Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Random Politics Thread


Cooked Crack

Recommended Posts

National organization pulls conference out of Florida because of DeSantis' attacks on DEI

 

A national engineering society is moving its annual convention out of Florida, citing the state's attacks on diversity and inclusion as the reason.

 

The National Society of Black Engineers announced its 2024 convention will no longer be held in Orlando next spring after participants voiced their concerns about the state's political climate and safety.

 

“The very basis of our work is equity,” said NSBE CEO Janeen Uzzell. “NSBE was formed almost 50 years ago in response to the sparsity of Black people enrolling and succeeding in engineering education programs. So, we stand firm in our decision to relocate, because, inherently, any efforts that seek to regress diversity, equity and inclusion directly impact us and are unaligned with the mission of NSBE.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New neuroscience research shows liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering

 

A recent study in Israel used brain scans to explore the differences in empathy between political liberals and conservatives. The researchers found that when imagining other people suffering, liberals tended to show stronger brain reactions associated with empathy compared to conservatives. This pattern of brain activity was linked to participants’ self-reported political beliefs. The study was published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/28/2022 at 11:50 PM, China said:

Kids Online Safety Act may harm minors, civil society groups warn lawmakers

 

Dozens of civil society groups urged lawmakers in a letter Monday against passing a bill that aims to protect children from online harm, warning the bill itself could actually pose further danger to kids and teens.

 

The American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Fight for the Future, GLAAD and Wikimedia Foundation were among the more than 90 groups that wrote to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., and Ranking Member Roger Wicker, R-Miss., opposing the Kids Online Safety Act.

 

The bipartisan bill, led by Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., would establish responsibilities for sites that are likely to be accessed by kids to act in the best interest of users who are 16 or younger. That means the platforms would be responsible for mitigating the risk of physical or emotional harm to young users, including through the promotion of self-harm or suicide, encouragement of addictive behavior, enabling of online bullying or predatory marketing.

 

The bill would require sites to default to more private settings for users 16 and younger and limit the contacts that could connect with them. It would also require tools for parents to track the time their kids are spending on certain sites and give them access to some information about the kids’ use of the platform so that parents can address potential harm. Sites would have to let their young users know when parental tools are in effect.

 

The civil society groups that signed Monday’s letter, which includes several groups that advocate for the rights of the LGBTQ community, warned that the tools the bill creates to protect children could actually backfire.

 

“KOSA would require online services to ‘prevent’ a set of harms to minors, which is effectively an instruction to employ broad content filtering to limit minors’ access to certain online content,” the groups wrote, adding that content filters used by schools in response to earlier legislation have limited resources for sex education and for LGBTQ youth.

 

“Online services would face substantial pressure to over-moderate, including from state Attorneys General seeking to make political points about what kind of information is appropriate for young people,” they added. “At a time when books with LGBTQ+ themes are being banned from school libraries and people providing healthcare to trans children are being falsely accused of ‘grooming,’ KOSA would cut off another vital avenue of access to information for vulnerable youth.”

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Influencers Starting To Realize How The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) Will Do Real Damage

 

We’ve talked a lot about just how bad the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) is. Yet some people (including people who, frankly, should know better) keep trying to tell me how well meaning it is. It’s not. It’s dangerous. But it has real momentum. A massive bipartisan group of Senators are co-sponsors of the bill.

 

And, no matter how many times we explain that KOSA (in the name of “protecting the children”) will put kids at risk, politicians still want to pretend it’s fine. Hell, the Heritage Foundation even flat out admitted that they planned to use KOSA to censor LGBTQ+ content, in an attempt to bar children from such content. It remains incredible to me that any Democrat could support a bill when Republicans admit up front how they plan to abuse it.

 

But, of course, because it’s called the “Kids Online Safety Act” and you have brands like Dove (yeah, I don’t get it either) running a whole campaign in support of it, even convincing Lizzo that the bill is good, it feels like the anti-KOSA voices have been muted.

