Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Quinnipiac is rated as A- quality poll by 538 and have Biden at 33% Approval. You are using a statistic from polls rated C or worse averaged in.
Enjoy the delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
“Biden is deeply unpopular. He’s old as shit. He’s largely been ineffective, unless we’re counting judges or whatever the hell inside-baseball scorecard we’re using. And I think he’ll probably get demolished in the midterms. People will smell opportunity, and D.C. is filled with people who want to be president.”
-Corbin Trent
Created:
Posted in:
“We do not need any more speeches, we don’t need any more platitudes,” James Woodall, former president of the N.A.A.C.P. of Georgia, told the New York Times this week. “We don’t need any more photo ops. We need action, and that actually is in the form of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, as well as the Freedom to Vote Act — and we need that immediately.”
Woodall and the NAACP of Georgia also declined to join the president and vice president on Tuesday. They had BETTER things to do.
Created:
Posted in:
Dear readers let it be known that it is factually true that Abrams did not show up to share the stage with Biden as she had better things to do.
Created:
Posted in:
She snubbed Biden at his own racebaiting rally knowing how toxic Biden is even to her.
That's a new low for Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Ray Epps, Trump supporter seen encouraging people to enter US Capitol, is not an FBI informant is the point.
Proof? FBI doesn't deny it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
who has not been arrested or charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot
That's the entire point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
If this was the case they would have just answered. "NO THE fBI did not encourage a riot"
Gee whillikers, I wonder if there was a reason why she couldn't disclose the FBI information...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
I take it as a cautionary tale about how abusive DC can be if you track mud on their doorstep.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Nah, in a mostly peaceful protest, cops get shot, they don't get to shoot back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
These two things are not remotely the same.
You are right. Jan 6 is a joke of the highest 1st world problems meme. The summer of love was an actual horror show.
And look at NYC,
NYC isn't a part of America anymore with their recent decision to include non-citizens in the political process. They are now an autonomous international port.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's interesting to note that not one person was charged for sedition for burning down a police building.
If that's not sedition, then nothing is.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm pretty sure DC sanctioned riots and lootings, unlawful lockdowns, unreasonable inflation through QE all qualifies as willful destruction of the property of the people.
Locke will have his day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
All people have the right to life, liberty, and private property; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke saw revolution as an obligation. For him, the right of revolution acted as a safeguard against tyranny.
"Whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty."
-Locke
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Why is it considered a virtue to be loyal to the established order anyway? If that was the case, only evil people would vote against the system.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Exactly. What is the purpose of Democracy if not to overthrow the established Order?
The very essence of Democracy is in itself a rebellion against the established order. It's just less violent than a guillotine.
Created:
Posted in:
I mean, isn't all dissenting speech technically rebellion against the established order?
Created:
Posted in:
What is the difference between political disagreement, protesting and sedition?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Democrats and their propaganda arm in the media are willfully misleading the American populace.
"Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?"
-some incoherent Democrat in 2022.
At a time when people are upset about voter integrity, there is only one party doing everything they can to make voting less secure and less reliable and less accountable to the states. The ruling party of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
And what were the mostly peaceful protesters on January 6th protesting?
The same thing Anti-trumpers were. Tyranny.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
So beating police officers, busting through police barricades protecting the US Capitol, smashing windows to get in, vandalizing the US Capitol while chanting to hang the vice president, and forcing Congress to hide in bunkers while they were supposed to be certifying an election is not a hostile force? Is this a joke?
Compared to someone getting their brains smashed in by a bicycle lock or having their business burned down, yes it is a joke.
Also getting shot in the throat by an unaccountable rogue police officer.
If more people had a fraction of the concern for their fellow Americans as they seemingly do for all of their elected DC politicians, maybe this wouldn't have happened in the first place. This attitude of protecting the DC rules for thee only encourages more of the same.
The only people with gunpowder on your Guy Fawkes night were the DC police.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
However, any attempt at framing it as a coup or insurrection just seems disingenuous to me.
At least Guy Fawkes had actual gunpowder.
Created:
Posted in:
I would like a new 2022 RM avatar born of artistic genius
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Yes but is that why you think they want open borders? for replenishment of the population?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
Do you think this is the reason New York decided citizenship was optional for voting?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Makes sense though. Keep diverting attention from all of Biden’s failures: Afghanistan, Border, Supply Chain, COVID, Filibuster, Build Back Better
The 30 percenters are Mentally Sharp my friend. Or so they claim.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
And all those 30,000 DEAD people that followed the unscientific Mandates Cuomo ordered are also Darwin award recipients.
Think before you obey.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
So let me ask you this: why didn’t the Justice Department charge anyone with insurrection
Insufficient evidence.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
as they are to everyone else.
Ok queen bee :D
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You are damn lucky I think you're the bestest ever.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
I really don't care what 4 out of 5 doctors said about a commercial product. It was overhyped and over sold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Yeah, that should shut the people up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Probably because defying unscientific mandates are a threat to Democracy. Or whatever buzzphrase DC uses today to keep the peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
I don't get the goal of either100 percent vaccination or universal vaccine passport policies knowing that vaccinated people can spread all variants known and unknown.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Ahh here we go again, this is all about "rightwingBAD"
Has nothing to do with 230. Carry on Ms Danielle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You think Facebook doesn't want regulation.
