https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1348599278877470721

Interesting. Cumulus Media now giving a few hosts an ultimatum.

I may have missed this. What exactly would have to happen for Trump to be legally barred from running again? I'm getting the impression from NPR coverage that no one really knows for sure. Is that right, or am I missing pieces of the puzzle?

Also, is Biden trying to put the brakes on the impeachment push? Is it his judgment that preventing Trump from running again isn't going to work, thus impeachment will just generate a lot of unproductive noise?

Yes, it's easy for you to say that standards have worked in the past, but until you take a good look at what was going on in the past, that statement is rather doubtful because you don't consider how the standards were enforced. For most of those 1000 years the standards were strictly dictated by The Church, and if you would have stepped out of line, or even perceived to have possibly stepped out of line, you'd be subjected to The Inquisition. — Metaphysician Undercover

We don't need to go back that far. Up until the 1990s, mass media was limited to very few people and journalistic ethics were self enforced.

My attitude arises out of about a billion hours spent in the north Florida woods, which I have discovered to be more interesting than human beings, on average, generally speaking. — Hippyhead

Having grown up spending a lot of time in the woods, I often prefer it over the social world as well. But if ever there were a time where we need all rational hands on deck, it's right now. So what I had said was more a personal goal: be more social, be more active, try to organize, try to bring people in, unionize, etc. But I encourage others who have similar temperaments to do the same, given the unprecedented circumstances. Every little bit helps.

So, we should sue Fox News for pretending to offer fair and balanced news? Aren't they going to say "free speech" and tell you to fuck off? — Benkei

Dominion software got them to make a complete retraction.

Agreed. And if I could add, not just educate them, but be educated by them where possible. That's surely implied in the concept of not holding them in contempt. — Hippyhead

Yes, but worth pointing out more explicitly. Appreciated.

Dominion software got them to make a complete retraction. — Hanover

After being threatened with a billion dollar lawsuit. I hope that sends a message, and I hope they go for the jugular.

Yes, but that's libel law. If my car doesn't start as a purchaser I have rights. If I buy a paper and it's filled with lies, what exactly is the action I can bring? That it isn't fit for purpose? And the obvious defense would be freedom of speech.

I may have missed this. What exactly would have to happen for Trump to be legally barred from running again? I'm getting the impression from NPR coverage that no one really knows for sure. Is that right, or am I missing pieces of the puzzle? — Hippyhead

If they convict him in the senate, he's barred from holding public office again. But that's unlikely to happen, given that 67 senators are needed to do so.

What is Trump doing with his new found free time?

“We need to help induce national calm NOW,” Cumulus’s executive vice president of content Brian Philips wrote in the memo. The company “will not tolerate any suggestion that the election has not ended. The election has been resolved and there are no alternate acceptable ‘paths.’”

Philips added, “If you transgress this policy, you can expect to separate from the company immediately.” —

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/talk-radio-owner-threatens-to-fire-hosts-who-dispute-election-results/

Interesting. Mark Levin, Dan Bongino, and Ben Shapiro all employees. It's about time talk radio joins the fray.

But if ever there were a time where we need all rational hands on deck, it's right now. — Xtrix

Ok, I can hear that. Really, I can. So here's a little story.

About a year ago I made a somewhat serious effort to engage by becoming a nuclear weapons activist. I made a 200 page website and so on.

I made a good faith effort to engage on Twitter with other nuclear weapons type folks, who are on average very sincere and well educated etc. I followed every one I could find, and engaged with anyone who showed interest. It proved to be a total waste of time. People on Twitter, even the very intelligent ones, just shout little blurbs at each other. Very little real engagement, NOTHING at all like what is accomplished here.

So I wrote article about forums and tried to interest the nuclear weapons community in that. I volunteered to do what whatever was needed to go in that direction. A no go operation. Just not interested. At all. The vast majority of emails I sent to any nuclear weapons site received no response. I tried donating money. Didn't help.