 

Hopefully that’s changing. A friend pointed me to a TikTok influencer, pearlmania500 (aka Alex Pearlman), with about two million followers, who has posted a fun little anti-KOSA rant, pointing out just how dangerous KOSA is.

 

Click on the link for the video and transcript

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Rogan Praises ‘No-Nonsense’ Tucker Carlson, Predicts ‘He Could Win’ The Presidency in 2028

 

Joe Rogan thinks Tucker Carlson has what it takes to become president in 2028.

 

Rogan shared his theory with commentator Patrick Bet-David as they discussed Carlson’s new Twitter venture and departure from Fox News on the Thursday installment of The Joe Rogan Experience.

 

Bet-David asked Rogan for his take on Carlson’s next move, either remaining in podcasting, becoming a billionaire, or running for office.

 

“Do you get the vibes from Tucker that Tucker wants to be a Netanyahu, a Churchill, a guy that is, you know, a journalist that’s been debating everybody has been reading every issue for the last 20, 30 years,” Bet-David asked. “You think it’s actually maybe he wants to make a run for 2028?”

 

“Well, what he’s doing is very profitable, right? Like, what he’s doing makes a tremendous amount of money talking about things from his perspective. I think he’s going to continue to do that. Whether or not he decides to become a politician, I don’t know if he has any aspirations about that,” Rogan said.

 

Rogan said Tucker was in a unique position to “know all the bull**** and all the shenanigans” of politics.

 

“When someone’s involved in politics in that extent where you’re talking about it constantly and you know the insides and the outsides, you know all the bull**** and all the shenanigans. I guess you would probably have at least an idea of how you would do it differently and better,” Rogan said.

 

“And he’s also got a very popular voice, like if he decided to run for president — let’s just make a scenario. Trump wins in 2024. He has four years. If Tucker went to run in 2028, he could win. He really could win, because it would be kind of carrying those policies. But also he’s sort of a no-nonsense guy who exposes bull****, you know, pretty humorous way and a very insightful and biting way,” he added.

 

Click on the link for the full article

  • Haha 4
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After DeSantis suspends Worrell, new leadership fires staffer on maternity leave

 

Within days of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ suspension of Monique Worrell, an executive staff member at the State Attorney’s Office who was on maternity leave was notified of her termination when investigators with the office accompanied by law enforcement made an unexpected visit to her home.

 

Keisha Mulfort, the former chief of staff for the State Attorney’s Office and Worrell, went on leave on May 30, the day her daughter was born. She has spent time in the hospital due to birth-related complications, she told the Sentinel.

 

Her leave, according to her lawyer Fritz Scheller, is pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), a federal law providing certain workers job-protected leave when taking time off for medical reasons including pregnancy or birth. Scheller contends that her firing as well as the demands made to her after Worrell’s suspension may violate federal law protecting workers.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

I smell a lawsuit...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ranking Democrat urges committee to refer Daniel Snyder case to DOJ

 

The ranking Democrat on the congressional committee that investigated the Washington Commanders and their former owner, Daniel Snyder, is urging the committee’s Republican chairman to refer Snyder’s case to the Justice Department for investigation and possible prosecution.

 

Rep. Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md.) wrote in an eight-page letter Wednesday to Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, that the Justice Department should investigate Snyder for lying under oath and obstructing the committee’s investigation.

 

“Making false statements to Congress and obstructing Congressional investigations are serious crimes,” Raskin wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post. “This Committee cannot conduct effective oversight if witnesses misrepresent and obscure the truth. I therefore urge you to hold Mr. Snyder accountable by referring him to the Department of Justice for investigation and, if warranted, prosecution, for lying under oath and obstructing this Committee’s investigation.”

 

Click on the link for the full article and letter

  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

D.C. Attorney General is probing Leonard Leo’s network

 

The Federalist Society co-chair and ex-Trump judicial adviser has utilized nonprofit groups to collect more than $1 billion for conservative causes.

