The Trump Presidency - Chapter 2

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I just read that Project 2025 wants to get rid of federal flood insurance. That will really go over well in FL.

But doesn't federal flood insurance basically favor the rich? Sounds like a good program to get rid of.

[Lathum]

IIRC section 230 is what protects social media companies from liability for whats posted on their platforms.

I'm sure that would go over well with Musk.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Lathum

IIRC section 230 is what protects social media companies from liability for whats posted on their platforms.

I'm sure that would go over well with Musk.

They obviously won't be enforcing it on companies that are friendly to the administration.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

But doesn't federal flood insurance basically favor the rich? Sounds like a good program to get rid of.

In dollar terms, yes, but lots of people have mandated flood insurance. It may just be a plan to funnel federal subsidies to private insurance plans, but if they really cut it that will fuck thousands during the next Gulf hurricane.

[Edward64]

Happy that Morning Joe reached out and tried to reconcile.

Morning Joe was my morning show of choice when I was travelling and living in hotel rooms. They had good guests, insights and "both sides". And then 2016 happened and IMO they became way too partisan and the Fox equivalent.

I'll let things settle down some and then give them another shot.

MSNBC hosts Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, fierce critics of President-elect Donald Trump, say they traveled to Mar-a-Lago for a meeting with him to reopen lines of communication that would better serve their morning show viewers.
:
On Monday’s show, the hosts said they had reached out to Trump last Thursday and met with him the next day. “It was the first time we have seen him in seven years,” Brzezinski said.

She said Trump was “cheerful, upbeat,” even as the three of them discussed issues they disagreed on.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm sure they'll try something, but I'm not sure what the FCC can do (or rather, should be able to do) against the networks. The locals that carry them, perhaps. But the networks themselves I would think would be protected much the same way Fox is.

(Even there, I'm not entirely sure how the whole local station setup hasn't...well, not collapsed, per se, but just transformed. Other than Jim and his antenna setup, who is getting these stations OTA anymore? I've gotten my locals via DirecTV or YouTube, I'd think these delivery mechanisms would be clear of the FCC.)

OTA is pretty stable for the past few years, believed to be around 14.5% nationally. Some markets it's around 1/3rd, other markets are in single digits.

But the delivery method doesn't matter in terms of the station's legal ability to exist _as currently constituted_. Loose the broadcast license, there's nothing to send via those digital outlets. Now could you reconfigure it? Sure.

The big "however" is what's known as the must-carry provision.

I'll let Google AI summarize that "Local television stations are "guaranteed" cable access due to a regulation called "must-carry," which means cable providers are required by law to carry all locally licensed broadcast stations on their systems, essentially providing access to them on the cable lineup.


Did you spot the key phrase there: "locally licensed"

When the license goes away, so does the must-carry provision. And at that point you're talking about individual stations needing to negotiate terms, and cable providers having 100% of the leverage.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm sorry, I'm missing how it is substantively different?

I don't know, you think it's ok to group all men or boys together because some did a bad thing? How does that fly when applied to other groups?

"This is just the same "not all Muslims" argument all over again."

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong? If so I apologize.

[Ben E Lou]

"not all men."



I'm curious, cuerv. What percentage of men would you say fit the profile that Lathum has described?

[Lathum]

I think there are more than most of us know or would care to know.

This is getting a little OT, but here is one example.

I read a story in my local paper yesterday about the rise of illegal massage parlors aka brothels, in Jersey and nationwide.

Investigation finds illicit massage parlors are rampant in New Jersey

It may be behind a paywall, but the article says there are over 13,000 of these nationwide. The girls almost exclusively are human trafficked from China and Korea. You can imagine how many men paying for sex it takes to keep these operational. Each one of those men are complicit in human trafficking, questionable rape, many cheating on a spouse, tax evasion, and just shitty human behavior in general.

[Brian Swartz]

I'm going to laugh, loudly, the next time the people promoting this point of view talk about how sexist this or that segment of society is, given how enthusiastically they promoting a blatantly sexist point of view.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

"not all men."

I'm curious, cuerv. What percentage of men would you say fit the profile that Lathum has described?

Not really sure. I think there are plenty of cases where guys start out as seeming fine, and then are found...to not be. Even "liberal" ones -- the whole "nice guy" phenomenon from the "not all men" argument. But what percentage makes the gamble just not worth it? 10%? 25%? 50%?

Especially in the current information ecosystem. Many young men are influenced by the Joe Rogans of the world. (Even my own son, who may not listen to Rogan, I am pretty sure was influenced by "gamergate" types, holds conservative views, and has been known to produce a number of invectives that I'm not proud to hear.) If you're a liberal-leaning woman, would you feel comfortable around these guys? Even if you were, would you feel like you matched them? I don't know if I would.

One other factor...it seems like many more young women are identifying as queer now -- or at least bisexual. If that's the case -- if you really don't care if you are with a man or a woman -- why not go with the option which seems, well, "safer?" No, maybe not totally safe, but I'd say your chances of rape/abuse are certainly lower, and there's no risk of pregnancy. If you change your mind later on when you're ready for kids, then fine. (Of course, with adoption, you can have kids in a same sex coupling anyway.) If kids are even feasible financially.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I don't know, you think it's ok to group all men or boys together because some did a bad thing? How does that fly when applied to other groups?

"This is just the same "not all Muslims" argument all over again."

Maybe I'm reading your post wrong? If so I apologize.

I meant that "not all men" has been a thing for a while now, and this seems like a rehash of it. Since at least 2014. This isn't just me coming up with the premise.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I meant that "not all men" has been a thing for a while now, and this seems like a rehash of it. Since at least 2014. This isn't just me coming up with the premise.

This is all a great discussion for here, among mostly men. Obviously the statement "not all men" is factually true. Why that statement raises hackles among women is because it usually used by men to down play and even justify abuses of men on women.