ancianita

ancianita's Journal

December 14, 2019

Handy Summary of The Approaches To Political Advertising By Different Platforms

For now, a map of platform ad policies and practices.

Further along into 2020, some items could likely change as new problems come up.

In the United States, traditional media are more strictly regulated when it comes to accepting political ads, and laws actually dictate what media organizations can and can’t do. For example, broadcast media, such as the TV networks NBC or CBS, are obliged to take any ad for a candidate for federal office. But cable companies have more discretion, and can reject ads they deem as false. But US lawmakers have not passed regulations for online political advertising, leaving any rules up to the platforms themselves.

Here’s how the policies on political advertising for major online platforms break down (or view a scrollable version):

https://qz.com/1767145/how-facebook-twitter-and-others-approach-political-advertising/?fbclid=IwAR35fJ904vfpwaMic1mwkVirs9-HSvGu9ymWXIZfD3bMlEaLiirRkdnPNhs

December 11, 2019

When Donny Met Sergey

The Lavrov who Trump met today:

1. An old friend of Putin who appears in American news as the Russian Federation's Russian Foreign Minister.

2. The Foreign Minister who, since 2011, defends the innocence of Russian society by promoting Russia's stand against homosexuality.

3. ...who in March 2014, before his name appeared in America, stated that Ukraine's Maidan revolution in Kyiv, AND results of the Crimean referendum, should both be accepted equally by The West. He reiterated the three-part Russian proposal for the progress of Ukraine:

-- Constitutional federalism
-- Recognition of linguistic minorities, Ukrainians as much as Russians
-- That Ukraine be a non-aligned state

The Kyiv government immediately denounced Lavrov's proposals as amounting to “the complete capitulation of Ukraine, its dismemberment, and the destruction of Ukrainian statehood.

4. Who, when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down over Ukraine, parroted the Kremlin media perception managers’ denials, stories and lies about Ukrainian fighters and air traffic controllers.

5. Who repeats the Eurasian “model of unification” that invites former satellites and EU members, to “preserving and extending a common cultural … civilizational heritage" under the structure of Eurasia.

6. Who promotes the the RF's official Foreign Policy Concept for 2013 — that if Ukraine wished to negotiate to enter the EU, it should accept Moscow as its intermediary.

7. Who claimed, as reports of Russian units circled Ukraine soldiers, “We view all such stories of the presence of Russian troops as part of an information war.” He called photographs of Russian soldiers “images from computer games.”

That Lavrov met Trump, the Lavrov who agrees with the Kremlin's asset, that the truth is not the truth, and what you are seeing and what you are reading is not what is happening.

What Lavrov said to Trump:

1. Sergey congratulated Donald on his future Senate Trial acquittal; that together they succeeded in handling enough senators who continue to “meet" their Fifth Column goals.

2. Sergey informed Donald that, barring any anti-hacker project successes by the U.S., he is set to win again through the Electoral College.

3. Sergey assured Donald that, in the event that 2020 polls show a massive anti-Trump voter swell,

A. the Eurasian project has a list of “national emergency” options Trump might use, contingent on “openings” of emerging national import," and defendable "active measures" that a president can use to keep order nationwide.

B. in service of the "national emergency" goals, the project is set to use hybrid propaganda warfare
-- on the nets
— through news reports,
-- social media,
-- the usual alt-right sites,
-- from all the usual American farms

— by whatever perception management best meets US media's and Trump's needs of being seen as as truthful, in good faith, and hopeful of resolution.

4. Sergey assured Donald that, moving forward, all the usual communications systems, along with the usual codes, are still in effect until he's told otherwise, in person, by the usual suspects.

----------------
I offer the second list because there truly is no evidence to the contrary.

We're moving into historically unknown territory, so I'd like to keep thinking the following:

Russia believes in the politics of its eternity and inevitability.

Americans believe in the Western politics of freedom based on real perception, on facts, on reality, choices and action.

In the next week we enter a tunnel we wanted to get to. Happily, there's still light for awhile. Great that we're celebrating.

As we move through 2020, as that tunnel gets darker, we need to stay committed to the proposition that not all roads, ever in our lives, will ever have to lead, inevitably, to Putin or Eurasia. Ever.