 

Washington D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb is investigating judicial activist Leonard Leo and his network of nonprofit groups, according to a person with direct knowledge of the probe.

 

The scope of the investigation is unclear. But it comes after POLITICO reported in March that one of Leo’s nonprofits — registered as a charity — paid his for-profit company tens of millions of dollars in the two years since he joined the company. A few weeks later, a progressive watchdog group filed a complaint with the D.C. attorney general and the IRS requesting a probe into what services were provided and whether Leo was in violation of laws against using charities for personal enrichment.

 

David B. Rivkin Jr., an attorney for the parties in the investigation, said in a statement that the complaint “is sloppy, deceptive and legally flawed and we are addressing this fully with the DC Attorney General’s office.”

 

The news of the investigation comes as the nonprofit that was a subject of the complaint quietly relocated in recent weeks from the capital area to Texas, according to paperwork filed in Virginia and Texas. For nearly 20 years the nonprofit, now known as The 85 Fund, had been incorporated in Virginia.

 

Gabe Shoglow-Rubenstein, Schwalb’s communications director, declined to confirm or deny the existence of the probe, including whether the attorney general took any action in response to the complaint.

 

Schwalb, who took office in January, has a background in tax law and served as a trial attorney in the tax division of the Department of Justice under President Bill Clinton.

 

Best known as Donald Trump’s White House “court whisperer,” Leo played a behind-the-scenes role in the nominations of all three of the former president’s Supreme Court justices and promoted them through his multi-billion-dollar network of nonprofits. Trump chose his three Supreme Court picks, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, from a list drawn up by Leo. More recently, Leo was the beneficiary of a $1.6 billion contribution, believed to be the biggest political donation in U.S. history.

 

Real estate and other public records illustrate that the lifestyle of Leo and a handful of his allies took a lavish turn in the course of the making of the current ultraconservative court, beginning in 2016, the year he was tapped as an unpaid adviser to Trump. Citing the report, a progressive watchdog group called on the IRS and D.C. Attorney General a few weeks later to investigate whether the groups may be violating their tax-exempt status by “siphoning” assets or income for personal use.

 

Anthony Burke, a public affairs specialist with the IRS, declined to comment. “Under the federal tax law, federal employees cannot disclose tax return information,” he said.

The Leo-aligned nonprofit The 85 Fund — which is registered as a tax-exempt charity — paid tens of millions of dollars to a public relations firm in Virginia which he co-chairs in the two years since he joined the firm, known as CRC Advisors.

 

The watchdog complaint alleges the total amount of money that flowed from Leo-aligned nonprofits to his for-profit firms was $73 million over six years beginning in 2016.

“There are questions as to whether Leo-affiliated nonprofits have diverted substantial portions of their income and assets, directly or indirectly, to the personal benefit of Leonard Leo,” read the Campaign for Accountability’s complaint.

 

“Such payments were generally listed as made in exchange for alleged consulting, research, public relations, or similar services. However CFA has reasonable questions about whether those alleged services were actually rendered at all or, if services were rendered, whether the payments made were substantially in excess of fair market value,” said the complaint, which covers the period between 2016 and 2020.

 

POLITICO reported that a total of $43 million flowed to Leo’s company over two years and that the bulk of it came from The 85 Fund, a nonprofit run by his allies which has spent tens of millions of dollars over the past decade to promote Trump’s Supreme Court picks, file briefs before the court and, more recently, used an alias to push for voting restrictions and accuse Democrats of cheating in the 2020 election.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

In 2016, Wurzelbacher voted for Republican nominee Donald Trump, who won the election.

 

“He’s a winner. He’s made billions. He’s dated beautiful women. His wife is a model. That’s not to sniff at. And a lot of people believe he can bring that kind of success to the White House,” Wurzelbacher said in an interview with Reuters in 2016.

 

🤪

 

Also Joe wasn't even a plumber. Dude was a total phony. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...