It's difficult to take politicians seriously on this after their questions during the hearing on tik tok. They showed they have absolutely no understanding of technology or even that Singapore isn't part of China.

There's not a shred of evidence that's taking place. In fact, the reasons for the ban seem to change each week. I'd also add that they don't need TikTok to spy, Meta and others freely sell data to anyone who wants it, including foreign governments. TikTok actually follows data privacy laws more stringently than others because they have a target on their back.

Countries like Saudi Arabia have huge ownership stakes in Meta and Twitter. In fact, the Saudis had a spy embedded at Twitter that would funnel information on dissidents that lead to executions. No outcry right now to ban either one of those or restrict ownership.

And I have no doubt that people in both parties want it banned. There is a fuckton of money being thrown around to make this happen. Not just from their direct competitors, but from investors of those companies and foreign countries who see it as hurting their message. There's a reason AIPAC has targeted TikTok so much.

But I guess that's the funny part of all this. We're pretending to be concerned about a foreign country influencing our public at the behest of a foreign country that wants to influence our public. Only in America!

That's pretty much true about anything there's a Congressional hearing on if you listen even somewhat closely.

The average Congresscritter understands only a small portion of what the lobbyist told them anything means about a specific subject. Further than that is a bridge (or two) too far for most.

And that's a statement meant as bipartisan as anything I've ever typed here.

Every once in awhile Jon spits facts.

Indeed

The problem is Jon than says he is wanting to string them up, kill them, gut them, and send their rotting carcass on a flaming ship into the ocean.

Which colors the rest of it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bill passed the House with incredible speed.

Never seen anything quite like that before in Congress. Just… wow.

My latest ====> pic.twitter.com/ukX0t3edtG

— Scott MacFarlane (@MacFarlaneNews) March 13, 2024

Definitely.

The aspect of this that is arguably just as bad if not worse is the stipulation that 'TikTok is fine as long as it's owned by somebody else'.

That's absolutely none of Congress's business, and in a sane world such a requirement would be quickly struck down an unconstitutional. I share the skepticism of many here to get a reasonable ruling out of SCOTUS on whether the sun is warm or water is wet, but requiring a company to sell off an asset like that is something that IMO they should be ashamed of even considering.

Anybody voting for this, regardless of party, is a fair bit less likely to get my vote - that won't matter, but just an illustration of how bad I think this is.

I'm down for this cruise, as long as there is an open bar.

Only the (D)s

Some of the (R)s might eventually be turned into useful members of society with enough intensive treatment in an in-patient program.

Haaaaave you met Congress? :)

What a shock that a right wing billionaire plans to buy it. A guy who committed fraud for years. Odd how this is playing out. Who could have seen this coming?

��Mnuchin just told us on @SquawkCNBC that he is putting together a group to try to buy @tiktok_us.

— Andrew Ross Sorkin (@andrewrsorkin) March 14, 2024

"This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. It's an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-Tac-Toe. A winner. A winner."

-- Rep. Pelosi pic.twitter.com/ExkX6bxz0O

— Howard Mortman (@HowardMortman) March 13, 2024

FWIW TikTok maybe headquartered in Singapore but parent (and assume overall controlling company) is Chinese.

Don't worry. Steve Mnuchin is putting a team together to purchase Tik Tok.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Interestingly enough, this has exposed that a previous bill just like the Tik Tok one was passed a couple of years ago for Grindr. Grindr had been bought by a Chinese-owned group through a South Korean emissary. The bill forced the company to divest to an American company in fear the Chinese would use the use of the app as blackmail on politicians. Lindsey Graham was greatly relieved.

The Grindr deal is similar to what's happening to TikTok. It had nothing to do with national security though and was just a way to get a right-wing billionaire a sweetheart deal on a popular app.

Nice, long overdue. I’m okay as separate votes just as long as it gets voted on. Really hope this happens, wouldn’t be surprised if Trump jumps in to stop the Ukraine bill though.

Good news for Raytheon. Not surprising their stock outperformed the markets today.

I certainly hope so, it's been a shit idea from the jump.

Nah, proxy war against Russia, no US military fighting (officially), testing a ton of weapon systems, getting intel on a bunch of Russian weapon systems, reducing Russian threat for 5-10+ (?) years, getting rid of and replacing old ammo, NATO expansion, NATO put on notice they need to spend their 2% of GDP etc.

What’s not to like?

Maybe the $60b spent + another future $60b? That’s less than Joe’s student loan forgiveness so far. A bargain!

Nevermind, I'm a moron.

Yup. Trump likely has bad reasons for it but the Ukraine spending is just lighting money on fire.

Since we're doing the banning of sites thing, here's Texas crack at it. Guess PornHub is out. Looks like very selective enforcement though as they haven't targeted Reddit or Twitter which has a lot of porn on their sites.

Pornhub shuts down in Texas to protest age verification law - The Verge

“testing a ton of weapon systems”

I thought we were just giving them old equipment that otherwise we were going to have to decommission?

Tell me you don't understand geopolitics without telling me you don't understand geopolitics.

What is it you think we are getting out of this war? Explain how us giving Ukraine billions upon billions for a war they can't win benefits us.

This is for all of the "screw people outside our borders, we should be spending this money on things that benefit the US first" arguments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...economy-boost/

This is in addition to the general advantages of us fighting a proxy war against an aggressive authoritarian government.

Are you citing one of the architects of the Iraq War as a source for good foreign policy advice? A guy who's job it is to work for a think tank funded by companies that benefit greatly through us sending billions into the defense industry? Was Dick Cheney too busy to write this?

And what are the advantages of this proxy war? Please tell me what we have gained with the $60 billion or whatever we've sent. How is that more beneficial than putting it into education, homelessness, public housing, or just paying down the nation's deficit?