December 10, 2019

Who Is The Best Judiciary Committee Interviewer -- Eric Swalwell!

December 9, 2019

Pensacola Attack Probed for Terrorism Link. Saudi Suspect Clashed With Instructor

Source: New York Times

As the F.B.I. continues to conduct interviews with everyone at the Pensacola Naval Air Station who may have had contact with the gunman, identified as Second Lt. Mohammed Alshamrani, a new report emerged that the Saudi trainee filed a formal complaint earlier this year against one of his instructors, who left him “infuriated” in class by tagging him with a derogatory nickname.

The complaint, quoted in a communication circulated among people connected to the flight training, said that the instructor referred to Lieutenant Alshamrani as “Porn Stash” in front of about 10 other aviation students, embarrassing and angering him.

“I was infuriated as to why he would say that in front of the class,” the Saudi trainee wrote in his complaint, as quoted in the summary. The document was reviewed by The New York Times and authenticated by a person who spoke with Lieutenant Alshamrani shortly after the incident...

Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/us/pensacola-gunman.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

December 9, 2019

71 Republicans Who Supported Russia's War On Ukraine In House Resolution This Past Week

Here is a Wonkette treason paraphrase of the resolution, because our treason paraphrases are less boring-er than actual House resolutions, which include almost zero cusses:

WHEREAS Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014 and stole Crimea; and

WHEREAS That's the whole reason Russia was kicked out of the G7 to fuckin' begin with; and

WHEREAS Last time we checked Russia still has its dick planted in Ukraine's dirt and continues to do war to Ukraine; and

WHEREAS Donald Trump will not fucking shut up about how much he wants to let Putin back into the G7, because of how Trump pretty much supports the Russian invasion of Ukraine and "doesn't give a fuck about Ukraine" unless it's investigating the Bidens for him;

THEREFUCKINGFORE the House says nope, not gonna happen, and calls on all the leaders in the G7 to keep Russia out unless Russia 1) leaves Ukraine and 2) stops attacking all the democracies in the world.

Now, in a Democratic-controlled House, on a resolution to continue punishing Russia for its still-ongoing invasion of Ukraine -- the country Trump is being impeached right now for bribing for investigations in exchange for military aid in order to help his 2020 re-election -- the vote was 339-71. Congratulations to the 116 Republicans who did vote for it.

Yet another major issue for battleground Democrats to run on! A vote for Russia is anti-American.

The blacklist:

1. Ralph Abraham (LA-05)
2. Robert Aderholt (AL-04)
3. Rick Allen (GA-12)
4. Brian Babin (TX-36)
5. Jack Bergman (MI-01)

6. Fucking Andy Biggs (AZ-05)
7. Gus Bilirakis (FL-12)
8. Rob Bishop (UT-01)
9. Dan Bishop (NC-09)
10. Kevin Brady (TX-08)

11. Mo Brooks (AL-05)
12. Ken Buck (CO-04)
13. Ted Budd (NC-13)
14. Michael Burgess (TX-26)
15. Buddy Carter (GA-01)

16. The Congressman from "Hee-Haw," Doug Collins (GA-09)
17. James Comer (KY-01)
18. MIke Conaway (TX-11)
19. Rick Crawford (AR-01)
20. Warren Davidson (OH-08)

21. Scott DesJarlais (TN-04)
22. Jeff Duncan (SC-03)
23. Neal Dunn (FL-02)
24. Drew Ferguson (GA-03)
25. Chuck Fleischmann (TN-03)

26. Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01)
27. Fucking Matt Gaetz (FL-01)
28. Greg Gianforte (MT)
29. Bob Gibbs (OH-07)
30. Lance Gooden (TX-05)

31. Congressdentist Paul Gosar, whose whole family un-dorsed him for re-election in 2018 (AZ-04)
32. Tom Graves (GA-14). Wow, lots of Georgians here acting as Putin's assets! Of course they'd probably say it's really about "states' rights" or something.
33. Glenn Grothman (WI-06)
34. Michael Guest (MS-03)
35. Andy Harris (MD-01)

36. Kevin Hern (OK-01)
37. Jody Hice (GA-10)
38. Clay "WHAR BOXES?" Higgins (LA-03)
39. Richard Hudson (NC-08)
40. Jim Jordan (OH-04 and also the Ohio State gym)

