Earlier today the state of Texas sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on Monday night with the US Supreme Court challenging their unlawful election procedures.
Texas argued these four states violated the US Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions. But these states did not make the changes through the state legislatures as spelled out in the US Constitution.
I've been unpleasantly surprised at how many Republican officials are willing to toe any line Trump puts out there. Not long ago I thought it unimaginable that such a "legal coup" could happen, I'm still certain this effort will fail, but I can now imagine it.
When such senior officials demonstrate they don't really believe in the rule of law, it's deeply disturbing. That kind of behavior has usually been confined to the occasional sheriff.
I would hate it if Cake became a platform which simply allowed broadcasters to repackage what they have broadcasted and repeat it on Cake.
It would be a different thing altogether if an individual who has a radio or tv program used Cake to talk about things which are not part of their broadcast show.
Especially if this is basically spam that has been posted to several dozen other platforms before. Just copy a random string consisting of several words from either of these "Ingraham" posts, and paste it to a Google search surrounded by quotes. You'll find all sorts of message boards and forums where this exact text has been posted.
Some of them link back to what might be the original source - a "News" webpage I don't want to link to, with a subtitle stating that they "report the truth - and leave the Russia-Collusion fairy tale to the Conspiracy media".
I don't think this nonsense should have any place here.
Bunch of idiots. Poor losers we call them.
100% true and disturbing but it was headed this way before Trump.
I was actually trying to post a policy suggestion to @Chris which I would hope would transcend the current hullabaloo and which would apply not just to political broadcasters but to any and all broadcasters.
Broadcasters post to social media platforms in the hope of raising their programs audience ratings. Therefore, they often talk AT the other people on the SM platform instead of talking WITH the other platform participants.
The culture which I hope Cake is seeking to develop is one in which those who talk WITH others are encouraged and welcome, while people who primarily engage in one way communication are "frowned upon."
There are some people with large followings who are known for engaging with their respondents. They should be welcomed on Cake provided that they are courteous and respectful of those who disagree with them.
Good thoughts and comments you make. I’m wondering if it is also necessary to confirm who the person actually is. Should they allow people to use fake names or multiple accounts? Is it necessary or important to allow people to post anonymously? Should people have to identify themselves? Some news outlets in Canada require people to use their real names when making comments on news articles. But then not all Cake stuff is news and we want people to feel safe and unthreatened. Sometimes it’s nice to be anonymous or keep a low profile. Where does one draw the line? Advantages and disadvantages.
I flagged the post, not sure if others have or not.
The initial link URL sure seemed fishy to me...
I'm not overly concerned about knowing people's offline identities. There are people on Cake regarding whom I do not know what their names are but that is not a problem as far as I'm concerned.
Behavior, especially when conversing with someone with whom one disagrees, is much more important than offline identity. There is a major degree of intolerance in our society towards opposing worldviews and that is not, imo, beneficial.
There are people on Cake with whom I have fundamental disagreements pertaining to worldviews, yet I have only felt the need to "ignore" two accounts prior to the appearance of the account which sparked this conversation. It is now the third Cake account that I have "ignored." Compared to many other social platforms, Cake has been a very courteous platform. There has only been one person who I have felt was aggresively attempting to attack my posts and replies. I hope, although I cannot know, that others with whom I have had discussions in which I have dissented from their views have seen my conduct in that dissent as being courteous and respectful.
I hope, although I cannot know, that others with whom I have had discussions in which I have dissented from their views have seen my conduct in that dissent as being courteous and respectful.
I generally haven't found that to be the case.
The reason some require real names is that it reduces trolls. I get what you’re saying.
Between Denise, Vilen and I, we routinely remove posts like this and ban the users. They're really easy to spot. We get flagged when someone posts for the first time and if we're not sure, we can mark them as someone we want a notification for when they post.
Since you love math, I'll say I think the only way to moderate something like YouTube and Twitter is to have a trust score for everyone who posts and the score starts at zero. After awhile, though, you can tell that National Geographic isn't going to post terrible things, so you don't need to watch their videos when they post them. I am sure Twitter marked Trump as someone they wanted to be notified instantly for when he posts.
I let this post go because I wanted to see how the conversation developed. It's a crazy thing to try and get the courts to invalidate an election, no?
I think the CNN title is too forgiving. It is not a "states' fight over the election". It is a number of Republicans betraying their oath's of office to further a coup attempt.
CNN should call it like it is.
SCOTUS just rejected the case.
