.
History wonât look fondly upon that.
See also: this.
This is why Elizabeth Warren is in my top three for the 2020 election; she has a terrific way of playing by the rules while embarrassing her critics. Her response to last weekâs Facebook advertising policy change (news which led me to read the policy and notice a glaringly hypocritical policy about ads for surveillance equipment) was the best clap back anyone couldâve hoped for.
You know that identity politics has a firm hold on our nation when journalists for the New York Times are incapable of understanding why an open minded, moderate presidential candidate could attract followers. Lisa Lererâs piece is trash, and she is only serving to further divide our country by telling the far left snowflakes and SJWâs who read her nonsense that having a variety of opinions is so bad that itâs not only considered treasonous within the Democratic Party, but that it equates to appealing to white nationalists, anti-Semites, and the alt right. Disgusting.
Tulsi had a pretty good response.
As if to prove my point, NYT just published a âgreatest hitsâ smear piece. All your favorite hits in one article! These are the folks who will be acting as the âneutralâ questioners/moderators of Tuesdayâs debate lol
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 12, 2019
Dan Lamothe, writing for Dan Lamothe writing for
The Pentagon will deploy an additional 1,800 troops to Saudi Arabia, senior defense officials said Friday, a modest increase in the U.S. militaryâs presence in the Middle East meant to deter Iranian aggression. [âŚ]
President Trump has approved the deployment of an additional 14,000 U.S. troops to the Middle East since spring
I am not a pacifist, but our presence in the Middle East is not a necessity, itâs war mongering. Fourteen thousand is a huge number, and the brave men and women we send to fight for us deserve the respect of only being called upon when itâs truly necessary. True patriots should see our continued military engagement in Middle Eastern affairs as a direct affront to our troops.
Specifically in the case of the Iranian attack on Saudi Arabian oil installations, thatâs a situation that should be between Iran and Saudi Arabia; our dog doesnât need to be in that fight. In any case, Saudi Arabia sure seems to fit the bill for âshithole country,â so itâs hard to imagine why Don is so apt to help defend them. Perhaps itâs because he and the Saudi crown prince share a distaste for the free press (read: the Saudi government chopped up a journalist last year).
From an opinion piece by Molly Roberts for The Washington Post:
Thereâs something known to those who grew up online as a âcursed boomer meme.â These memes are cursed because they are, basically, bad: occasionally indecipherable and almost never achieving the effect they intend. Theyâre boomer memes because they come from that crowd-of-a-certain-age that seems to have stumbled onto the Internet and now keeps bumping into things.
Many of these memes are variations on formats popular among millennials, but warped to the edges of recognition by some soon-to-be grandfather who has recently discovered the wonders of Photoshop [âŚ]
Some are originals, borrowing only the conventions of meme-making â macros with the white âImpactâ font, say, or excessive collaging â to build something bafflingly new. Most of all, theyâre deadly earnest, which is sort of the opposite of what memes are supposed to be.
Itâs not that the president loves memes, though he does. Itâs that he loves these cursed memes in particular. Because as much as Trump is the Nickelback president, or the post-truth president, or the reality TV president, or the 140-character president, he is, above all, the cursed boomer president.
Roberts makes a terrific point here. I think this will ultimately be one of the best ways to describe Donald Trump â the president who was woefully out of touch, not only with his constituents, but with the rapidly changing world he was surprised to find himself âleading.â In most of his actions, but especially in what he does online, Trump really is like an old person who just doesnât quite get it.
The thing about many people who are around Donald Trumpâs age (and a lot of early Gen Xers, too) is that they really donât seem to understand the nuance of whatâs happening in the world around them. Nevertheless, you can bet your balls that they intend to be just as loud and as adamant as theyâve ever been, if not more so, for the sake of exuding a false bravado to mask their perpetual confusion.