41. John Joyce (PA-13)
42. Trent Kelly (MS-01)
43. Steve King (IA-04). To be fair, Russia has a lot of white supremacists, so.
44. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01)
45. Debbie Lesko (AZ-08)

46. Billy Long (MO-07)
47. Barry Loudermilk (GA-11). GEORGIA AGAIN! Goddamn, is Oleg Deripaska building an aluminum plant in Macon or something?
48. Thomas Massie (KY-04). Oleg Deripaska's company is definitely building a plant in Kentucky LOL.
49. Brian Mast (FL-18)
50. Mark Meadows (NC-11). Because of course.

51. Dan Meuser (PA-09)
52. Carol Miller (WV-03)
53. Paul Mitchell (MI-10, not the shampoo guy)
54. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02)
55. Greg Murphy (NC-03)

56. Ralph Norman (SC-05)
57. Steven Palazzo (MS-04)
58. Gary Palmer (AL-06)
59. Greg Pence (IN-06)
60. Scott Perry (PA-10)

61. Bill Posey (FL-08)
62. John Rose (TN-06)
63. Austin Scott (GA-08)
64. Jason Smith (MO-08)
65. Greg Steube (FL-17)

66. Chris Stewart (UT-02). You'll remember him as one of the single most obnoxious and stupid Republicans in the Intel Committee impeachment hearings. He also thinks it's super-cool for Trump to accept foreign interference in elections. GOOD MORMON BOY, THAT ONE.
67. William Timmons (SC-04)
68. Randy Weber (TX-14)
69. Rob Woodall (GA-07) Another Georgia!
70. Ted Yoho (FL-03)

71. Lee Zeldin (NY-01). Because of fucking course.

Democratic Senator Chris Murphy joked last night on Maddow that maybe they just want some of that sweet sexxxy Russian election interference for themselves. Or maybe they're just selling out America, because that's the Republican thing to do these days.

https://www.wonkette.com/naming-and-shaming-the-71-house-republicans-who-basically-just-took-russias-side-in-ukraine-war?fbclid=IwAR1Kr9DQDzBc0lBxBxl1XfJMoMkp8HFbWdA4BdrFgZXtMUCcOe4Uexl0b6g

December 5, 2019

Rules and Procedures for the Senate Impeachment Trial -- This is Historic

We have to know what can or cannot happen, what the rules, procedures are and, who/how they can be changed. Because it's a political process. We want to be ready for surprises.

But for all Mitch McConnell says, I'm pretty sure that this headline cannot happen.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212754399

I'm thinking of how the GOP strategized at lunch yesterday during the House Judiciary Committee Impeachment hearing. I'm pretty sure that's why Speaker Pelosi is proceeding with all due speed.

One can go to senate.gov https://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_index_subjects/Rules_and_Procedure_vrd.htm

But I think Public Citizen's site is a bit more accessible.

https://www.citizen.org/article/senate-impeachment-trial-procedure/

Of possible interest:

What existing rules govern impeachment?

S. Constitution: Article I, Section 3 and Article II, Section 4

Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate when Sitting on Impeachment Trials

The Standing Rules of the Senate, which are applicable when the Senate Impeachment Rules are silent. (Report on Impeachment Procedure at 8)

The "one day's notice" is significant.

Like any Senate rules, the Senate Impeachment Rules can be amended. A motion to amend them is debatable, subject to the legislative filibuster, and therefore, in the current Senate, would require at least 67 votes (unless there was unanimous consent or the majority invokes the so-called “nuclear option” to do away with the legislative filibuster altogether).

For example, the Senate unanimously adopted a set of modifications to the Senate Impeachment Rules at the beginning of the trial relating to the impeachment of President Clinton.

A motion “to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof,” is not in order without “one day’s notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof.” Standing Rule V.1.

In addition, “[a]ny rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules.” Id. Unanimous consent is an ordinary feature of Senate procedure and was employed frequently during the impeachment trial of President Clinton.

Must the Senate hold a trial on articles of impeachment adopted by the House, and if so, when?