My website was the only nuclear weapons site I could find that tried to link to all the other nuclear weapons site. All the other sites focused on their own projects while largely ignoring everyone else.

But all of that turned out to not really be the real obstacle. I retired from activism when it became clear to me that nothing substantial is going to happen with nuclear weapons until after the next detonation. I'm hoping to be dead before that happens, so....

Sorry to honk this hysterical horn yet again, but...

Look at the world of philosophy, which is supposedly about rational thought. Very close to exactly no interest in nuclear weapons, no matter the level of education.

All of this is just to explain why retarded squirrels are looking pretty good here. That's not sarcasm, I'm being serious. My little friend Marco the retarded squirrel is pure, innocent, uncontaminated by this world, closer to the Great Whatever than I can ever be. BTW, my degree is in special education, so retarded anybody has always had a place in my heart.

Anyway, there you go, way more than you wanted to know about that! :-)

The common denominator in all those interactions is you.

If they convict him in the senate, he's barred from holding public office again. — Xtrix

Are you sure that's all that's required? I'm hearing jabber about there needing to be another vote specifically about banning him from running.

But that's unlikely to happen, given that 67 senators are needed to do so.

I'm hearing that what's needed is two thirds of the Senators who show up to vote. If that's true, that's a very different situation, yes?

es, but that's libel law. If my car doesn't start as a purchaser I have rights. If I buy a paper and it's filled with lies, what exactly is the action I can bring? That it isn't fit for purpose? And the obvious defense would be freedom of speech. — Benkei

Here's one means of enforcement:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/487247

I retired from activism when it became clear to me that nothing substantial is going to happen with nuclear weapons until after the next detonation. — Hippyhead

I do admire the quit you have in you.

The common denominator in all those interactions is you. — Benkei

Ok, so you're saying that few to none of the nuclear weapons sites link to each other because I'm somehow creating an obstacle?

You're saying that the supposedly oh so clever little wanna be philosopher people on this site, and the pro philosophers too, overwhelmingly ignore nuclear weapons because of me? I'm the obstacle?

As usual Benkei, you're clogging the thread with your little ego. Now you will make some supposedly clever little remark in a desperate attempt to save face. So very tiresome.

I do admire the quit you have in you. — Hanover

I admire how insanely clever your lazy little remarks can be.

Sure. If I own a newspaper I can demand how it's run. But your original analogy was that of a consumer. I'm just not seeing it.

[irrelevant wall of text whining about something irrelevant]

Me: maybe it's you.

You: you're clogging the thread.

:chin: sure buddy.

Sure. If I own a newspaper I can demand how it's run. But your original analogy was that of a consumer. I'm just not seeing it. — Benkei

There was a time when aspiring journalists took courses in journalistic ethics and were expected to adhere to them as part of the industry standard. The enforcement was voluntary before and it seemed to work, so we were in a position where we could expect truth to be the goal of reporting. I realize that the First Amendment will serve as a barrier against direct enforcement, but I'm not convinced it cannot be enforced at all, which is what I see with the responsible owners of mass media doing (at least in the example I referenced).

I too share the interest in nuclear weapons and, you're right, it's taken a back seat to climate change and other issues (social justice, etc). But taking a step back, it seems as if you took a real shot at it and were met with multiple dead-ends. That's discouraging, no doubt, but the solution isn't to lay down. It's to find other avenues. Just from what you've posted, I think one area has been too much reliance on the Internet. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's what I gather.

Incidentally, I've done the same myself -- joined a new group last summer, had 170 members within a week (more than I expected), but then quickly turned into exactly nothing, eventuallbeing reduced to just one person occasionally sharing various articles. I had encouraged them to do Zoom meetings or meet in person if possible, because that is FAR more meaningful and more "real" than communicating from behind a screen and, when posting, to write THEIR thoughts, not simply sharing links to articles, memes, or quotations, as people tend to ignore those because they're everywhere. This advice was not heeded, and the group is now a ghost town. Totally pointless. I myself am complicit in it, as I could have pushed harder for these things myself, even if not an administrator.