No, I think Facebook doesn't want accountability. That's a huge distinction from what you are presenting here.
Created:
-->
@Danielle
It's not because of that though. It's because I felt the Moderna shots were overhyped and oversold.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
So to answer your question about why Facebook needs special protections, it's because without it the choices would be 1) a free-for-all where all sites had to allow ALL content to be published with no restrictions, or 2) no user comments at all. That is not a world anyone wants to live in.
Um no, it still doesn't answer it at all. I get that there are thousands of other private venues other than the internet that censor content. You haven't made the case why Face book is the unique exception for government involvement.
You never did answer the question what you thought would happen to Facebook if 230 were to be repealed. Let me give you my answer.
Absolutely NOTHING. If you are trying to somehow claim Facebook would become 4chan without 230, I would love to see the logic behind that given what we know of the legal resources at the disposal of the powerful large corporations.
In a sane and fair world without crony government exemptions and authoritative immunity, corporations would be compelled to justify exactly why they censor content and should be held responsible for those decisions. Every non-internet venue has operated EXACTLY like that for hundreds of years before 230.
I don't understand your devotion to this cause: this unique and relatively new legal exception at all. It's just unfathomable to me why a person would grant such an exemption to such a ridiculously transparently powerful corporation that clearly does not need it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
Honestly, the fact that you continue to bring up Cruz and Trump in this discussion makes me think this isn't actually about 230 at all and mostly about how much you hate right wing politicians. I wish you would make your intentions more clear when discussing these issues instead of weaving them into the fabric as if they are the only reasons to justify this crony policy. Justifying why Facebook exclusively should have a form of government protected qualified immunity as a publisher with "rightwingbad" arguments was something I thought you outgrew Danielle.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
I really don't understand exactly why this is the particular cross you wish to die on when defending a policy that clearly picks specific winners and losers in a free market.
There are thousands of venues for speech, yet only these tech giants require government assistance? It makes no logical sense. Of all the speech venues in America, they by far and away have the most resources at their disposal to take care of themselves without crony government schemes.
It's obvious to any critical person that they simply used their massive resources to purchase the ultimate protection. The government.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
So why shouldn't facebook as a publisher be sued? Why does it need special protections unique to them in a free market? Why can't they instead choose to be like any other venue and be a platform for publishers so that they don't need special government protections?
Didn't you make a thread about qualified immunity recently? Am I wrong for thinking you were against the idea?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Those aren’t comparable for two different reasons.
I think they are absolutely comparable. For example, MSNBC got the pants sued off of them for defamation while also having active Facebook and twitter accounts.
The stories about how racist and white supremacist Sandman were circulated all over college campuses with some of the keynote speakers also working for MSNBC. There were a myriad of other venues in print and radio that also hosted the hate speech. None of those venues had nor needed section 230 protections.
Facebook and twitter were never remotely considered a guilty party to the defamation Msnbc did to Sandman; nor were any other media hosting platform or any college. Section 230 wasn't needed, or necessary; and even if there was a need for legal protection, those private industries can and should have made their own legal disclaimers like the rest of private industry. You still have yet to make the case why Facebook and twitter are so special that the government just has to play favorites with those private industries as a unique case.
It baffles me the mental gymnastics used to justify why government should be the entity picking the winners and the losers in a supposedly free market with free competition while also knowing full well government is the only sanctioned monopoly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Absolutely not. Without protection from being sued for what people say on your site, companies will act more like publishers than platforms, meaning more control over content
They are already doing that though. So what was the goal of 230 then?
That’s because public colleges are forced to respect free speech rights because they are government institutions.
That was a private college that got sued if I read it correctly. Oh you're right it was public.
Regardless, if you read the Scotus brief, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf it doesn't say it gave special consideration for the public or private or government status of the school as the basis for their decision. That's a big deal. Do a word search for "Public" or "government" and see for yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
And why does a venue such as Facebook need government shielding and say a private college does not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
You made three posts without ever answering that question,
On principle, I don't support any government protections of select private industries. But on this particular one, I don't think it matters if it's not repealed as companies can still do whatever the hell they want anyway with or without it. So I don't have a yes or no answer really on your question.
I really don't like talking in threads focused mainly about Trump since they almost always get derailed into irrelevant bullshit, but I really want to know exactly what you think would happen to twitter and facebook (meta?) if 230 were repealed today?
Created:
Posted in:
But it's important for the government not to intervene for all the reasons laid out above and in Section 230.
Can you please explain how 230 keeps government out of the business of protecting private industry? It clearly does the opposite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
And if the meaning of post #2 was entirely over your head, let me further patronizingly and condescendingly indicate in the dialect of New Yorkers how irrelevant the existence of 230 is to the security of big tech platforms.
So a yes or no answer to your quasi-question is also equally irrelevant.
Created: