Well... it's Trump... again. #47, here we go.

[ZiprHead]

Under that is this article:

This law could force Fox News to flee the US
https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/fox-news-trump/

I used the paywall remover I linked in the Technology forum and it worked.

The relevant part of the story is:

If the UK can require accuracy in the media, so can we

When media in the UK present partisan viewpoints, they are subject to England’s “due impartiality” and “due accuracy” rules, legal mandates that require broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints. The same rules require broadcasters to timely correct significant errors, prohibiting UK channels from serving up one-sided propaganda.

Under the UK’s Communications Act 2003, all broadcasters are also prohibited from airing ‘unjust or unfair treatment’ of individuals or organizations. On matters of major political controversy, the media must present a wide range of differing views on the same topic. Individuals and organizations facing reports of significant wrongdoing are given the opportunity to timely respond (a “right of reply”).

These are not onerous requirements; they are minimal, and, if shepherded by a bipartisan coalition in the US, could go a long way in reducing media bias on both sides. So far, attempts to introduce similar legislation in the US have failed, in part because there is no public outcry demanding it.

 

[ZiprHead]

With great power comes great sleepiness.

 

[bilby]

Under that is this article:

This law could force Fox News to flee the US
https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/fox-news-trump/

I used the paywall remover I linked in the Technology forum and it worked.

The relevant part of the story is:

If the UK can require accuracy in the media, so can we

When media in the UK present partisan viewpoints, they are subject to England’s “due impartiality” and “due accuracy” rules, legal mandates that require broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints. The same rules require broadcasters to timely correct significant errors, prohibiting UK channels from serving up one-sided propaganda.

Under the UK’s Communications Act 2003, all broadcasters are also prohibited from airing ‘unjust or unfair treatment’ of individuals or organizations. On matters of major political controversy, the media must present a wide range of differing views on the same topic. Individuals and organizations facing reports of significant wrongdoing are given the opportunity to timely respond (a “right of reply”).

These are not onerous requirements; they are minimal, and, if shepherded by a bipartisan coalition in the US, could go a long way in reducing media bias on both sides. So far, attempts to introduce similar legislation in the US have failed, in part because there is no public outcry demanding it.

5.9: Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole.

Sounds great. But how is is a good idea to present "alternative viewpoints' on matters of fact?

 

[ZiprHead]

Under that is this article:

This law could force Fox News to flee the US
https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/fox-news-trump/

I used the paywall remover I linked in the Technology forum and it worked.

The relevant part of the story is:

If the UK can require accuracy in the media, so can we

When media in the UK present partisan viewpoints, they are subject to England’s “due impartiality” and “due accuracy” rules, legal mandates that require broadcasters to present multiple viewpoints. The same rules require broadcasters to timely correct significant errors, prohibiting UK channels from serving up one-sided propaganda.

Under the UK’s Communications Act 2003, all broadcasters are also prohibited from airing ‘unjust or unfair treatment’ of individuals or organizations. On matters of major political controversy, the media must present a wide range of differing views on the same topic. Individuals and organizations facing reports of significant wrongdoing are given the opportunity to timely respond (a “right of reply”).

These are not onerous requirements; they are minimal, and, if shepherded by a bipartisan coalition in the US, could go a long way in reducing media bias on both sides. So far, attempts to introduce similar legislation in the US have failed, in part because there is no public outcry demanding it.

5.9: Presenters and reporters (with the exception of news presenters and reporters in news programmes), presenters of “personal view” or “authored” programmes or items, and chairs of discussion programmes may express their own views on matters of political or industrial controversy or matters relating to current public policy. However, alternative viewpoints must be adequately represented either in the programme, or in a series of programmes taken as a whole.

Sounds great. But how is is a good idea to present "alternative viewpoints' on matters of fact?

Didn't say I supported it. Just showing what unapologetic didn't show in his report.