But we can't let results like this discourage us. I have no doubt that things can be done -- that people can organize, even in small groups, to get things done. So instead I've turned my attention to forming a union at my workplace. I do this by talking to my coworkers and per diem staff individually. It's a slow process, and not guaranteed to work. But that doesn't bother me. If I fail, I'm sure I'll learn something important from it.

Long story short, I'd encourage you to keep trying or move to something where you can possibly get more traction. The climate change movement is an important one. I think nuclear weapons are equally as important, as it's an existential threat, but it's simply not getting the attention it deserves right now, so that's a bit of bad luck for you if that's what you happen to settle upon. But there are endless possibilities for activism. Perhaps even looking to more local problems.

We probably just need to consult with the Chinese on how to make a reeducation camp. Those people really know how to lock shit down.

If they convict him in the senate, he's barred from holding public office again.
— Xtrix

Are you sure that's all that's required? I'm hearing jabber about there needing to be another vote specifically about banning him from running. — Hippyhead

I'm pretty certain, yes.

I'm hearing that what's needed is two thirds of the Senators who show up to vote. If that's true, that's a very different situation, yes? — Hippyhead

Different but not huge. When there are important votes, almost every senator shows up. If you need 17 or so Republicans, even a few people quarantining or sick won't get you there.

When there are important votes, almost every senator shows up. — Xtrix

But they don't have to show up. The Republican senators could liberate themselves from Trump just by not showing up to vote. Seventeen senators not showing up would get the job done, right?

With Trump gone doesn't that clear the field for any senator with presidential ambitions?

These are tech companies, not publishers. — NOS4A2

Then what exactly is your problem?

But they don't have to show up. The Republican senators could liberate themselves from Trump just by not showing up to vote. Seventeen senators not showing up would get the job done, right? — Hippyhead

No, because that leaves 83 total. Two-thirds of 83 would be 55, so you'd still need a good deal (5, if done after Democrats take over), even in that very unlikely scenario where that many don't show up. I'm not quite seeing 5 yet, although it's close. But again, this is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. They're still terrified of his base.

Too bad it's not a secret ballot. Then I have no doubt they'd have the votes -- most Republicans can't stand him. They're just too cowardly to say it publicly.

One more before bedtime:

But there are endless possibilities for activism. — Xtrix

In an earlier era I was a full time public safety activist here in Florida. Long story, but again, same story.

People would show up at meetings to demand somebody do something, but the somebody was almost never them. The state wide group I was working for failed to show up at the state supreme court to defend the constitutional amendment I had spent 5 billion hours promoting. Otherwise intelligent professional people would stand up at public meetings, and want to tell a 3 hour story, about themselves. One of the meetings I hosted got on national TV. A local Sheriff took the stage and gave an impassioned speech. When I tried to thank him in the parking lot after the meeting to work together, he looked me right in the eye and told me to get fucking lost.

Again, we need travel no further than this website. Everyone is trying to position themselves as a big logic brain Mr. Rational etc, while we relentlessly ignore the single biggest threat to modern civilization. It's just bullshit, bullshit, bullshit, never ending total pure bullshit.

I guess I'm just getting old my friend. The torrential bullshit storm has worn me out.

If you can still hack it, go for it!

Too bad it's not a secret ballot. Then I have no doubt they'd have the votes -- most Republicans can't stand him. They're just too cowardly to say it publicly. — Xtrix

Yea, ok, I can hear that. Cowardly does seem accurate. So is there any point to another impeachment then in your opinion?

Actually, it's not inconceivable the FBI will start asking sites like ours for IP addresses. The law on that is probably different in Europe and America, so I don't know the ins and outs of it. — Baden

Do they not have all that already and automatically, in the same manner the post office has your address, and anyone with a telephone book (what's that, you say?), had your name, address, and telephone number?