What are the disadvantages of a full out war? That should answer the question.

That, plus:


Typical false dichotomy. If you give me a list, in $60B increments, of the federal budget, and I rank them in terms of "most to least egregious waste of money", the $60B increment to Ukraine is on like page 18 or 55.

I don't know if they were going to be decommissioned but they were older ammo and earlier/less sophisticated versions of Patriots.

But yeah, I don't think we've tested Patriots against (supposedly) hypersonic missiles, Russian aircraft etc. Probably also tested how to hide and protect the Patriots from counter battery/attacks. Some UK missiles did some nice damage also.

Probably some new drone technology & countermeasures. Don't think we've tested Javelins against Russian tanks etc. Toss in HIMARS. And maybe, some F-16 air-to-air action next year.

Basically, an open ended proving ground for the first year and half ... for both/all sides.

A proxy war puts us much closer to a full out war than just sitting out this regional conflict we have no stakes in.


What is it you feel we are getting out of each $60B increment? And why is it more valuable than just spending it directly in our country? Seems all I'm hearing is we get to test some outdated weapons for the tidy sum of $120 billion while increasing the chances of a military conflict with a nuclear armed country.

I just want to know what we are getting with this enormous sum of money. Not some vague 4D chess answer.

I think this is really where the difference lies on this issue between what you think and what I think.

- I think sitting out puts us a lot closer to a full out war, not further away.
- The entire world has stakes in Russia/similar countries having their aggression opposed. Esp., but not limited to, when that aggression is in a region of the world like eastern Europe.

It's basically the price major countries pay for, as the saying goes, being rich, free, and alive at the same time. There's a responsibility attached to that.

We have an 80 year track record of fighting proxy wars now to stop other countries from gaining influence. It's been a complete disaster by all accounts. Maybe this is the one that finally proves neoconservatives right, but I just don't see it. The Russians are clearly winning and all we've got to show in return is billions in debt.

And what exactly is our responsibility? I'm not understanding that part.

At a minimum, our responsibility is to not allow major countries to annex by sheer military insistence the territory of other countries.

This isn't just about stopping Russia from gaining influence. It's about stopping them from conquering Ukraine and then down the road continuing on from there to other nations.

This isn't a neocon thing, and I don't agree that our history of proxy wars is a complete disaster. I think the record is a mixed bag. I think it's often not a good idea, but not always.

FWIW, see wiki list of proxy wars US has been involved in, search on "United States".

EDIT: sorry, forgot to include it first time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars

You don't always get to choose when you fight and when you don't. Your assessment is exceptionally unrealistic when you're dealing with a generational and philosophical enemy to the country. It demonstrates incredible naivete.

You can sit in corner all day long while a bully stomps around, and hope that he doesn't bother you. But once he's taken the field, what is left for you but to either fight against all odds or submit? In our case, we recognize the opportunity early on and we deny him any quarter, and control the playing field. It protects national interest, and it protects the philosophical stance we hold as a country that the rest of the world watches.


Power is more than military, it's control of the sphere of influence. Watching a fledgling, potential ally get overwhelmed by this enemy will not inspire the world to our cause. That is more power than what can be exerted on the battlefield. That is why a proxy war is happening and should happen.

I guess your crystal ball for alternate futures is perfect then if you're so sure of what the outcomes of every other political decision you didn't like would be.

The Russians are the ones saying this is just the beginning and next it will be Poland, Moldova, or the Baltic states.

He would be obliterated if he touched a NATO ally. He's not going to do that.

None of us are fighting. None us are confronting a bully. "We" aren't part of this war. It's us sending money so others can fight for our cause. Even if no one here can explain what that cause is.

Ukraine was never winning this war no matter what CNN (brought to you by Gunthrop Norman) was telling you. Russia is far too big, technologically advanced, and has too many soldiers they can throw into battle. All our money does is delay the inevitable.

If you and others truly think it's necessary to defend Ukraine for our safety, I get that. But we should be declaring war on Russia if that's your belief. None of this half measure shit where you send billions to a rag tag military and watch them get squashed. But that would put skin in the game and that's what you and others want to avoid.

I'd love to hear which proxy wars you think were a success.

Per the list ...

List of proxy wars - Wikipedia

I pick ...

Chinese Civil War
Civil conflict in the Philippines

What is your definition/scenario of "delay the inevitable"? What do you believe will happen to Ukraine ... even if Joe was free to send all the weapons & support he wants?

Additional details by PolitiFact. Specific to TikTok, Bytedance owns TikTok. The question is whether Bytedance is controlled or will do what Chinese government wants. Take the conclusion for what you will.

PolitiFact | Who owns TikTok’s parent company? Despite what Brian Kilmeade says, it's not the Chinese government

Oh hi, Neville.

If you think Putin is Hitler ready to advance on the continent, why are you not calling for us to declare war? Can't play it both ways.

He's either a threat to our safety and needs to be stopped or he's not. If he's a threat, why are we putting our security in the hands of what's left of the Ukrainian military?

They would lose one way or the other. More weapons prolongs the conflict for sure. But at some point you just run out of fighters. I'm certain Russia thought this would be a quick war, but they're also built for a long one and have an endless supply of troops and weapons at their disposal.

The only way to stop it is if the U.S. and other countries commit troops and more advanced weaponry to the battle. This likely leads to a global conflict and all bets are off. But some here seem to think that's worth the risk over Ukraine.

The best option was probably to completely wall them off economically from the world. I think some dubbed it an economic siege. But big business runs the show and sanctions were never going to have much teeth from our politicians. Plus, for important industries like defense, the goal isn't for Ukraine to win the war, it's to just have it go on as long as possible.