And a lot of people don't understand what the US Fairness Doctrine was too.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Bird flu surges among poultry amid a scaled back federal response

Yay! Eggs 8 bucks a dozen again.

What bird flu? Don't test. And don't see if the animals are sick before they go to the processing plant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5597005-trump-administration-50-year-mortgage/

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte on Saturday said the Trump administration is “working on” a plan to introduce 50-year mortgage terms for home buyers.

“Thanks to President Trump, we are indeed working on The 50 year Mortgage – a complete game changer,” Pulte wrote in a statement on the social platform X.

I've heard of 50-year mortgages... it is called "renting".

Don’t longer mortgages typically result in higher fractions of interest paid out over the years?

If so, doesn’t this sound more like a boon for the banks than a benefit for the people?

No, because they get it back slower. It's going to balance out.

 

[crazyfingers]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5597005-trump-administration-50-year-mortgage/

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte on Saturday said the Trump administration is “working on” a plan to introduce 50-year mortgage terms for home buyers.

“Thanks to President Trump, we are indeed working on The 50 year Mortgage – a complete game changer,” Pulte wrote in a statement on the social platform X.

I've heard of 50-year mortgages... it is called "renting".

Don’t longer mortgages typically result in higher fractions of interest paid out over the years?

If so, doesn’t this sound more like a boon for the banks than a benefit for the people?

No, because they get it back slower. It's going to balance out.

All I can say is that we started out with about a $210 mortgage in 1997 after putting 40% down with a 30 year and we quickly converted to a 15 year at about 4% and paid it off early. I was glad to have that no longer hanging over my head. Pay off sooner the better I say. Less interest to pay
.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the Dems folded in the shutdown (or at least the "moderate" ones in the negotiating pool), and gain nothing. No promise that the GOP would force Trump to execute spending. Nothing but a fucking worthless vote in the Senate on extending ACA subsidies. Why even go through this? This effectively gives Trump the authority to do whatever he wants. The adults (including on SCOTUS) just shrug their shoulders as the toddler wields the flamethrower.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Though I suppose this could catch Johnson by surprise and next thing he knows the Epstein vote is up.

 

[Ford]

Though I suppose this could catch Johnson by surprise and next thing he knows the Epstein vote is up.

I wouldn't put it past him to pull a Mitch McConnell and just refuse to ever seat Grijalva.

 

[Jarhyn]

So the Dems folded in the shutdown (or at least the "moderate" ones in the negotiating pool), and gain nothing. No promise that the GOP would force Trump to execute spending. Nothing but a fucking worthless vote in the Senate on extending ACA subsidies. Why even go through this? This effectively gives Trump the authority to do whatever he wants. The adults (including on SCOTUS) just shrug their shoulders as the toddler wields the flamethrower.

Now do you understand why I condemn "moderates"?

 

[blastula]

25th amendment him already.

 

[TV and credit cards]

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5597005-trump-administration-50-year-mortgage/

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte on Saturday said the Trump administration is “working on” a plan to introduce 50-year mortgage terms for home buyers.

“Thanks to President Trump, we are indeed working on The 50 year Mortgage – a complete game changer,” Pulte wrote in a statement on the social platform X.

I've heard of 50-year mortgages... it is called "renting".

Don’t longer mortgages typically result in higher fractions of interest paid out over the years?

If so, doesn’t this sound more like a boon for the banks than a benefit for the people?

No, because they get it back slower. It's going to balance out.

"It" what? P? What about all that I? Are they breaking even on that?

 

[TV and credit cards]

So the Dems folded in the shutdown (or at least the "moderate" ones in the negotiating pool), and gain nothing. No promise that the GOP would force Trump to execute spending. Nothing but a fucking worthless vote in the Senate on extending ACA subsidies. Why even go through this? This effectively gives Trump the authority to do whatever he wants. The adults (including on SCOTUS) just shrug their shoulders as the toddler wields the flamethrower.

Now do you understand why I condemn "moderates"?