The Senate Impeachment Rules require the Senate to hold a trial on articles of impeachment adopted by the House. The Senate trial must commence no later than 1 pm on the day after the articles of impeachment have been presented to the Senate, and the Senate must “continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered, and so much longer as may, in its judgment, be needful.” (Rule 3.)

This is a worthwhile read, and I hope any lawyers in the DU house can answer questions the rest of us have.

December 2, 2019

This was all for nothing, Part 2 -- My Democratic friend's final word.

I was saying the real goal - stopping Trump - was not realized in any meaningful way at all.

And I strongly disagree with the notion that any significant number of Americans are learning much about the civics of all of this.
A few? Sure.

But the conservatives have done far more to muddy the understanding of the masses than the factual events have.

This is yet another instance of how controlling the narrative controls how the masses think about certain things.

Most liberals I have talked to at length have ended up with LESS of a solid idea of how our civics works because of the failure of the Mueller Report with regards to its target - Trump. Most of them have conveyed in one way or another that they know less than they thought they did about the civics.

The conservatives went to great lengths to engineer that, and they achieved it.

The liberals have not gone through great lengths to engineer ANYTHING about how the masses think about things. And they achieved that goal as well.

Effectively nobody cares about or can name any of the people that went to jail because of the Mueller report. All that will have less than 1/10th of 1% of an effect on the 2020 elections.

What WILL have a greater effect on the 2020 elections will be the widespread (however wrong) feeling that the Democrats are “Whiny losers” who DO appear to have been engaged in “witch hunts” or whatever crap BUT EFFECTIVE branding they were aware of.

I watch and I see college educated sophisticated Republicans gear their messaging towards the masses - who are definitely NOT that.

I watch and I see the college educated sophisticated Democrats gear their message towards other college educated sophisticated people.

Entirely missing the masses.

As far as I can see, it is only Trump’s extreme horribleness that is producing the modest Democratic gains of the 2018 mid-terms.

We will see if that continues into 2020 and into the voting for President and the Senate.
I sure hope it does, and something tells me it will.
But just as many things tell me it won’t.

As I frequently say: A country’s population that scores a dismal 35th globally in math, science, and reading is not likely to make good decisions.

He was right. I was wrong.

I'm taking a break from all this seeming politics of inevitability.

Everything he says, I always saw it coming, and screamed my bloody head off and worked for humane goals, Democratic Party goals, for decades. So I'll be damned if I'm going to cry when I fought my best.

I'm going to go have a smoke and a drink.

Thanks, DU. You're still my anchor.

If you got this far, thanks for reading.

December 2, 2019

This was all for nothing -- that's what my so-called Democratic friend says.

Today on Facebook I reposted the Kyle Griffith tweet that got so much of the positivity around here that's kept me hopeful and committed.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212741692

I couldn't believe what my Democratic friend said.

I’m not at all impressed by how they’ve handled this.

It’s exactly like the Mueller Report, which liberals everywhere hung SOOO much weight on only to have it produce essentially ZERO results against Trump...

when it’s over - let’s see what it produces.

So far my prediction is that it’s going to produce exactly the same result - nothing.

I fully agree with you about the facts of the issues.
Of course Mueller’s report was right.
Of course the impeachment proceedings are right.

But that means nothing if there is no end result of stopping Trump or removing him from office.

If he and everything just carries on like he has since the Mueller Report then it’s a fail.
Even if all of it was factually correct.

But that’s just me.

Time WILL tell.
And then we’ll know...

He's not a close friend, just a fellow Democrat in the northwest (and not on DU) who I've constantly exchanged political views with. I thought I knew his view of the last year but I must have been wrong.

Now I wonder if most Democrats actually feel the way he does. If so, then I've gotten swept up here into thinking that they think like me. Or us. If they don't, maybe I've been out of touch. I feel too old to be so disheartened and naive.

Maybe as a Democrat he's just gauging the way the rest of the country, who are not Democratic, sees what's been happening.

I HAVE to know that preserving rule of law will come out of this. If he's right, and his view is closer to reality out there, I don't know what I'll do. Except vote, of course.

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: New England, The South, Midwest
Home country: USA
Current location: Sarasota
Member since: Sat Mar 5, 2011, 12:32 PM
Number of posts: 36,148

About ancianita

Human. Being.

« Prev 1 2