Oh well. Look at the bright side. Millions of people who needed to go grocery shopping yesterday may get to go tomorrow.

 

[Jarhyn]

So the Dems folded in the shutdown (or at least the "moderate" ones in the negotiating pool), and gain nothing. No promise that the GOP would force Trump to execute spending. Nothing but a fucking worthless vote in the Senate on extending ACA subsidies. Why even go through this? This effectively gives Trump the authority to do whatever he wants. The adults (including on SCOTUS) just shrug their shoulders as the toddler wields the flamethrower.

Now do you understand why I condemn "moderates"?

Oh well. Look at the bright side. Millions of people who needed to go grocery shopping yesterday may get to go tomorrow.

Yeah, let's not think about the people who will need healthcare a week from now.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Elixir]

All I can say is that we started out with about a $210 mortgage in 1997 after putting 40% down with a 30 year and we quickly converted to a 15 year at about 4% and paid it off early. I was glad to have that no longer hanging over my head. Pay off sooner the better I say. Less interest to pay

When we sold the Company 6-7 yrs ago I paid off the cars, sold the rental house, cancelled line of credit I had been paying an annual fee for, and went to cash.
It's a good feeling to be 100% debt free, but hopefully I don't have to borrow any time soon, because I just found out it destroyed my credit rating. That has to be the most perverse system there is, penalizing people for not being up to their necks in debt.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

So the Dems folded in the shutdown (or at least the "moderate" ones in the negotiating pool), and gain nothing. No promise that the GOP would force Trump to execute spending. Nothing but a fucking worthless vote in the Senate on extending ACA subsidies. Why even go through this? This effectively gives Trump the authority to do whatever he wants. The adults (including on SCOTUS) just shrug their shoulders as the toddler wields the flamethrower.

Now do you understand why I condemn "moderates"?

Oh well. Look at the bright side. Millions of people who needed to go grocery shopping yesterday may get to go tomorrow.

Yeah. Democracy is a pain in the ass because it takes compromise. I could be wrong, but this was something that seems like most people used to know. You give up something to get something and hope that what you get turns out to be better than what you gave up.

So were Dems supposed to let impoverished people go hungry based on the opinions of those who aren't? There wasn't going to be some great victory wherein the Trump Party was going to be humbled and leave with its forked tail between its hoofed legs.

It's far from ideal, but it buys time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the Dems folded in the shutdown (or at least the "moderate" ones in the negotiating pool), and gain nothing. No promise that the GOP would force Trump to execute spending. Nothing but a fucking worthless vote in the Senate on extending ACA subsidies. Why even go through this? This effectively gives Trump the authority to do whatever he wants. The adults (including on SCOTUS) just shrug their shoulders as the toddler wields the flamethrower.

Now do you understand why I condemn "moderates"?

Oh well. Look at the bright side. Millions of people who needed to go grocery shopping yesterday may get to go tomorrow.

Yeah. Democracy is a pain in the ass because it takes compromise. I could be wrong, but this was something that seems like most people used to know. You give up something to get something and hope that what you get turns out to be better than what you gave up.

So were Dems supposed to let impoverished people go hungry based on the opinions of those who aren't? There wasn't going to be some great victory wherein the Trump Party was going to be humbled and leave with its forked tail between its hoofed legs.

It's far from ideal, but it buys time.

While I agree with your sentiment, unless there is some 3D chess going on here or there is a catch to the centrist Dems (do we have liberal Democrats?) deal, I don't see what this got anyone. This reopens Government, and I suppose it gets 218 sigs for Epstein (which is a red herring as far as things go at this point), and should get money flowing back to where it should be legally required to go. Yes, there is a budget that still needs Democrat votes. And if Schumer et al have decided to make that the battle, maybe this isn't the very troubling outcome it appears to be.

The House has already voted down ACA so I don't see the GOP sweating a vote there, as have the GOP in the Senate. There better be fineprint. Because the bold type font is worrisome in its ineffectiveness.